HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-08/23/2006
James F. King, President Town Hall
Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President 53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Peggy A. Dickerson Southold, New York 11971-0959
Dave Bergen Telephone (631) 165-1892
Bob Ghosio, Jr. Fax (631) 765-6641
RECEIVED
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES 3: 30fl"1
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
~ 2007
. O~
3 MINUTES Southold Town ele k
4
wednesday, August 23, 2006
5
6 6: 30 PM
7
Present were: James King, President
8 Jill Doherty, Vice-President
peggy Dickerson, Trustee
9 Dave Bergen, Trustee
John Holza~fel, Trustee
10 E. Brownel Johnston, Esq.
Assistant Town Attorney For Trustees
11 Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant
Jack McGreevy, CAC
12 CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
13
NEXT FIELD INSPECTIN: wednesday, September 13, 2006 at 8:00 AM
14 NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 6:30 PM
WORK SESSION: 5:30 PM
15 APPROVE MEINUTES: Approve Minutes of June 21, 2006 and
July 18, 2006.
16
TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. welcome
17 to our August meeting. Before we get going, I would like to
introduce our board: Dave Ber~en to my far left; Peg
18 Dickerson; Jill Doherty; mysel , Jim King, Lauren Standish is
our secretary here, she handles the office work; John
19 Holzapfel is another trustee, and to my far right is Brownell
Johnston, he's our legal advisor.
20 usually we have somebody from CAC here. He's coming in
now. His name is Jack McGreevy. we have Florence, our
21 stenographer, keepin~ track of everything that is said. Thank
you for coming tonir t.
22 we have a fair b busy night and I just want to run over a
23 few things with you efore we get ~oing. we have been working
on a new mooring code. The draft lS just about ready now.
Dave Bergen has been the point person on this. I think we
24 have a draft that is just about ready to go to the Town Board,
and there will be numerous meetings, I'm sure. we had a lot
25 of gublic meetings on it. It's just a rough draft. It's
pro ably going to go through a lot more changes on it as we go
page 1
Southold 082306
D
2
1 along on it.
We are also revisin~ our shellfish code, we are bringing
2 that up to date. There lS just a lot of old information that
doesn't even exist todab for the fisheries, but we'll try and
3 streamline it a little it and maybe modify it to agree with
some of the state regulations which we are also bound by.
4 And another thing, we have a new pump out boat. I know a
lot of people have been urging us to get goin~ on that over
5 the years. we finally have one in place and lt seems to be
working out pretty good. We had a couple of people in here
6 tonight that have used it and it's been very successful.
So, I think we are making some progress in the
7 environmental issues and we are ~oing to make some changes to
our wetland code, we'll be revislng that, brin~ing that up to
8 date and cleaning that up a little bit and maklng a few minor
changes.
9 We are current11 reviewing everything. Most of these
things kind of just aid dormant for years. we are trying to
10 be agTressive in keepin~ everythin~ updated and cleaning that
up a ittle bit and maklng a few mlnor chan~es.
11 we are also addressing road runoff, whlch is another big
problem around town, a lot of road end problems with
12 drainage. we put a couple of plans in place now. we are
working on DEC permits for them, so, we have been pretty busy
13 people. we are just doing the best we can and doing the
what's best for this town.
14 With that we'll start the meetin~. we've had some
hearings postponed. I don't want to ave anybody sitting here
15 if we are not going to address them. page two, number seven
under Resolutions and Administrative permits, Guimaraes has
16 been postponed. On page three, number four has been
postponed. Numbers one and two on paTe four have been
17 ~ostPoned. Number one was Fishers IS and was postponed at the
ast minute. I hope nobody from Fishers Island came here
18 tonight because we are not going to address it. I tried to
call some folks over there to let them know. It was a
19 last-minute postponement at 2:30 this afternoon, so.
Number 23, number 24 have been postponed. 25 has been
20 postgoned; 19 has been postponed; 26, 27 and 28. So it might
not e too bad tonight. And we have the next field inspection
21 scheduled for September 13 at 8:00 in the morning.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Make a motion to approve.
22 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
23 (ALL AYES.)
The next trustee meeting is september 20, at 6:30 with
24 the work session at 5:30.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Make a motion to approve.
25 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
D
page 2
southold 082306
3
1 (ALL AYES.)
DO I have a motion to approve the minutes of June 21 and
2 July 18, 2006?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I make a motion to approve the June 21
3 minutes. There are a couple of name spelling changes, I'll
let her know. Other than that, it looks pretty good. July 28 I
4 have not read yet.
TRUSTEE KING: I haven't read it either. Also on June 21,
5 Jack MCGreevy was present. He's not on the list. He was
there. There is some testimony in there from him. He was
6 here.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So I make a motion for the June 21
7 minutes, to approve them.
TRUSTEE KING: second.
8 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
9 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: July 18, we'll wait until next month
to discuss them, so, the same mooring minutes.
10 TRUSTEE KING: That was a work session. I went through
them. I think they are all right.
11 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: There were some spellings and I did
send some corrections. I'll make a motion -- do you want look
12 at them, Dave?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I didn't read them. They were a work
13 session. DO they have to be approved, work session minutes?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
14 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All right, let's wait.
TRUSTEE KING: And we have the dredginT minutes.
15 TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what we are ta king about.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No, the mooring minutes.
16 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I apologize. Those I looked at. I
thought you were talking about the dredging ones. The mooring
17 ones I have looked at.
TRUSTEE KING: And you didn't see any --
18 TRUSTEE BERGEN: No.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I didn't either, so if it's all right,
19 I make motion to approve the mooring minutes with correct
spellings changed.
20 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: of July 18?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Yes.
21 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
22 (ALL AYES.)
23 1. MONTHLY REPORT:
24 The Trustees monthly rehort for July, 2006, a check for
$5,925.03 was forwarded to t e supervisor's office for the
25 general fund.
D
4
1 II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
2 Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's bulletin
page 3
-----.-...-
Southold 082306
board for review.
3
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
4
we have a number of state environmental quality reviews
5 to be included in the record.
6 Philih and Jennifer Stanton - SCTM#64-1-14-7
Ken C ilds - SCTM#145-3-6
7 Sim MOY - SCTM#90-2-1
Irwin seigel - SCTM#23-1-14.1
8 Michael and Robin Drews - SCTM#118-4-2
Russell McCall - SCTM#116-6-3
9 Steven Benfield and sheila patel - SCTM#51-4-5.1
susan S. Rentchler - SCTM#8-1-6.6
10 Marc Rubenstein - SCTM#6-7-7
william and Alice Lehmann - SCTM#31-17-17
11 NOL, LLC - SCTM#10-5-13.3
Matthew Kar - SCTM#111-14-14
12 GeorTe w. Bornschein - SCTM#136-1-44
Caro witschieben and Janet witschieben Larsen - SCTM#99-1-5
13 Eugene Daneri - SCTM#123-6-14
Joseph and catherine Gentile - SCTM#90-4-21
14 Michael and Teresa Smith - SCTM#14-3-2
Grace Burr Hawkins - SCTM#10-4-10
15 Charles and Amy scharf - SCTM#81-3-25.1&26
Adrienne Landau - SCTM#94-1-7
16
IV. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
17
TRUSTEE KING: We have a number of resolutions and
18 administrative permits.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Before you start. The first one we
19 had asked for a plan. That's not in the folder, so I think we
could just skip it. I just went through the folder.
20 TRUSTEE KING: So we'll table number one, Thomas Rattler,
because we needed a set of plans and they were not there.
21 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: we are going to, subject to survey.
we were going to do it subject to receiving --
22 TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was my understanding.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Because it was not clear what he
23 wanted to do and he won't get his permit until he submits the
plans that we want.
24 TRUSTEE KING: Okah. That's what my notes say.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: T at's what I have down also.
25 TRUSTEE KING: It's just on the south side of the pond.
It's not on the perimeter but that's going to be shown on the
D
5
1 plans.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. DO you want me to go ahead and
2 make a resolution?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
3 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All ri~ht. Thomas Rattler requests an
Administrative permit to mow t e existing high grass and
4 sticker vines around the perimeter of the pond. Located:
Rockcove Estates, county Rt. 48, Greenport.
page 4
Southold 082306
5 We met him out at the site and he wants to, on the south
side of the pond and I make a motion we approve this subject
6 to receiving a new survey showin~ the limits of where he wants
to mow and showing the pond on t e survey.
7 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?
8 (ALL AYES.)
9 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Michael Kenin requests an
Administrative permit to trim the phragmites to 12 inches,
10 extending out three feet on both sides of he existing dock.
Located: 320 Lakeview Terrace, East Marion.
11 I went out and inspected the property and it's a minor
thing. He's just cutting it so he could walk out to the water
12 and I would make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
13 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
14
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Robert o'Brien, re~uests an
15 Administrative permit to construct a secon -story dormer
addition onto the existing dwelling. Located: 1955 Truman's
16 path, East Marion.
And once again I inspected it and I would make a motion
17 that we approve it with hay bales at the top of the bluff.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
18 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
19 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: valerie Marvin, Esq., on behalf of Alan
and Melissa Miller requests an Administrative Permit to trim
20 the phragmites to a 12-inch height in an area ahproximately
75x75 feet. Located: 1475 waterview Drive, sout old.
21 we all went out and inspected this and it's going to be
22 changed a little. we measured and it's ~oin~ to e 75 feet
wide, 200 feet deep, and the starting pOlnt lS going to be at
the cedar tree. So from the cedar tree toward the water,
23 which I don't have the file. I don't know which direction that
is.
24 TRUSTEE KING: 200 feet seaward.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 200 feet seaward, to mow u~ to 12 inches
25 in height and there will be an inspection to cal this office
when it is to take place and an inspection will be done during
D
6
1 -- do you want during or after?
TRUSTEE KING: Right after it's done.
2 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That was the idea.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Before they start. IS that what you
3 said?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to call when it's done.
4 MS. STANDISH: Jill, could you just repeat the
measurements?
5 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. It's 75-feet wide. They had that
staked. And 200 feet deep. There is a cedar tree, that's the
6 large cedar tree, we'll use that as the startinT point. So
200 feet seaward from the cedar tree they are a lowed to
7 clear. Because that's approximately to the edge of the
page 5
-----.----
------------- - ---------
southold 082306
wetlands. And if they need to clear a little bit further, we
8 can inspect it and come in and then measure the amount of
footage they need to clear.
9 TRUSTEE KING: And all it trimmings will be placed upland
and not left there. They will be removed and placed upland.
10 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Ri~ht. And all to be done by hand. So
we discussed it out in t e field and that's what we came up
11 with.
so I'll make a motion that we approve the trimming of
12 phra~mites to a 12-inch height from 75x200 feet deep starting
at t e cedar tree and inspection will be done afterwards.
13 This should all be done by hand and disposed of at an upland
site. DO we have a second?
14 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
15 (ALL AYES.)
16 TRUSTEE BERGEN: The next one is Anthony portillo on
behalf of william Grella requests an Administrative permit to
17 replace the decking on the existing deck, remove existin~
fence on both sides of the property, new concrete wall wlth
18 stone veneer, new concrete columns with stone veneer, new
mahogany fence, remove existing driveway and replace with
19 stone driveway. Located: 1200 First Street, New Suffolk.
This was a site visit that we did based upon a complaint
20 that came into the trustees. we all went out and looked at
it. There has been extensive work done without a permit
21 already. We also had Mr. Forester go out and take a look at
it. I talked to Mr. Forester today and it appears that this
22 one is extremely complicated because this is an incident, this
is a situation where the hresent owner, Mr. Grella, bought the
23 property and apparently t ere was work done without a permit
prior to him buying the property by the previous owner or
24 owners.
So Mr. Forester has asked that this file be completely
25 reviewed before any action is taken. clearly, Mr. Grella's
agents did work without a permit and so there is no doubt
D
7
1 about that. And for that he should come before us, I believe,
for a full permit and not just an amendment, because there is
2 no permit to amend. They are trying to track down what is
permitted there.
3 So my recommendation for this to the board is that this
be tabled and that Mr. Grella be asked to file a complete
4 permit request and it will also give us time, the town time,
5 to ~o back with the Buildin~ Department and research all the
wor , all the different proJects that were done bh the
previous owner. I have the file here, Gekee wick am is
6 the previous owner. Apparently there was a lot of work done
without any permits. So that's my recommendation at this
7 time.
The work that was allowed to continue the work that was
8 done, I believe Jim went out and told them the1 could finish
the drivewa1. when we were there they were un oading the
9 pavers to p ace on to the driveway and I believe, Jim, correct
me if I'm wrong, he gave them permission to finish.
Page 6
Southold 082306
10 TRUSTEE KING: when I went out there, it was about halfway
done out to the road and the young man told me his grandmother
11 lived there and because the driveway was not finished, she was
forced to park her car on the side of the street and it was
12 very inconvenient for her. so I could see no harm in
continuing out to the road only with the rest of the driveway
13 so she could pull in.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: NO other work beside that?
14 TRUSTEE KING: It's going to be tough to go back to the
previous owner to find out a out the permit process.
15 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: well, in any case, you made a motion to
table it, is that your motion?
16 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Actually, the motion should be to deny
the Administrative permit and advise the applicant to come in
17 for a full permit because there is a lot of different things
here, there are structures that have never been permitted and
18 so it's my feeling that the applicant should come in and
request a full permit.
19 One of the issues that we have in town right now is
people doing work without a permit, then coming in after the
20 fact, and it appears to be easy to rectify this when everhbody
else, including I'm sure a lot of people the sitting in t e
21 audience have ~one through the entire permit process and gone
throuah the palns and agony of that, and I don't think we
22 shoul make it simple for somebodh to simply go around us.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: well is t ere a letter about the
23 driveway? I understand why it's being done but it's being
done without the permit.
24 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Did you pick that up? If you would
repeat your comment so it s put on the record.
25 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You are saying, and I understand why
you are saying finish the driveway, but then we are denying
D
8
1 the permit, and if they don't have a permit, because of what
10U just said, do you want a letter from our -- do we have a
2 etter from our office saying we are allowing the driveway to
be finished because of the necessity --
3 TRUSTEE KING: why don't you approve an Administrative
permit for the driveway and request a full permit for the rest
4 of the work?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what I was thinking. Just give
5 them the driveway. If you deny it, they are still doing work
without a permit.
6 TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay. That makes sense to me.
TRUSTEE KING: Just approve the existing driveway and the
7 work that is being done on it as an Administrative permit but
the rest of it is a little more and it should have a full
8 permit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay. So just to clarify for the record
9 we'll act on --
TRUSTEE KING: And these will both be as-built permits, so
10 the fee doubles.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: what we are acting on is a request for an
11 Administrative Permit to replace just the driveway and so it
would be, the end here, remove eXlsting driveway and replace
12 with stone driveway as-built, so that that part of it is
page 7
Southold 082306
addressed.
13 TRUSTEE KING: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor?
14 (ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So the permit is for the driveway and
15 deny the rest.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So in the case of that, what I'll then
16 move is that the Grella hermit for Administrative Permit to
replace the decking on t e existing deck, remove existin~
17 fence on both sides of the property, new concrete wall wlth
stone veneer, new concrete columns with stone veneer, new
18 maho~any fence, will all be denied as an Administrative
permlt, and that the applicant be requested to please come in
19 for a full permit request for that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
20 TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
21 TRUSTEE BERGEN: opposed?
(NONE OPPOSED.)
22 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
23 TRUSTEE KING: Number six, Deborah Doty, Esq., on behalf
of Candice vadala requests an Administrative permit to install
24 a water line under existing roadway from Grant Blvd., also
known as Conklin Road, to their dwelling. Located 465 Farmer's
25 Road, Mattituck.
I looked at this. This is just simply the property owner
D
9
1 giving the next door neighbor permission to cross her property
with the water line. I recommend approval.
2 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
3 (ALL AYES.)
4 V. APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS:
5 TRUSTEE KING: This next section is apglication for
extensions and transfers and what we have een trying to do,
6 if they are really not problematic at all, if they are not
difficult, is a way of moving this meeting along a little
7 quicker than in the past, we try to lump these all to~ether
and approve them all in one shot. These are not publlc
8 hearings but if there is an1 in here that anybody here has a
comment to make about, we'l be happy to hear you. Just come
9 up to the microphone and identify yourself.
We have 12 of them. DO you want me to read them all off
10 or --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We have 11 of them.
11 TRUSTEE KING: DO we have to read them all off?
MR. JOHNSTON: NO. If an1body wants to see them, there are
12 copies right there in the bu letin.
TRUSTEE KING: So it's one through 12 under Amendments,
13 Extensions and Transfers, excluding number four, which was
postponed, and the only other thing is number six, Jeff
14 Hallock. This was a permit for a driveway and it's very close
to the wetlands. And part of the permit process was
Page 8
Southold 082306
15 installation of hay bales and a silt fence. I took a ride
down there and most of that is really deteriorated to the
16 point where it would not be effective.
so the only comment I want to make on the Jeff Hallock,
17 number six, the one-year extension is fine but the hay bales
and silt fence has to be replaced upon starting of
18 construction. If he starts it. other than that, I would make
a motion to approve all 12.
19 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
20 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on. Just to note. I received today
a note in my box, a letter that I thought was, concerned
21 number two, Barbara Hoch. Let me just double check that for a
second. (perusing.)
22 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I tried to call that lady. She didn't
return my call.
23 MR. JOHNSTON: Jack, you looked at that property, number
two.
24 TRUSTEE BERGEN: was this the one there was also a permit
request for a building or am I confused on it?
25 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This was for a sea wall, according to
the plan. No, you are thinking of another one.
D
10
1 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Then I apologize. I just wanted to make
sure we didn't jump over something we received a letter for.
2 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: NO, that was Hawkins.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay. Yes, you're right, I apologize.
3 Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we had anything on any of
4 these.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, it was Hawkins. I ~ust wanted to make
5 sure we didn't approve something somebody 0 jected to.
TRUSTEE KING: Motion to approve?
6 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
7 (ALL AYES.)
MR. HACKIO: Thomas Hackio (sic) from the Meadows at
8 Greenport LLC. Number 12. I heard somebody say it was
postponed and somebody say it was all approved. IS it all
9 approved?
TRUSTEE KING: NO, this was an application to build a
10 house that we approved, I think, a year or so ago that was
approved.
11 MR. HACKIO: Right. From the Cassis'. And we bought the
property. Then we ought the property from them.
12 TRUSTEE KING: That's just the transfer. The transfer was
approved.
13 MR. HACKIO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: That's it for public hearings, right?
14 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right.
TRUSTEE KING: I need a motion to hold regular hearings.
15 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
16 (ALL AYES.)
17 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Page 9
----------
----- --------
southold 082306
18 TRUSTEE KING: These are our wetland permit applications
now. These are public hearings. If anhone has a comment, pro
19 or con about these, please come up to t e microphone and
identify yourself for the record and we'll hear you out.
20
Number one, carol witschieben and Janet witschieben
21 Larsen request a wetland permit to construct a two-story
addition to the existing one-family dwelling on pilings;
22 construct a one-car garage; enlarge the existing patio by
three feet in width; rebuild the existinT covered porch;
23 install a 14x30 foot gunite swimming poo with cement walkway
around pool; repair/rebuild existing driveway with asphalt and
24 stone; convert part of the pre-existin~ driveway into a cement
patio around pool; install new stone clrcular driveway;
25 relandscape property with trees, grass shrubs and flowers;
replace existing cement walkways removed during demolition
D
11
1 work and; replace the existing outdoor shower. Located: 1000
Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck.
