The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTR-01/18/2006 James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen John Holzapfel Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES RECEIVeD ~ f-e-~ 11:L/>/-1~ APR 2 0 2006 rJl;'-~J~t2 ~ ~Tc>v;nClerlr Wednesday, January 18, 2006 7:00 PM Present were: James King, President Jill Doherty, Vice-President Peggy Dickerson, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee John Holzapfel, Trustee E. Brownell Johnston, Esq. Assistant Town Attorney for Trustees Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Heather Cusack, Environmental Technician CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, February, 8, 2006 at 8:00 a.m. TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to approve, TRUSTEE DOHERTY Seconded. ALL AYES. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. WORK SESSION: 5:30 p.m. TRUSTEE DOHERTY moved to Approve, TRUSTEE DICKERSON Seconded. ALL AYES. APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of August 24,2005. TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE BERGEN seconded. ALL AYES. I. MONTHLY REPORT: For December, 2005, check for $12,059.42 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. '[ rU::le~" II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review, TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone, welcome to our first meeting of 2006, I don't think there's too many regular customers here tonight. For those of you who are here, you know it's basically a new Board. I'd like to introduce everybody, there's Dave Bergen. Dave was elected this year to the Board, Peggy Dickerson was reelected to her second term, and Jill Doherty was elected to her first term. We have our secretary and office manager Lauren, John Holzapfel, who is not a stranger to this Board. He was vice chairman of this Board when I was first elected to it myself ten years ago, so, John, welcome back. John was appointed by the Town Board because there was a vacancy when AI Krupski got elected to the Town Board, so John has been appointed. Our legal advisor Brownell Johnston, Heather Cusack is our environmental technician and Jack McGreevey is on our CAC, which is Conservation Advisory Council, which makes recommendations to our Board. They do field site inspections like we do. This is all kind of new to me. I was vice chair, but we always let AI do everything. He did a great job, I'm going to miss him. We developed a good friendship over the years, and he really tried to do the best for the town and he felt he could do even more for the town by going to the Town Board. So I wish him a lot of success and I really appreciated working with him. I wish he was here, I would tell him myself. The last few years I think we have done a lot of work. We rewrote the wetlands code, completely rewrote it, I guess over a two year time period. We made a modification to it, amendments to it that were approved last October. We're currently in the process of developing a new mooring code. It's going to be an ongoing thing. We have public information meetings now. Gather all the information we can get so we can get a good plan together. It's going to take a while, take a lot of time and effort. We're going to look at Chapter 77, which is our shellfish code. There's some things in there that are 35, 40 years old that don't apply today. That's something I'd like to accomplish this year. We're going to be busy. We're seeing more and more applications and some of these are getting very difficult because we're seeing the last little lot in the neighborhood that 30 years ago was undesirable and nobody wanted it, it 1 X, 2CHi(; Board , was left alone. Now we're not making land anymore, but they're making a lot more people, and people are coming out here. So now these lots are becoming desirable, and it's getting very difficult to try and protect the environment and yet also give the people their property rights and they're using their property. It's a tough balancing act, believe me. We all do our best and that's all we can do. We're going to start the meetings a little earlier now. These meetings, it's just out of control, people sit through after midnight and it's crazy. We're all wore out, and personally I think that's when you start to make mistakes, you miss things because you're tired, you want to get out of here. We're going to run the meetings a little more official. We start a little earlier, keep the comments as concise as we can keep them. We like to take all the comments we can, keep it down to five minutes or less, long comments can be submitted to us in writing. Dave, I think you had some ideas, read a statement here, it's kind of the way the direction this Board is going to go to. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is to address some of the issues that Jim just brought up. I'll read a statement that's going to be included as an attachment to all permit applications. "The Trustees treat all permit applications very seriously. Our goal is to obtain as much information possible pertaining to applications prior to rendering decisions. Many applications come before us for rulings each month. As such, we need to run the meeting in both an efficient and an effective manner. The statement has been included on the agenda in the past, which states that presentations for applications are limited to five minutes, yet our practice has been to allow participants or their representatives to address the Board well beyond this time limit. This has resulted in meetings running well into the early morning hours when both the Trustees and the applicants are exhausted. This process is not in the best interest of either the applicants or the Trustees. "Effective tonight, the Trustee meetings will run according to published guidelines. Presentations to be made by applicants or their representatives will be limited to no more than five minutes. Every attempt will be made to end the meeting by no later than midnight. Exceptions to this five minute rule can be made by the Trustee president. Applications are encouraged to devote appropriate attention to the presentations prior to the meeting in an effort to avoid any inconvenience as a result of this practice. 18.2006 of'['rllstces 4 "All written documents pertaining to any permit application must be submitted to the Trustee office by no later than noon on Monday of the week of the scheduled public hearing. Materials submitted for consideration after this deadline, including at the Trustee meeting itself can lead or could lead to the postponement of any decision regarding the application to a subsequent monthly public meeting. In addition, the Trustee office will be closed to the public at noon on the day of the scheduled monthly public meeting. This will be done to allow the office staff time to properly prepare each applicant's file for the meeting that evening. "We appreciate your understanding and cooperation with this matter. Again, our ultimate goal here is to try to run these meetings efficiently and the effectively." TRUSTEE KING: We have a number of State Environmental Quality Reviews that will be in the minutes. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: John Mulholland -- SCTM#57-2-24 Virginia Bontje -- SCTM#57 -2-23 Michael Carlucci -- SCTM#57-2-22 George Baldwin -- SCTM#57-2-21 Andrew Wills -- SCTM#52-5-8.1 Edward Fergus -- SCTM#70-12-39.3 Lois T. Anderson -- SCTM#70-4-45.5 Joseph Farrell -- SCTM#135-3-26 Jerry & Linda Matejka -- SCTM#1 03-1 0-27 Steven E. Losquadro -- SCTM#117-6-33 Cheryl Hansen -- SCTM#78-5-3 Edward Werthner -- SCTM#78-6-3.3 Frank Scavone -- SCTM#103-13-3 Anthony & Susan Napolitano -- SCTM#38-2-33 Barbara Stype -- SCTM#70-4-49 IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: These are not Public Hearings, but if anybody has a comment, please come to the microphone and identify you rself for the record. 1. MORTON COGEN requests an Administrative Permit to replace the existing cesspool 4' to the north with a new larger capacity unit. Located: 1395 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue. 18. 200() 4 'frusLCCS 5 arm;JJY t x, 2{H)() SCTM#137-4-30 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anybody here to speak on this application? MR. MCGill: Yes. Richard McGill in reference to Mr. Cogen there, this is a replacement cesspool. He has a premises on Fleet's Neck and I'm in the service business to expand his cesspool. It's previously existing there. The idea it's on a hill, it's on a bluff, and the property as you were discussing, the property's not a lot of room. There's street water on the property, street water. There's no house at the present next to it. The house was burned down but they want to eventually build on that piece, that has well water. TRUSTEE KING: Is there any way you can put that pool up in front of the house to get it out of our jurisdiction? It seems to me it was tight to get by that house to put it where you want to put it. MR. MCGill: I suppose that would be a possibility. TRUSTEE KING: It's what we'd like to see. MR. MCGill: The reason why putting the whole new system up, they're just putting one pool up there, and it would be a whole new set of pools up there. And with that situation there, I don't know what the next door's well might be because he has street water Cogen, but the fella next to him has well water. TRUSTEE KING: Is there any way we could find out where his well is? MR. MCGill: Both wells are located in about the same spot. I just want to say is it necessary to do this? I mean, what I was saying is if one, if that pool was caved in by a tree, and the thing is under the health provision, we'd be able to replace that cesspool as a preexisting dwelling, as preexisting to that piece of property. Here this man just simply wants to improve that. After I serviced the unit I said the best thing on this pool is the cover. Now, actually not to go any closer to the water or wetlands, we can actually bring it back; we have room to put it back, and he doesn't seem to want to go for this expense, you know, and actually probably have to set another precedent probably even if it was done might have to pay for some sort of treatment to the next door's well. The well next door at the adjacent property might have to put street water in there. These are all possibilities it's always good to do more. TRUSTEE BERGEN: He's able to get equipment between the tree and the corner of the house. Btiard of "frustccs (J MR. MCGill: 17 feet between the house. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just asking, there's enough room to get the equipment through to do the work? MR. MCGill: Right alongside the property there's exposure on both sides of the property. The neighbor he's familiar with and gave him permission. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was my only question when I looked at it, I didn't think you could get the rigs through there. MR. MCGill: Yes, what I was saying I understand to expand the system even greater, you know, if that was, but I think that there's enough room between, I have a copy of the map also. I just thought -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: You've answered the question. TRUSTEE KING: Did we measure that, Heather, do you remember? MS. CUSACK: I don't have a number of feet. We wanted to get it out of the 100 feet, move it back, then we said, could this go in the driveway, if it has one of those covers on it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When I spoke to Mr. Cogen he said he measured where the current septic is to the top of the steps, and that's where he got the 85 feet. So it's actually a little further away because we would go a little fu rther out seaward. MR. MCGilL: There is a retaining wall -- not a retaining wall, like a concrete bulkhead as far as the wetlands in front of that piece of property, I was wondering -- TRUSTEE KING: Well, it was a thought. I understand it's a replacement of an existing septic, so it's not a new system, I understand that. If we can move things, we move them. MR. COG EN: The thing is you wouldn't be going any closer. I can put it a couple of feet back. TRUSTEE KING: The little drawing you have besides it, if you can put it to the west of that. MR. COGEN: I understand that. MR. MCGill: Whatever, if that situation changes up there, I think he's showing about 73 feet that piece of property on that one side, it's plenty of room up there. If they wanted to do something in the future there was a possibility of that too, but I think the water would have to be established, the street water might have to be put in, that might be another expense. TRUSTEE KING: Our thinking is once you get it outside of a 100 feet it's out of our jurisdiction. MR. MCGilL: I understand, we're not bigger and always l8, () Board of l'ruswcs January 1 S, 2CH)6 better and all that stuff, Mr. Verity said as a replacement he wanted to check with you, and, of course, it's in your jurisdiction. I run into a lot of situations since I do a lot of repair work that these things are preexisting. TRUSTEE KING: I've seen them before. I'll make a motion to approve this application to replace the existing cesspool with a new cesspool, and it's to be placed probably four to five feet away from the water than this drawing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee Holzapfel abstained, remaining Trustees voted Aye.) 2. SOUTHOLD PARK DISTRICT requests an Administrative Permit to replace the existing chain-link fence with the new stone columns with chain fence in the same place, and to place a dumpster located at the northwest corner of the parking lot on an 8' by 10' concrete slab and construct a 6' high stockade fence with a gate surrounding it. Located: 1025 Terry Lane, Southold. SCTM#65-1-19.1 TRUSTEE KING: We all went down and looked at this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I spoke to Linda Bretani -- is anyone here from the park district? -- and told her our thoughts about the dumpster. She explained the garbage truck could not come in and make that turn to get that dumpster, and that's why it's in that location. And I explained to her our thoughts on the concrete slab. And then Lauren suggested that maybe we do a pervious surface, and Linda said that was an idea. I don't know she was going to bring it back to you and see what you thought. MR. CONWAY: I'm J.L. Conway, one of the commissioners. Maybe this is going to be two separate issues. We'd like to go ahead with the fence if we could, if there are any problems. TRUSTEE KING: There's no problem with the fence. Can you come up here? There's a gate here. How does the truck come in here to come down and get it? MR. CONWAY: We don't have a lot of parking. TRUSTEE KING: You got a lot of drainage coming off that. If you had a drain off that corner. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I told Linda I don't know how the rest of everyone would feel if the rest of this were slab. MR. CONWAY: Basically-- TRUSTEE KING: I think there's a gate here? Man: That's not existing. TRUSTEE KING: You're going to do away with that gate s 'frustees entirely? MR. CONWAY: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: That's no problem at all with that. These dumpsters, if you put them on a slab it's a lot easier to keep clean. If it was on asphalt. But we'd like to see a dry well in that corner to take part of this parking lot runoff, that's the most important thing. MR. CONWAY: Take the rain. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. I would put the dumpster on the slab and either asphalt or concrete. MR. CONWAY: Can you give us the go ahead on the fence, and then we can come back to address this? TRUSTEE KING: We can do it right now, just include the dry well in that low corner of the parking lot. MR. CONWAY: With the slab and then the dry well? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then that would address the runoff. TRUSTEE KING: Sure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because it does go lower. MR. CONWAY: We just do the dry well. MR. MCGREEVEY: Jim, was there any recommendations on the CAC on that one? TRUSTEE KING: Let me look. It's an Administrative Permit so I don't think you people looked at it. Are you familiar with the area, Jack? MR. MCGREEVEY: Not really. TRUSTEE KING: It's Founder's Landing. It's a parking lot and down in one corner there's a dumpster and they want to put a slab in to put a dumpster on top with a fence around it to contain it, and we suggested put a dry well in the lower corner for the runoff. MR. MCGREEVEY: And the purpose of the fence, Jim? TRUSTEE KING: For security and to hide it. MR. MCGREEVEY: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: So I'll make a motion to approve the application with the stipulation that a dry well to be added to that lower corner and that would be to the north. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee Holzapfel abstained, remaining Trustees voted Aye.) 3. MARY REIDY requests an Administrative Permit to cut the phragmites to one foot, as necessary, Located: 3000 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 115-17-15 IS.2U[)() ~ o! 'frllstccs <) 18,2006 4, JAMES REIDY requests an Administrative Permit to cut the phragmites to one foot, as necessary, Located: 2960 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM#115-17 -16 TRUSTEE KING: These are adjoining properties and there's a third property that we approved cutting the phragmites that adjoin these two, and we went out and checked it, they did a really nice job. I think it's going to be an improvement. These phragmites are terribly invasive, and we found if you cut them to one foot it allows the other vegetation that these are smothering to grow and come through. So I think it's a good move. I would recommend approval for both of these. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee Holzapfel abstained, remaining Trustees voted Aye.) MS. CUSACK: Do you want to approve those two, put in the resolution the same thing we put in the other one where in one year it will be inspected. TRUSTEE KING: One year we'll take a look at them within a year. MS. STANDISH: A year from today? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. 5. Anne E. Trimble on behalf of JANET CARRUS requests an Administrative Permit to selectively remove non-native plants and revegetate bluff with native species. Located: 7055 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM#86-6-26.1 TRUSTEE KING: We didn't get a planting plan with this yet, did we? MS. CUSACK: Not yet, she's supposed to bring in a plan. TRUSTEE KING: Does anybody know did they move on a boardwalk to remove that boardwalk? I wonder if they have done any of it yet. MS. CUSACK: She had said that the neighbor said they were going to come into our office they have a permit, but we haven't seen them. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We also told them that they could go ahead and remove it on their property. They were anxious to remove it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's their property not the neighbor's. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion, we'll table this until we get a planting plan. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Heather, is it exempt from LWRP because it's just a replanting? MS. CUSACK: I believe it is. () ["frusl<:cs 10 18.,2006 TRUSTEE KING: Or we can approve it based on the receipt of a planting plan? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: let's do that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That way we can review it in the office. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. So I'll recommend approval based on the receipt of the planting plan and that we'll approve when we get it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee Holzapfel abstained, remaining Trustees voted Aye.) 6. Frank Uellendahl on behalf of IL Y A AND EMILIA KABAKOV requests an Amendment to Administrative Permit #6201A to enlarge the first floor home office by 5.5' with a terrace above the addition and a crawl space under the proposed addition. located: 1700 Park Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM#123-8-5 TRUSTEE KING: We all looked at this. It's a very minor addition to the house. It's going to have no impact on the environment. I recommend approval. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee Holzapfel abstained, remaining Trustees voted Aye.) V. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONSITRANSFERS: 1. FRANK SCAVONE requests an Amendment to Permit 1855 to repair the existing catwalk from 12" to 24" wide deck on existing piles, replace ramp, and repair the existing 5' by 20' float, and to transfer Permit # 1855 from Donald and Brigid Macleod to Frank Scavone. located: 430 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM#103-13-3 TRUSTEE KING: What we'd like to see, Mr. Scavone, is a wetland line delineated on the survey. There's been some clearing down there. It's infringed on that, probably be served with a violation. It's nothing serious, but we have had other violations there that have been served. Once we get the wetland delineation made proposed a 25 foot buffer area, there will be no mowing the grass. It looks like a lawn is infringing into the wetlands. MR. SCAVONE: The lawn was always there. TRUSTEE KING: I appreciate that, that's why we're imposing a 25 foot buffer, no mow zone. We can move forward and approve this. I just want you to know there's going to be a couple conditions on the approval. If you could just mark 10 of 'frllswcs II on the survey that this is now going to be two feet wide, MR. SCAVONE: Just mark top view. I made this for you. TRUSTEE KING: I understood what you were doing exactly. But that's good. Other than that, it's just one of those things that's happened. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And if we can have a planting plan. TRUSTEE KING: I know you said you were going to put some Rosa Rugosa in there. MR. SCAVONE: Can I ask you about that now? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. SCAVONE: The 25 foot buffer, if I come back and do that with grasses or something -- TRUSTEE KING: We like to see native plantings that don't require any fertilization or anything, Rosa Rugosa, bayberries. Heather can give you a list of them. She'll help you. MR. SCAVONE: So I don't have to have grass growing up? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can landscape it the way you want with native plants and just give us the plan. MR. SCAVONE: Do I have to have it done by the surveyor because it cost me $900? TRUSTEE KING: You can do it. Heather can show you where the wetlands line is. You can draw it in yourself. It's not difficult, it won't be difficult. MR. JOHNSTON: Jim, what are you using this for? TRUSTEE KING: This is the cross-section of what his crosswalk. MR. JOHNSTON: Can you put a little more detail? MR. SCAVONE: I'll be happy to do that. MR. JOHNSTON: Make it so it ties in with the application. TRUSTEE KING: To me, I went out and looked at it, so it's obvious to me what you're doing here. Someone else would look at it and say what's going on. If we can do that, if you have an extra copy of that. MR. SCAVONE: Do you want to know that this is incorrect -- I'm going to maintain that float even though it was smaller than what was on there? TRUSTEE KING: Right. So what is the size of the existing float now? MR. SCAVONE: 5' by 20' and if you take away-- TRUSTEE KING: Yes, okay. You're reusing the poles, you're not putting any new poles in. You're just going to put the side pieces on, you're going to put the decking on, and you can't use CCA; you can use cedar, you can use fir, spruce, some of those woods are a little less expensive, if cost is an issue. Iii, . . . . ~rrUSLCCS 11 18.2006 on the survey that this is now going to be two feet wide, MR. SCAVONE: Just mark top view. I made this for you. TRUSTEE KING: I understood what you were doing exactly. But that's good. Other than that, it's just one of those things that's happened. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And if we can have a planting plan. TRUSTEE KING: I know you said you were going to put some Rosa Rugosa in there. MR. SCAVONE: Can I ask you about that now? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. SCAVONE: The 25 foot buffer, if I come back and do that with grasses or something -- TRUSTEE KING: We like to see native plantings that don't require any fertilization or anything, Rosa Rugosa, bayberries. Heather can give you a list of them. She'll help you. MR. SCAVONE: So I don't have to have grass growing up? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can landscape it the way you want with native plants and just give us the plan. MR. SCAVONE: Do I have to have it done by the surveyor because it cost me $900? TRUSTEE KING: You can do it. Heather can show you where the wetlands line is. You can draw it in yourself. It's not difficult, it won't be difficult. MR. JOHNSTON: Jim, what are you using this for? TRUSTEE KING: This is the cross-section of what his crosswalk. MR. JOHNSTON: Can you put a little more detail? MR. SCAVONE: I'll be happy to do that. MR. JOHNSTON: Make it so it ties in with the application. TRUSTEE KING: To me, I went out and looked at it, so it's obvious to me what you're doing here. Someone else would look at it and say what's going on. If we can do that, if you have an extra copy of that. MR. SCAVONE: Do you want to know that this is incorrect -- I'm going to maintain that float even though it was smaller than what was on there? TRUSTEE KING: Right. So what is the size of the existing float now? MR. SCAVONE: 5' by 20' and if you take away-- TRUSTEE KING: Yes, okay. You're reusing the poles, you're not putting any new poles in. You're just going to put the side pieces on, you're going to put the decking on, and you can't use CCA; you can use cedar, you can use fir, spruce, some of those woods are a little less expensive, if cost is an issue. p oCI rust"", 12 MS. MESIANO: I'm sorry, I have a comment. TRUSTEE KING: Go ahead. MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano and I'm here on behalf of Nancy Bradley, an adjacent property owner. I did submit a letter to the Board yesterday morning because you weren't open. The neighbor had a couple of concerns that I would just like to bring out to the Board for your consideration. We're not protesting or contesting Mr. Scavone's right to have his dock. We just had a few concerns. First of all our concerns were the deficiencies in the plan because given the configurations of the property it's difficult to ascertain that the structure will be the proper distance from the lot lines given what was sent out in the mailing. Also, I won't repeat everything I have said in my letter, it's clear there, but a point that the Board should be made aware of is that the float that you refer to as an existing float appeared there during the past summer. The neighbor thought it was some time during the month of July, even though there was an old permit, the structures were not there since the time of that earlier permit from McLeod, that float was brought into the property as I said, sometime last summer, we think it was around July, and the neighbor's concerns is that at low tide it is resting on the bottom. There are oyster beds that have been cultivated there, and it's in the area of the oyster beds; that's why we brought up the fact that there haven't been any soundings and that the application wasn't complete on its face to be able to determine whether or not everything is in conformity. TRUSTEE KING: The only thing we had to go by was the old permit and it shows he had a permit for two sections of floats, 8' by 12'. MS. MESIANO: Right, and there were no floats there. And this float that you're referring to as existing, yes, in the literal sense it does, but I don't think it exists in conjunction with that earlier permit because it just appeared there within last year. MS. CUSACK: We got a call on this last summer. One of the neighbors called and said somebody put out a float no permit, and we looked into it and saw that I think the permit came out in the '70s or something. TRUSTEE KING: 1984 there was a grandfather permit. MS. CUSACK: They got a permit, they didn't put out a float, what the neighbor was questioning was the same thing. It's so shallow there, and it's sitting on the bottom, how can they have a float there? MR. SCAVONE: Can I respond to this? [x.2UU6 12 of' I rU'Ht:cs 13 January 18.2006 TRUSTEE KING: Go ahead. MR. SCAVONE: I actually replaced the float with the galvanized pipes, I had a local dock builder replace it for me, and I specifically didn't go out any further because I was not trying to cause any visual interruption. So I'm absolutely perfectly fine placing the float out to where it's floating, the lower edge of the float touches maybe at a fraction of the time and nowhere near the exact same condition that exists at Nancy and Janine's house, which is a dock four times the size of mine, probably twice the height, et cetera. TRUSTEE KING: I don't want to get into a debate if he has an existing permit for far more than what he has now. MR. SCAVONE: I downsized. MS. MESIANO: Right. My only point was, yes, there was a permit but the structures didn't exist. TRUSTEE KING: But it's still a valid permit. MS. MESIANO: That's what I wanted to ascertain, is if the structures don't exist do the permits continue? TRUSTEE KING: I would say yes. Say I have floating docks I have a permit for them, and I took them out of the water for a couple or three years, am I not entitled to put them back in the water? I still have a valid permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The rest of the structure was there, more than 50 percent of the structure was there. MS. MESIANO: I'm not questioning that. I don't know that. I'm giving you the information I was given, and the concern was the depth under the float, and that my most recent application in that area we were allowed a dock but not a float because we were not able to maintain the two and a half feet. So that was our concern. TRUSTEE KING: My feeling is this is all pre-existing. It has a valid permit. MS. MESIANO: I did not know what the Board's position was with respect to an earlier permit where the structure had not been noted in quite some time. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have addressed your other concerns on this, that he is going to submit to the office. MS. MESIANO: But you're not requesting the soundings because you're saying there was an older permit and that allows that? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MS. MESIANO: Is there any provision for there to be any electric or any lighting to this dock? TRUSTEE KING: Nothing said here. MR. SCAVONE: No, there will not be electric. One of the 13 o i' ~rrllswcs 14 neighbors called about that, I assured them that that was not my planning. Thank you very much. MS. MESIANO: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: I made a motion to approve; do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee Holzapfel abstained, remaining Trustees voted Aye.) 2. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of LOIS T. ANDERSON requests an Amendment to Permit 5728 to construct a new wood bulkhead in front of and within 18 inches seaward of existing with a vinyl sheathed bulkhead with two returns, and the last One-Year Extension to Permit 5728. Located: 2515 Calves Neck Road, Southold. SCTM#70-4-45.5. TRUSTEE KING: We were thinking about changing this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. Put it in-place and then it's exempt from LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: We looked at this in the field what we wanted to approve is an in-place replacement with vinyl sheathing; am I correct? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. MR. MCGREEVEY: CAC requests 30 foot nonturf. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What did we? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We said 15. TRUSTEE KING: I think we said 15 would be sufficient. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, we said 15. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve this application to replace in-place with vinyl bulkhead with a 15 foot nonturf buffer landward of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you want to consider making it 20? TRUSTEE KING: How much more did they have in the yard? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They had about 15 feet and then they had some plantings, it steps up. TRUSTEE KING: Did we take any pictures? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They had tiered up. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm fine with the 15. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, 15 feet the nonturf buffer. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee Holzapfel abstained, remaining Trustees voted Aye.) 18. 2iHJ() 14 BocmJ 0 f 'Irusll.'cs IS 18\ 2(H)() 3. DONNA WEXLER & GERTRUDE IGLESIAS request a Transfer of Permit 2048 from Donna Wexler to Donna Wexler and Gertrude Iglesias as issued on August 28, 1985. Located: 1175 West Hill Street, Southold. SCTM#70-4-22 and 23 TRUSTEE KING: This is simply a transfer of names on the permit. It was already transferred from Benson to Wexler. MR. JOHNSTON: What kind of permit is it? TRUSTEE KING: It's a bulkhead permit. I'll recommend approval. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee Holzapfel abstained, remaining Trustees voted Aye.) 4. Fairweather-Brown Design Association, Inc. on behalf of ELENA & ANDREAS KARACOSTAS requests a One-Year Extension to Permit 5869, as issued on February 25, 2004. Located: 21275 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM#135-1-2 TRUSTEE KING: I believe this is just a One-Year Extension to an existing permit due to expire in February. MR. JOHNSTON: First or second one-year? TRUSTEE KING: I think it's the first. TRUSTEE KING: It was approved February 25,2004 it was approved. I don't believe there's been any changes. MS. STANDISH: No. TRUSTEE KING: With the condition the dry wells and gutters are installed to contain the roof runoff. It's simply an extension of existing permit, no changes. I'll recommend approval. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee Holzapfel abstained, remaining Trustees voted Aye.) 5. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of BREEZY SOUND CORP. requests a One-Year Extension to Permit 5866, as issued on February 25,2004. Located: 61475 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM#45-1-2.1 MS. MOORE: I'm here if you have any questions. TRUSTEE KING: There's been no changes to this, have there? MS. MOORE: No, they're just waiting for the building permit, they actually have foundation permits that they have already initiated. Some of the old foundations have been removed, we're waiting to do the new foundations. We didn't want a time lapse. TRUSTEE KING: Simple extension, I recommend approval. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. 1 :' o i' Trustees 16 18,2ihi() TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee Holzapfel abstained, all remaining Trustees voted Aye.) TRUSTEE KING: Can I have a motion to go off the regular meeting? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee Holzapfel abstained, remaining Trustees voted Aye.) TRUSTEE KING: Five minute recess. 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 TRUSTEE KING: These are Coastal Erosion and Wetland Permits. Before we start there's been a number of postponements. Number 1 has been postponed, Number 17, 18 and 19 we were not going to open these hearings because there's a lot of inconsistency and incomplete stuff with the LWRP so we're not going to open the hearings. Number 16 has been postponed, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 14 have been postponed also. WETLAND PERMITS 1. CHERYL HANSEN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 25' by 25' two-car garage. Located: 445 Elizabeth Lane, Southold. SCTM#78-5-3 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody here to speak to this request? This was a pretty simple application. We went out and looked at it. We just wanted to make sure that there were hay bales and dry wells on the plans. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jim, did you make a comment to connect the house? TRUSTEE KING: If we had dry wells for the roof runoff for the garage, the downspout from the house is right there to take it over into a common dry well will take care of all the roof runoff. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. So nobody's here to speak with an amendment to include the dry wells and the hay bales. 16 of"frustecs I' 18,200(; MR. MCGREEVEY: An observation, Jim, there were three sizable boats stored on the property. TRUSTEE KING: I don't know where they're going to put the boats. MR. MCGREEVEY: Just an observation on our part. TRUSTEE KING: We noticed the same thing, where they're going to put the boats. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any CAC comments on that? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The CAC recommends approval of the application with the condition dry wells and gutters are installed to contain the roof runoff and the CAC questions the commercial use of the property. I'm not sure -- I didn't know it was commercial. It was a couple boats. MR. MCGREEVEY: We said possibility of commercial. TRUSTEE KING: I think they are considered vehicles. What the zoning is I don't know. MR. MCGREEVEY: It was just an observation, Jim. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (Trustee Holzapfel abstained, remaining Trustees voted Aye.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Motion to approve this with the stipulations we have indicated. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee Holzapfel abstained, remaining Trustees voted Aye.) 2. ANTHONY AND SUSAN NAPOLITANO requests a Wetland Permit to install a 12' by 36' in-ground swimming pool. Remove the existing deck stairs from southeast side of deck, install a railing, and install new steps on the west end of the existing deck. Located: 200 Cleaves Point Road, East Marion. SCTM#38-2-33 MS. CUSACK: There was a letter came into the office, I just want to make sure a copy goes to each Trustee. MR. NAPOLITANO: Anthony Napolitano, 200 Cleaves Point Road, East Marion, New York. If I may, it's the same plan. There's seven copies, so I could explain my point. I'm not making an exact representation, this is just to compare eventually. TRUSTEE KING: We talked about moving the pool. MR. NAPOLITANO: Yes, exactly. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you need any more changes on the plan than that? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. 17 -I rust"cs is MR. NAPOLITANO: There's no change on the plan_ TRUSTEE KING: He can't move it, he would have to fence in this entire area because there wouldn't be any room to put the fence. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So we're not moving the pool. TRUSTEE KING: I understand the problem. We had talked about moving the pool over this way. MR. NAPOLITANO: Correct. That would entail moving the fence. It moves the fence so that the grandson now has direct access to the pool instead of having to go through a fence. I'm not looking to change this part. TRUSTEE KING: We had just tried to alleviate some of the concerns. MR. NAPOLITANO: I know. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That makes sense. Is there anyone else who would like to speak for or against this application tonight? MR. MCGREEVEY: Jim, the CAC posed a question on this one, has there been a provision made for pump out on the pool? TRUSTEE KING: Usually we request a dry well for the pool pump out. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's on the plan. MR. ADLER: John Adler, 130 Cleaves Point Road, westerly neighbor. I would like to start by saying that we are requesting that the permit not be granted, and the part is that we're in many different zones there. So is the presentation just under the Building Department code; is it just building code? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, he's coming for us. Is this letter from you? MR. ADLER: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because your name wasn't on it. MR. ADLER: The submission on the plan is the same. And then there's also a document that was submitted before that deals with the whole problem of the water table, that confusion between a septic tank, a well and where public water comes in and suddenly raises the whole water table so in that October incident we had to pump 600 gallons an hour for 36 hours simply because the public water could keep coming in and filling the water table. So if you look at your pictures, you'll see that in photo B, what the damage was in '92 and so when we say it would cause irrevocable damage and devaluation to the property, you have to realize that this was just a nor'easter and yet it took the top of the bulkheads off, eroded all the properties that were east of this property, and still, we still have that 18.2006 iR 'I rll';[c'~:, 19 Jal1uary 1 X. 2006 possibility. We'll go through the different ordinances that are in my understanding it's also applicable to it. Now, in a way I don't want to sound like I'm against the Napolitanos. I appreciate and think they should be thanked for raising a request about a pool so that we can then have a forum about the different problems if you entertain putting a pool within these multiple areas where they have their different ordinances. So I won't go too much into the hydro geological problems that we submitted in the concern about the water table. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you understand, you're talking about different ordinances. We are just reviewing it under Chapter 97, the Wetlands Ordinance, that's what we're here to review. He has to go to the Building Department and they review that part. MR. ADLER: Isn't this part of your problem coastal erosion hazard? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And coastal erosion, MR. ADLER: Also do you do anything about the revitalization act? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The LWRP? MR. ADLER: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, I have Mr. Terry's review and he reviewed it as consistent. MR. ADLER: Who did the review? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Mr, Mark Terry, our senior planner, the LWRP coordinator. Also the CAC approved the application with the condition that the surrounding patio is pervious and provisions for a pump-out, which is already on the plans. We also have a letter from Mr. Richter, our Town engineer, do you want me to read part of it? TRUSTEE KING: Read part of it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll read the concluding paragraph. It says the issue regarding the rising water table and potential flooding of basements within the town of Southold is not unique to this location. Mr. Adler has indicated that the water table of his property has risen over four feet since his house was built in 1961. While some of his reasoning with regard to an elevated water table has merit, it is highly unlikely that there has been a change of this magnitude immediately adjacent to the tidal waters of Peconic Bay. The severe influence on the water table from the installation of a new swimming pool would be minimal and should not have a significant effect on the elevation of the current water table. That's dated January 13. MR. ADLER: About the water table. Well, the other day it 19 -,-"--......j,-..."-~.- o i' TruSWC3 20 was within 14 inches on just a light rain. Part of what he's not understanding is when a total surge rise, this is why we have to get in a coastal erosion hazard, acts as a blocker and therefore builds the water up. So there's much more dynamics than just believing that a trickle of water is just coming underground, but then go back to looking at the existing ordinance if we just start with the building lot. I agree that if you go just in the building lot, then it appears to be within conformity. But if you said you're also doing it under wetlands -- is that correct? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MR. ADLER: If we're under wetlands, then the definition in wetlands, unlike the building code, the building code works only on surface and the air above. It's anything that is on the surface doesn't count. So therefore when you're doing the land use, you're not considering an all cement driveway or all walks. So therefore under that interpretation it fits in the 20 percent allowable and is under the 3,800. But if we get to the Wetlands Act, am I not correct, that it also is the water below. It also considers what is in it that's impermeable. That is all the concrete, all the brickwork, now counts as useable on the ground. And if we go with that, then you have 5,723 feet before you even get to the pool. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm not sure if I understand what you're getting at. The wetlands jurisdiction is within 100 feet of the wetlands. MR. ADLER: But it isn't just within 100. It's subject to all the wetlands and all of the use of the land. Wetlands act -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have our LWRP approval, we have our Conservation Advisory Council approval and we have the approval of the Town engineer. TRUSTEE KING: Does he need coastal erosion too? MR. ADLER: In what way? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: In the approval of the application. TRUSTEE KING: It's outside the coastal erosion line. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mr. Adler, the coastal erosion hazard area is within Gardiner's Bay, but this proposed pool is landward of the coastal erosion line. So therefore it's out of the coastal erosion. So he's just applying for a Wetland Permit. It's not in the coastal erosion district. Anything behind that coastal erosion line doesn't need a permit through coastal erosion. MR. ADLER: But the wetlands is 100 feet, right? J8.2006 ~:n B()~lrd OCrrLlSlCeS 21 Ja11Uary 18, 200() TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MR. ADLER: 100 feet goes to the back of the house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Anything within 100 feet they have to apply. MR. ADLER: So when you're into the wetlands, it's not just the land above, it's also the water under it. TRUSTEE KING: He's talking about water table. MR. ADLER: It deals with septic, it deals with all the controls, it deals with the water table. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We believe we have sufficient answers for that with the dry well proposal to catch any of the overflow from the pool. MR. ADLER: In the original form there it claims that all the elevations are even. When they made the inspection what about the difference of that area being three foot higher than our area? What about the removal of all the shrubbery so you have runoff? TRUSTEE BERGEN: There was no shrubbery being removed as I recall looking at the site for the pool itself. Yes, you're right, his property is elevated above Mr. Adler's property, that is correct, but there was no shrubbery being removed. MR. ADLER: It was removed in August, whoever came there, didn't you see all dirt? On the west side it was all removed if you have the pictures it was all shrubbery there. This is why I raise the question of they claim -- and I'll read the statement from it and here's an example that after all the different reaches, they say one of the key conclusions is that the town has many significant strides in identifying any problems and solving them. But also preventing and permitting enforcement officers are not working in a sufficiently cohesive manner to mitigate the impact of new development and reconstruction. So if you go into the revitalization act, which is to coordinate all of you, it goes up to the Main Road in reach 7. It's to coordinate all of the functions. We have the problem down by the water's edge because the code enforcer can first allow them to remove the whole thing, then put the water in and then finally, when one builds if whoever came investigating, didn't you notice all the stripped down lots? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Mr. Adler, I think from what you submitted in your comments and your letter and the information we gathered from our different boards, we feel all your issues have been addressed and I think we're going to move on. So that all the issues you have in your letter have been addressed either by Jaime Richter or Mark Terry. MR. ADLER: Which letter? n Tru'tccCo, TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Your letter that you're speaking from. TRUSTEE KING: Mr. Adler, the first letter that I saw you in the office, I went to the Town engineer and gave him that letter and asked him for his opinion because some ever of this is beyond my knowledge, and that was his response. MR. ADLER: Why didn't he talk with me, I'm affected too? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: He responded to this letter, which you now have. MR. ADLER: But you didn't give it to me in advance. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Dated January 13. MR. ADLER: Right, but it was not sent to me. This is the first time I saw the thing. I've been to the office on the 7th, I was in the office this morning, nobody gave me this letter. Nobody gave me this letter. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It was addressed to Mr. King. It was in response to Mr. King to the letter you gave to this office. MR. ADLER: Did Mr. King give it to me? TRUSTEE KING: No, I didn't think it was necessary. It was what I had asked for, the opinion from the Town engineer. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Mr. Adler, I think the Board is ready to make a decision at this point with the information we have in front of us. Unless you have something different from this information. MR. ADLER: Then you state that none of the more extensive rules pertaining to the coastline are not applicable. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm not stating that at all. I'm saying we have information in front of us that we can address your issues and make a decision. I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? (Trustee Holzapfel abstained, remaining Trustees voted Aye.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So the plans are the same, they're not being changed, and on the plans they have dry well for pump-out -- MR. ADLER: May I just ask one more question? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, sir. MR. ADLER: If there is any damage done to my property, who is liable to make restitution since the Board is discussing and going over some problems? When you have someone sign the request, they say that you're not held responsible. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Mr. Adler, we'll have Mr. Johnston 18.2006 .,., of'I'ruslces 23 UL 2000 answer that TRUSTEE KING: The neighbor will be responsible for the damage that the neighbor causes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any damage will be taken care of by the neighbor. MR. ADLER: So Tony is responsible for any damage that takes place? TRUSTEE BERGEN: If it's directly related to the pool. MR. ADLER: Another question. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The hearing's been closed so we need to move on to make a motion. MR. ADLER: So right within five feet of my line the pool is to be 40 feet? TRUSTEE KING: That's a zoning issue. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Take that up with the Building Department MR. ADLER: So then do we go to ZBA? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. ADLER: Not tomorrow though. TRUSTEE KING: I'm not sure. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion for Anthony and Susan Napolitano to request a Wetland Permit to install a 12' by 36' in ground swimming pool, remove existing deck stairs with southeast side of deck install railing, install railing and install new steps on the west end of existing deck and stipulate that there be dry wells for the pump out and staked hay bales during construction, that can be removed when finished. Conservation Advisory Council wanted to be sure that the deck is pervious. MR. NAPOLITANO: Yes. He was at the house. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? (Trustee Holzapfel abstained, all remaining Trustees voted Aye.) 3. BARBARA STYPE requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 6' by 100' fixed timber dock, remove the "L" shaped floats and install a new 6' by 20' floating dock. Located: 1765 Calves Neck Road, Southold. SCTM#70-4-49 MS. MOSCADO: Good evening, my name is Lisa Moscado, I'm standing in for Mrs. Stype this evening. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We looked at this. I don't think we had a problem with what they wanted to do. He's reducing the float to a 6' by 20'. The one comment we had, we wanted to know in the pictures that he sent, the way they do winter storage for their float, we would like to see the "L" float be taken away from there as soon as possible before spring. p -,.) BO;ird of Trustees 24 18,2006 MS. MOSCADO: So removal of the existing "L" float. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Because we don't like to see them sitting on the marsh like that. And in the future, the new float, he can put up against the bulkhead on blocks, that way it won't damage any vegetation there. MS. MOSCADO: Up against the bulkhead on blocks, okay. MS. CUSACK: What's existing now is 81 feet. What they have asked for is 100 feet, but then they told us they weren't asking for a change, so either they have the wrong distance or -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I was working on the float issue, but I was all right on the float issue. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It technically hasn't been changed in the code. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought it was. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, but, no, it's not in code yet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm sorry. Scratch that. We said in the field that that was changed. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No, as by code now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought you guys were saying that was part of the change. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's the thinking but that's not final. MS. CUSACK: The way the permits have been written if somebody applies for a float and it's a new float right in the permit it's put in there it's the understanding that these floats will not be stored on the wetland or in the intertidal area, they have to be put up on the lawn, even on top of the dock, but it can't be in the intertidal. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: What is the existing length? That's the question I have. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We measured the timber dock to be 81 feet plus the platform going down was another eight feet, giving us a total of 89 feet fixed dock. And in his application, he mentions 100. I don't know if he just arbitrarily said 100 or he's asking to extend it. MS. MOSCADO: I have 100 in what he gave me, and he wanted to downsize it to 6 by extent. MS. CUSACK: But it says existing 6' by 100' fixed timber and it's not 100. MS. MOSCADO: Could that be something to change? TRUSTEE KING: We can approve it at the existing length, but it's not 100 feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: My impression talking with him he was trying to approve what he had. MS. MOSCADO: He's shortening it and approving. ......._"_.e__.''''_~''_...,"..~..,_....-_-~..___~,.~_.__~"_.-"._-"--'--.--_.-.-"-"" of TruSleCS 25 TRUSTEE BERGEN: But the fixed dock is going to stay the same length. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That doesn't jive with your numbers. MS. MOSCADO: Okay. MR. JOHNSTON: Jill, for the record, could you indicate who the "he" is? Is the he Mr. Stype? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, I'm sorry. Are there any other comments on the property, for or against? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (Trustee Holzapfel abstained, remaining Trustees voted Aye.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit for Barbara Stype to approve the existing 6' by 89' fixed timber dock and to approve a new 6' by 20' float attached to that parallel to the shore. Located: 1765 Calves Neck Road. The "L" float shall be removed from the property totally and stored upland. TRUSTEE KING: And the float is parallel to the shoreline and doesn't extend out from the dock. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So just to recap 6' by 89' fixed timber with a 6' by 20' floating dock parallel to the shoreline. There's no ramp, it's a 6' by 81' fixed, then a step down is an 8' by 6' platform thing but it's fixed. I make that motion. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (Trustee Holzapfel abstained, remaining Trustees voted Aye.) 4. JERRY & LINDA MATEJKA request a Wetland Permit to construct a second story addition to the existing dwelling and renovate the first floor by adding 226 square feet. Located: 1300 Strohson Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#103-10-27 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on this application? MR. MATEJKA: Good evening, I'm Jerry Matejka. TRUSTEE KING: CAC recommends approval of the application with the condition dry wells and gutters are installed to contain the roof runoff and a 10 foot nonturf buffer is installed landward of the bulkhead. MR. MATEJKA: May I show you some information on the survey? TRUSTEE KING: Sure. MR. MATEJKA: This was done recently by Joe Ingegno. (Discussion) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: May I stop you there so we can get this 18.2iJ06 ~'; oCTrllslecs 26 on the record? Just repeat what you said. MR. MATEJKA: Sure. The existing structure, which is 884 square feet single floor, has a dry well runoff from the roof on all four sides. In addition to that there's an existing pool to the water side right now. TRUSTEE KING: Cesspool or dry well? MR. MATEJKA: That's a cesspool. That will be filled in, abandoned properly, and then new pools will be put in the front. Here is the 100 foot line from the water. They will be landward of that. Even my architect, Don Feiler, said that since the property comes a little bit this way, he put an offset of two feet so it doesn't run, the small 226 foot addition, is actually offset to the land side by two feet as well. Because we didn't want to go to Zoning Board. We wanted to be in compliance. New York State DEC has reviewed the plans it's in the file with a letter of nonjurisdiction. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is this a new driveway? MR. MATEJKA: Yes. To this side here there will be on this side here a new driveway. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is it pervious because I see the old driveway's concrete? MR. MATEJKA: It will be whatever the Building Department wants. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We want pervious. TRUSTEE KING: It's actually out of our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the garage, do you have gutters? MR. MATEJKA: Yes, actually, Jill, there are gutters and they do go into the ground into a dry well. My aunt and uncle had this house built around 1969 and at the time everything went into the dry well. TRUSTEE KING: My feeling on the driveway is if it's pervious that's fine, but if it's paved if you put a black top driveway in, we need to see a dry well to take care of the runoff that the driveway creates. MR. MATEJKA: We're really unclear on that right now because we really want to get the structure underway and then we'll do whatever we need to deal with that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe we said hay bales in line of the shed during construction. TRUSTEE KING: There's a little shed there. I'll draw that now on the one that we approve. MR. MATEJKA: This is my copy, you have one here. This is the original, if you want a copy. MR. MCGREEVEY: I think it was mentioned that the CAC made a recommendation that we create a 10 foot buffer landward. 18.2006 .::() B'>C1Cd oCT'rustees January 18. 201i6 TRUSTEE KING: Usually when we get into that is when we replace the bulkhead. It's tough to have everybody go down and disturb the bulkhead now. When we replace it, then we go for a nonturf bulkhead. MR. MCGREEVEY: We realize that, Jim, but we figured at the time work was going to be done and the ground would be disturbed to some extent that at that point it would be a good time to create a buffer alongside the bulkhead. MS. CUSACK: Actually we did mention that when we were there because I wrote it down, I can't remember why. TRUSTEE KING: Is there something in the comments? MS. CUSACK: Did you put something down about a buffer, Peggy? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I didn't. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What we're talking about is we would like to see some kind of buffer here, sometimes 10, 15, 20 feet buffer of nonturf plantings. TRUSTEE KING: We're getting away from the lawn right down to the top of the bulkhead. MR. MATEJKA: That's what's there now. TRUSTEE KING: How old is this bulkhead, do you have any idea? MR. MATEJKA: Permit #868. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's old. MR. MATEJKA: 1973. TRUSTEE KING: It's not going to be long before you're looking to do new bulkhead. MR. MATEJKA: Could I suggest that at the time I do come to the group for a new bulkhead we address that issue at that time? TRUSTEE KING: That's my suggestion. MR. MATEJKA: I'm sure that I'm going to have to come back. And if I may just ask the Board it would be done at that time. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's part of the code now anyway. TRUSTEE KING: We like to see at least a 15 foot buffer. MR. MATEJKA: Can we say that that will be done with the application for a bulkhead? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We also always ask just in case we can get you to consider it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it turns out you decide to do that during this construction. TRUSTEE KING: A nonturf buffer you can put in any time, but like I say, we usually hold off on them until a bulkhead replacement. Are there any other comments on this application? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. 'rru5tccs 28 January IS, 2006 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee Holzapfel abstained, remaining Trustees voted Aye.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: Just with the stipulation that there be a line of hay bales during construction and the proposed driveway to the garage will be pervious. If it is paved there should be a dry well to take care of the runoff created by that driveway. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee Holzapfel abstained, remaining Trustees voted Aye.) 5. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. On behalf of ROBERT and SUSAN TOMAN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 40' dock 3.5' above grade, a 3' by 8' ramp and a 5' by 18' floating dock. Located: 3795 Main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 78-2-15.2 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak for this application? MS. MOORE: Good evening. We adjusted the drawing, we adjusted the dock and ramp. This was before the Board last month and you were concerned about it being too close to the property line. So we had Bob Fox redraw it so it was pushed away from the property line, so you can see that the angle of the float is slightly ajar also to increase the distance of where the prospective boat would be next to the float, so there would be adequate distance from the property line. So we hope this meets with your approval. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. Is there anyone else here who would like to speak for or against this application? Conservation Advisory Council recommends disapproval of the application because proposed docking facility is too close to the property line, and exceeds one-third across the width of the creek. Which actually the Board while we were there it was so close, we agree with it, but it was something we were concerned with. We also have an incomplete LWRP. And we also had concerns about the right of way. MS. MOORE: Maybe I can answer the right of way, it doesn't exist yet because my client owns both properties. What we're doing is proposing the location of the right of way. Because the house is on the market -- you saw the for sale sign -- we want it to be very clear to anybody looking at this that we're going to have a right of way, so the owner '){'. .:..,'\ of Irllswcs 'i) J Clnuary 18, 2006 of this house will have one slip and ML Toman for his house two houses away will retain the use of this right of way access to the other slip, So that's the whole intention behind it When we finally come to an agreement as to where this is going to be, then I will write up the right of way. Right now he's the owner of both properties, there's no right of way. You actually probably approve half the time docks that may be shared by others, you just don't know about it This time we put it in in case we provide this survey to potential buyers. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I believe the feeling of the Board was we wanted something legally that showed the right of way, and until that is shown to us, that we didn't feel like we could move forward, which we can't move forward without the LWRP. MS, MOORE: This is the first time I'm hearing the LWRP is missing something, but I'll complete whatever is missing. You can make a permit condition on preparation of the right of way. I have to prepare it It's an easement, when you own the property you don't give yourself your own right of way. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right, but as of tonight without the LWRP and without any further information, it was the feeling of the Board that this was not something we were going to act on tonight MS. MOORE: I don't have an issue with the LWRP but the right of way, I need to know what you want, because if the proposed dock is acceptable then I have no issue. I can prepare the right of way. It's a simple document with a description. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Let me check with Jim. Isn't that our understanding; didn't we tell the owner we were looking for something in writing? MS. MOORE: Yes. He told me, but I thought it would be here and explain. Understand, it would be like giving you, Jim, the right of way. Right now, ML Toman, the applicant is on this thing, and he's the owner of both -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I completely understand that I think we were trying to make sure it was legally done. MR. JOHNSTON: Are these two adjacent lots? MS. MOORE: No. The one that's shown is Simon on the west side. Next to this right of way is a piece, and then ML Toman owns the lot on the opposite side. There's a lot in between. MR. JOHNSTON: So there's a lot and then a nonowned lot, and then he owns the other lot? :29 ofT'rus[('os 3D 18,2006 MS. MOORE: Correct. But right now being the owner of this property what we planned to do is if and when it's sold, let's say it's sold tomorrow, we would reserve in the deed a right of way for grantor. MR. JOHNSTON: Future purchaser. MS. MOORE: Exactly. The grantor being the seller would reserve this right of way. It would be created in the deed at that time. I could take the right of way out of the drawing then. MS. CUSACK: But then it would have to be 15 feet from the property line. MS. MOORE: I didn't understand why you were concerned about having it. MR. CUSACK: And they didn't want to approve it on this right of way because the right of way was actually -- MS. MOORE: Now I understand. MS. CUSACK: And they spoke to Mr. Toman. TRUSTEE KING: My question is, you have this right of way right here with the dock at the end of it. If somebody buys this piece of property, then they're going to want to put a dock out. MS. MOORE: We're going to actually have one slip for this property owner, and one slip for the owner's other parcel. So two owners sharing a right of way, sharing this dock. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It will be one dock and regardless of the right of way or not. MR. MCGREEVEY: Doesn't the one-third rule still apply here? TRUSTEE KING: Haven't gotten to that part yet. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We also had that concern, Jim. MS. MOORE: He technically is creek front property but only during storm tides does he get water to his property. So when we bought this house, I thought it was very clever, to say, yes, why don't you put essentially put a community dock, one for you and one for who buys. MS. MOORE: My client is willing to address that and make that as the seller's representation that a dock is being built for use by both parties. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The other concern that we had and the Conservation Advisory Council had was the one-third across the width of the creek. MS. MOORE: The best source for me is a marine surveyor, and when he prepares these, he's very careful to make sure that it's not more than one-third. That's why the float is not the standard 5' by 20'. It's not a 20, it's an 18' float. I think he was taking in mind of the length. TRUSTEE KING: I think we had said we're going to go back 30 () i' 'rrllstccs 31 January 18, 2006 out there next month and look at this again, It just looked a lot further than one-third of the way across, We wanted to have him put a stake in where he measured that creek from. MS, MOORE: He understood that he was going to do that. TRUSTEE KING: If you look at the drawing, you've got two boats indicated on this float. MS, MOORE: Right. One for this property and one for the Toman's other house. TRUSTEE KING: We like to keep at least 15 feet of clearance off the property line, We don't have that with the boat on it. MS. MOORE: That's the whole point of the right of way, TRUSTEE KING: But you don't have that if you have a boat on the west side of the float, you're right up against the property line. The 15 feet is for a vessel, not just a dock. MS. MOORE: We can keep shifting it over. We're trying to create a community dock. TRUSTEE KING: I had a problem just putting a float there to begin with. MS. MOORE: I'm trying to create one dock with a community, a shared float. If we limit the distance and the location of this, then you're going to end with up with two docks and two floats, one for this house and one for the other property, the right of way. So we're trying to avoid that. We're trying to put it all on one and make one stru ctu re. TRUSTEE KING: The right of way isn't a separate piece of property. MS. MOORE: It will be granted to Mr. Toman's other property. It's a right of access. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We're saying it's still on the same lot. So you couldn't get two docks. That house if sold might have to have a deed that it cannot have a dock, its own dock. MS. MOORE: That's why we're trying to create -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: An additional dock. MS. MOORE: I understand that. He's paying for that dock to be built, so it's there's as an amenity and the buyer of this house -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Since you need to check with the LWRP anyway, and we're going to table this, can we maybe meet with you during the inspection and discuss the location and also have the distance staked? MS. MOORE: I'll have Bob give me distances, Bob Toman, he did the measurements, but I'll also 31 Board oCf'rustees P _4 check with Rob Fox, maybe he can check it on the drawing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So she's going to have to check with Mark Terry, LWRP, she's going to have the width staked and marked, and she's going to meet us there next inspection to discuss the configuration. MS. MOORE: What is your inspection date? TRUSTEE KING: The 8th. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is it possible the right of way can be configured differently, maybe go along the line then go in front on a triangle? MS. MOORE: I haven't created it so that I can work around it. I don't want to put something in stone and have you guys say, if you had only done it this way. MR. MCGREEVEY: Besides the one-third rule, does navigation come into this as well? TRUSTEE KING: Sure. MR. MCGREEVEY: Almost directly opposite where this dock is drawn, there's a ramp there so that any movement, any launching of a boat off that ramp would cause a navigational problem. So what I'm saying is the proposed floating dock with that ramp, would impinge upon the navigation on the person on the opposite side of the creek. MS. MOORE: We'll take a look at that in the field. As I said, Bob Fox is a very good marine surveyor. When he places it, he does look and make sure there's navigation. Besides we're towards the end of the creek. This house -- I don't know if the house next door has a dock or not, potentially they might have one, their deeded description actually goes into the canal. So this is part of their property. So it's private property. So the other side can't go beyond their deeded property limits. I don't know from the other side whether it actually goes to our property line. There might be some canal in between. MS. CUSACK: Did Mark write an LWRP? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. It says my determination is the LWRP consistency assessment form submitted to your department is incomplete. All policy questions except 1 and 3 were marked not applicable. Recommendations cannot be given to the Board at this time, please have the applicant assess if the proposed action will or will not support the LWRP policies outlined in section 3 and resubmit the form to your department. I'll make a motion to table. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? lS, ..~2 of 'frllswcs January IS, 2006 (Trustee Holzapfel abstained, remaining Trustees voted Aye.) 6. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of EDWARD WERTHNER requests a Wetland Permit to install a 3' by 17' seasonal ramp and 5' by 18' floating dock with two 8" diameter piles. Located: 180 Windy Point Lane, Southold. SCTM#78-6-3.3 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anyone here to speak on this application? MS. MOORE: I'm here, and Mr, Werthner's here. Do you have any particular questions that you want me to address? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't have any questions right now, There are two issues -- we did go out and look at this. There are two issues, one is, again, LWRP is listed as Inconsistent and the letter was identical as to what was just read, MS. MOORE: He doesn't like the way we filled it out. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Right and we'll provide you with a copy of the letter on that if you'd like one. Also there's a question of the notification of the neighbors across the street from the private road, We noted that there was not notification of the neighbors across the street of the private road as required in code. MS. MOORE: Actually, the road is owned by Stagner. It has a tax map number. It's part of one of the lots. So we followed the code and we send it to that tax map number. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So the adjacent owner -- MS. MOORE: The adjacent owner is the road, Stagner. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not the house, It's the road. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Wouldn't you send it to the person? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, the person who owns the road. MS. MOORE: Stagner. Actually I spent some time at the assessor's office. But the property was posted. TRUSTEE BERGEN: In the code Chapter 581-2, it says send notice to the owners on record of every property which abuts and every property which is across from any public or private street from the property including the applicant. MS. MOORE: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You understand what I'm doing here, I don't want everything to fall apart because there was not a notification done for the neighbor. MS. MOORE: Why don't we go over the application, if I send a notice for the following month and we're back, that's fine it's not an issue, but maybe we can address whatever other issues might come up. My experiences with Zoning Board applications, and we use the same notice, is when it's a tax of' 'I I'll stees 34 January 18, map property owner of the road, that's what stops the notice. But if you would rather I do that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We also have an observation by CAC opinion. CAC recommends disapproval of the application because the proposed docking facility exceeds one-third the across the width of the creek and would obstruct navigation from the existing boat ramp. So this one there was a boat ramp across the canal, I guess is the best way to put it. MS. MOORE: We do use a one-third rule, and -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's a very narrow channel and it shoaled up. MS. MOORE: I actually want to address that issue because it's shoaled next to Mr. Werthner's piece because he had done the bulkhead work, and the contractor when he did the bulkhead work allowed the fill to fill in right in front of his property. And I know that he came before this Board, it wasn't with me, but he came to this Board and Heather, I'm sure that you remember, trying to get the contractor to remediate to correct the problem. And I think everybody's just so nervous about touching anything, they wanted a letter from the Trustees directing them to correct the situation. So we wouldn't have the shoaling, and we'd like to take care of it, but Mr. Werthner asked that we have some communication that directs the contractor to correct this, because I explained to him that if the contractor doesn't do it, he'll do it then have to sue the contractor for the damaged caused. But there should be some directive to fix it, just to protect everyone including Mr. Werthner, when he goes and remediates. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Heather, did we question whether the bottom was owned? I had a question here whether they owned the bottom. MS. CUSACK: I didn't see that. It's part of the creek. MS. MOORE: It's part of the standard subdivision. It's an old canal. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The Board also had the very same concern that the CAC had with looking at it, that with the dock it would exceed one-third the width, we were all concerned that it would obstruct navigation because there was a boat ramp. Apparently when they built these properties several we noticed had boat ramps installed so there is a boat ramp across there. TRUSTEE KING: I think the idea of that was not to impede navigation in the canal. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Probably. MR. MCGREEVEY: Even if that shoaling was dredged out, you ;4 of Inl<;l"c'; 35 January' 18; 2006 would still have the problem of one-third and navigation, two separate issues. MS. MOORE: That shoaling is what caused the shallowness right in front of the property. You can see on the opposite side you have water depth that's 2.8, 3. That's what the water depth of the entire canal was. Then when this bulkhead was constructed a lot of that area essentially was destroyed. So, it's kind of creating a problem for us, and we'd like to correct it. I don't know if there's any way of designing this ramp; do you have any ideas? MR. WERTHNER: The only thing I question is why did I pay this guy with the one-third rule, why did I pay him to make this thing and have you guys say, hey, it's not right. So, why would he waste my time and energy? MS. MOORE: Generally Bob Fox is a very competent marine surveyor. He measures the distance then takes the one-third so we don't exceed the one-third rule. Keep in mind the channel is -- MR. WERTHNER: The boat ramp they can't use anyhow because it's dilapidated. They bring all the boats in. The guy across the way brings his boats in from my neighbors or brings them in from another ramp and drives them in there because he doesn't use the boat ramp any more. I spoke to him, he doesn't care what I do over there on the other side as long as he has enough room to pull his boats into the dock. He ties right up against the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Who is this? MS. MOORE: The houses right across from the canal MR. WERTHNER: And I have brought the issue up, and Heather knows too, about what my contractor did to me about 10, 12 months ago with the bulkhead, how he put 20 yards of fill, dug it out, and I was trying to get together with the Board of Trustees to have them -- they were trying to make a suggestion, we had rain, we had elections, everything else, to put that fill back in behind my bulkhead and put it back where it belongs, get rid of it, however you want to do it, DEC, and -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: You're describing to me what sounds like a dredging project. MS. MOORE: It wouldn't be a dredging -- MS. CUSACK: Are there pictures in the file because there's a whole section of spartina altern a flora. MS. MOORE: Just the area that the area of spartina isn't, the area we're proposing to remove the fill. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can you show me where? MS. MOORE: (Indicating). y.;; of'frust.:cs January 18,2006 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You're saying that's filled in because of the contractor? MS. MOORE: Yes. He said if he doesn't go and do it, you've got to get somebody to do it and sue him for it. MR. WERTHNER: He said he wasn't going to come back because he was really busy and until the Board of Trustees told him to take it out, he said see ya. That was his attitude. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only recommendation I have to make is this be tabled if for no other reason we have the LWRP inconsistency. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did you have behind that bulkhead a 30 foot buffer in the permit? MS. MOORE: It's part of the permit. MR. WERTHNER: I was waiting on your approval for the fill to be removed in front of the bulkhead. I have the plan on file that puts bushes and all that in with a 30 foot buffer. MS. MOORE: It's from the prior permit. Not this one, it was part of the bulkhead permit. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So you're aware of that, you're just waiting to see that what's going to happen with the fill? MR. WERTHNER: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We just noticed when we walked across it that nothing had been done. MS. MOORE: I asked him the same thing. But at the time this was being done, AI had mentioned that it didn't make sense to have him plant and to remove this fill and put it back, so. MS. CUSACK: This is a new file; that's in his file for the house and bulkhead. MS. MOORE: But he'll acknowledge that this is part of the plan. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else who would like to speak on behalf of this? MR. MCCONNELL: I'm his neighbor on the end of the canal. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: East? MR. MCCONNELL: Towards Bayview Road, north. As Ed has mentioned, the boat ramp across the canal from him is completely defunct. It's not usable in any shape or form. They would have to totally do it over to use it at all. There's no access to it to bring a boat in to get to it unless you came in by the water, and then lifted the boat out onto it, and then it would probably fall through. I would just like to support Ed in his permit because I think those of us that live on that canal and see other people of'frust0cs 3": January 18, 20U() enjoying the use of it is kind of aggravating. I'm on the end of it and it's quite shallow there. Right now I'm using a canoe. I hope at some point in time I might be able to improve on that and graduate to a row boat. But to see Ed with a property that actually had water and actually had access to using his boats and getting in and out of the canal and not be able to use it, I think is criminal, when he can look across the canal and see everyone else with full bulkheads right up to the canal going in and out. So, I'm fully in support of his endeavors there to enjoy that man-made canal. I used to work on the pepper fields that were there before the canal was put in. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, sir. MR. MCGREEVEY: If I may make a suggestion, maybe to solve the problem, if that dredging is done by the owner, maybe the ramp and the floating dock won't be a necessity, you can put it right up against the bulkhead and the one-third rule is out the window. MR. WERTHNER: You got it, love it. It would probably take about two, three hours to do it. With a big backhoe. MS. MOORE: When we go out to do the field inspection. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Let him do that. I agree with Jack. MS. MOORE: We'd be happy to do it as a dredging permit. If we had your support with the DEC, our problem is often times that dredging is appropriate but different agencies have different policies. MR. MCGREEVEY: Do it with the neighbor. TRUSTEE KING: Pat, that's private bottom in there? MR. WERTHNER: I'm five foot out into the creek. TRUSTEE KING: Where you want to remove that fill is basically your bottom? MS. MOORE: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does that show on the survey? MR. WERTHNER: Yes, it does. MR. JOHNSTON: Are you comfortable that he's not wasting his time with the DEC for a dredging permit, not putting a bulkhead in there? MS. MOORE: Bruce, what's their reaction these days? MR. ANDERSON: It will take a long time, it will be a giant pain in the rear. That's why boards like the Trustees should participate with the applicant because in a roundabout way, the applicant is your constituency, and it's probably the right thing to do whether by letter saying you should grant this permit because this is the right thing to do. TRUSTEE BERGEN: At this point I'm recommending we ,~ .'i table this, but also recommending when we get to future permit applications, just to make sure we don't run into technical problems later, notification of the property owners also across the road, just to cover our bases. MS. MOORE: Fine. Everyone else has already been notified, so we're just talking about across. I did find the survey here from his acquisition, and it goes from Windy Point Road 160 feet back; that's the actual title survey, and it's prior to the bulkhead being put in. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll put a motion forward that this be tabled; do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Motion to table the request by Patricia Moore on behalf of Edward Werthner request a Wetland Permit to install 3' by 17' seasonal ramp and a 5' by 18' floating dock with two 8" diameter piles. MS. MOORE: May I make a suggestion that since I'm going to send out that notice, why don't we put in an application to dredge simultaneously, and we'll get whatever -- TRUSTEE KING: Maybe you should change this to an application to dredge. MS. MOORE: I don't want to be in the position where you're telling me to do one thing and the DEC says another. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'd like to review the bulkhead file, maybe it's an amendment to that file. If there's a problem from that bulkhead permit and we should go from there, I think. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It would be less for the applicant. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would like to review that file and see where we can go from there. MS. MOORE: I'm willing to put in whatever we need to move this along. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If it's a problem from that permit then we can go from there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have a motion and a second, all in favor? (Trustee Holzapfel abstained, remaining Trustees voted Aye.) 7. B. Laing Associates on behalf of JOHN MULHOLLAND requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge 50 cubic yards to maintain navigable water depth. Dredge spoil will be placed on Mulholland property with majority being placed on Bandichuck and Carlucci properties north of Island View Lane. Located: 725 Island View Lane, Southold. SCTM#57 -2-24 18.2006 3S Bocud ofTruslccs January 18, 2iHJ6 8. B. Laing Associates on behalf of VIRGINIA BONT JE requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge 50 cubic yards to maintain navigable water depth. Dredge spoil will be placed on Mulholland property with majority being placed on Bandichuck and Carlucci properties north of Island View Lane. Located: 802 Island View Lane, Southold. SCTM#57 -2-23 9. B. Laing Associates on behalf of MICHAEL CARLUCCI requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge 50 cubic yards to maintain navigable water depth. Dredge spoil will be placed on Mulholland property with majority being placed on Bandichuck and Carlucci properties north of Island View Lane. Located: 865 Island View Lane, Southold. SCTM#57 -2-22 10. B. Laing Associates on behalf of GEORGE BALDWIN requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge 50 cubic yards to maintain navigable water depth. Dredge spoil will be placed on Mulholland property with majority being placed on Bandichuck and Carlucci properties north of Island View Lane. Located: 1045 Island View Lane, Southold. SCTM#57 -2-21 TRUSTEE KING: I'd like to open them all at once because they're all next door to each other basically. We are not going to do much with them tonight. There was a problem with the postings, people had them in the window, you couldn't see them unless you knew what you were looking for. They should be out on the road much more visible, and dredge spoil sites we like to see staked out, so we can see in the field and see exactly where these spoils are going to be. MR. BONT JE: Mike Bontje from B. Laing Associates. I was going to make that suggestion. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We think we located it but we'd like to see the parameters of it. MR. BONT JE: The majority of it is going on the Carlucci's property across the street. TRUSTEE KING: We physically want to go and look where it's going. We have had a bad episode lately with dredge spoils and where they put them. I want to make sure it's right. We haven't got anything on the LWRP coordinator on this yet either. MR. BONT JE: I know the applications were submitted. You just haven't received any coordination? Is there anything we have to do? TRUSTEE KING: Just waiting. 39 of'I'rusl0CS 4U January 18,2006 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Also recommend a notification to the neighbors adjacent to the dredge spoil area. MR. BONT JE: That's just one other neighbor, that's the neighbor to the north because the people on the other side were notified because of being opposing on the street to Bontje and Carlucci. But you would also like to notify that last person? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct MR. BONT JE: This would be for the February hearing? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Hopefully. MR. BONT JE: Just one question, too, when we do that notification, we're going to be notifying everybody again of the next hearing date? MS. STANDISH: You don't have to do that again. MR. BONT JE: So it's just the one? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to table these for next month. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee Holzapfel abstained, remaining Trustees voted Aye.) MR. MALAZZO: John Malazzo. I show you a map, the homes involved, I'm right across from them, I do have one little problem, though. I pointed this out before, our property is bulkheaded partially, it's not bulkheaded all the way, and any time dredging occurs in here, we tend to lose a little more of our property, and we have spoken to you about extending this bulkhead. It goes from here to this corner because otherwise we literally lose another portion of our property. Getting back to this drawing, it's essentially from a little spot in here that has to be bulkheaded. We have no objection to the dredging except that we'd like it noted that our interest -- we be able to put this bulkhead in. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you have a bulkhead application in? MR. MALAZZO: No, we haven't put one in, we're in the process of putting it in, Again, we're not opposed, I'm just curious the one-third rule, what is that? TRUSTEE KING: It's for navigation purposes. In other words, say you want to put a dock out here, we don't want to see that dock, including the vessel, more than one-third the way across. TRUSTEE KING: We want to leave room for navigation. 11. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of JOSEPH FARRELL requests a Wetland Permit to 40 () n fU<;t,'CS 41 January! 8,2006 construct a 1,196 square foot single-family dwelling, driveway, sanitary system and private well. Located: 235 Mill Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM#135-3-26 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is consistent with LWRP. Do we have dry wells, gutters and staked hay bales on the survey? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC recommends approval of the application with the condition of 50 foot nondisturbance buffer and the buffer maintained as indicated on the survey, dry wells and gutters are installed to contain roof runoff, and all trees 8 inches DBF are left in place. There were some trees noted, five trees on the creek that we would like to see saved. MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting. Basically this was approved about three years ago and reapproved just so you know. It expired on November 17th, and the reason for that delay was because you sent me to Suffolk County Department of Health Services to seek a variance to locate that septic system, the leeching rings right at the property line. That was something that Trustee Poliwoda felt very strongly about, and that actually took us about a year and a half maybe more like two and a half years to get that variance. But it was granted and in the interim this thing expired last November 17th. The buffer is shown on the survey and that is limited to 10 foot contour line, but it is slightly less than 50 feet because there has to be some room between the house and the buffer. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's nearly 50 feet. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. It's 46. The tree -- unfortunately, there is an extremely large oak tree, it's a white oak, that's going to sit in the middle of this house, and I can't do anything about that. All trees within the buffer, and if you want to do it properly, any big tree on the lot, it's not something you would want to cut down on this property. It's just you don't find trees -- I have a couple on my property, my guess is they will be preserved wherever possible, but unfortunately that large one you saw right in the middle, I can't do anything about. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is your driveway pervious? MR. ANDERSON: It would be gravel. We can add that labeling 4t BO\11'd of T'rLlswes 42 if you request. That's not a problem. Other than that, we also were sent to the Zoning Board because in order to maximize that setback, we needed relief from -- you'll see 26 feet from the lot line, that variance has been granted. I think I've been working on this project for three and a half, four years. We now have everything, and it was reapproved under the new law too. But I will add the gravel to the driveway. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm skimming over the LWRP and the pervious driveway was on that. The hay bales, require native disease resist and drought tolerant landscaping to minimize irrigation for application. Additionally, retain all large trees outside of the building envelope, which you said. MR. ANDERSON: You include the driveway, you have to get in too. You might be able to move that around, but I didn't really look at it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think we saw the five nearest the creek. MR. ANDERSON: Those are in the buffer, I think. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Survey identifies clearing and ground disturbance line however, no condition beyond that are proposed due to small size of the parcel require the maximum width obtained for a nonfertilize, nondisturbance buffer to minimize lawn area adjacent to wetland system, which is already done. I'm just reading these off the LWRP. Is there anyone else who would like to speak for or against this application? MR. HAER: My name is Carl Haer, we live on the east side of this property, and my wife and I were here the last time there was a discussion, and we still have a question on the latest survey that we got. They talk about seeking a site for a well, and there's a possible well site that is actually on our property, northeast corner. And there's a little explanation there that apparently this is subject to this being resolved and we have had our property resurveyed, and it's on our property. MR. ANDERSON: Just to clarify, this property, this house is to be hooked up to public water. There is a main in the road and our proposal is to hook up to that. There is apparently a well on your property, I don't know how it got there. I doubt it's used; do you use it? MR. HAER: No. MR. ANDERSON: I would imagine it would be great for pulling saltwater, and water mains were installed here I'm going to l8,2006 " 0~ Board of 'frustees January 18, 2006 say a year ago last January. And we have intended to hook up and have already secured approval to do so. So the proposed well you're seeing there that really shouldn't be there and it is to be public water. MR. HAER: There was another issue you mentioned about the sanitary system, and I don't know if this is within your jurisdiction, but if our sanitary system is in our southwest corner and their sanitary system is in their southeast corner, now that you're going to hook up to public water, is there any way your system can be moved over? It doesn't have to be as far away from where you were going to put wells. MR. ANDERSON: At that time Trustee Poliwoda felt very strongly that he didn't want to see an active cesspool within 100 feet of the wetlands in Mill Creek, and I said to him that I wouldn't fight him on that because I would try to get the variance. Now, I had no idea it would take as long as it did, but putting all that aside it was eventually successful. The reason why it's there is because that's the deepest point in the lot; that's the furthest it can be from the wetlands. So if I were to slide it, for example, to the west it would then actually be closer to the wetland boundary. I can tell you that the soils on our property and on your property consist of sand, loam, gravel. Sand and gravel are very porous soils, and there is no expectation that this septic system will in any way affect the performance of your septic system. MR. HAER: As the other gentleman asked before, is that something that if we do have an impact, is there some recourse that we have? MR. ANDERSON: I suppose and I've been doing this longer than I can count, and I've never heard of such an impact. And I can also tell you that the direction of groundwater is dead north. So that the effluent leaving this septic system doesn't even travel onto your property. MR. HAER: So you're not going to have a private well, you're going to have public water? MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Does that satisfy you, sir? MR. HAER: Yes. MS. CUSACK: The proposal does still say for private well. MR. ANDERSON: I'll fix that. MR. MCGREEVEY: Would it be advisable, Jim, to mark the trees that are to be saved on that lot? You say there's quite a few trees, but when builders go in they will take "1-.') Board of'frusl0cs 44 hnuary 18,2006 down trees that you'll miss later on, Would it be advisable to have the owner mark trees? MR. ANDERSON: I'll mark any tree you want but what I would recommend you do is that you might, if I were a regulator, what I would say is this: Prior to commencement of work you shall delineate your buffer by the erection of a fence, like a snow fence, so it's very clear what side of the fence you're operating on, TRUSTEE KING: Line of staked hay bales, MR. ANDERSON: I would do both if I were you, You obviously have to get access into this, and you obviously have to clear the area where the cesspools are, There's no way around that I think, And we may be back in front of you because we have a utility pole that's going to be very close to this that may have to be moved out into the right of way, I've discussed that with the Health Department I've also discussed that with Pete Harris, So we may have to come in with some type of modification as to what to do with that utility pole. The utility pole shows on your survey, it's right adjacent to the -- (indicating), I will probably be back in front of you one more time on that In the meantime, if you wish me to mark certain trees, I'd be happy to do that TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Would the staked hay bales line plus a snow fence satisfy you? MR. MCGREEVEY: With the indication saying on the opposite side it will be retained as is? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the seaward side, On the 10 foot contour line it says proposed limit of clearing and ground disturbance, It's written on the survey. MR. ANDERSON: I think the concern is inadvertent, which happens. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Sure. TRUSTEE KING: Line of hay bales and a snow fence along that line during construction. MS, CUSACK: It's a good idea, TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to close the hearing if there is no one else to speak, TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? (Trustee Holzapfel abstained, remaining Trustees voted Aye.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve for Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf Joseph Farrell a request for a Wetland Permit to construct a 1,196 square foot single-family dwelling, driveway, sanitary system and without private well with dry wells, gutters, the 50 foot 44 oCTrlls[ccs buffer is pretty much on the survey, and we're going to ask for a staked hay bale line with snow fence on the 10 foot contour line, so that there be no disturbance seaward of that line specifically any removal of the trees in that area. MS. CUSACK: Did you say gravel pervious driveway? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? (Trustee Holzapfel abstained, remaining Trustees voted Aye.) 12. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of EDWARD FERGUS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, covered porch, attached deck, attached garage, sanitary system, and shed. Located: 1854 North Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM#70-12-39.3 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant, Mr. and Mrs. Fergus. You have obviously your application and you have your survey. I'm going to pass up a 2005 aerial photograph. We plotted the houses in the area and have a sense of where you are. This has been a real, this has been difficult for us from the standpoint of just trying to get -- I understand that there's a request to do an additional staking on this property, and probably to cut even more paths so that it's real easy, and then I also was informed earlier today this evening that there is a question as to the location of the wetland boundary. I do want you to understand that this is a property that came in and came before this Board in the late '80s. And I'm going to hand you up a memo received by at that time En-Consultants were representing the Ferguses and an accompanying survey that was done by Roderick VanTuyl, God rest his soul, and essentially that survey, that letter told us that the wetland boundary was confined to the shoreline where it was flagged today. I can also refer you to a file known as Head, which was the old house at the end of Goose Creek Lane, and it was owned by Sam and Berl Epstein, who were old friends of mine. And there was a picture that we gave you that was dated in the early '60s showing Sam and Berl and this property in the foreground which in the '60s which was a meadow land. There was no phragmites, I don't even recall seeing cedar trees. It was grass land. In the course of dredging the creek here, the spoils were taken and placed upon this lot, which is what i8,2()(/{) 45 o f' Truql'~S 46 January 18,2006 has led to tremendous proliferation of phragmites which covers pretty much the entire lot. The soil maps will show it to be dredge spoil, and this and the whole point here was basically the spoil site that was used in connection with the dredging of Goose Creek, The footprint on this house is 2,674, which is large, and the reason for that is it's an effort on the part of the applicants to keep it all one story, This is their retirement home and stairs -- it's an attempt to eliminate stairs on the premises. I know this from my own experience because one of my parents is actually confined to the first floor because they can no longer climb stairs. So that sort of explains the design concept behind that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Does that include the garage? MR. ANDERSON: The garage is going to be at grade, There's going to be a second loft above it for the kids, TRUSTEE BERGEN: When you said 2,670, does that include the garage? MR. ANDERSON: No, it does not include the garage. The garage actually measures 25' by 36'. The footprint is large. It's an attempt to provide everything or most of everything on one level. It's actually only a four bedroom house. That is what the applicants are seeking to do. Since we are going to take another look at it, I probably don't need to say much more than I've already said. I'll look forward to seeing you out there on February 8th, I believe, and maybe we can walk through and figure out how we want to handle this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have another question about the proposed shed; why did you pick that area as opposed to that -- MR. ANDERSON: I didn't. I don't know. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As opposed to putting it on the landward side of the house? TRUSTEE KING: Put it up next to the garage. MR. ANDERSON: We'll certainly look at that. I don't have an answer to that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The driveway obviously comes in, but it's behind the house to the garage? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's not going to get too close to that -- MR. ANDERSON: The driveway also triggers a variance request from us to DEC. DEC also approved this in the late '80s, early '90s, as did the Health Department, also a building permit was issued for the property. The Ferguses had some problems and it doesn't matter what they are, but at any 46 () I' Trusl0cs 47 January IS. 2006 rate, didn't build at that time and that permit had expired, but that's important to note. The driveway is probably where it can be, and there was an effort not to put it directly on the line to sort of -- because you try to give some space between the neighbors maybe some landscaping, maybe some screening, and that's why it's placed where it's placed. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments on this application? I'll make a motion to table it and look at it again next month. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee Holzapfel abstained, remaining Trustees voted Aye.) MR. ANDERSON: Was there an LWRP reached on this one? TRUSTEE KING: No. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We're still waiting for that. 13. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of STEVEN E. LOSQUADRO requests a Wetland Permit to remove the area of phragmites located within the northeastern corner of the property and construct a single-family dwelling with attendant sanitary system. Located: 1150 Fanning Road, New Suffolk. SCTM#117 -6-33 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of Steven Losquadro. This is a fairly simple matter. This came to me last fall, and I was asked by the builder to render an opinion as to whether or not the stand of phragmites adjacent to the property was wetlands. It was my opinion then that it was not. I had subsequently sent it to your office for your opinion and several months later I guess came back and said it was, at least Heather's opinion that it was. I sent another wetland biologist out there who said that it wasn't. It's not mapped but there is a drainage ditch. There is a street drain, there's a culvert that runs underneath the road that comes out on School House Creek. My belief is that that culvert under the road has probably collapsed, and I don't think we're ever going to fix it. Nor do I think we want to fix it. That may have caused waters to be impounded back towards that lot. Because you will have noticed standing water within that, sort of, drainage area. Now, I know Heather is of the opinion that it may be springs, in other words, groundwater upwellings in that location. I don't know that we're going to answer that question tonight. But no doubt that it was designed to 47 () r [ flI'ilc'C;; 4i; handle the road runoff, and that road runoff by design was designed to be discharged into School House Creek. At any rate, the applicant moved forward and obtained a Health Department and building permit and commenced the clearing of the lot, at which point, I believe received a stop work order, I'm not even sure of that, but in any event stopped, and we made this application. I was in there this morning and I spoke with Heather, and it was recommended that a planting plan be prepared for the site, and I have done that. And I'm prepared to -- we had to do it today -- in the future I will try to get these to you much quicker, but -- TRUSTEE KING: Is there regrading in there too, Bruce? Because it's something we talked about in the field, all that material was pushed into the phragmites, we want to see that dragged back and make that a gentle slope. MR. ANDERSON: I know what you mean and I have indicated that on the plan. I have given you a cross-section profile, I don't have elevations, but I do know what you're talking about, undoubtedly earth was pushed around. TRUSTEE KING: There was quite a bit pushed into the phragmites. MR. ANDERSON: I marked the edge of the phragmites to be at the edge of the property line I noticed the stake there, at least where it is today. So we want to pull that back. We wanted to plant a row of the cedar trees adjacent to the phragmites and come up with bayberry behind it, and that's what your planting plan shows. We do not want to adjust the location of the house. But I hope and I believe that that would solve this problem. As I said, it's not a wetlands that's regulated by DEC, so this would really be the end of the road for me. TRUSTEE KING: I think this is what we had in mind. MS. CUSACK: Yes, we said 25 foot buffer, and I can review the plan, and have to take a look out there and see if it's appropriate. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bruce, one question on this plan you just gave us, we had a question about the septic system for the pools there, looks like they're contained. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are they? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is that what you mean by that line around it? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, there's a retaining wall, the Health Department calls for a concrete retaining wall to surround the septic system and that is because the groundwater here 18,2iH)6 AP ,+!\- Board of'T'rustccs 49 is high relative to the surface, ground surface. That retaining wall is fairly substantial. MS. CUSACK: Which isn't surprising because there were wetlands there before it was cleared and filled. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That specific area was very wet when we were there. MR. ANDERSON: On the lot? That I do not believe. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What, that was wet? MR. ANDERSON: No, that there were any phragmites or any otherwise on the lot, because I saw the lot prior to its clearing. MR. MCGREEVEY: It was buried. I've never seen an area that typified a wetlands more so than this piece of property. The topography, just looking at the topography of the land would indicate that it previously to the development, complete bulldozing of the area and the filling in was a wetland. The water to the east of this property all intents and purposes will be tidal controlled underneath New Suffolk Road. Any backing up of water in that area is going to impinge upon Fanning Road, New Suffolk Road, and the property on the southwest corner adjacent to this proposed site. All the topography indicates, even at this point, that it was wetlands. MR. ANDERSON: That's impossible. The topography on the survey in front of you will show that the spot elevations are two to two and a half feet higher than the area of phragmites, that shows -- and that's a pre-clearing condition -- that shows as on your survey. MR. MCGREEVEY: On the day I inspected it, Jim, the center of the property was completely flooded, there was no natural drainage, and the northeast corner had clean fill in there that had been brought in, and that was higher than the end of what I called the west end of that creek. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, all that was pushed into the phragmites. MR. MCGREEVEY: All that was pushed up so what they formed was a dam that would actually dam the actual tidal movement of that water. MS. CUSACK: Would it help to put in one of those French drains somewhere along one of the sides and grade to that? You don't want to end up afterwards with some big puddle in the street. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The buffer's going to help. MR. MCGREEVEY: Any back up of water in that extension of the creek is going to go onto private property. TRUSTEE KING: It would be interesting to see if underneath IS. 2006 49 or' 50 the road is still open. I think it was tidal at one time many years ago. MR. MCGREEVEY: The day I was there was about two foot of water on the south side of Fanning Road going toward New Suffolk Road. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jim, Mr. Christianson wants to speak. MR. CHRISTIANSON: Tom Christianson, and I have the adjoining property. I'm on the northwest. I'm just off Fanning and New Suffolk Road there. That culvert does work. The water high tide, it fills up underneath there and goes into the phragmites on my property and used to go more up into what was Lombardi's property. TRUSTEE KING: I figured it was probably tidal at one time. Has to be an exceptional high tide for it now to get up in there? MR. CHRISTIANSON: Yes, we'll see it a few times a year. It goes under the road, it doesn't flood the road. We've had it flood over the road and that's a whole different situation, but it does still drain somewhat there. MR. ANDERSON: So the culvert works? MR. CHRISTIANSON: Yes. Although it needs to be fixed. It's caving in. It's a dangerous situation for kids, and that should be fixed, but it still does work. TRUSTEE KING: You have to maintain the runoff on this property, you can't throw it onto the road or onto your neighbor. MR. ANDERSON: What I would suggest you do is to maybe install, require a French drain maybe adjacent to that buffer, which is easy to do. And also to put in the dry wells and maybe beef it up a little bit. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: As long as they're building. MR. ANDERSON: I do not think that the development of this lot should add more water to the road or anyone else's property. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments on this application? MR. ANDERSON: What I was talking about was maybe something around here (indicating). (Discussion.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Pervious driveway. MR. ANDERSON: Right. And then kind of what we did on Claudio's lot and we'll give you that detail, that's easy to do. TRUSTEE KING: Works for me. You'll give us a new set of plans indicating that. MR. JOHNSTON: Could you summarize in a couple words what 1 t( 2006 () f' Trusl0cS 51 you just represented? MR. ANDERSON: We represented to install French drain adjacent to the planted buffer on the landward side and that we would place a dry well within the driveway area and a second dry well on the opposite side of the house, and that the survey would be amended to show the driveway to be gravel. MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you. MR. MCGREEVEY: Jim, does the Board have the CAC recommendations? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, I've got them right here. They recommend disapproval because development of this property would cause major drainage problems on the road. CAC recommends the entire property be restored. I think the changes we made here addresses most of the problems. Regrading that slope so you don't have all that stuff pushed into where the phragmites were, put a French drain in and also dry wells for the roof runoff. MR. MCGREEVEY: On the premise that it was originally not wetlands, on the basis that it originally was not wetlands. TRUSTEE KING: The whole property was not wetlands we believe. MR. ANDERSON: It wasn't. TRUSTEE KING: So I'll make a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee Holzapfel abstained, remaining Trustees voted Aye.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve this application based on the new plans and what we discussed tonight. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee Holzapfel abstained, remaining Trustees voted Aye.) TRUSTEE KING: 14 was postponed. 15. Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of CARLA STARCIC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling and deck. Located: 205 Private Road #3, Southold. SCTM#70-6-9 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting. I understand there was a question as to wetland boundaries on this, and that there is a desire on your part to inspect the property again on February 8th, and that I made myself available to meet you out on the site. In the l8,200(, S 1 of 'frllst:ccs ';;:') ~' <.. meantime, I want to show you the house in relationship to the neighborhood. It's scaled fairly accurately. And I will give you -- we're showing you where that house is, and how it compares with the size of the houses in the area, and how it sits relative to the shoreline, et cetera. I'm also going to give you another -- this gives you a layout of who the neighbors are and where they are in relationship (handing). As we have defined the wetland boundary, the closest wetland portion is actually offsite and it's actually on the adjacent property of Messina. We have shown a setback of 75 feet for the proposed dwelling. The septic system would be entirely out of this Board's jurisdiction. It's important to note there's two ways to access the property; one is via a private right of way off of Oaklawn Avenue, and the second via another right of way and severs the property in half and is used for access to the Safir residence which is down right on the creek. I think as we left from a regulatory standpoint the only thing we were awaiting was receipt of the LWRP. And I thought I had put in a fairly comprehensive presentation the last time I was here. But I'm here to answer any more questions you may have. TRUSTEE KING: Did you talk to Mark there about this at all? MR. ANDERSON: No, I have not. TRUSTEE KING: Supposedly there's a discrepancy in this measurement between the deck and the wetlands; it's 75 feet on here and you came up with 60 or 61? MS. CUSACK: 60. I spoke to him about it he said let's go out there and measure it. And look at it with the new Board. MR. ANDERSON: I flagged it a long time ago and I'm not that clear as to what you're talking about. MS. CUSACK: I think you marked the wetland edge right at the landward edge of that dock, but just being in the field there are some spartina patens up in there, closer to the right of way, so we went from there to the deck stake and it was 60 feet, and it says 75. MR. ANDERSON: We'll take a look. His hope was to park under the house although it's not designed yet. Where are you talking about over here or over here? TRUSTEE KING: The line drawn from the wetlands to here (indicating). This says 75 feet, the other says it's 60 something. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What is the applicant proposing to access? MR. ANDERSON: He's proposing both ways. The benefit of going in here is so -- this will always be used because this IS. 2006 52 Board 0 r 'frustees -, J_) January 18j 2006 is Howard Safir's sole access to his property. There is a dispute where we have neighbors, particularly Mr. Hardy and I believe it's Russell, I'm confused but he's on that map, they're saying you can't put water under the road, you can only put electric, and that's in the courts and that's where it belongs and that will wind its way through, but for our purposes we're not going to cede any rights to any access until we see how that shakes out. So it's designed with both alternatives in mind. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Where is your proposed well here? MR. ANDERSON: No, it's public. It's going to extend the water, it's going to be public water. There was also mentioned, because I know some of you knew that maybe the neighbors should buy it, which I have no objection to, but only to say that that's a private matter between the neighbors and the applicant. I'm not going to play real estate broker, and I suspect the Board isn't either. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments on this application? MR. HARDY: Charles Hardy, Southold. I hope to make this quick because I think we have barraged you with our evidence, both in photographs and in and we can also provide documentation, witnesses, that this area is subject to seasonal and frequent overwash or inundation. And since our last visit here, I think it was on the 21 st of December, we have acquired the Chapter 97, and have read it with diligence. And in Chapter 97 it describes then what a beach is, and it's subject to seasonal and frequent inundation. And we have provided you, since we did not know the application was coming until first part of December, we only were able to provide you with photographs on the 16th of December and again on the 3rd of January, which clearly show that this area is flooded and then comes under the Chapter 97, fits the description of a beach. So I would like to ask the Trustees would you be willing to agree to the fact that it is a beach? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think what we're thinking on this, even if this was considered a beach, we would still measure from mean high water. MR. HARDY: That isn't what the definition says. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mean low water. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And 100 feet landward from the place where there is marked change of material -- MR. HARDY: You see in the photograph that you're holding in front of you that the beach is reaching the toe of a )3 i3(l~lrd 54 bluff. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The water -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: The water is reaching a bank. MR. HARDY: The water is reaching a toe of a bluff, and that is a beach. I didn't make the definition up. It's the definition that you have submitted and the definition that you must follow. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What I'm saying is, say we all agree that this is a beach -- I'm not agreeing right now -- even if we do, what we're thinking is we wouldn't measure from here because that is not mean low later. MR. HARDY: It doesn't say that. MR. ANDERSON: If I may. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. MR. HARDY: We have the floor. MR. ANDERSON: I think I have permission. I would recommend you just defer from that and give it some thought rather than be put on the spot. MR. HARDY: I don't see how I'm putting you on the spot when I am citing exactly your criterion for the definition of a beach. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I personally can't answer that question right now. I don't know about the rest of the Board. TRUSTEE KING: We're going to table this anyway, and we'll go out and take a look at it with a full Board. MR. HARDY: I would actually like to follow that with another question. It will be a little difficult since you apparently don't know what a beach is with your definition. But the evidence that has been submitted reveals that the overwash extends landward, and this continues with the definition and is stopped by the toe of a bluff, which rises in a southerly direction to the 50 foot right of way; do the Trustees believe that a bluff exists on the property? TRUSTEE BERGEN: My own interpretation it was a bank, an earthen bank. MR. HARDY: How would you distinguish -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: You asked me. I went out and I looked at the site, and that's my interpretation. It's a bank going down to the right of way. MR. HARDY: A bluff is a steep incline, what is your criterion for a steep incline? I've measured it so I have an answer to what that bluff is. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I couldn't provide you with a figure how many feet up, feet down, off the top of my head I don't know. 18,2006 54 BC\Clrd of 55 January 18, 2(11)() MR HARDY: Well, either we have a code or we don't. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think there's a lot of new information that we have gotten, and especially since we haven't heard from Mark Terry, who is our senior environmental planner, that we need to further look into this, MR HARDY: The third thing you should look into is a bluff as a point of inflection. And this is where the gradient changes as it slopes seaward, or the reverse order, there's a sharp change in the angle of inclination. I have found a point of inflection. TRUSTEE KING: I'd like to make a motion to table this, we'll go look at it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee Holzapfel abstained, remaining Trustees voted Aye,) MR HARDY: Could I also suggest that if Mr. Anderson is granted permission to accompany the inspection team that the residents also have the same access. TRUSTEE KING: I have no problem if the neighbors want to look at it. It appears to me that every piece of property has a house on it except this one, TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. MR HARDY: I should mention I've been here about 40 years, every one of the houses that you see on the waterfront with the exception of the Russell house, which on this diagram, this outdated layout that Mr. Anderson has provided, shows Messina, has been renovated from a simple, summer cottage, where people only live there casually and temporarily, and they have all been upgraded to permanent dwellings, and that is the reason why some of them are on very small lots, because they were grandfathered. This property here is not grandfathered, and it's on a very small lot. TRUSTEE KING: Is this not still an approved building lot by Town code? MR. HARDY: I have no idea. TRUSTEE KING: I believe it is. TRUSTEE BERGEN: n~. MR. ANDERSON: I can assure you. It is a building lot. It is residentially zoned. It is a preexisting, nonconforming lot, just as all the lots are in the neighborhood. It has water availability. It will comply with every regulation that's on the books. It is a building lot in every sense of the word. MR HARDY: I don't think that since the definition of a beach, a bluff, a point of inflection has not been determined that you can say it will satisfy every criterion. 5:' of,!'rllsrecs 56 hmwrv j 8,2006 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't see the need to get into a debate at this point. TRUSTEE KING: No. I've tabled this, we're going to look into it and let's move on. TRUSTEE KING: Make a motion to close the meeting. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee Holzapfel abstained, remaining Trustees voted Aye.) 56