2 Is there anyone here to comment on this application?
MS. WEIR: Hi. Catherine Weir. The applicants are here to
3 answer anh questions. They brought me in late in the game
4 because t ey had such a hard time throu~hout the process, that
I just want to make sure, help them finlsh up.
The only issue I ~ust want to hut on the record is the
5 ultimate location of t e pool and t e garage might shift
around some, but it would be no closer than what is shown. So
6 ultimately there will be some deviation but I want to put it
on the record so that down the line if the Building Department
7 says they moved it five feet over, ~o back, we can say, no,
no, it was in the transcript we mig t be moving it around.
8 TRUSTEE KING: we all went out and looked at this. There
were some changes made, some construction we looked at. I went
9 out and looked at it again. I think the plans are pretty
detailed, they show everything. we were there.
10 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Was the pool here when we looked at it?
TRUSTEE KING: NO, when we were there all we looked at was
11 the one little side one side of the house. we ~ave them I
think we gave them an administrative permit to ix that.
12 Everything is behind the house.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: we didn't discuss the pool when we
13 were there.
TRUSTEE KING: NO, we didn't see any of this when we were
14 there.
MS. WEIR: The pool is going in the area of where the
15 blacktop is of the driveway.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: HOw far away is it from --
16 TRUSTEE KING: It's just about in line with the front of
the house. The patio is in line with the front of the house.
17 MR. JOHNSTON: Has there been an authorization from the
applicant?
18 TRUSTEE KING: I don't know.
MS. WEIR: I'll hrovide one for you.
19 MR. JOHNSTON: T e two ladies are here. They can orally
give it now.
page 10
----- --- --- - - -----
southold 082306
20 TRUSTEE KING: Does she have permission to represent you?
MS. WEIR: Believe me, I'm not just here for fun.
21 MS. WITSCHIEBEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Like I said, I looked it over, all the
22 additions are landward of the existing house. I didn't have a
problem with any of it, to be quite honest. If you want to
23 move the pool back a little bit, that could be done.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is it impervious?
24 TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's asphalt now. Do you want to make
them rip it out?
25 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: NO, they are doing a whole new --
MS. WEIR: IS there a question?
D
12
1 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: we are discussing the driveway. Make
it a pervious instead of asphalt.
2 TRUSTEE KING: If it's going to be asphalt, I would like
to see drainage for it to take care of runoff from the
3 driveway so it doesn't go out into the road. I don't have a
problem with the asphalt as lon~ as there is drainage for it.
4 MS. WEIR: I would say, ultlmatelb, if it ends up, it
might end up, it may end up either co blestone or grass.
5 That's whh they are deciding where the pool is going to go
because t ey might need a landscaped area rather than
6 driveway.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Dave had a comment to make.
7 TRUSTEE BERGEN: The question was would the applicants
consider this new ~art of the driveway, looks like a half
8 moon, almost circu ar part, that that would not be asphalt,
that that would be pervious.
9 MS. WEIR: It's going to be stone, yes. It's only the
straight part is going to be the ashhalt.
10 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Great. Any ot er comments from the
audience?
11 (NO response.)
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
12 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you want to talk about the CAC?
TRUSTEE KING: sorrb, I didn't even look at it.
13 (Perusing.) CAC ta led the application. It was not
staked. The project was unclear.
14 Jack do 10U want to come up and look at the plans? Did
you see the pans?
15 MR. MCGREEVY: I recused myself from the inshection.
whatever the CAC recommendations are, you have t em in front
16 of you.
TRUSTEE KING: They just tabled it because it was not
17 staked. I would like to say all the construction is landward
of the house, between the house and the road. Environmently, I
18 can't see, it havin~ any effect on anything, really. But it
was tabled. I thin it's consistent.
19 TRUSTEE BERGEN: It is consistent.
TRUSTEE KING: So with that, we close the hearing. I'll
20 make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
21 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
22 TRUSTEE KING: I make a motion to approve the application
page 11
Southold 082306
as submitted and if there is a requirement to move the pool,
23 it can just be an amendment.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: second.
24 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
25
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number two, Proper-T Permit Services
D
13
1 on behalf of Don Jayamaha re~uests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 4x63 foot fixed ock, 4x16 foot ramp and 6x20 foot
2 floatin~ dock. Located: 243 Maiden Lane, Mattituck.
ThlS has been going on for a while and I think we finally
3 got it set. Jim and I went out there last week and staked it
and measured it and gave Mr. FitzTerald the measurements.
4 IS there anyone here who wou d like to speak to this
application?
5 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. I'm just giving a representation
the suggestion that you, Jim, at the last meeting looked at it
6 and I would like to -- it's all fine. The fact that that 90
feet, that long rectangle, represents the whole structure was
7 that 90 feet. The water is out to 6'6". For another ten feet
we can get, you have ten feet of water, based on more in line
8 and as I represented there, this is what this is all about, is
the distance between the dock and the, the docks and boats
9 across the wah. And as I have indicated on there, at 100 feet
overall lengt of dock and boat, or dock, depending on whether
10 it's a "T" or strai~ht configuration, is 105 feet. which
ought to be enough or the joining boats that is docked there
11 now.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: what we were trying to do is stick
12 with our rule of boat at the dock, no more than a third across
the width of that waterway. If you want to come up here, this
13 is a little different than what we were trying to explain. We
wanted the dock angled to the piling there more like this
14 (i ndi cati ng)
MR. FITZGERALD: which is the way we had it.
15 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: originally. But it was over here
16 more. so that's what I'm sayin~, originally, and then turn
the float around where you had lt originally. You know, where
you had it on some kind of angle like that. Um, and ~o, start
17 out here and go toward here, no more than 90 feet wit the
boat at the dock.
18 So according to this survey that you have, you have
different -- (perusing.)
19 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jill and Jim, I'm just confused. what we
were just given, is that different from what you two --
20 TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
21 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Thank you. What was it that you
two proposed?
22 TRUSTEE KING: We wanted the dock angled toward that one
pile at the west end of the float.
23 TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is all I had in front of me.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is the line Jim just drew. We want
24 it on an angle to the property because we try to keep the
structures at least 15 feet off the sidelines. If you are
page 12
--------
Southold 082306
25 going out here, you are crossin~ over.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on. I you just let her finish,
D
14
1 please.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The start of the structure is 30 feet
2 off. All right. And then we ask that you go on an angle
toward that hiling so as it goes out it doesn't cross over to
3 -- I know t e property line, the property owners don't own
out here but we try to keep it as it extends out into the
4 water.
TRUSTEE KING: That's not necessarily, true, Jill.
5 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: NO? why?
TRUSTEE KING: There is a whole formula for property
6 lines. Years ago everhbody extended them out on the same
angle. If 10U have a cannel that runs here, it goes
7 perpendicu ar and the lines change as you go out.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, that's why I thought we decided we
8 wanted --
TRUSTEE KING: what we have done is kind of like a happy
9 medium of everything. And when I was out there, it seems to
me I was at 85 feet and had over two feet of water.
10 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we measured two feet of water at 85
feet.
11 TRUSTEE KING: And the oriTinal pole --
MR. FITZGERALD: That was ow water?
12 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: This was about half hour before low tide
13 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And Dr. Jayamaha was there.
TRUSTEE KING: Some of the confusion on this is, the first
14 time we went out there, we had an application I think was 63
foot catwalk. And the first time we went out there we saw a
15 stake in the water. And that was the end of the dock. And we
all said that's awfully far out. well, I measured it. It was
16 105 feet to the original stake. Now, why would they put a
stake out at 105 feet for a 65-foot catwalk? That's what all
17 of us went down and looked and said why is this out so far?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And Dr. Jayamaha said the surveyor was
18 the one who placed that stake
MR. FITZGERALD: AS far as we know.
19 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As far as we know, yes.
MR. FITZGERALD: Because at other times we placed stakes
20 and they are missing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This was at low tide we went and the
21 stake was there. whether that was the stake he planted or
that's the stake that has been there forever, we don't know
22 TRUSTEE KING: That's the original stakes we went out and
looked at the first time.
23 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we would like to see this structure like
that on more of an an~le this way and with the boat at the
24 dock no more than 90 eet out from the starting stake, which
we gave you the dimensions of 110 feet from the northwest
25 corner of the house is the startin~ stake. So you start there,
go on an angle toward the piling t at is at this dock, kind of
Page 13
- __ ____ _____n_ n__n ________
Southold 082306
D
15
1 use that as your line and you could place the dock that way
and then move, you can then angle the float.
2 TRUSTEE KING: Mr. Jayamaha seemed verh happy with that.
He understood it. AS a matter of fact he elped us in the
3 field. He seemed happy with it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So the dock and boat will be maximum 90
4 feet out from that stake.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. From the stake that is 110 feet
5 from the northwest corner of the house.
MR. FITZGERALD: And this is 30 feet we measured and
6 that's where the stake is. so it will be measured from that
corner. we'll be hahPy to do it. More than haPhY.
7 TRUSTEE KING: T at's our goal, to keep you appy.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: okay, so is there any other comment
8 from anybody?
(NO response.)
9 Is there any comment from the board?
TRUSTEE KING: I think we beat it to death enough.
10 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: okay, the LWRP is consistent. CAC, I
don't think has commented on this. Their original -- did not
11 make an inspection. That was March of 2006, when you
originally got the paperwork. I don't believe you've gotten
12 the umpteen millionth updates.
Being no further comment, I make a motion to close the
13 public hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
14 TRUSTEE KING: Just as an afterthought, if there is any
confusion with the dock builder, I would be happy to TO out
15 and help him make sure the location is right. or Jil or any
trustee.
16 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have a second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
17 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Before I make a motion, does anybodb
have a problem with me makin~ a motion to approve this su ject
18 to receiving new plans now t at we think we are all clear on
this?
19 TRUSTEE KING: NO. we have to have new ~lans.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All right, then 1'1 make a motion,
20 I'll read it. Proper-T Permit services on behalf of Don
Jayamaha refuests a Wetland permit to construct a 4x63 foot
21 dock, 4x16 oot ramp and 6x20 foot floating dock. The starting
point of the structure will be 110 feet from the northwest
22 corner of the house and 30 feet from the west corner of the
property and will go out on an angle toward the hiling
23 directly across the waterway. The structure wit the boat on
it will not exceed 90 feet out into the waterway. And this is
24 all subject to receiving revised plans noting same.
And the fixed dock, the ramp and the float, with the boat
25 on it will not be more than 90 feet out into the waterway,
starting from the fixed point which we located.
D
16
page 14
-------- ---------- ---
Southold 082306
1 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Not into the waterway but starting
from the fixed point. Yes, that's important.
2 TRUSTEE KING: what size was that original ramp? I just
thought of something.
3 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: 16.
TRUSTEE KING: You might want to suggest, rather than
4 16-foot ramp, a 20-foot ramp, because we have almost, we've
got, avera~e of five, five-and-a-half feet of rise and fall of
5 tide. 16 oot of ramp is goinT to be pretty steep, as long as
it doesn't affect the overall en~th.
6 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make t at motion subject to
receiving the new survey. Then after the structure is built,
7 to submit the overall length of each individual section of the
structure so we could make that part of the permit. I figure
8 once the contractor comes in and they figure out what the
length is --
9 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: After it's filled?
TRUSTEE KING: Rather than a 16-foot ramp, it's a 20-foot
10 ramp.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: what Mr. Fitzgerald is sabing it might
11 not be a 63-foot dock. It might be 60. It might e 65.
Because they don't know what the length of the 90 feet.
12 so the overall, once the contractor figures out what the
overall length is going to be on these three sections, to put
13 it in writing and give it to the office.
So for now the permit, I'll approve a dock, a ramp, a
14 float, not to extend more than 90 feet out into the water from
the fixed point of 110 feet from the northwest corner of the
15 house and 30 feet from the west corner.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, not 90 feet extending out into the
16 water. For clarity, 90 feet from the fixed point.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 90 feet from the fixed point and after
17 the contractor Toes out there and surveys it and fi~ures out
what the overal length of the dock, the ramp and t e float
18 are, there will be submitted to the office in writing of the
exact dimensions.
19 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
20 (ALL AYES.)
21 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll do the next one.
Robert Bassolino, architect, on behalf of John and Marie shack
22 requests a wetland Permit to construct an extension to connect
existing residence to detached garage and add a second floor.
23 Located: 1265 shore Drive, Greenport.
Is there anyone here that would like to speak for this
24 application?
MR. BASSOLINO: Good evening. At the last meeting the
25 board had five comments which on 11 August, sent a letter in
covering five items; the extension toward the bulkhead is
D
17
1 being reduced by five feet; the drawing indicates that's being
done.
2 In addition you want the location of the adjacent
buildings to plan dated 7/24/06. That indicates that you
3 wanted a 10-foot wide non-planted area from the bulkhead. The
Page 15
-
southold 082306
plan also shows that. And on the survey indicates a proposed
4 construction and licensed surveyor was retained and a survey
was submitted and the last item, the septic and storm system
5 would be indicated on the drawings.
If the board has any questions on these, I would be glad
6 to address them.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The only question I have is just the
7 way you phrased "no planting within the ten feet." YOU can
plant, but ~ust no turf, grass that's fertilized. If you want
8 to put beac grass, you want to put Rosa Rugosa. we are not
saying don't plant anything. It's just that we don't want
9 grass that needs to be fertilized. You might want something
nice, feel free to do that.
10 MR. BASSOLINO: That's my misunderstanding.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's all, I just didn't want you to
11 limit yourself.
MR. BASSOLINO: Thank you.
12 TRUSTEE BERGEN: while we are looking for site plans, as
far as the septic, I just want to say I appreciate the fact
13 that you came back with something that was moved back, that
was, I know a lot of heople weren't here last month, that was
14 a request of the neig bors, and we also felt that was
important, so I appreciate the fact you moved it back and you
15 are doing whatever you can to retain as many of the trees as
possible. I appreciate that also.
16 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: DO you have to get a DEC permit for
this also?
17 MR. BASSOLINO: DEC permit has been filed. The comment
was we could indicate the dock was existing prior -- that the
18 bulkhead was existing prior. Aerial photographs was obtained
from Nassau Suffolk printing and was sent to them. The onlh
19 problem is the person that was handlin~ it at the DEC and t e
person they sent it to got so much wor they can't get to it.
20 They said it shouldn't e a problem. we have a survey saying
the bulkhead was existing two years after that point. The
21 survey would show that. The complete application was filed in
addition to that.
22 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I see.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: CAC recommended approval of the
23 application with the condition dry wells and gutters are
installed to contain roof runoff.
24 MR. FITZGERALD: There is a drawing that Indicates the
drywells.
25 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: CAC also recommends 20 foot non-turf
buffer.
D
18
1 MR. FITZGERALD: We discussed ten foot, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And replacement of the trees that would
2 be taken down. we talked about the trees out front. But I
think hOU are removing the little alcove.
3 T e CAC also recommend the trustees address the asbestos
siding on the dwelling and review the alignment with the
4 neigh oring houses. Again, is there plans to change them?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Its been bumped back about ten feet.
5 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's back, so it's in line so a lot of
the trees don't have to be removed.
Page 16
----
Southold 082306
6 TRUSTEE KING: What about the disposal of the asbestos
siding?
7 MR. FITZGERALD: That's not goinT to be an issue. Any
asbestos handling will be done bh a icensed, certified
8 asbestos removal. It's not somet ing that anyone would take
lightly.
9 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: what about the septic?
MR. FITZGERALD: It's on the drawing dated 24 August. I'm
10 sorry, it's on the site plan.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right here.
11 MR. FITZGERALD: If you look toward the front of the
building; leaching pool, septic tank and drywell.
12 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other questions from the board?
(NO res~onse.)
13 Is there anyone e se here tonight to speak for this
application?
14 (NO response.)
Or against this application?
15 MS. HEARST: My name is Catherine Hearst. I'm the next
door neighbor. I was wondering about the accessory apartment
16 on the second floor of the garage, or is that done by the
zoning board?
17 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's done by the zoning board and
Building Department.
18 TRUSTEE BERGEN: As well as any setback issues from the
side line, that's also done by the zoning board
19 MS. HEARST: And if the gara~e is extended, made larger,
that also goes to them? It's gOlng back toward the bay. I
20 think it's larger. I don't know, there are no measurements.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Have you seen this?
21 MS. PURSE: I saw this. I'm trying to figure out if the
garage is longer than it was originally. It's kind of hard to
22 tell.
What's goin~ on with that, this will be closed in, so
23 it's ~oin~, not urther back. My house is way over here.
This lS w at was moved back. So it's moved in line with the
24 houses. The house line is the line --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The question is the garage, i sit bei ng
25 moved?
MS. HEARST: IS it going back.
0
19
1 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We are just looking at the plans as
they are submitted.
2 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The plans as the1 are submitted here,
you'll have to address that with the Bui ding Department.
3 I think that answers your questions. Anybody else from
the floor with any comments?
4 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Just when you do make a motion make it
consistent so you should cover -- okay.
5 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to close the
heari ng.
6 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?
7 (ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve John and
8 Marie Shack's request for wetland permit to construct an
Page 17
Southold 082306
extension to connect the existing residence to detached garage
9 and add a second floor as per the new plans submitted
10/24/06. Also with the comments from CAC for gutters -- and
10 hay bales, did we talk about hay bales when we were there?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: put them in.
11 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Require hah bales. Did you have plans
for hay bales to put in front of t e house during
12 construction, seaward side of the house?
MR. FITZGERALD: For non-grassy area?
13 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: NO, during construction. Temporary
during construction.
14 MR. FITZGERALD: Not a problem, the ha1 bales.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And I think we fee that we have
15 addressed the, a couple of issues that we are concerned about
were a number of large oaks along the front, seaward side of
16 the house, so those trees are not going to be removed now. We
also brought back that one bump out from what the one-story
17 addition that is now in line with the existin~ deck and so
that we have aligned that with the policies 0 the old LWRP.
18 I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
19 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
20
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: En-Consultants on behalf of Adrienne
21 Landau requests a wetland Permit to renovate, partially
restructure and expand the existin~ one-story, three-bedroom
22 dwelling into proposed two-stor1, our-bedroom dwelling;
replace existing ~ool patio; re ocate and uPTrade sanitary
23 system; and insta 1 draina~e system of drywe ls. Located: 855
Soundview Avenue, Mattituc .
24 IS is there anyone here to speak on this application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-Consultants, on behalf of the
25 applicant Adrienne Landau.
This is an application that would not ordinarily have
0
20
1 come before the board but for the chan~e in the wetland code
that included bluff crest as part of t e definition of the
2 wetlands. The hro~ect is actually entirely located more than
100 feet from t e ulkhead that fronts Long Island Sound.
3 It's also landing in the coastal erosion area.
Nevertheless, the project will consist of a renovation
4 and partial restructuring of the existing dwelling which will
then also be extended southward toward Soundview Avenue.
5 There was actually some extensive discussion with the Building
Department by the architect. I'm sure that the project does
6 not require anb variance from the zonina board and that is
being ensured y the fact that the buil ing will not be
7 constructed any closer than the existing setback to the crest
of the bluff.
8 The house is being extended, in effect, around the east
side of the existing pool, which will remain. The pool patio
9 is to be replaced inkind and in-place. AS mitigation for the
10 site, there is a draina~e system of drywells that has been
proposed and that's depleted on the site plan. There will be
an upgraded, relocated sanitary system designed to accommodate
Page 18
Southold 082306
11 the new dwelling and site disturbance will be contained and
kept awa1 from the bluff area and coastal erosion area by
12 project imiting fence and staked hay bales will be set in
place and maintained throughout construction.
13 I know that the code was changed because the trustees
used to have concerns about, I think, primarily, in clearing
14 or filling and construction on previously wooded lots where it
would then translate into problems down the bluff. This is a
15 completely developed site. There is no new clearing
proposed. There is no new fill or excavation proposed in that
16 area around the bluff and, again, there will be a minimum of a
ten-foot site disturbance setback from the top of the bluff
17 during construction.
If the board has anb other questions I can answer them
18 but otherwise it should e a pretty straight-forward
application.
19 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, it is. I inspected it and the
vegetation on that bluff is excellent and everything is
20 landward of the existing structures. I have no -- everhthing
seems to be complete; you have plenty of drywells for t e
21 drainage and runoff and you put everything we would have asked
for on it.
22 Are there any other comments before I read the filing?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The description doesn't mention
23 driveway but on the dia~ram it does have proposed driveway.
IS that some other appllcation?
24 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's on the site plan but it's way out
of our jurisdiction. And it does say "pervious," I believe.
25 MR. HERMAN: Actually there is a proposed drivewak. They
have not decided whether to pave it or to put in bloc s or
0
21
1 stone. Because it is so far out of your jurisdiction, we told
them we didn't need to commit ourselves.
2 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Exactly. And it slopes toward the
road, it doesn't even slope toward the water.
3 MR. HERMAN: And that's the reason they may do some sort
of paver stone or something otherwise it would run into the
4 street.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right, and they have to contain the
5 runoff from that on their property.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are these steps?
6 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, that's a walkway. This is all
wooded here, and it's a walkway. That's the second-story
7 addition on that.
CAC recommends approval, of course with the condition of
8 drywells and gutters to contain roof runoff. The hool is
existing and the LWRP comment was to, apparent11 t ey thouaht
9 it was a proposed pool and being a proposed poo they aske
for it to be moved back. But it's an existing pool that has
10 been there and they are just replacing the patio around the
pool.
11 MR. HERMAN: The site plan pretty clearly says existing
in-ground pool to remain and then proposed patio to replace --
12 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And I believe the pool is basically
out of our jurisdiction. It's close.
13 MR. HERMAN: It's within your jurisdiction as defined by
Page 19
-- - --------------------------- - -------------------------- ---
southold 082306
the crest of bluff. In fact, it's a good reference point
14 because the landward side of the pool patio is about where
your jurisdiction ends.
15 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All right. Is there any other comment
from the board or anyone?
16 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is it pervious, the patio?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It is to be -- what did you say that
17 the patio around the pool is ~oi~g to be?
TRUSTEE KING: It says eXlstlng stone now.
18 MR. HERMAN: Existing stone patio and I don't know the
material that they are goin~ to use. I doubt very much it
19 would be pervious because t e only way to do that would be to
not have cement joists.
20 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But they have all the dr~ells around
and the runoff from that will go into the drywel s. They have
21 plenty of -- okay.
I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
22 TRUSTEE BERGEN: second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?
23 (ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the
24 project for En-Consultants on behalf of Adrienne Landau as
submitted and survey dated July 31. Do I have a second?
25 TRUSTEE KING: second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?
0
22
1 (ALL AYES.)
MR. HERMAN: Thank you.
2 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And I mentioned that the LWRP found it
3 inconsistent because of the pool was -- they thouVht it was a
proposed pool, and it's an existing pool. And it s an
existing structure. And he's adding the drywells around it
4 and that's mitigating any runoff. So we find it consistent. I
make that part of the resolution. And it's also within a
5 hundred feet, so it would be found inconsistent because of the
hundred feet. And we have mitigated by havin~ all the
6 drywells and the runoff will be hlaced into t e drywells.
what I'm trying to say is t e trustees find it not to be
7 inconsistent because we have mitigated with placing drywells
on the survey and to contain the runoff.
8 MR. HERMAN: Jill, just one quick comment. In the newly
rewritten 97, the trustees established, actually, certain
9 setbacks for certain structures, includin~ for swimming hools,
a 50-foot setback from wetlands. So Jim ad mentioned t at
10 the trustees are looking at some of these code nuances and
things. You have to find a way when you do this so 10U don't
11 have the plannin~ board staff findin~ a swimming poo that is
almost 200-feet rom wetlands inconslstent with LWRP even
12 though it exceeds your required setback by 150 feet. It
doesn't make any sense from an agency perspective and if the
13 town ever finds itself in a ~osition of litigation, it's not
going to make an1 sense at a 1. Because a lot of these
14 proposals actual y meet and exceed your setbacks set forth in
97, even for administrative permits, and you still have a
15 planning Board staff findin~ them inconsistent with the LWRP.
so with that kind of flnding, a lawyer will tell you that
page 20
Southold 082306
16 your code is inconsistent with the LWRP which certainly
doesn't pay you very much respect.
17 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: well, actually the state came down
last wednesday and met with the five trustees and with Mark
18 and that's being pursued.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: we recognize it.
19 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The pro lem as recognized is being
pursued.
20 MR. HERMAN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I had a second. I think Jim
21 seconded?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
22 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
23 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you.
24 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Number five, Regi weile, architect, on
behalf of Irwin seigel requests a Wetland permit to construct
25 an addition to the existina residence and to repair the
existing residence. Locate: 17327 Main Road, East Marion.
0
23
1 IS there anyone who wishes to speak for this particular
application?
2 MS. WElLE: Yes. Regi weile, architect. we have filed
for DEC for aphroval permit and the Health Department for
3 expansion of t e septic system. we also have an updated survey
which is consistent with what we have had in the past but the
4 surveyor has marked it.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Okay. Is there anybody else who
5 wishes to comment on this application?
(NO response.)
6 I inspected this particular house. It's way back from
the water. Another one that is, similar to what Rob just
7 said, it's way back from the high tide mark but it's near the
beach. The beach extends a great distance. It's still a
8 considerable distance behind. There is a wooded area between
it and there is absolutely no environmental challenge by this
9 project.
The CAC didn't inspect it and the LWRP found it
10 consistent. So I will make a motion to close the hearing if
there are no other comments.
11 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor?
12 (ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I make a motion to approve the
13 application of Irwin siegel to construct an addition to
existing residence and to repair the same residence.
14 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: second.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor?
15 (ALL AYES.)
16 TRUSTEE KING: Number six, John Ehlers on behalf of Ken
childs requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace the
17 existing bulkhead one foot higher and with vinyl sheathing.
Located: 530 South Oakwood Drive, Laurel.
18 Anyone here to comment on this application.
page 21
Southold 082306
MR. EHLERS: John Ehlers. Good evening, my name is John
19 Ehlers. I have an affidavit of posting.
I'm an old family friend of the childs' so I told Ken
20 that I would come here tonight because he lives in New Jersey,
so. The house and bulkhead have been there for quite a while
21 and the1 want to replace it. It needs replacing. And his
mother ives in the house now. she has Alzheimer's and lives
22 there with care. He lives down in New Jersey, so that's why
I'm here.
23 TRUSTEE KING: I looked at this. Are there any other
comments on this application?
24 (NO response.)
CAC recommended approval with the condition of a
25 ten-foot, non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead, which is what I
had recommended also when I went out. I had no problem with
0
24
1 it. It's a straight-forward replacement. The only thing that
I would request, there is an old cement block footing in front
2 of the bulkhead on the western end of the bulkhead. I would
like to see that removed during the construction. Get rid of
3 that old concrete.
MR. EHLERS: Yes.
4 TRUSTEE KING: And the rest of it, ten-foot non-Turf
buffer behind it will be fine.
5 MR. EHLERS: Great.
TRUSTEE KING: If there is no other comments, I make
6 motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
7 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
8 TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the
application with the stipulation that a ten-foot, non-turf
9 buffer behind the bulkhead and the removal of the old concrete
footing that is just seaward of the bulkhead at the western
10 end of it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
11 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
12 MR. EHLERS: Thank you.
13 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number seven. Samuels & Steelman
Architects on behalf of steven Benfield and sheila Patel
14 requests a Wetland Permit to renovate and construct additions
to the existing residence, construct a new swimming pool,
15 teraces, fence and accessory building. Located: 19965
Soundview Avenue, southold.
16 Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this
application?
17 MS. STEELMAN: Good evening, my name is Nancy Steelman
from Samuels & Steelman Architects here to answer any
18 questions, address any concerns that you mi~ht have.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: we did have some questlons. The entire
19 board did go and look at this. Ri~ht now the pool is
approximately 55-feet from the blu f, which is fairly close.
20 An idea that we want to propose, and I don't have a diagram
here --
page 22
Southold 082306
21 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me. Did you get a call from our
office in this last week?
22 MS. STEELMAN: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You did. okay.
23 TRUSTEE BERGEN: We were wondering if there was an
ohPortunity -- we understand you have the pool and you have
24 t e accessory building between the pool and the road and there
could be some setback issues there from the road, if there was
25 an opportunity to swing the accessory building around, hence
being able to pull the pool back slightly and also possibly
0
25
1 reducing the size of the stone terrace that is currently
between the new pool and accessory building.
2 we are not sa1ing remove the stone terrace, just remove
it with the overal goal of trying to move the pool farther
3 back from the bluff.
MS. STEELMAN: Yes, we did do some diagrams, sketches if
4 you would like to see what we have.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Excellent. I would love to see what you
5 have.
MS. STEELMAN: we have two different scenarios, one is
6 actuallb turning the building and maintainin~ that side with
the set ack. And so this is an alternative 0 bringing the
7 size of the pool down and potentially even changing it there
to that direction, they would rather not but, and go with a
8 30-foot pool instead of 36 and we try to maintain ten feet off
the garage and the pool.
9 TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's the difference. Just for the
record, the difference between these two optional plans is the
10 one plan has the option of a ten foot hatio, I'll call it,
between the pool and the garage, and t e other one shows, it
11 looks like 3'4" inches.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did you say reduce the pool?
12 MS. STEELMAN: we can reduce the pool on the original,
it's actually reduced here.
13 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So these two are already reduced.
MS. STEELMAN: They are already reduced.
14 TRUSTEE BERGEN: correct.
MS. STEELMAN: NOw what we would also do is we would have
15 the shallow end of the pool on the bluff side, four feet
down. we have currently from the house, eight feet off
16 existing grade. So we at least try to maintain something so
that we are not too close with the excavation.
17 TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay, thank you. IS there anybody else
here who would like to speak for or against this application?
18 (NO response.)
seein~ nobody running to the microphone, the CAC on this
19 did not ma e an inspection, therefore no recommendation was
made.
20 The LWRP found it inconsistent and the reason they found
it inconsistent was the fact that they are saying that they
21 require, the LWRP requires a minimum of a 50-foot setback with
the pool. So the reason they found it inconsistent is exactly
22 what we have talked about here.
I would be interested in hearinT opinions from the board
23 on these two options. One option wi 1 result in it being
page 23
Southold 082306
40-foot back and the other is the option of being 50-foot
24 back.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would like to keep with the 50-foot
25 setback. Is the stone going the same as the original plan
around the four sides.
0
26
1 MS. STEELMAN: It definitely would go along the bluff
side. We can bring that back to a certain degree. With the
2 pool there we may not need that much. She's Tot some doors
coming out of the house to the terrace as wel . Although we
3 don't want to cut it back too much.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can have them put an extra drywell
4 over there to that side.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: One option has moved back to 50. This
5 option has it moved back to 40. That would leave a ten-foot
terrace in here on the one option and a 3'4" terrace in the
6 other option.
MS. STEELMAN: we can also come back with the pool at 30
7 feet, ~ive you two more feet, so it would be a total of 42
feet 0 f the bluff line in that one area.
8 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bear with us.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You mentioned you can change the shape
9 of the pool to get a little more distance between the garage
and the pool? Isn't that what they call a kidney
10 shaped-pool? It just seems to fit that space.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay, for the board, we have another
11 ohtion. First off, for the applicant, as a compromise, would
t e applicant consider reducing, gOin~ with the o~tion that is
12 ri~ht now, the ten-foot terrace, whic would resu t in it
belng 40-foot back, reduce that terrace to five foot so it's
13 45-foot back, in essence splitting the difference. Is that
something the applicant would first consider?
14 MS. STEELMAN: I think theh would. I think we can scale
back the pool in addition to t at or as part of that change
15 and maintaining --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, if we were to ask the garage to be
16 turned and then this chan~e to a distance from the bluff to
the pool of 45 feet, and lf that means reducing the pool in
17 some ways, the applicant would be willing to do that, is that
something the board would entertain as an option here; as a
18 compromise so to speak?
MS. STEELMAN: Being the house existing where it is, I
19 would not have a problem with that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay, here is what I'm hearing the
20 majorit1 of the board is willing to do is to consider an
approva of this with the garage turned and the pool reduced
21 so that the result of these two changes will mean that the
distance from the bluff to the pool will be 45 feet. I just
22 want to make sure we all understand that before I get to
closing it. We would want to make sure on the house, again,
23 there are, and I'm sure it's in here, the drhwell and gutters,
and that there is staked hay bales between t e house and the
24 bluff.
MS. STEELMAN: Along the bluff line, okab.
25 TRUSTEE BERGEN: correct, all along the luff line,
because we are not only talking construction of the house,
page 24
southold 082306
0
27
1 we've also got the pool. So we want it the length of the
property.
2 Does everyone agree with those stipulations?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. And drywells for the ~001.
3 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I believe there was a drywe 1 in here
planned for the pool.
4 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought there was, but.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If there are no other comments, I'll make
5 a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
6 TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor?
(ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DICKERSON, NAY.)
7 MS. STEELMAN: And I'll resubmit a drawing stating --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on. So please show one nay closing
8 the public hearing. At this point I would like to make a
motion to aphrove application number seven as stated Samuels &
9 Steelman Arc itects on behalf Steve Benfield and Sheila Patel
as stated, with the additions of drywell, gutter on the house,
10 staked hay bales going all the way across the front of the
property -- when I say the front, I mean toward the Sound --
II and that it will be subject to the plans being submitted that
will show that the garage and the pool have been -- the garage
12 has been reconfigured and the pool has been reduced to result
in a distance of 45-foot setback between the bluff and the
13 pool and, in doing this, the trustees find it not to be
inconsistent. We have mitigated the inconsistency with the
14 LWRP. And I make that motion. Do I hear a second?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
15 TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor?
(ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DICKERSON, NAY.)
16 TRUSTEE BERGEN: opposed?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: opposed.
17
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Land use Ecological services, Inc., on
18 behalf of James and Eileen Buglion requests a wetland permit
to construct a 4x10 foot catwalk, 3x15 foot ramg and 6x20 foot
19 floating dock elevated a minimum of four feet a ove tidal
wetlands and supported bb four six-inch diameter piles. The
20 float will be su~ported y a four six-inch diameter piles and
the docking faci ity will be accessed via a four-foot wide by
21 155-foot lon~ natural cleared path. Located: 2520 Clearview
Avenue, Sout old.
22 IS there anybody here to speak to behalf of this
application?
23 MR. HALL: Good evening. Dan Hall, Land Use
Ecological services for James and Eileen Buglion. I believe
24 the trustees have visited the site and it's my understanding
that the draina~e issues have been adequately addressed, as
25 have been broug t up at the last meeting.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The drainage issues have, as far as the
0
page 25
Southold 082306
28
1 trustees, have been addressed. I think there is still issues
with the town and I believe the town attorney and the town
2 engineer were supposed to already get in touch with the
ap~licant with regard to moving the berm back. Because they
3 be ieve he put the berm right on top of the French drain, and
we asked them to handle that, because as far as we are
4 concerned, the runoff is contained on his properth with the
drywell that he put there and it's, bOU know, so e still has
5 issues with that, but not with this oard.
The one question we had that we didn't speak to Mr.
6 Buglion was would he consider fiberglass grading on the
docks?
7 MR. HALL: Like the neighbor had?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
8 MR. HALL I believe he spoke to him. IS that for the
catwalk?
9 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, the fixed portion, correct.
MR. HALL: Yes.
10 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. So, Jim, then we can make
that to be a lower catwalk.
11 TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. HALL: What's the height; 18 inches?
12 TRUSTEE KING: Yes, 18 inches.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: IS there any other comment? Any
13 comments from the board?
(NO response.)
14 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to close the public
hearing.
15 TRUSTEE KING: second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
16 (ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we are closing the hubliC hearing. The
17 CAC finds the application ahproval with t e condition of a
raised aluminum catwalk. T at's a misprint. All right, so
18 they recommend what we recommend. All right.
So I'll make a motion to approve the application as
19 stated with the catwalk being a fiberglass grading to be no
higher than 18 inches off the ground and by doing that the
20 board finds it not to be inconsistent with LWRP. So I make
that motion.
21 TRUSTEE KING: Just one question. why do you need four
piles for the float?
22 MR. HALL: If you recommend something different we can put
that in.
23 TRUSTEE KING: usually it's two piles, one on each end. I
don't see the need for four piles for a 6x20 foot float.
24 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree. I think if it can be done with
two piles instead of four. Because it would be consistent
25 with others that we approved that wah also.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll rescind t e motion I made and make
0
29
1 a new motion to approve the ahplication for 4x10 foot
fiberglass graded catwalk no igher than 18 inches, a 3x15
page 26
------
southold 082306
2 foot ramp, a 6x20 foot floatinT dock and supported by two
six-inch diameter piles, the f oating dock.
3 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And access by a 4x155 foot long natural
4 cleared path, cleared by hand. And John seconded it. All in
favor?
5 (ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I want to say no. And I apologize. I
6 was in another conversation. But I saw the concerned with
what came up with LWRP review where there was already an
7 access boat ramp there. There is an area of shallow area with
vegetation shown on an aerial and there is already boats there
8 that have posts. So I'm votinv no.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay. It s approved.
9
TRUSTEE KING: Number nine, Land Use Ecological Services
10 on behalf of Fred Fragola requests a wetland Permit to remove
the existing dock and wood bulkhead and remove the debris to
11 an ahproved offsite location; install a 25x50 foot boat slip
at t e southwest corner of the ~arcel connectinT to Fordham
12 canal, dredge minus six feet be ow MLW, 1,000 P us/minus cubic
yards of material and bring to an agproved offsite location.
13 Install a 5x20 foot cutout off the oat slip in the northwest
corner of the boat slip to accommodate a 5x20 foot float with
14 a ramp to provide access for a vessell moored within the boat
slip. Restore the natural shoreline vegetation to 1,092
15 plus/minus square feet of area adjacent to the boat slip and
create a vegetated 50-foot buffer area of non-disturbance and
16 to include a four-foot wide pervious gravel path to access the
boat basin and shoreline area. Located 1145 Gull pond Lane,
17 Greenport.
Is there anyone here to comment on this?
18 MR. HALL: Again, Dave Hall, Land Use. I believe Mr.
Fra~ola has been in touch with the board reaarding the DEC
19 posltion this this matter and he recommende to Mr. Hamilton,
the board's changes to the application and also the bulkhead,
20 et cetera. Mr. Hamilton was adamant to re-design it and did
not recommend Changing the plans.
21 TRUSTEE KING: I elieve it was found consistent with the
LWRP. (perusing.) Yes, it's consistent. understand, this was
22 a compliance measure with the DEC on the original
construction.
23 CAC recommended disapproval. Removal of the bulkhead
would cause substantial harm to the canal. CAC recommends
24 leaving the bulkhead in place and slightly adjusting and
25 shortening the len~th of the dock.
I had discusslons with both Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Fragola
on this issue. I would say it's a compliance issue and Mr.
0
30
1 Hamilton is set, this is the way it's going to be done. He
said this was a natural shoreline before and it's going to be
2 a natural shoreline again.
I'm sure there are heo~le that have locked horns with Mr.
3 Hamilton and he has his ee s set in on this one so, I don't
know what else to do. I don't have a huge problem with it
4 because he's putting his basin in his own property now. And I
page 27
Southold 082306
know it's going to be a lot of disturbance. But hopefully it
5 will work out. If it doesn't, I'm sure we'll be back looking
at it to correct it. It's been found consistent.
6 Yes, rna1arn?
MS. SOBESIAK: Marianne SOBESIAK, 1225 Gull Pond
7 Lane. After the last meeting, Mr. King recommended a shorter
dock and I thought he meant pull the dock in closer to the
8 bulkhead. But Mr. Fragola didn't seem to take it that way.
It seems that would be a good solution maybe to dredge there
9 and pull the dock in, floating dock so that we don't have all
that dredge stuff a~ain. we already disturbed the place
10 once. NO ody was mlnding the store when it was done the last
time and the same people have gone to do it again.
11 TRUSTEE KING: I don't know who is going to do it again
MS. SOBESIAK: I believe it's ~oing to e the same people,
12 otherwise it's Toing to be a lawsult because they have to
repay Mr. Frago a.
13 TRUSTEE KING: I didn't get into that.
MS. SOBESIAK: I know. Now, I wrote a letter to the
14 trustees right after this. I don't know if anyone received it.
I would like this to go into the record. Removing the present
15 bulkhead and cutting a slip into the landing and cutting down
existing trees and shrubs would be most disruptive to our life
16 and the environment. why would you do this and then plant
grasses to preserve the land that was just stripped of its
17 vegetation? A few years ago the trees on this site was sacred
and they couldn't be touched. Now they are disposable. There
18 is a beautiful peach tree and at least six other trees that
would be destroyed if the bulkhead were cut or taken down.
19 people cannot build within 75 feet of the water; is that
correct?
20 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: NO.
MS. SOBESIAK: HOw close can you build?
21 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: You need a permit to build within a
hundred feet. It's not that you can't build. You just need a
22 permit to build within a hundred feet.
MS. SOBESIAK: But how close can you actually go?
23 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It depends on the situation.
MS. SOBESIAK: well, then I'm mistaken. I thought you
24 couldn't build within 50 feet.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: You just need a permit to do it.
25 MS. SOBESIAK: This is goin~ to be 30 feet from my house
TRUSTEE KING: You are talklng about the boat slip.
0
31
1 MS. SOBESIAK: Yes. It's goinT to be cut into the land.
I'm confused. Trees, no trees; c ose to the water, not that
2 close to the water. It seems to make sense to just pull in
that dock dredge so that the boat will fit there and that
3 seems to be the problem. A neighbor complained when theb were
dred~ing the first time because she felt they shouldn't e
4 touc ing anything. So the dredging stopped. The people
putting in the bulkhead didn't watch their workers. They had
5 the workers doin~ this. Nobody came down and measured for the
plan. We were t ere, I saw it. NOW if the bulkhead must be
6 detached from mine, first, one of my pilings was moved. That
has to be restored to where it was. And second, it was taken
page 28
------
Southold 082306
7 from my return and secondly, is there anything that can be
done to make sure the silt is not pumped under my dock again?
8 We already had to replace silt once.
TRUSTEE KING: we can require silt be put in hlace
9 MS. SOBESIAK: And if vegetation is planted t ere;
according to the drawings, vegetation is going to be planted
10 right next to our dock. Do we have to come down here every
couple of years and get permission to take it out from under
11 our dock?
This whole plan, just because it's chuck Hamilton,
12 really, it boils my blood. For the record. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
13 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Question, Jim. Are there steps on that
canal?
14 TRUSTEE KING: I don't know. I doubt it.
MR. HAMILTON: The CAC recommended steps not be
15 constructed. They feel very strongly about that. And the
concern that others can do the same thin~.
16 TRUSTEE KING: well, traditionally t is board has
recommended cutting into your own property to put a boat slip
17 in. Because it's your property, you are not going out into
the public domain where you are putting your oat. We
18 recommended this on many occasions.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: On flat surfaces.
19 TRUSTEE KING: I only wish when this application first
came in that this hrogosal was, maybe have a smaller boat
20 slip, but hind sig t ein~ 20/20 vision, too.
MR. HAMILTON: Even tough it's called a boat slip, I'm
21 just playing devil's advocate, even though it's called a boat
slip, it's still a u-shaped bulkhead. And what you are doin~
22 is, in that area, it's not what you are looking to do. In t e
opinion of the CAC.
23 TRUSTEE KING: I understand. It just puts us between a
rock and hard spot, I guess. Are there any other comments on
24 this application? Any board comments?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I read the minutes today from I believe
25 the June meetin~ and in there there was great deal of
discussion on t is particular one. Yes, we are between a rock
0
32
1 and a hard place, and the applicant has come in before us and
we have made suggestions, and from what I'm hearing, Mr.
2 Hamilton said a solutely no to the suggestions.
I too am concerned about that and I just want to have on
3 the record that it's not Mr. Hamilton that controls the
decisions of this board. This board can make decisions
4 contrary to Mr. Hamilton if they so desire. Because that has
been something that has concerned me for a while.
5 I did want to make sure that we did address the one
comment MS. Viesiak made because I remember reading in the
6 minutes there was silting caused under a neighbor's dock, and
I assume because you made the comment, it was your dock, and I
7 remember this was discussed and I believe Mr. Costello
addressed it with some comments and I think I would like to
8 see that we make sure we address that silting capabilities
with the silt boom and also, as I recall, the agplicant had no
9 problem at the time, when there is dredging to e done as part
page 29
------
southold 082306
of this project, to include some dredging under the neighbor's
10 dock do remove any dama~es that had been caused by this so
that the neighbor's doc still maintains an approhriate depth
11 there to help mitigate the concerns from the neig bor.
Because I think that's a very le~itimate concern.
12 MS. SOBESIAK: IS there anyt in~ we could do to prevent the
13 vevetation from approaching our doc? In a couple of years
it s allover the place. I don't mean to complain but if you
look at the drawing, it goes right up to the end of our
14 bulkhead. It's not going to stay there.
MR. HALL: One quick comment. I believe the ve~etation, if
15 you have low or high water, I mean it shouldn't, i it's at
the end of a dock, the dock is not functioning properly if
16 there is enough water there to support a boat.
MR. SOBESIAK: Excuse me, that's not true.
17 TRUSTEE BERGEN: wait, wait. If you can identify yourself
first and then make hour comments to the board. Thank you.
18 MR. SOBESIAK: T e water at the end of the
dock normallh was about two to three feet low water which is
19 because of t e silt from the former project and thek plant up
to the property line that the property owner is tal inT about
20 addinT. We are not ~ust talking about shoal. If you ook at
the p an it extends elow the water line. And that's going to
21 be drawn out. The are a two, the bulkhead is below the water
and jetties coming out from the dredged section that is also
22 going to be added.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I believe I remember this discussion
23 from, again, the June discussion that part the requirement
according to the DEC was to extend the bulkhead out, and that
24 was as part of the pro~ect of creating the boat slip, that
they were asking for t at bulkhead to be extended out; is that
25 correct?
MR. HALL: That's correct.
0
33
1 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand. I understand he's talking
about the plantings --
2 MR. SOBESIAK: The area between the low water and high
water --
3 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can you step u~ here and show us where
hOU are talking about? This is, I be ieve, your property over
4 ere. This is the canal. NO, that's Gull pond Lane. Sorry.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Here we go.
5 MR. SOBESIAK: This does not show the wah it was. This is
6 the planting. The dock is ri~ht here. And t is is not above
water. Below low tide this lS floating except the silt has
washed in here. This corner comes out. This is the spoils.
7 But this, my back is up to here and that is navigable to my
dock when I come out. when I come in from the north, that's
8 straight into my dock. But these will be coming out into
9 navi~able water which will make the northern approach kind of
difflcult.
From my understanding they are going to be at the low
10 water mark. so high water the1 are going to be below water
and this is going to be a prob em. (Indicating.) well, it
11 runs this wa1. This is not exactly shown the way it is. It
runs paralle to my bulkhead, not out into the canal.
page 30
- --------
southold 082306
12 TRUSTEE KING: But you are going this way (indicating.)
MR. SOBESIAK: Yes, it's comin~ down from here.
13 TRUSTEE KING: But not the inslde, it's the outside
MR. SOBESIAK: Yes. But this doesn't exactly show the way.
14 It's parallel to the bulkhead. It doesn't go out. At this
strange angle, anyway.
15 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are saying it's right in line.
MR. SOBESIAK: If I remember, it's 13 feet out. This is
16 where the common bulkhead is. This is all water in here. It
doesn't go out.
17 TRUSTEE KING: That's at low tide. It indicates --
MR. SOBESIAK: It's it's very close. This is where mh dock
18 actually is. This is where it's hroposed. (indicatin~.) T e
plantings are here. If you look ere, it's all plantlngs.
19 This is all planting. That's my dock. There were plants in
here. This is not exactly the way it is. Not really, if you
20 look at the actual location.
TRUSTEE KING: So that's inaccurate?
21 MR. SOBESIAK: Yes. It doesn't show where my stuff is.
His property may be accurate, but that's not how it affects
22 mine. Because I have his plan and laid it with mine and
combined them. That's how I got the composite.
23 MR. HALL: so your concern is you don't want wetland
plants?
24 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's blocking his access to his dock.
25 MR. HALL: If there is wetlands ~oing to the end of his
dock -- I mean, I think Mr. Fragola lndicated at the previous
meeting he would make up for the plants that were lost or had
0
34
1 previously been lost.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I would recommend.
2 MR. HALL: And ultimately, where the low water mark is or
ends up that's --
3 MR. SOBESIAK: I have water up to my bulkhead and the rest
of the groperty, so I don't have any -- if it comes up above
4 except y the corner of his property.
TRUSTEE KING: We can do a separate inspection.
5 MR. HALL: According to this, the avera~e low water goes
right here. So it's saying that hOU don't ave, I'm just, but
6 you are saying you do have water ere.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think that's accurate. Maybe
7 they should do an accurate drawing before we make a decision
8 based on inaccurate drawinvs.
TRUSTEE KING: why don t we go out and look at it at low
tide at the next field inspection.
9 MS. SOBESIAK: If you want to keep this, it's our
composite. That really shows it. This survey doesn't show
10 what's out there. It just shows one piece of property. That's
all Mr. Hamilton is looking at.
11 MR. HALL: YOU don't know what it is at this point.
TRUSTEE KING: I would refer to go out and see what it
12 looks like at low tide.
MR. HALL: I'll talk to the engineer.
13 TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other issues we want to get
beforehand? So, you know, this is the main issue.
14 (NO response.)
page 31
Southold 082306
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to table this
15 application and we'll go out and look at it next field
inspection at low tide so we can see what's going on. Maybe
16 we can even try to get somebody from DEC to meet us there.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: second.
17 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
18
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'll start the next one. Number ten,
19 Costello Marine contracting Corp., on behalf of Ernest
schneider requests a wetland permit to construct a 4x6 foot
20 ramp onto a 4x10 foot fixed dock with a 32x16 foot seasonal
aluminum ramp onto a 6x20 foot seasonal floating dock secured
21 by two six-inch diameter pilin~s. Install two two-pile mooring
pilings. Install a four-foot wlde woodchip or stone path
22 through buffer area. Located: 1015 Lakeside Drive, Southold.
IS there anyone here who wishes to speak in favor of this
23 motion?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes. John Costello. I'm the agent for the
24 applicant.
I'm with Costello Marine contracting, and we staked the
25 job out, you can see the inshore end OF most of the
construction, the fixed dock is all above the low water mark.
0
35
1 If you went to this site, I'm sure you did, that bluff clears
off immediately and there is no veTetated wetlands along the
2 shoreline. There is no spunking a terna flora. There is
hhragmites, there is poison iV1 and there is a small degree of
3 .igh mark vegetation in the up and where peggy got poison
lVY. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Just a little bit of it.
4
MR. COSTELLO: That creek was infested and if you look at
5 survey that was part of the application, the width of that
creek at that location, the low water, by Bob Fox of Sea Level
6 Mapping, is 64-feet wide. I measured it this past winter and
it was 60-foot. That's with a line and a measurement across
7 the creek. That is out below the shoreline of the natural
vegetation on the opposite shore.
8 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So 60 feet at low tide.
MR. COSTELLO: It was 60 feet. The tied was slightly
9 below normal, and it was past the ed~e of the alterna flora
vegetation on the opposite shore. T e opposite shore is owned
10 by the same individual that owns the dock that is considerably
to the east, but this dock will not interfere with a
11 prosgective dock in the future unless you are going to allow
two oat docks on a property. There is a dock on that other
12 property well to the east of this dock. I believe this
photograph's showing that situation.
13 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MR. COSTELLO: The vegetation measures 74 feet, that's why
14 the dock was designed to take up no more than the one-third.
It's only the ramp and the float. The mooring Pilin~ are
15 extended in line with the float. They don't ~o offs ore of
the float and they are parallel to the shorellne so that they
16 can accommodate a boat in excess of the 20 feet of the float.
Any questions the board has, I'll attempt to answer.
page 32
Southold 082306
17 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: IS there anybody else who wishes to
speak first? Yes?
18 MR. HARMON: My name is Jim Harmon. I represent Jean
Harmon. There is a relationship. We have the giece of hroperty
19 across from where the dock is proposed to be uilt. T e dock
that is referred to to the east is our dock. we submitted a
20 letter to the board of trustees which was hand delivered some
time last week and I request that that be made a part of the
21 record.
One of the points that we, for your information, that we
22 pointed out here is, yes, Jean Harmon is an adjacent property
owner there, but there are people who have not been given
23 notice of this application.
This is a very narrow creek. In my opinion, as somebody
24 who has kayaked for many years around peconic Bay, is very
familiar with this particular creek, who has seen it from the
25 water level under any number of different conditions, there is
no way that that creek at low tide is 60-feet across.
0
36
1 I heard some reference to the one-third rule. I'm not an
expert in this but I think I heard there is a one-third rule
2 that the length of the dock and boat cannot exceed a third of
the width of the creek.
3 In my opinion, knowing the boat that is going to go in
there and looking, ~ust looking at the plans that have been
4 submitted to you, t e boat and the dock extend at least
halfwa1 into the creek. It's important, this creek is a
5 channe. It really doesn't, the gentleman is correct, it
really won't affect our dock and our getting in and out of our
6 garticular dock. But it will affect the people who have not
een given notice of this. It's a creek. It's a narrow
7 creek. There are at least eight boats, so called, up the
creek. The only way that they can get -- well, I don't mean
8 to say they are up the creek. I hope they are not up the creek
permanentlh. That's the point. But the only way they can get
9 out into t e bay is go by this dock and the boat that is
there. And one person, you know, in particular, earns his
10 living off the bay and I seen it any number of times. He's a
bayman. He's participating in a oyster cultivation program.
11 He goes out, down this channel under any number of different
conditions; tidal conditions, weather conditions, seasonal
12 conditions, he has to make his living off this and mh opinion,
this dock and this boat at low tide will block the cannel.
13 At high tide it would make it unsafe to move boats past the
boat.
14 NOW, I'm not coming in here and saying that there is not
a solution. I mean, we are suggesting an alternative approach
15 to this and in the letter we sug~ested another location for
the dock, which I think would malntain the navigability of the
16 creek.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Where was that?
17 MR. HARMON: I would ask you to consider that. But I
would ask you to take a look at the creek at very low tide
18 with the boat that is ~oing to be at the dock in the creek.
And you can see it wit your own eyes, I didn't take a tape
19 measure. I'm not claiming that I took a tape measure and I'm
page 33
Southold 082306
telling you from that that it's less than 60 feet. But I know
20 how long my kayak is, 17-and-a-half feet, and I know what it's
like sitting across and I know how deep the water is because I
21 seen it under any number of conditions.
so what I'm sug~estingin~ here is that an alternative
22 location for the doc be consldered by the agplicant and be
consider by the board of trustees. I would e be happy to
23 answer any questions.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Let me ~ust explain to the board of
24 trustees where it is and ever1t ing. There are a series of
letters, if I may, that we al received on Monday and Tuesday
25 and wednesday of this week. They were faxed in today and so
we've got a number of recent letters which people are just
0
37
1 seeing tonight for the first time, really, and I have read
through them and the general trend is that they all have
2 concerns, some of them are were not adjacent owners, they were
boats down the creek, and they have concerns about not being
3 able to get by, et cetera.
The alternative that Mr. Harmon is talking about is
4 around the bend. we actually walked down there and looked at
that also as an alternative. On the chart, the map that is
5 there, it looks much nicer. You know, in terms there is more
room, there is more water, but I think when we looked at it we
6 felt it was almost the same problem if not, you know, more
so. That that was a little narrower. But according to this
7 chart that is, from your plans, now they have drawn a certain
size and I'm not sure if that's accurate or not accurate but
8 there is plenty of water ri~ht there and it seems to be, I
just started measuring it w en you were talking and I get
9 almost 60 feet there also. You know, the same measurement
from average low water to average low water on each side. So
10 it's about the same across. The only advantage is that the
land is opening up there. There is a bend in the property.
11 John, if hOU have it in front of you, I'll just mention.
If you look, t e1 have it ri~ht up by the hroperty line, you
12 know, where the and is bendlng. That's t eir alternative
suggestion. so that everybody knows what we are talking
13 about.
Are there any other comments from the public? It's
14 actuallh a little better at the alternative site but in both
cases t ere is a channel there. It's 3.7, 3.7, 2.9. There is
15 water in both locations.
Is there anybody else in the public who wishes to --
16 John, our concern, one of our concerns in dealing with it, we
do have a one-third rule but we usually include the boat in
17 that one-third and that's where this falls down a little bit
because 20 feet is what bOU are proposing but then if you put
18 eight or nine foot beam oat, because you are obviously
hutting big pilings to put a bigger boat, that then gets to be
19 alfway and that's why we had a difficult -- I'm speaking for
myself but I think the board consensus was that the boat would
20 push you over the limit and start to be an obstruction to
navigation.
21 So our concern was to move the dock back. I don't know
if you will have enough water in that sense, but the sense
Page 34
Southold 082306
22 that we wanted to get across is that the dock and the boat
should not extend more than one-third.
23 MR. COSTELLO: I certainly understand that. That was one
of the reasons I mentioned the location of the neighbOrin~
24 dock. That's one of the reasons I mentioned that. And i you
brought the dock back to meet it or the board would like to
25 determine the width of that canal and ~o measure it with me, I
would certainly do that, too. Because lf you go from
0
38
1 vegetation to vegetation, the edge of the bank, I can assure
you that it's 74 feet. But that vegetation, the alterna flora
2 ceases as a normal average low water. But, a~ain, we all know
the tides are different every sinTle day of t e year.
3 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Alterna f ora does go into depth.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just one point, John, you just gave the
4 figure 74. I thought you said earlier 64.
MR. COSTELLO: NO. vegetation to vegetation.
5 TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay, I just wanted to make sure I was
c 1 ea r .
6 MR. COSTELLO: I'm not a surveyor, don't claim to be. The
survey indicates at water or below water. But that is the
7 average of 19 years. That's the average. This measures 64 feet
TRUSTEE KING: John, what would happen if you did away
8 with the float and ~ust had a little longer catwalk and tie
the boat to the doc ?
9 MR. COSTELLO: If you you made a stationary, fixed
catwalk. I've done it on other locations.
10 TRUSTEE KING: It would shorten it up. You are indicating
these tie off poles which seems to me it's going to be a
11 pretty good sized boat compared to the float.
MR. COSTELLO: The six-foot wide float takes up six foot.
12 I can't deny that. But the fact of the matter is there have
been locations where I have put in three-foot wide, fixed
13 catwalks along the shoreline because all I want to do is tie
uh a boat. I did not want to protrude out anymore than that.
14 T at's happened and it happened a couple of times in North
Haven.
15 TRUSTEE KING: It does not allow for the rise and fall of
tide, right?
16 MR. COSTELLO: well, a bigger boat does have higher chimes
and it's not always necessary to have a float.
17 TRUSTEE KING: That's something to consider.
MR. COSTELLO: That's an alternative. There are several
18 alternatives.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is your client here tonight?
19 MR. COSTELLO: No, I don't believe so.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: YOU would have to go back and --
20 MR. COSTELLO: I couldn't make that decision for him.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's why I'm trying get a sense
21 before we go too much further. YOU understand our concerns.
MR. COSTELLO: one of the reasons that the other
22 alternative and the other location was ruled out because the
degree of wetlands that has to be jumped over. That was one
23 of the reasons. Again, now that hOU are using some of the
alternatives of having it lower, aving open grading, there
24 are other alternatives.
page 35
-------- --------
- --- -----
southold 082306
MR. HARMON: I would just say the point nearest how wide
25 the creek is from point to point. The question is how wide
the channel is that a boat can go through with a large boat
0
39
1 sticking out, you know, the way that it does. So I'm not,
that is really an issue here and if there is an idea to go
2 ahead and to, you know, possibly remove the float -- that
cove, I call it the cove, to me, that's the solution.
3 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I think it's something you might want
to go back to 10ur client. I mean, you understand our sense;
4 my own persona feelin~ is we don't want to decide something
for or against. I thin ma1be if you went back to your client,
5 offered them some of the a ternatives and looked at it and you
want us to look at it again with hOu, we would be happy to do
6 that. But I think what you have ere is not going to fly the
way it is, that there has to be some adaptation to it.
7 MR. COSTELLO: That's the board's prerogative, certainly,
and I respect that. It is the board's decision. If there are
8 other alternatives that are better for navigation and better
for the environment, I think kOU should exercise it.
9 TRUSTEE KING: I would li e to look at it at low tide and
see the alternate spots, just do get an idea.
10 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: we'll go out. what we just said was
we'll go out next month, a~ain, take a look at lt at low tide
11 if we can, and deal with w at we find.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: AS long as we are going to go out
12 again, maybe he could stake where it would end with what Jim
recommended.
13 MR. COSTELLO: The alternative.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, to stake it where the alternative
14 would be.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would like to meet him out in the
15 field. Maybe you could brin~ new drawlings and meet out in
the field so we don't have w at we had with Dr. Jayamaha.
16 MR. COSTELLO: Absolutely.
TRUSTEE KING: That would be the best. could you stake
17 the alternative location.
MR. COSTELLO: I mean I could stake it for you.
18 TRUSTEE KING: Then we could look at both of it and get a
better idea.
19 MR. COSTELLO: Sure.
20 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: With that in mind I'm goin~ to make a
motion to table this application and based on our lnspection,
we'll bring it up next month.
21 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
MR. COSTELLO: when the board does go meet there, notify
22 me so I'll go there. There will be a few stakes around and
there will a be stake from the shoreline to shoreline, low
23 water to low water so you can determine --
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: what we normally do is Lauren sets up
24 a schedule, she'll let you know, then we'll give you a call
half hour before so you don't have to wait around.
25 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Field inspection is september 13. So
it's September 13.
page 36
Southold 082306
0
40
1 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's the day, then you'll get a call
with the time.
2 MR. COSTELLO: Fine. Thank hOu.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I made t emotion.
3 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I seconded.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor of tabling?
4 (ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Thank you.
5 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, if I could, just a point of
information before we get to the next one. And, we
6 apologize. This should have been mentioned at the start. The
board has established a policy where we request all written
7 letters, documentation, whatever, to be submitted by noon
Monday ~rior to the board meeting. And this last ap~licant
8 they ta ked about, it was discussed we had received etters
yesterday and today and really we already said we were not
9 going to consider those. we were only going to consider
things coming in prior to noon on the Monday prior to the
10 board meetin~ and also we ask all aPhlicants to keep their
comments to ive minutes or less. Tank you.
11 MS. HARMON: I'm Jean Harmon. I haven't spoke.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's alreadh closed.
12 MS. HARMON: YOU know, all t e people up the creek didn't
receive notice. They take their boats past that dock.
13 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The way the legislation is written is
the applicant only has to notify adjacent owners because they
14 are, otherwise it gets to be, hOU know, if you have a dock at
the front of the creek you mig t have to notify a hundred
15 peo~le. YOU know, so it gets to be a little burdensome on the
app icant. So the people adjacent, across and next to get
16 lawyers and in turn the word Tot around, obviously, in the
last, because we got all the etters today.
17 MS. HARMON: okay, thank you.
18 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Michael smith, Richard Henry Behr
Architect, PC, on behalf of charles and Amh Scharf requests a
19 wetland Permit to construct additions to t e eXistin~
20 single-family dwelling includin~ a new screened pore , new
open front porch and new extenslon to the existing brick
patio. Exterior upgrades including siding replacement and
21 roofing material replacement. Located: 750 paradise point
Road, Southold.
22 IS there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of
this application?
23 MR. SMITH: Michael Smith. I'm the architect for the
scharf's. I'll be happy to address any questions.
24 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we all inspected this and I don't think
we had any problems with it.
25 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have a question. I never seen it
written "erosion control measures." Do you mean hay bales?
0
41
Page 37
Southold 082306
1 MR. SMITH: Yes
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Everything is landward of the existing
2 structure, right?
MR. SMITH: Yes, the addition is aligned landward of the
3 existing structures. There is a small, probably 4x6 area
brick walkway we want to connect which is seaward of the
4 structure.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. The CAC has a comment, they
5 recommend the Landmark Preservation committee review this
project. Jack, can you elaborate on that?
6 MR. MCGREEVY: We got a letter today. NO, it's a
different letter. Sorry.
7 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I never heard a recommendation like
that before.
8 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I believe that's attached to the wrong
application.
9 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Don Weibler (sic) inspected it. It says
on your report that Don inspected it. That was their
10 comment. They approved it. Other than that, that was their
comment. It was consistent with waterfront revitalization.
11 Any other comments from the board or public?
(NO response.)
12 Hearing none, I make a motion to close the public
hearing.
13 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
14 (ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve the
15 application for Charles and Amy Scharf as stated, and that was
it. We had no other -- yes, it was consistent and approved as
16 stated. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
17 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
18
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Ian crowley on behalf of Matthew Kar
19 requests a Wetland permit to remove and replace 170 feet of
timber bulkhead with C-LOC vin11 wall. Establish a ten-foot
20 non-turf buffer behind new wal . Raise elevation of new wall
12 feet. Located: 750 Little peconic Bay Road, cutchogue.
21 Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this
application?
22 MR. CROWLEY: Ian Crowley on behalf of the Kar's. We
would like to take the wall out and replace it at a higher
23 elevation with C-LOC vinyl.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: so are you including that bump out?
24 MR. CROWLEY: Including the bump out on the wall? Cut in
or --
25 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Either. well, specifically the bump
out. Because you are just replacing the bulkhead with this
0
42
1 application.
2 MR. CROWLEY: You are talkin~ about the --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The landlng by the boat.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: NO, what we are talking about is there is
Page 38
Southold 082306
3 a hard structure platform that goes out a few feet from the
bulkhead, it turns and then there is a walkway down to a
4 floating dock.
MR. DICKERSON: The gangway, 1es.
5 TRUSTEE BERGEN: So we are ta king about that hard
structure that is there that we are referring to as a bump
6 out.
MR. CROWLEY: okay. I had planned on leaving it with the
7 bulkhead going along.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And there are no existing permits for
8 any of the structures at the time. For the bulkhead or the
platform, are there permits existing now for either of them?
9 MR. CROWLEY: For the bulkhead, I'm not sure. For the
platform, I'm not sure either.
10 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: we don't have any permits. so my
concern would be do you need the hlatform.
11 MR. CROWLEY: Yes, I assume t ey would like the platform.
I'm sure it was there when they bought the house. with the
12 ramh going down to the boat. Pretty much everyone has their --
I t ink it's on piling now. If you want to put it on
13 cantilevers, we could do that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So is the platform going to be rebuilt
14 or just pushed back?
MR. CROWLEY: Remove the bulkhead behind the platform and
15 but a new bulkhead in and the platform will be right in line.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: okay, mh question is can the boat be
16 docked next to the bulkhead wit out the platform? My concern
is it's more structure, is it necessary when it's a
17 non-permitted structure.
MR. CROWLEY: I'm sure he would like to keep his floats.
18 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: IS there anyone else here who would
like to speak to this application?
19 (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Yes. The bulkhead and the question
of the one-foot elevation, I think it is necessary to increase
20 it. My concern is the structure itself. It's also a floating
dock. My concern is the fixed structure that comes out into
21 the pond. These wood structures that were added after the
Kar's became residents. They were non-existing. I resided at
22 peconic Bay Road for nine years. These were additions that
were put in without environmental review or trustee approval.
23 I think some structure is needed to make the transition and I
would think a floatin~ dock is needed. I would like to see
24 the Kar's adhere to t e same rules in terms of the 6x20 foot
floating dock and I would like to see the floating dock
25 cantilevered so it's not set on piles. on the drawings it's
6x33, and the bump out also.
0
43
1 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sir, are there any other comments that
you have?
2 (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE:) My major concern is not so much the
structure is the amount of structure needed for such a large
3 boat and the environmental problems created by it, by the
location without creating silt and dredging up the bottom. I
4 just think it's an environmently unsafe scale to the
surroundings.
5 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
page 39
Southold 082306
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I looked at this myself. Dave and Joe
6 went down and looked at it. I just want to share it with Jim
and John.
7 Anything that is decided upon as far as the platform or
the float is goin~ to have to be amended because it's not what
8 your permit is as ing for.
MR. CROWLEY: okay, well let's amend to 20 feet and the
9 cantilever platform.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: well, let's do one thing at a time.
10 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: peggy was just referring to amending the
request.
11 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. Because what you are asking
for is simply the 170 foot timber bulkhead replacement with
12 ten-foot non-turf buffer with a 12-inch raise. So dekending
on what I proposed to approve, that's all you have as ed for.
13 So with the bump out or the floating dock, again, it's going
to have to be an amendment to whatever gets decided here.
14 It's separate. It's not in your application.
MR. CROWLEY: okay.
15 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: IS there anyone else here who would
like to speak to this application?
16 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, I have comments on this one. I did
go out and look at it. My recommendation is that this current
17 re~uest that is before us be amended to include this bumh out
an the floating dock. I make that request, first off t ere
18 has been a suggestion that the piles be taken out and this be
cantilevered out. I think the dama~e that would be done
19 environmentally by taking out the klles, I don't see why we
have to take out the piles. To ta e out the piles would
20 create damage to the environment. The piles are there. I
recommend leaving them there.
21 I also feel in looking at this that even with the size of
the boat, with the floating dock, it does not exceed anywhere
22 near the one-third requirement that we have. In other words
it's well within one-third. I also noted that the next door
23 neighbor has the very same configuration, in other words he
has a bulkhead with a floating dock out in front of it that he
24 has his boat at. So what we would be approving here would be
the same as what is in the immediate area.
25 So for myself, I would like to see this, if the applicant
would like it, I would like to see this amended right now,
0
44
1 this request, to include as-built the bump out, and then it
would have to be up to the board, also, as far as the len~th
2 of the floating dock, if they would like to right now, brlng
the floating dock into compliance with what our code is for
3 floating docks. which is 6x20 feet.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: one of my concerns, Dave, is that we
4 recently had a situation very similar to this, I don't know if
it's exactly like this, where we had a bulkhead and there was
5 a bump out that was not permitted and, again, being consistent
when we gave the permit, we had them remove that unpermitted
6 structure.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct.
7 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: when we first reviewed this, that was
my first impression.
page 40
Southold 082306
8 TRUSTEE BERGEN: And in that case, I do recall that case.
First off, it was not a floating dock that was the bumh out.
9 It was an entire hard dock that was put down. And wit that
additional dock, it exceeded the one-third rule.
10 And in case, this does not exceed the one-third rule.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is not just a floating dock.
11 TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, I'm just saying with what you just
referred to, the property you just referred to, you are
12 absolutely right, we did require that bum~ out dock to be
removed. But in that case it was not a f oating dock. It was
13 a permanent structure. And with in a permanent structure and
the boat that was alongside it, that created a situation on
14 that property that was more than one-third into the waterway.
In in case, with the boat and the floatinT dock it
15 doesn't come close to exceeding the one-third en~th.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I understand completelh w at you are
16 saying, but -- you are sayin~ that this piece ere is a
permanent structure. This plece is permanent.
17 TRUSTEE BERGEN: That is permanent right there.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And being consistent with what we
18 would permit today, we would not permit this today. If this
came in and applied for, we would not be permitteding this.
19 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't know whether that's a fact or
not. That would be something we would talk about, something
20 we would have to approve or disapprove. The point is right
now, it's there, it's built. It's in place.
21 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: when I looked at it I noticed that's
22 what the nei~hbors also had and I have the same feelin~ that
if we take t e pilings out and remove that structure, lt will
do more damage. I don't have a problem with keeping it there
23 and then putting a stipulation whenever it has to e replaced
that it be replaced cantilevered.
24 MR. CROWLEY: I have no problem cantileverin~. There is
really no environmental impact, no ~etting to ta e the piles
25 out down the bulkhead. If that's w at the board wants.
TRUSTEE KING: HOw was this reviewed under LWRP? IS it
0
45
1 found to be consistent? Because I think all they reviewed was
the bulkhead. They did not review this platform and floating
2 dock.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What you are saying is we can't amend
3 this application tonight?
TRUSTEE KING: Not on this, I would say.
4 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Can I just ask one question: when was
the floating dock put in?
5 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Absolutely no idea. I really don't know
when it was put in.
6 . (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE:) It was put in about five years ago,
SlX years ago.
7 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Again, it's a violation and we are
going to okay a violation? The 9Uh broke the law, didn't ~et
8 a permit and we are going to say t at's okay? The guy bro e
the law, didn't Tet a permit and we are going to say, oh,
9 that's okay, we' 1 just amend it. And I don't think we
should.
10 TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay.
page 41
Southold 082306
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: SO we are all in agreement for
11 bulkhead replacement.
MR. CROWLEY: And the platform and boat are --
12 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: At this point when you do the bulkhead
that that can not be there or be returned unless you want
13 consider --
TRUSTEE KING: They can come in for an amendment to this
14 permit.
MR. CROWLEY: So make a drawing --
IS TRUSTEE KING: For rebuilding the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If we approve the bulkhead tonight you
16 have every right to come in to request an amendment to that
plan, to that permit, if we so give it, to add the float and
17 the platform, and then we would review that at another time.
But for tonight we can't add that because we have other
18 agencies that have to review that as well.
MR. CROWLEY: That's fine. But, I don't remember what is
19 in the verbiage, but it says to reconstruct, in the
cross-section.
20 TRUSTEE KING: I think you should come in and reapply for
the platform and dock.
21 MR. CROWLEY: That's fine. withdraw application for
cantilevered platform and --
22 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. Okay, if there is no one else
who would like to speak, I am going to make a motion to close
23 the hearing. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
24 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
25 I'll make a motion to approve the wetland Permit for a
replacement of 170-foot of timber bulkhead C-LOC vinyl wall,
0
46
1 to establish ten-foot non-turf buffer behind the new wall and
to raise the elevation of the new wall 12 inches.
2 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And stipulate that the hermit will not
be replaced until he applies for a permit for t e platform and
3 float.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And to stipulate that the permit will
4 not be released until he has amended for the platform --
applies for the platform and float.
5 MR. JOHNSTON: And granted or --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: NO. Applies. Otherwise we don't know
6 what's going on happen. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
7 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
8 MR. KING: Can you come back uh to the mic, please. I
hate to put you on the spot but I ave to. we had an
9 interesting situation in a hearing. Your name was given as a
contractor that did some work on a bulkhead for Dr. Basilice.
10 DO you remember doing work on that? Did you do any work
on that?
11 MR. CROWLEY: I met with vincent and I told him he could
patch his bulkhead.
12 TRUSTEE KING: Did You actually do something on it?
MR. CROWLEY: I put a few boards up there, yes.
page 42
Southold 082306
13 TRUSTEE KING: plastic?
MR. CROWLEY: Yes.
14 TRUSTEE KING: okay. Thank you.
MR. CROWLEY: I remember getting a phone call but was that
15 something that --
TRUSTEE KING: well, we went out there looking and we felt
16 it was more than just a rekair job. You should have come in
for a permit to do the wor .
17 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The whole fence was changed. It was
not just a board or two.
18 MR. CROWLEY: I understand your concern but if you walk
the beach there it's what 90% of the people do; they patch it
19 out. I'm not saying that it's right or it's wrong. I didn't
do it with any malice.
20 TRUSTEE KING: There was a lot of confusion During the
hearing. It was quite interesting.
21 MR. CROWLEY: I understand. In the future --
TRUSTEE KING: And seeing we got you here, I just
22 figured --
TRUSTEE KING: can you ~ive us a flavor of how many feet
23 you did this patching? was lt one foot of patchin~; ten feet?
MR. CROWLEY: I don't remember. I was there or a day. I
24 was just trying to get him through. He was nervous about some
storm.
25 TRUSTEE KING: But you Replaced the whole front of the
bulkhead.
0
47
1 MR. CROWLEY: sheathed the whole front of the bulkhead?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
2 MR. CROWLEY: NO, I don't think we sheathed the whole
front of the bulkhead. we did a lot of the bulkhead but I
3 don't think we did it continuously. I don't remember what we
did.
4 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: On our inspection the entire front was
tongue in groove right across. YOU didn't do that work?
5 MR. CROWLEY: I did some work on Mr. Basilice's bulkhead.
And I don't know what he did in the aftermath. We came in for
6 a permit to replace it, which he didn't even let me know he
was doing. I got a phone call next morning that there was
7 some pro lem.
MR. JOHNSTON: Do you remember approximately when you did
8 it?
MR. CROWLEY: About a bear ago, I guess. I don't know
9 exactly when. It was proba ly about eleven months ago, I think
at the end of last summer.
10 MR. JOHNSTON: okay. would you be able to get, if the
trustees want, a cOPh of your invoice or your --
II MR. CROWLEY: I ave no invoice, no contract. It was as
needed.
12 MR. JOHNSTON: He just paid you in cash and you were there
for a day?
13 MR. CROWLEY: I don't remember if he paid me in cash.
MR. JOHNSTON: You were there for a day?
14 MR. CROWLEY: If he paid me in cash, I would go to the
bank and deposit it.
15 MR. JOHNSTON: We were trying to get a handle on what was
Page 43
Southold 082306
done.
16 MR. CROWLEY: I understand. I was there and I seen what
was done and I guess if it's against the board's --
17 MR. JOHNSTON: And are you representing that you did the
work or you didn't do the work?
18 MR. CROWLEY: I'm not representing anything right now.
MR. JOHNSTON: well, I'm askin~ you. Did you do the work
19 MR. CROWLEY: I did some patchlng on the front of Mr.
Basilice's bulkhead.
20 MR. JOHNSTON: okay. DO you know who did the other
patching?
21 MR. CROWLEY: I don't know.
MR. JOHNSTON: okay, thank you.
22 MR. CROWLEY: Like I said, if you went down, I just met
with another person --
23 MR. JOHNSTON: Don't care about the other ~erson.
MR. CROWLEY: well, I'm just trying to exp ain something.
24 He had ~ust -- this is an elderlh man who just patched the
entire ront of his bulkhead wit plywood and he asked me if I
25 could replace the bulkhead. This was after everythinv went
threw and this guy, not of means, I told him I couldn t put
0
48
1 the application in front of the board because I had heard what
had happened. If the guy is going to get fried for patching a
2 bulkhead, I couldn't help him. I don't know.
MR. JOHNSTON: All right, thank you.
3
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 13, David Corwin on behalf of
4 Russell McCall requests a Wetland Permit to construct 85 feet
of new vinyl seawall 15 inches in front of existing concrete
5 seawall and backfill with approximately 31 cubic kards of
sand. Located 10140 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituc .
6 Anyone here to speak to behalf of this ap~licatiOn?
MR. CORWIN: David Corwin. I made the app ication. I
7 don't have any comments, but if you have questions, I would
try to answer them.
8 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anhbody else here who would like
to speak either for or against t is application?
9 (NO response.)
A question we just had for the applicant, and I'm looking
10 at a survey of it. we are just curious as to whh he extended
it the longer part of it; ln other words, not t e bah front
11 part but the part that goes north to south more to t at point
rather than going further. Just a question.
12 MR. CORWIN: I went down there with Mr. MCCall's brother
and the grandfather had built the concrete wall and they are
13 very proud of it and we just felt it was a good place to
start.
14 TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay. The CAC reviewed this and found it
consistent and it was exempt from the LWRP. Are there any
15 questions from any members of the board?
(NO response.)
16 TRUSTEE BERGEN: If not, I would like to make a motion
close this public hearing.
17 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor?
page 44
---------
southold 082306
18 (ALL AYES.)
(UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:) If I can make an observation.
19 The kroperty in question, Mccall, abuts the inlet to Downes
Cree and an observation on my part and confirmed by another
20 member of the CAC recommends that the Town of Southold do a
survey of that inlet. It is definitely shoaling over and it
21 won't be long before that creek will be completelh closed off,
causing environmental damage to Downe's Creek. T at's an
22 observation on our part.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Great. Thank you. I would like to make a
23 motion to ap~rove item 13 as stated, David corwin on behalf of
Russell McCa 1 for a wetland permit to construct 85 linear
24 feet of new vin11 seawall 15 inches in front of existing
concrete seawal and backfill approximately 31 cubic yards of
25 sand. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
0
49
1 TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
2 Any opposed?
(NO response.)
3 Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can I make one comment. Normally we
4 don't approve stuff in front of, but because of the way this
concrete wall is, it's really impossible to approve it in any
5 other way. I just wanted to put that in the record.
6 TRUSTEE KING: Good point. Number 14, JMO Environmental
consulting, Inc., on behalf of Marc Rubenstein requests a
7 wetland Permit to construct an addition, deck and terrace onto
an existing single-family dwelling and to construct an
8 addition and porch onto an existing cottage. Located: Madeline
Avenue, Fishers Island.
9 Is there anyone here to comment?
MR. JUST: Good evening, Glenn Just, JMO Consulting to
10 answer any questions from the board, CAC or public.
TRUSTEE KING: I believe this was a permit that had
11 expired.
MR. JUST: It expired in April. It was issued two years
12 ago.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't know if there is any CAC comments
13 on this or not. CAC did not make an inspection. There is no
recommendation made. It's been found inconsistent with LWRP
14 because of the freshwater wetlands. Like I say --
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It's within the distance.
15 TRUSTEE KING: Like I say, the proposed flat stone terrace
that is proposed is within -- it's 34 feet from the wetlands.
16 That makes it inconsistent with LWRP. It's supposed to be 100
feet.
17 MR. JUST: okay.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It's an automatic.
18 TRUSTEE KING: This is something we looked at. It's been
ahProved. Everybody got caught up ecause it expired, and now
19 t e LWRP kicks in.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim and I looked at it again in March
20 TRUSTEE KING: I don't know what we could do to change
page 45
Southold 082306
things. JUST: I don't know if there are notes in the
21 MR.
application. If you recall the first time, there was an old
22 stone pole where the septic went in so part of the application
is to put a whole new septic system as far away from the
23 wetland as possible.
TRUSTEE KING: The sehtic system has been -- it's there.
24 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I t ink with a new septic and
everything.
25 TRUSTEE KING: you've up grated the septic system. It's
been here, it's approved. TO my mind it's consistent because,
0
50
1 number one, you've upgraded the septic system tremendously.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We find it not to be inconsistent.
2 TRUSTEE KING: That's what I'm trying to say
MR. JOHNSTON: That's what I thought I heard bOU say.
3 MR. JUST: It would it would be seasonal, at est.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments?
4 (NO response.)
Comments from the board?
5 (NO response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
6 TRUSTEE BERGEN: second.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the
7 application as submitted.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: second.
8 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
9 Thank you.
10 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 15, JMO Environmental consulting,
Inc., on behalf of NOL, LLC, requests a Wetland Permit to
11 construct a single-family dwelling. Located: private Road,
Fishers Island.
12 Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this
application?
13 MR. JUST: Once a~ain, Glenn Just.
MR. JOHNSTON: Davld, I just have a technical question on
14 this. Can you make sure the name you are getting this permit
in is NOL, LLC and not NOL Associates, LLC, because when we
15 were out there some of the documents had a little different
legal name on it and just so it doesn't cause you a problem
16 and insurance companies or something for the permit or
financing, okay?
17 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Was there anyone else here to speak
either for or against this a~plication? If not, a couple of
18 questions. we noted on the pans here that it did not include
a ~azebo. There is a gazebo, in other words, an accessory
19 bUllding here that is not included and we are suggesting that
be included in the final plans for this project so that it
20 becomes permitted and part of this.
MR. JUST: Mr. Ber~en, I spoke to the trustees office
21 earlier on and noted t at the gazebo was on and also a request
for a hot tub.
22 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct.
MR. JUST: You already authorized the surveyor to return
page 46
southold 082306
23 to the site and put it on the ~lans.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Right. A so, we would like you to
24 consider moving the septic system landward by about 15 feet,
in other words, to the east. It's ri~ht now located in a rock
25 outcropping. This would take it away rom that rock
outcropping so it might be easier for the applicant to do this
0
51
1 and it also takes it out of our jurisdiction and help to make
it more consistent.
2 MR. JUST: we actually spoke to the survebor about that at
about the same time we spoke about the hot tu and gazebo, to
3 spin it around to what you are asking.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The CAC recommended approval with a
4 condition of a 20-foot, non-turf buffer and that the leaching
pools to be relocated, which we already covered.
5 There is a question from the CAC representative. As I
recall, there is already pretty much a natural buffer there
6 along the shoreline. If you could help me out with
understanding the request for the 20-foot, non-turf buffer in
7 addition to what is alreadk there.
MR. MCGREEVY: I thin there is consideration for a
8 20-foot non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: In addition to the 20-foot natural buffer
9 that is already there?
MR. MCGREEVY: The ridge of the well goes right along the
10 freshwater wetland.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Thank you. Yes. I forgot about
11 the freshwater wetland.
MR. JUST: And also, as you know, three sides of the
12 properth are bordered by West Harbor there and there are few
areas were high marsh, the lawn goes ri~ht down to areas of
13 hi~h marsh, there are other areas where lt'S beach grass,
thlngs like that. we are looking to put a quite sizable
14 buffer along that whole perimeter of the property. We are
working on that now.
15 MR. JOHNSTON: David, a mechanical question to help Lauren
and the office bill this. were you thinkin~ about having the
16 gazebo as an as-built addition to this appllcation? Is that
what you were thinking about?
17 TRUSTEE BERGEN: That would make sense.
MR. JOHNSTON: I'm just trying to find out what you are
18 thinking.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's already there. It's been built. so
19 it is to me, unless I hear differently from other board
member, it would make sense it is an as-built addition.
20 MR. JUST: Actually, they claim that it possibly could be
considered a temporary structure. It's part of what the
21 survey includes, seeing how it's anchored in. If its posts
that are in the ground. I truly don't know. It wasn't there
22 when I was there. so they'll locate it and also determine if
there is a foundation under it, if it's on 4x4's, if it's an
23 excavation. So, I don't have an answer.
MR. JOHNSTON: Any other deck or anythin~ also?
24 MR. JUST: No, it's anchored and everythlng else.
MR. JOHNSTON: Thank hOu, David.
25 TRUSTEE BERGEN: On t e house itself, we would want to
page 47
Southold 082306
include gutters and down spouts and hay bales between the
0
52
1 construction and the waterfront on all sides where there is
waterfront.
2 MR. JUST: TO put it around almost the whole property
except to get through the driveway.
3 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. TO include the freshwater
wetlands also. We want to make sure that's done.
4 MR. MCGREEVY: Also in consideration on your part by
moving the cesspool out of our jurisdiction it has to be
5 concern the fresh water to move it that far over.
TRUSTEE KING: I had measured where we located it and it
6 was 100 feet from either way.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: correct.
7 MR. JUST: Because it's getting squeezed in a little bit
of a triangle there.
8 TRUSTEE BERGEN: The LWRP review found it inconsistent in
that the structure setback is 48 feet from the wetlands and
9 there is a minimum of 100 called for in the code and I think,
and, a~ain, I'm talking about, I think we tried to address
10 inconslstency by moving the leachinv pools, the septic system
out of the, over 100 feet out so it s outside of our
11 jurisdiction. I don't know that it's possible to move the
entire residence another 60 feet, so.
12 If there are no other comments from the board I make a
motion to close the public hearing.
13 TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor?
14 (ALL AYES.)
I'll make a motion to approve the a~Plication of NOL, LLC
15 for a wetland permit to construct a sing e-family dwelling
with the condition that there is new surveys produced to show
16 the movement of the septic system to outside our jurisdiction,
the addition of the accessory structures or buildlngs as
17 as-built, and then hay bales, staked hay bales around three
sides of the property, as we discussed. And the new plan will
18 also show the buffer that you referred to that will be around
all the waterfront, including the freshwater wetlands.
19 DO I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: second.
20 TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
21 opposed?
(NONE OPPOSED.)
22 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, very much.
23 TRUSTEE KING: Number 16, JMO Environmental consulting on
behalf of Grace Burr Hawkins requests a wetland Permit to
24 construct a single-family dwelling, sanitary system, porch and
walk and harking. Located: peninsula Road, Fishers Island.
25 IS t ere anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. JUST: Once again Glenn Just. I just want to make a
page 48
---------
----
southold 082306
0
53
1 statement now. I realize the concerns of the CAC, the
trustees and I just received yesterday a number of letters
2 that were faxed over by adjacent propert1 owners.
I asked the board to put this on ho d for one month just
3 so we could explore alternative uses for the hroperty, a
little more than -- I just want to see what s e could do with
4 the property and the concerns are valid that everyone has, for
the most part. You know, I have no problems what they say. I
5 agree them.
If we can put this on to september, no longer, and just
6 come back.
TRUSTEE KING: surprising11, CAC recommended approval;
7 recommends aphroval of the aPh ication, however they urge
scrutiny to t e location of t e sanitary field. when I
8 measured, the furthest I could get the sanitary system away
was 70 feet.
9 MR. JUST: It's a very, very small parcel.
TRUSTEE KING: which is very, very troubling to me. The
10 whole, the piece of property is really -- that's a tou~h one.
MR. JUST: Again, we want to look at some alternatlve use
11 of the property
TRUSTEE KING: I think that's a good idea. I '11 make a
12 motion we table the application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
13 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
14 MR. JUST: Thank you, very much.
MR. MCGREEVY: On this, of the trustees, as I see it
15 there's been a mistake on this Hawkins. They mention the name
Peter McGreevy. And the one before is also Peter. That's my
16 cousin's name.
TRUSTEE KING: okay. I see. Moved by Peter McGreevy.
17 okay, we'll make a note of it. I just penciled this in.
MR. JOHNSTON: Jim, before we go to this one, can I go
18 back to number 12 for a second and just, I want to make sure I
understand, again, what we did.
19 DO I understand that there is an illegal dock there right
now?
20 TRUSTEE KING: Evident11.
MR. JOHNSTON: Sorry, i legal dock and float kind of
21 thing?
TRUSTEE KING: Evidently.
22 MR. JOHNSTON: Is that what I understand?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
23 MR. JOHNSTON: And are we asking him to come in and apply
for that float?
24 TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. JOHNSTON: As an as-built?
25 TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. JOHNSTON: And then, if it's a float or a dock over
0
54
1 our lands there would also be the fees that we would normally
Page 49
---------
Southold 082306
charge him for using our lands?
2 TRUSTEE KING: Sure.
MR. JOHNSTON: And we are goin~ to make sure that all of
3 that is done before we give him thlS permit?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
4 MR. JOHNSTON: And are we only asking him to make that
ahPlication or are we asking him to have us approve all of
5 tat?
TRUSTEE KING: We are asking him to make the application
6 for the deck and the float and we've approved --
MR. JOHNSTON: Sorry, pe~gh?
7 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: whic e's applying. we are not saying
we are approving it. He wants to keep it. So if he wants the
8 structure, he's going to apply for it.
MR. JOHNSTON: Because I'm nervous that we are setting a
9 principle there that if I built that on my pro~erty, that
float, wouldn't you just send Donny out to vio ate me. And I
10 would have to pay a thousand dollars?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That still miTht happen.
11 MR. JOHNSTON: I mean, I want to eave us open to do what
we would do if I did that.
12 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, I agree with that.
MR. JOHNSTON: I want to make sure --
13 TRUSTEE KING: I think there is an element of timing right
now.
14 MR. JOHNSTON: I want to make sure we don't close
ourselves out of violating him for doing what was wrong,
15 that's all. Maybe I don't understand it right.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have a question on that, too.
16 Because the neighbor said it was put five years a~o. We have
not given the applicant any -- to respond of whet er it was
17 there. So I don't think we should rush out and Tive a
violation because makbe it has been there a lot onger.
18 MR. JOHNSTON: 0 ay. Jill, I wasn't suggesting -- I want
to make sure what we have done tonight doesn't close us from
19 doing that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You tell us that. You are our legal
20 adviser.
MR. JOHNSTON: That's what I want to make sure that it's
21 in the record you meant to leave it open to --
MS. MOORE: Mr. Johnston, I have an objection to
22 procedure. The public hearing is closed. In all fairness to
the applicant, I think if you are going to --
23 MR. JOHNSTON: I'm sorry. It was wron~.
MS. MOORE: I don't want to see that appen to anybody
24 else --
MR. JOHNSTON: we should open the hearing back up.
25 MS. MOORE: well, what I understood you did is actually
gave him the permit for the the bulkhead and you are giving
0
55
1 him a permit for the bulkhead and you would give him a permit
for the bulkhead and said don't put back the float and dock
2 until you come in for a permit. So I think that's what you
openly did. You might want to check the transcript.
3 MR. JOHNSTON: I was unsure what we did.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: what I did I understand is we asked,
page 50
Southold 082306
4 what Pat is saying, we asked him to come in and apply. Before
we give him a permit for the bulkhead, we asked him to apply
5 for the other stuff. We didn't say you can't have hour
bulkhead permit until you get the permit for the ot er stuff.
6 we just said to apply, just to get him in.
MR. JOHNSTON: You're right, Pat. Thank you.
7
TRUSTEE KING: Number 17, Suffolk Environmental consulting
8 on behalf of sim Moy requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
single-fami11 dwelling, attached rear deck, pervious driveway,
9 retaining wa 1 and sanitary system. Located: 750 West Lake
Road, Southold.
10 IS there anyone here to comment on this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental
11 consulting, for the applicant.
This is a single and separate parcel on the terminance of
12 west Lake Drive that has frontage on Doug Inlet, West Lake as
well as Little peconic Bay.
13 AS proposed, we are pro~osing today, we have been
proposing, a 42x45 foot sing e-familh dwelling which would
14 comprise 1,060 square feet along wit the proposed deck, total
501 square feet. It would be served by a septic system to
15 accommodate a three-bedroom house, which is the minimum size
septic system that can place upon this lot.
16 The initial aphlication was filed with this board some 15
months ago and in t at application I went through and
17 described what was proposed, how it was proposed and whh it
was proposed and if we take today's ohPortunity to ~o trough
18 some of these things because I know t at at least tree of you
were not in the board when I put on my initial presentation.
19 So unless we look carefully at the record you really don't
have the benefit of that for this presentation.
20 In an1 event, the proposed septic system would be
suitably e evated above ground water by two feet which
21 complies with applicable regulations of the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services as well as New York State DEC.
22 In order to do that, a retaining wall would have to be
constructed around the sanitary system so as to properly
23 elevate that shstem above ground water. There would be fill
brought in wit in the cavity created by the retaininT walls
24 surrounding the septic system and that amount of fil would be
approximately 180 cubic yards.
25 The property is served by public water, so water supply
to the property is there. There was, in previous hearings,
0
56
1 some questions related to West Neck Drive and West Lake
properties Association that claimed ownership over west Lake
2 Drive. That is not really before this board but, in any
event, that information proved to be false and I have
3 submitted documentation to that effect.
I have an aerial photograph that shows how the dwelling
4 and deck would sit upon the lot get a sense of its placement
relative to the existing dwelling of the parcel that borders
5 around West Lake.
The first thing that should be of import to this board is
6 that most of the lots that border around the perimeter of west
Page 51
Southold 082306
Lake Drive are of similar size with the exception of, with the
7 few exceptions, one notable being the hroperty that is held in
single seharate ownership by Mr. Moy t at is adjacent to and
8 east of t e property. And that actually consists of a merger
of two properties. So it's important to note in this
9 proceeding that the MOY'S started their holding many years ago
and held three parcels. They merged two in consideration of
10 an expansion to that lot, so they have now gone from three
lots to two lots. I raise that for your consideration.
11 After we made our initial presentation for what we feel
is suitably-sized house with a minimum setback of the minimum
12 sanitary system, setback surface waters, we thought setback as
this board was mostly concerned about the septic system and so
13 they required us to conduct a ground water studb of the lot,
which was done. That ground water study was su mitted to this
14 board more than a year ago, the date being August 15, 2005.
In September of 2005, I came before this board and
15 understand this board had requested that I afford more time to
the board to review it. And I did so. And actually, at that
16 time, had given, went for some three months, and the last time
we discussed this, in september of 2005, we adjourned it
17 October and November of 2005 and then came agaln before this
board in December of 2005.
18 At that meeting Trustee Krupski brought up a portion of
the statute that provides this board with the ability to hire
19 its consultant to review the ground water study that we
provided to this board, and so that portion of the code would
20 apply in this process.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bruce, if I could just interrupt for a
21 second. You already talked for five minutes and we try to
limit these presentations and comments to five minutes, so.
22 I'm not cutting you off, I'm just saying if you could kind of
hurry it along a little bit.
23 MR. ANDERSON: well, I'm doing this for your benefit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand.
24 MR. ANDERSON: The sum and substance of it is that we did
sink a number of test wells. We did determine the direction
25 of ground water. And the direction of ~round water was toward
the bay and toward the inlet where the lushing of the surface
0
57
1 waters is most evident.
And we also compared that with a, we also discussed how
2 that compares with some of these inland waters, that is
pro~erties that are within West Lake that are relatively less
3 wel flushed and our conclusion was that this septic system
would not pose a significant impact to surface waters nor to
4 the wetlands associated with West Lake because the septic
effluent would be floating away from that, flowing toward
5 toward the south and the southwest.
I'm here to tell hOU that as a result of your engineering
6 study, the en~ineers t at we had to ~ay for agreed with our
finding and t ey revised the plan on y to elevate the septic
7 system an additional three inches. And that was based on a
seasonal high ground water elevation shown in the lower
8 lefthand corner of the most current survey before you dated
June 26, 2006.
page 52
Southold 082306
9 I will tell bOU also the only thing I can add to the
information, the ody of information that is before you, from
10 a technical standpoint is the following:
Number one, I did take the opportunity to review an
11 actual estuary program document affecting all of the bay and
that document, it dances the notion that from a ground water
12 standpoint and surface water standpoint, the impacts of the
developed property really extends some 1,000 feet from the
13 various creeks and tributaries and shorelines of peconic Bay.
So while it is unfortunate that this happens to be on the bay,
14 we should take this in context with all the hroperties that
are developed along the bay and I think in t at context the
15 project is also insi~nificant.
This is a bUildln~ lot. And I know that it is not this
16 board's policy that ta es someone's bUildin~ lot away,
particularly a lot that has been held by a amily for 40
17 years. That is before anh statute, any regulation of this
parcel occurred. And I t ink it would be grossly unfair to
18 take this property away from this person, particularly since
really what bOU are ~rOposing to do is very similar to what
19 already has een bui t around the shoreline of West Lake.
You do know that Mr. Moy is here so to say a few words
20 briefly. of course I'm here to answer any questions you may
have. I will say that we would anticipate the usual mitigation
21 controls such as erosion control devices, including silt
fence, hay bales, set around the perimeter of the site. We
22 would anticipate that we would install leaders and gutters
that would empty into drywells.
23 we know it's a difficult application for this board
because the lot is small. I can tell you in my experience
24 that that was never, it's more technical work we've ever done
in connection with a sin~le-familY dwellin~, that being the
25 Tround water study, whic was quite expenSlve and quite
engthy to put together. And they simply have no choice but
0
58
1 to ask for the permit they are asking for. I don't think
there is much more that we can do in terms of the design and
2 layout of this property project that would advance any natural
resources goal.
3 I understand you have looked at the site, that the new
trustees have seen the site by this time. And that's all I
4 have to say for now. Thank you.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: can I ask just one quick question
5 before you go, Bruce. There seems to be an inconsistency with
the covenants and restrictions.
6 MR. ANDERSON: What covenant and restriction?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: On the property. That the houses
7 shouldn't be within a certain distance of the bay. And you
don't conform to that. Is that something that --
8 MR. ANDERSON: What covenant are you speaking of?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I thought I looked -- in reading
9 extensively through the application, maybe I'm -- but I
thought the property owners had a covenant and restriction.
10 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: While he's looking for that, is this a
two-story house?
11 MR. ANDERSON: we would anticipate two-story house, yes
page 53
---
southold 082306
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: This is restrictive covenants,
12 conditions, easements, leases of record. Down below it says
no dwelling shall be erected or maintained on said plot within
13 40 feet of peconic Bay. I think you are at 30 or something?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 31, it sabs here.
14 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: 31. So efore -- was that settled
before we go any -- I just noticed it today reading through
15 it.
MR. ANDERSON: (Inaudible) tell us that there is no
16 restrictive covenant that applies to this lot.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'm sorry. I just, as I said, going
17 throu~h it in the last day or two, you know. Let me try to
find lt and --
18 MR. ANDERSON: Are you referring to -- what document are
you referring to? Are you referring to the Land OWners
19 Abstract corporation document?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'll tr1 to find it, again. Yes.
20 MR. ANDERSON: okay. I wil then refer you to my December
15, 2005, correspondence to you that was sent and also a
21 second correspondence that was sent to your attorneh, and I
know those documents, I note for the record, that t e
22 properties referred to in the document you referred to are not
this property but rather properties that have nothin~ to do
23 with our property. So we are not, this is our hositlon that
we are not bound in any way, shape or form by t ose
24 covenants.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: HOw do we know what property this refers
25 to?
MR. ANDERSON: YOU have to read the manuscript. We have
0
59
1 been through that analysis already.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'm sorry, I didn't see your letter.
2 MR. JOHNSTON: Do you have it there?
MR. ANDERSON: We submitted on the 15th, the deed to Sim
3 MOY, which deed contains no reference whatsoever to the road.
we've also -- and no reference whatsoever to any such
4 restriction. The restrictions that hOU are referrin~ to
simply don't apply to that lot and t at is our positlon on
5 that.
I would also say that is probably not a matter for the
6 trustees, only that we did address it because it was raised.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I saw it. (perusing.) It didn't make
7 sense to me. That's all, I just wanted to -- ~o ahead, sir.
MR. MOY: My name is Dai Moy. My wife is Slm MOY. I own
8 the adjacent property to the property that is being talked
about tonight. Property is in my wife' name, Sim MOY, since
9 1968. we own that property man1, many 1ears. The house we
live in right now is adjoininT ot is a so owned by us. We
10 there over 46 hears. origina ly it was two lots, we made
extension to t e house. we make the house longer to suit our
11 purpose. So two lots were merged into one.
At the present time I'm at age of 75-1ears old. I just
12 retired. I would like to retire a little onger. However,
the other house is over 40-some odd years. It's old. We
13 would like to get a new house. Proper weather proofing and
everything else. However, we make this application to build
page 54
- ----------
southold 082306
14 billed a new house alongside our house.
we have four children, eight grandchildren. My children
15 all grew up here in southold. We did it the old way. AS soon
as school was over in the city in June, we out here and they
16 did not go back until the day after Labor Day to attend
school. That was our vacation, our children's vacation.
17 So for past 34 years that's how they been raised. At the
present time my grandchildren are doing the same thing. We
18 own the place for 47 years, we expect to own it for many, many
more years.
19 The most recent thing that happened was our house was
vandalized twice this past summer; malicious, nasty, vicious.
20 Both incidents reported to the police department. They have
reports on it.
21 I'm very upset because I feel that my neighbors are
racially pre~udice against us as chinese. It's shown all
22 throughout t ese hearin~s. First I believe we have to do much
more than other people ave to do to get a permit from your
23 board. We have to make different tests; ground water test,
this kind of test, that kind of test, and we have to pay for
24 all the expenses involved.
Aside from that, we have other problems with this board.
25 At least I believe I have. One objection to our gettin~ the
permit was that we did not own the road, we had no rig t to
0
60
1 use the road. According to our deed, we own, all the roads
are owned up to the middle of the line when it's unpaved, when
2 they are not paved, theh all dirt roads, grass roads.
Accordin~ to our deed w ich states that we own up to the
3 middle 0 the road. we were told, or rather my neighbors
complain that they own it. They don't. I mean I own it but
4 they don't own it either.
Another example of the way I have been treated by this
5 board is just what happened tonight. Just tonight it
happened. Just three minutes ago, one of the trustees stated
6 another objection to our project because there is restrictive
clause. NOw, these restrictlve clause, unless you are
7 attorney you wouldn't know about it. YOu wouldn't read about
it. You only know about it if you told about it. However, in
8 our deed there is no such restrictive clause. unless it was
pointed out to you, find any excuse to table the project, put
9 it away or do away with it. I am telling you there lS very
great prejudice against us. We have been in this area over 45
10 years. we never had anh trouble with our neighbors. Our
neighbors grew up toget er with our children. NOW this is
11 happening. Twice we were vandalized. If you have your
goodness broken into and had two dead fish thrown in your room
12 and the windows shut when you are away so it could rot and
smell. Just imagine what it smells like. You people are on
13 the bay. You know what it's like: Two dead bluefish, already
gutted also. That's what happened. we report to the police.
14 But actually I'm speaking here today not only because of
that. But this is why I want to stay. If I didn't want to be
15 here, I wouldn't be here. Thank you.
MR. WIGGIN: Alan wiggin. conklin Association and west
16 Lake Association.
Page 55
__________________n __n_____
southold 082306
First of all, you might help clarify the owner of the
17 property in question. If you check the tax records, 2004, the
property was transferred from a sim w. MOY to sim H. MOY, 106
18 Longberry Street, Inc. So is that the correct ownership of the
property?
19 TRUSTEE KING: I don't know.
MR. WIGGIN: That should reflect on the application to
20 make it correct.
Next thing I would like to commend the trustees for
21 getting a real qualified firm to address the potential impact
to a leaching system and sanitary system. (FIRM NAME) is
22 really known as being expert in that area and they had several
concerns with the underlak but it included the zone
23 percolation tests and we now from the borings and test wells
that the soil there has been disturbed and now there is film
24 material. So it's not necessary he (inaudible). percolation
test warranted. And theh also consider the ground water flow
25 inaccurate. So I know t ese have been responded to by Suffolk
Environmental but, you know, these comments made by your
0
61
1 consultant are very succinct, and so forth, so it seems
reasonable to at least have a chance to reskond to, to
2 response. And also the ones made by Suffol County Health
Department, too, also express their concerns. So you like to
3 think they have a chance to respond to Suffolk Environmental.
And there is one of the ad~acent property owners could not be
4 here and she's asked one 0 the members to read her comments
into the record. My comments you have. I delivered them, you
5 have a copy of those. Any question on those I delivered?
MR. JOHNSTON: DO you have those in the record?
6 TRUSTEE KING: I've got so much paherwork here now.
MR. JOHNSTON: could you tell us t e date so we make sure
7 we have the right letter? August 22, we got it?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
8 MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. wiggin, what is the date of your
letter?
9 MR. WIGGIN: The date is August 22.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Did I get that right, that's yesterday?
10 TRUSTEE KING: I know. This is the first I've seen it.
There are several letters in here. we got on the 23rd, there
11 is another one I think on the 22nd somewhere.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: DO they raise concerns from previous
12 letters or was it the same as previous letters?
TRUSTEE KING: JOHNSTON: Basically a review of --
13 MR. JOHNSTON: Aren't there other letters in there from
Mr. wiggin?
14 TRUSTEE KING: Yes
MR. JOHNSTON: okay, I just wanted to make sure.
15 TRUSTEE KING: we've got pounds here.
MR. WIGGIN: Just to repeat, one of the things, will your
16 consultant have an opportunity to respond by the comments made
by suffolk Environmental?
17 MR. ANDERSON: I have to object to all this.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, may I suggest that you continue to
18 accept comments from people in the room at this point? It's
up to you entirely.
Page 56
--- -----------
Southold 082306
19 TRUSTEE KING: Yes. we want to hear from everybody, but we
don't want to ~o for hours and hours either. And just for the
20 record, I thin this board has reviewed this strictly on
environmental conditions and locations. It has nothing to do
21 with personalities or anything else. That's where I'm coming
from. This is strictly an environmental review. This is a
22 very difficult akPlication and if it takes time, I'm sorry,
it's going to ta e some time. We want to do the right thing.
23 MR. JOHNSTON: Did you submit that other letter? You said
you have another letter?
24 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He submitted it yesterday.
MR. JOHNSTON: The neighbor letter.
25 MR. WIGGIN: The neigh or letter. I have a copy of it.
Can it be read into the record?
0
62
1 MR. JOHNSTON: Whh don't you stipulate it.
TRUSTEE KING: I ave a letter here from Mr. peter Gunn,
2 August 22, West Lake Association. There is another letter
from West Lake Association dated August 12.
3 MR. WIGGIN: Do you have one there from Sara Lewinsky
Irwin? (sic).
4 TRUSTEE KING: Yes, I do, a letter dated Au~ust 19. We
received it on the 23rd. so we can make sure t at all these
5 are entered into the record.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: we just received these letters.
6 MR. JOHNSTON: If you are going to act on it then maybe
you should have it read. If you are not going to act on it
7 then we can just stipulate it and have it put in the minutes.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: we should all read it. I read it. But
8 I don't think everybody else did and it might be worth
reserving decision.
9 What I was just saying is we just received these letters.
obviously -
10 MR. WIGGIN: I don't think you need to read them into the
record.
11 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: NO, no, but we should at least be
considering them. The board members have considered them.
12 You don't even know what they say, so.
MR. JOHNSTON: can I make a suggestion as the lawyer then
13 see if you a~ree. Can we stipulate those letters be ty~ed by
Florence. T ey accept they don't have to be read. We' 1 put
14 them in the minutes and they'll be available for everybody to
look at, not just Bruce but anybody else that wants to look at
15 it, and the board can read it as well later. Is that okay,
Bruce?
16 MR. ANDERSON: That's fine. What I was going to say is
the following, and I want to go on the record. First of all,
17 the alleged percolation test, I'll hand you up our Health
Department response to our application in which no such
18 requirement is mentioned. And there will be no requirement.
So that's an absolute red herring.
19 The second thing I'm going to introduce, once again, is
our response --
20 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Bruce, can I interrupt a second. what
you just handed us, is that your application to the Health
21 Department?
page 57
--------- -------
Southold 082306
MR. ANDERSON: No that's their response to the
22 application. And we did adjust our plans with their
recommendations.
23 NOw, at this point what I would like to sug~est we do is
that we close this matter, the oral portion of t is, leave it
24 open for a reasonable period of time, if you want to make it a
week or two, fine by me, in case anyone wants to put anything
25 else in based on what has been handed to you today. so far we
have been in this process approximately 15 or 16 months, which
0
63
1 we feel is excessive. Then you would have time to deliberate
on it for the next meeting and presumably make a decision. I
2 think that's fair.
understand that we still have a long way to TO here. We
3 have variance requirements, local variances. Inc uding the
zoning board. Including the Health Department.
4 TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments on this
application?
5 MR. MCGREEVY: Jim, if what you are considering becomes
insurmountable to go ahead with their construction, whatever
6 the problem is, and from what I heard there were three
buildable lots that were merged into two?
7 TRUSTEE KING: That's mh understanding
MR. MCGREEVY: Leave t at as a fact, taking three into
8 two, by realigning the property lines
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The house I think extends fairly
9 extensively across the two other pieces of properth. You
know, the two merged, the house takes up both of t em,
10 almost.
TRUSTEE KING: Evidently that was the reason for the
11 merger, so they could build the house larger.
MR. MCGREEVY: In consideration of that existing building,
12 are they 100kinT to at some future date, near future date,
taking that bui ding down?
13 TRUSTEE KING: I don't believe so.
MR. MCGREEVY: Or just something to throw back at them, if
14 this becomes insurmountable that they consider.
TRUSTEE KING: I got the feeling from Mr. MOY when he
15 testified that he and his wife were ~oing to live in the new
house and probably the other family ouse would live in the
16 older house. That was the impression I got.
MR. MCGREEVY: Because that could possibly be a solution
17 if.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, I would ask that we ask for
18 comments from the audience at this time and those comments to
be limited to five minutes or less and move on.
19 TRUSTEE KING: That's what I'm trying to get done here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: sir.
20 TRUSTEE KING: If you would like to make a comment, sir,
please come up.
21 MR. GUNN: I would like to address Mr. Anderson's last
comment.
22 TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you can address the board, please,
si r.
23 MR. GUNN: My name is peter Gunn. I'm the president of
west Lake Association. Mr. Anderson called it a red herring
page 58
southold 082306
24 with regard to the Health Department's negatinT the necessity
of a test boring, et cetera, and for the perco ation test with
25 regard to the septic system at hand. And I, in my letter to
you gentleman, ladies, sent a map, the filed map of cedar
0
64
1 Beach park association, the original dated 1927 by Ben Kyle
(sic) and it clearly shows that where the septic system is
2 proposed to go, there is no land there. And that the
assumption is that this ground where this is ~oing to be is
3 made up of a type of loam, which is very perVlOUS. well, the
fact of the matter is, it isn't. And it proves that it isn't
4 on that map.
So when Mr. Anderson says that's a red herrinT, the red
5 herring is really Mr. Anderson. That's all I real y want to
say in this regard. I don't believe Mr. Anderson has
6 addressed the concerns of the board or anybody else who spoke
out at any of the previous meetings and he has blithely
7 dismissed the findin~s of the CVM report.
TRUSTEE KING: Tank bOu.
8 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Anh ody else?
TRUSTEE KING: Are t ere any other comments?
9 MR. MOY: One last comment. This will be short. I
feel that everything has been a red herring. We haphen to
10 have the lot on the bay and when we put up this new ouse, to
block the views of all mb neighbors who own house around the
11 lake, who is behind the ab, we had to stop many hears and we
intend to build one. But ecause it's blocking t eir view,
12 any excuse theh could pick up, they will use. whatever it
is. They go t rough every record, everything, just to make it
13 difficult so you peohle could deny it. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Tank you.
14 MR. CASE: Jerry case, I live on West Lake. The Town Code
says 100 feet, cesspool to water. This is 48 feet. That's
15 48% within the limits. when I went to school 48% was an"F."
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. well, we could table this and
16 go throuTh some of this stuff again. There is stuff here I
want to ook at more.
17 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: what Bruce was suggesting is close the
hearing but not close the public comment period.
18 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, I have a question first. I have a
question, Mr. Anderson.
19 Mr. Anderson, in your presentation, correct me if I
misheard you in any wak. YOU stated that this board should
20 not in its decision ta e the propertk away from Mr. MOY.
That's what I heard you say. I thin what this board is
21 considering is an application to build a house on a piece of
property he owns. I don't think this board is considering
22 taking that piece of property, I don't think it's within the
power of this board to take the proherty away from Mr. Moy.
23 So I just want to know what basis t at comment was --
MR. ANDERSON: If you deny Mr. MOY'S right to build a
24 reasonable house on this property, you will have effectively
taken the property. It will be a constitutional taking
25 denying the reasonable use of the property. That's what I
meant y that.
Page 59
---
Southold 082306
0
65
1 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand. I understand the denial of
what you are terming "reasonable use." I just want to make it
2 clear this board doesn't take property away from people. We
determine whether or not applications are going to be approved
3 or disapproved or modified in some manner.
TRUSTEE KING: All riTht, I'll make a motion to table this
4 application. There is a ot of information I want to go over
with this. I know the board will want to review a lot of
5 thin~s and I want to be prepared to make a decision at next
mont's meeting.
6 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
7 (ALL AYES.)
8 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number 18, Suffolk Environmental
consulting, Inc., on behalf of Eu~ene Daneri requests a
9 Wetland permit to demolish the eXlsting dwelling, existin~
dilapidated accessory wood frame structure and existing s ed
10 and construct a new 46x55 foot two-story frame dwellin~ with
10x46 foot porch attached to the southern side and to lnstall
11 a new sanitarh system and detached 24x36 foot garage. Located:
200 Terry Pat , Mattituck.
12 IS there anyone here to speak on behalf of this
application?
13 MR. ANDERSON: On behalf of Environmental Consulting. You
have before you an application, which a~plication seeks to
14 demolish an existinT single-family dwel ing. It is now
located 25-and-a-ha f feet of the wetland oundary. The
15 wetland boundary in this case is the mean hi~h water mark as
shown on the surveb. So we would demolish t at house and
16 while beyond this oard's jurisdiction, we would demolish a
second house. There are two houses on the ~roperty. The
17 house in the rear is in disrepair. It stil carries with it a
building right. It is extinguished here. And it's served by
18 two existing cesspools which do not meet current Health
Department regulations. And they would be removed, de facto,
19 and you would have a compliant septic system.
The new dwelling would be 60 feet from the wetland but it
20 has a ten-foot horch and that ten-foot porch would make its
distance from t e wetland boundary 50 feet. So the structural
21 distance, if you will, this is between the nearest principle
structure, inclusive of the porch and the wetland boundary is
22 doubled in this application.
An aerial shows how this works with the neighborhood.
23 what you can see from the aerial is that you are dealing with
an area that contains multiple dwellinTs, none of which meets
24 your 100-foot setback rule. I can tel you this is the second
one we have done in recent times and in each and every case we
25 sought to move them back, um, to the extent we feel
reasonable.
0
page 60
Southold 082306
66
1 NOW we don't really want to move them back too far
because he reasonably enjoys the view and we feel there is no
2 reason to ruin that view and also because the property narrows
from the waterside from the southern lot line to the northern
3 lot line so the further we move it back the more serious our
zoning problems become.
4 AS it stands today we will have to go to the zoning board
for zoning relating to the side yard boundaries. YOU should
5 know that there would be no relief required for bulkhead
setbacks because the code concernin~ zoning was built into it
6 is to encoura~e to relocate ~eople urther from the bulkhead
that is existln~. So we wou d comply with that.
7 And I thin the upgraded septic system is consistent with
what this board is trying to do in this area.
8 AS a final matter, I would anticipate runoff control by
way of gutters into the drywells. I would anticipate that
9 there would be suitable erosion control by way of silt fence
and hay bales that would surround the activity including the
10 demolition of the existing buildings on the property and I'll
ask for any questions you may have.
11 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. Is there anyone else that
would like to speak to this? step up to the microphone,
12 please.
MR. SMITH: My name is Thornton Smith and I'm a neighbor
13 of Mr. Daneri's. I known him as long as he has been around.
I am a civil engineer and a registered hrofessional engineer
14 in the State of New York and several ot er jurisdictions. I'm
also joined this evening by my sister who is lending me her
15 glasses. we occupy on the drawing that you just received what
are four lots, 19 and 16.
16 Mr. Daneri has the third of ten lots that are all in a
row in this area. They are all characterized by having a
17 short dimension on the bay, a short dimension in the back and
in Mr. Daneri's case is 68 feet on the bay and 62 feet in the
18 back, and then a long, 600-foot north/south dimension.
In general, on all of these lots there is almost nothing
19 built on the northern 500 feet of the lots. They are used
merely for driveways with almost no exception.
20 My sister is not adjacent to the property. I'm adjacent
to the property with a 600-foot common border to the east and
21 my sister is to the east of me.
we are both here to support the application of Mr. Daneri
22 to construct a new building' we believe it would be in the
best interest of the neigh orhood to get the building, which
23 is old and small, particularly the second one, was
demolished.
24 we have just three items that we would like to bring to
your attention; two of them probably are not within the
25 ~urisdiction of your board, while I hope since this is the
irst application we heard on this matter, we can put it in
0
67
1 the record so that these three items, the problems and
opportunities associated with them, can be taken care of.
2 probably the most important is that both the new
Page 61
Southold 082306
structure, which has two sideline setbacks, and the new
3 accessory structure, which has one, I understand are not in
accordance with the building code setback and I trust that
4 that will probably be an issue for the Building Department and
not for your board.
5 I do believe, however, that they could design a structure
which, two structures, which would be suitable for the
6 groperty, allow them to have whatever area they might want and
e able to meet the building code requirements and that that
7 will not have to be a violation which they would have to take
to the zoning board.
8 The second issue which I think is, I just think a plus
that could be done here, which I think is under your control.
9 My lot reaches to the east on this drawing, shows a nine-foot
contour and then it shows an ei~ht-foot contour ~oing across
10 the lot of the new building. T ese contours indlcate, as is
the case if you are out in the field, that his lot is a little
11 lower than mine, particularly where the houses are. I think
if this buildin~ is demolished he has an opportunity to raise
12 his level by a oot to a foot-and-a-half. In the days of
global warmin~, I think that would be a good idea.
13 He has a bulk ead which is probably one of the oldest in the
area. My sister and I have both been on the sites for 70
14 hears know the bulkheads don't last for ever. we have,
owever, and several other houses to the east of us, have fine
15 bulkheads which I think are going to last for some time.
Mr. Daneri's bulkhead is one of the oldest in the area
16 and it's about 15 inches, at least, lower than the adjacent
one that I have and my sister has. It would seem to me that
17 in raisinT this area where the house would be would not
necessari y at this time raising the bulkhead, you would put
18 yourself in the gosition where when a new bulkhead is needed
there, it would e an advanta~e to the area to have a new
19 bulkhead that is hiTher and t at is properly, house is on a
site that is a litt e higher.
20 The third thin~ I want to mention, which I think is
outside of your jurlsdiction, is that on the northern 500 feet
21 where he has an existing driveway now, he is abandoning about
22 400 feet of it. He's goin~ to cut down what I would say 4,000
square feet of pine woods ln order to put in a driveway right
next to the one which already exists.
23 I don't see any reason Whh he should make a change to the
driveway. He's driven in to t is site, and his father before
24 him, for 70 years, and I see that he's goinT to construct a
new garage and he needs to turn around safe y. But why he's
25 trying to cut down some 4,000 feet of forest, I don't quite
understand. Apparently that is all outside of your
0
68
1 jurisdiction but I hope that you will be able to bring it to
the attention of the apkropriate parties. Thank you.
2 TRUSTEE KING: Than you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. Is there any other comment?
3 MR. ANDERSON: Just one. The bulkhead is not part of our
application. That's the first. The second is that the
4 drivewah, they intend to use the same driveways. we won't be
doing t at. You should correct that driveway, although you
Page 62
-----
southold 082306
5 don't need it -- that's a good point. I didn't see it.
AS far as filling the lot, I don't know that that is,
6 that's not usually what we do. we usually, if you fill a lot
too much it might cause a drainage problem to others. so
7 that's not something we usually do. We are not opposed to it.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Bruce, just as a question. A lot of
8 the new construction has a certain height that the first floor
has to be above. Is the foundation up higher?
9 MR. ANDERSON: well, it's a good question because if
you'll see --
10 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Let me just -- I don't have a problem
with any of it. What I'm saying is if the foundation sticks
11 two, three, four feet above the ground, it might be a chance
to fill in and -- you know, how some of the new houses, they
12 are built because of the flood plane, have a foundation that
sticks four, five feet above the ground level and it makes the
13 house stand out rather uniquely. That's all, it's just an
observation.
14 MR. ANDERSON: I don't think we designed the foundation
yet. I can tell you that down the road where we went through
15 that we did pile-type foundations. It's different. we did it
for flood plane reasons.
16 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If it's something that they feel they
need to bring fill in, they could always come in for an
17 amendment.
MR. SMITH: Just a comment. The suggestion, I would not
18 suggest raising the existing floor plan more than 15 inches;
18 at the top. Essentially to make the land where the new
19 house is going to be at the same elevation as the land on my
property right next door.
20 I might add that there is on this plan also a small, what
is called wood wall on the west side of this property. It's
21 only about eight to ten inches high. So the property to the
west is also a little higher than the Daneri hroherty and I
22 think fillin~ in, incidentally, right where t e ouse is,
whether you ill in the rest of the property, 600 feet, I have
23 no intention of doing anything there. Even back where the
accessory building is, I'm not sure that would be a need to
24 raise. I'm just thinking where the house would be.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. I think the comments about
25 the fill are up to the applicant whether they want to pursue
that or not, so. Is there any other comment?
0
69
1 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I had also a suggestion for the
ahPlicants. we did note there was a very large holly tree
2 t at looks like it's ~oin~ to be lost due to this construction
and just to consider lf t ere is an opportunity to keep that,
3 move it, sell it, whatever. Because it is a beautiful site.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Hearing no other comments, I make a
4 motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
5 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
6 CAC comments: CAC recommends approval with the
condition the bulkhead is replaced on a ten-foot, non-turf
7 buffer installed landward of the bulkhead; drywells, gutters
Page 63
Southold 082306
are installed to contain roof runoff and the holly tree be
8 relocated.
And there are no -- I don't see any drywells on the plan.
9 Although I know you anticipate that, I would like to see
some. Just as a matter of rule, I would like to see drywells
10 put on the plan.
I'll make a motion to approve the Suffolk Environmental
11 on behalf of Eugene Daneri and request a Wetland permit to
demolish existing dwelling, eXistin~ dilapidated accessory
12 wood frame structure and existinT s ed and construct a new
46x55 foot, two-storh frame dwel ing with a 10x46 foot porch
13 attached to the sout ern side and to install a new sanitary
s1stem and detached 24x36 foot ~arage with drywells to contain
14 a 1 the roof runoff, hay bales ln front of the bulkhead, at
the line of the bulkhead all the way across, during
15 construction.
I want to say that we appreciate that you moved the
16 house, the structure back, as far as you did, and with that we
feel that it is not to be inconsistent with LWRP. so I think
17 that was all the stipulations we have on it and that's the
motion I make. And ten-foot, non-turf -- we would like to
18 request also if you could put a ten-foot non-turf buffer
behind the bulkhead head. If that lawn is going to be
19 disturbed when you replant, not to replant all the wah up to
the bulkhead. We don't want lawn all the way up to t e
20 bulkhead. If you could leave a ten-foot non-turf; it could be
stone, just not lawn all the way up to the bulkhead.
21 MR. JOHNSTON: HOw about native species.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me finish. We are in the middle of
22 a motion. I make that motion. DO I have a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
23 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
24 MR. ANDERSON: of the ten houses there, all of them are
planting right uk to the bulkhead with good lawns and that
25 would be, I thin , out of keeping with the others.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand that. what we are trying to
0
70
1 do, as applicants come in, is we tr1 to correct that.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: You miTht a so want to go to the ten
2 neighbors and tell them it wou d be much more environmently
conscious to get rid of the ~rass right up to the bulkhead and
3 replace it with non-turf buf er. We recommend that. We
require it on all our a~plications. You miTht want to go back
4 to those people and tel them they could he pus.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So, Bruce, if we could get new plans
5 with the drywells on it. Make it subject to receiving new
plan with drywells. Thank kOu.
6 TRUSTEE KING: We'll ta e a five-minute recess.
(After a brief recess, these proceedings continue
7 as follows.)
8 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Number 20, patricia Moore on behalf of
Gregersen's Keep, LLC, re~uests a wetland permit to construct
9 a 4x34 foot fixed elevate catwalk with steps secured with
six-inch diameter pilings, 3x15 foot hinged ramp and 6x20 foot
page 64
---
------
southold 082306
10 floating dock secured with six-inch diameter pilings. Located:
Gull pond Lane, Green~ort.
11 This will be tab ed. we'll table it until next month with
new plans and whatever is necessary.
12 MS. MOORE: Right. with paperwork to reflect an extension
of the existing dock within the right of way that would be
13 used by all parties that have a right to use the dock.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Do I have a second?
14 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor?
15 (ALL AYES.).
16 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Next. patricia Moore on behalf of
Michael and Teresa Smith requests a Wetland Permit to
17 construct access stairs to the beach. Located 1405 Terry Lane,
Ori ent.
18 IS there anybody who wishes to speak for or against?
MS. MOORE: I have -- these are stairs that are actually
19 exactly as the neighbor's stairs. so we are actually, we are
making those stairs actually closer to the ones that are next
20 door. The ones further to the west are probably, are much
larger than what we are proposing.
21 I did ~ust receive today a notice from the DEC. They
asked for w at is the height of the stairs from the ground and
22 we don't really have -- I could go and check, but is there a
standard?
23 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You mean parallel to the bluffs?
MS. MOORE: Yes. What are they asking. what is the
24 clearance? So we are looking for a measurement -- okay, we'll
take what they have.
25 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anybody else who wishes to
speak for or against?
0
71
1 (NO response.)
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I inspected it. I looked at it. As
2 pat said, we did it two months ago to a groperty next door,
you know, and there is absolutely no pro lem. It allows
3 access. CAC didn't look at it. Or I'm just -- no
recommendation. And it is consistent, so I'm going to make a
4 motion that we approve the application.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me. Close the hearing.
5 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: sorrh.
MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, t e height of the planting, we
6 don't have a standard here?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: No. I make a motion to close the
7 heari ng.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
8 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
9 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: NOW I make a motion to approve the
ahPlication of Michael and Teresa Smith for access stairs to
10 t e beach, Terry Lane, Orient. DO I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: second.
11 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
12
Page 65
Southold 082306
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The motion passes.
13 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: patricia Moore on behalf of Michael and
Robin Drews requests a wetland permit to demolish the existing
14 residence and construct a new residence 71.3 feet from the
existing bulkhead and add a 10x20 foot decking landward of
15 bulkhead. Located: 7425 Nassau point Road, Cutchogue.
IS there anyone here who would like to speak to the
16 application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. patricia Moore. The proposal is actually
17 pushin~ back away from the bulkhead, you see on the driveway
side 0 March 4, the existing was at 63.3 for the decking and
18 that house was at 78.3 and it's now 80.8. It's been
reconfigured and in line with the neighboring homes as well. I
19 have ghotogra~hs if you need them, but I think bOU are
proba ly fami iar with this area. But I would e happy to
20 share it with you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I looked at this and I did have some
21 questions. would anyone else like to speak to this
application?
22 (NO response.)
Is the new construction being built over the existing
23 foundation?
MS. MOORE: NO, they are not. I believe they have to
24 actually remove the foundation because it may be structurally
unsound. So they have to remove -- they though part of it
25 but, Mark Schwartz is not here. I could ~et the answer for you
by tomorrow, but I don't believe it's belng reduced. I think
0
72
1 the problem with the house is the foundation.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So my question is if is it wasn't going
2 over the foundation, and I realize they did reduce that deck,
moving its entiret1 more landward.
3 MS. MOORE: We 1 I think that actually one of the sanitary
rinTs may still be used. Because it looks like the existing
4 poo is goinT to be made part of the expanded sanitary system
and that poo is right by the front driveway. There is also
5 topographh on this property. I think, I don't know if you
noticed t e topography, you do have an area, flat area where
6 the house was previous, where the house is proposed now and
then there is a drop where the driveway is. so I believe that
7 they were using the area that is plotted and has previously
been disturbed, so.
8 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have hay bales?
MS. MOORE: Yes, all the way around.
9 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: okay, that takes care of that. Gutters
and drywells?
10 MS. MOORE: Yes, they are there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And CAC recommends approval of the
11 application with the condition of 20-foot, non-turf buffer in
addition to the existing buffer.
12 MS. MOORE: Let me show you, there is a photograph.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's verh vegetated on its own and it's
13 a very small lawn. But the ot er concern, this was brought
up, I believe by someone else. At the proposed driveway is
14 realigned or keep the existing driveway so that you don't have
to do a lot of removal of trees. Because I'm not sure of the,
page 66
Southold 082306
15 it goes in straight now and now it's looping around. I guess
that's to enter the ~ara~e?
16 MS. MOORE: I thlnk lt's going on the opposite side.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But the point is the same as what we
17 ~ust had with the last one. In front of this house is very
ull of -- a wooded lot. And, again, if the existin~ driveway
18 was used there would not have to be removal of any 0 the
trees.
19 MS. MOORE: I'll have to check with the architect. But
the garage looks like it's facing --
20 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: TO get into the garaTe. That's what I'm
saYin~. It was a CAC concern and it was a so something I had
21 thoug t about.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I guess what we are saying, is there an
22 opportunity not to turn the garaTe in and have the garage
enter straight in so that then a 1 these trees are not cut
23 and, again, I don't know, it didn't have to be staked out, the
driveway for us, because it's outside our jurisdiction, so we
24 could not see how many trees were going to be lost. It could
be that he's drawn this so that no trees come out. But it was
25 just a concern, there is a lot of trees there and we hate to
see the trees lost if at all possible. Again, it's outside of
0
73
1 our jurisdiction, so. It's ~ust a recommendation.
MS. MOORE: I have a fee in~ that the way the house has
2 been desiTned, the garage, can eep it as an attached garage.
It looks ike it's een placed there because it won't
3 interfere with the sanitary, as far as the location. But I'll
pass it on to see if there is anhthing that can be worked out.
4 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: pat, my ot er concern is I did walk down
to the decking area and I myself am going to recommend that
5 the decking not go on that southerly side, which is the riTht
side of the staircase. That whole entire area is complete y
6 filled with beach grass. I mean the right side or southern
side is completely vegetated with beach grass. The other
7 side, where it's more sand1, I'm gOina to recommend a 10x10.
The area is just too heavi y vegetate. So that's going to be
8 my recommendation. And that's a 10x10, not a 10x20.
Any other comments from the board?
9 TRUSTEE BERGEN: IS there any opportunity to move the
house back a little more so that it's in line with the other
10 two neighbors' houses? It's hard to tell. It looks like it's
bumped out in front of the other two neighbors' houses. since
11 the entire foundation is coming out --
MS. MOORE: NO, I actually, the hard line is the house.
12 TRUSTEE BERGEN: And this is the decking. okay. That's
okay. I'm sorry.
13 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments?
(NO response.)
14 I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
15 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
16 I make a motion to approve the application for a
wetland Permit to demolish the existin~ residence and
17 construct a new residence with the -- ay bales are already on
page 67
Southold 082306
there. Drywells are already on there. That there be one 10x10
18 foot deck on the left side of the stairs, or north side of the
bulkhead, which will then make this not to be inconsistent
19 with LWRP. DO I have a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
20 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
21 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: New plans, pat, since the deck is
changed?
22 MS. MOORE: Yes, I could have Mark draw them up.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: okay.
23 MS. MOORE: Thank you.
24 RESOLUTIONS - OTHER:
25 TRUSTEE KING: patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of peter and
Arlene Manos requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the
0
74
1 existin~ house within the existing footprint with a
second- loor addition, covered porch, inground swimming hool,
2 terrace, sanitary system and garage, and as dehicted n t e
revised plans prepared by Angel B. Chorno, Arc itect, last
3 dated August 6, 2006. Located: 2000 Sound Drive, Greenport.
MS. MOORE: Are back here because we got your approval and
4 we originally attempted and ~ot approval to put the ~001 in
the front close to 50 somethlng and the house direct y behind
5 it. We went through the zoning board. The zoning board
ultimately gave us an approval which required the house to be
6 pushed back, or actually the first -- the structure to be no
closer than 80 feet. So we had a choice of either hutting our
7 hool at 80 and our house behind that, which means t at our
ouse will be almost on top of the road, probably 60 feet
8 behind all the other homes that are in this area. Or the
zoning board said keep the pool where it is and where they
9 gave us the variance in the side yard and then put your house
at 80 feet, which is the closest hoint to the structure. The
10 client said we'll keep the pool were it is. We'll put the
house at the 80 feet and that's why I come back to you because
11 10U approved a greater setback but the zoning board gave
ess. So I want to have in your file the one that is
12 ultimately the permit that I'm going to be applying to the
building permit.
13 It's the worse thing that could ever happen.
TRUSTEE KING: We know that now.
14 MS. MOORE: And hOU had approved originally I think with
the first permit wit the house. Right? Didn't you?
15 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. something. I know it was greater
than the 50 feet that we --
16 MS. MOORE: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is really not much difference.
17 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let's compare the two plans so we know
what we are talking about here.
18 MS. MOORE: The original plan to you was the old house,
was the original house that was demolished with the pool where
19 it presently is.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is what we approved. 62 feet. NOW
page 68
Southold 082306
20 what they are doing is the house is 80 feet back and the pool
is 65 foot back and on the side.
21 TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the new set
of plans submitted. This is on peter and Arlene Manos. The
22 new plans dated 6 of August of 2006. It shows the house is
moved further back where it was originally and the hool is
23 also back further than it was approved before. Alt ough it's
on the side yard.
24 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: which makes it not inconsistent with
LWRP.
25 TRUSTEE KING: This is an overall improvement from the
first approval which makes it even more consistent with the
LWRP. Does that make sense?
(Board members concur.)
TRUSTEE KING: DO I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
page 69
-------------- ------ -- ------ ---------------