Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-01/24/2001Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Henry Smith Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax I631) 765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES Wednesday, January 24, 2001 7 p.m. PRESENT WERE; Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster, Trustee Henry Smith, Trustee (absent) Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee Charlotte Cunningham, Clerk CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FI]~LD INSPECTION: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 at 8 a.m. TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve. TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. WORKSESSION: 6:00 p.m. TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve. TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of November 21,2000 and December 20, 2000 TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve. TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES III. 1. e MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustee monthly report for January 2001. A check for $7,750.60 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. AMENDMEENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGE S: J. Kevin McLaughlin on behalf of ORIENT WHARF CO., requests an Amendment to Permit g474 to allow the existing 6'x8' shed, which houses necessary water filtration equipment to remain on the wharf, as long as the filtration system is required in order to obtain a potable water supply, Located: 2100 Village Lane, Orient SCTM#24-2-28.1 POSTPONED UNTIL FEBRUARY AS PER AGENT'S REQUEST WILLIAM & IRENE OLDENBURGER requests a Waiver to erect a vinyl shed on the north side of the property in the rear of the yard 40' fi:om the water. Existing shed to be removed. Located: 2100 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck SCTM#122-4-8 TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve the application. TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES DEBORAH PENNEY requests a Waiver to build a porch enclosure and deck. Located: 1 Sailors Needle Road, Mattituck SCTM#144-05-026 TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to deny the Waiver and to require a Minor Wetland Permit. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES JON KERBS requests an Amendment to Permit #4992 remove 10'x24' asphalt drive and landscape the area. Relocate 150 s.f. asphalt drive, add 11 s.f. garage span add 9 s.f. 3x3 foot section of porch, add 70 s.f. 7'x10' entrance steps. There will be no change in lot coverage. There will be no change in setback from wetlands. Located: 430 Riley Avenue, Mattituck SCTM#143-5-9 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application for Permit #4992 as written. TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALLAYES S.E.L. Permits on behalf~of MICHAEL & JANE SUEIRO requests an Amendment to Permit #2170 to re-sheath 80' bulkhead on landward side using treated lumber, replace 5'x20' float with a 4'x40' catwalk, 3'x12' ramp, 6'x20' float secured with 2 piles, 3'x4' access steps, two-pile dolphins and construct timber deck over existing concrete patio in same footprint. Located: 700 Snug Harbor, East Marion SCTM#35-5-36 TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application to re-sheath bulkhead with a 10 foot non-turf buffer and approve deck over existing concrete patio in same footprint. Revisit the site to look at the dock and the walkway at next month field inspection. TRUSTEE POL1WODA seconded. ALL AYES. Ongioni & Borrelli on behalf of AQUAVIEW HOMEOWNERS ASSOC., INC. C//O WILLIAM A. GEROSA requests a Waiver to install a temporary "barrier" type fence with sign on the west and east property lines of the Aquaview Homeowner's Association, Inc. The homeowners association wishes to install iron stanchions with a light chain linking each stanchion from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Suspended from each chain will be a sign that states "private property". Located: 425 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion SCTM#21-2-6 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application with the condition that the iron stanchions can stay.. The chain that will be removed after Labor Day. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES JMO Consulting on behalf of LAWRENCE C.CREEL request an Amendment to Permit #5200 to modify the approved single family and decking further away from the wetlands and increase the buffer area. Located: Crescent Avenue, Fisher's Island SCTM#6-1-4.3 TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI Do I have a motion to go offthe Regular Meeting and onto the Public Hearings. TRUSTEE FOSTER so moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS; THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLAND ORDINANACE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE SUFFOLK TIMES. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS IF POSSIBLE. ANTHONY SHANNON requests a Wetland Penni/to install a 4 foot black chain link fence and for the cleating of brush, planting of trees, shrubs and grass. Located: 3325 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck SCTN#114-04-1.1 POSTPONED UNTIL NEXT MONTH UNTIL PLANS ARE SUBMITTED Proper-T Services on behalf of C&D REALTY requests a Wetland Permit to construct single family dwelling with private well and on site sewage disposal system. Located: 5640 Cox Neck Road, Mattituck SCTM#113-4-1 POSTPONED UNTIL FEBR UAR Y AS PER A GENT'S REQ UES T SUSAN BRAVER/JOSEPH GULMI requests a Wetland Permit to add 273 s.f. addition to existing single family dwelling. Located: 250 Pine Tree Court, Cutchogue SCTM#98-1-7.11 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here would like to speak in favor or against the application? The property was not posted. I had a hard time finding it. Actually the deck does not seem to be accurate. It is a much larger deck that I was standing on today. I really do not have a problem with it. It is very heavily vegetated. If there are no other comments? I will make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES The CAC recommends approval, with the condition that hay bales are placed and drywells are installed and we will take their comments into account. I will make a motion to Approve the application with the condition that hay bales be placed do you think that 15 feet gives then enough room to work, Artie. It is all wooded right there and I do not want to go into the lawn area. TRUSTEE FOSTER: What are they going? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is an addition to a house 21x13. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Full basement? Excavation may require more room than that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It might not be. Take a look at the house it is only a small addition. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Them is a crawl space. There is one on either side. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Fifty cubic yards will be excavated. TRUSTEE FOSTER:: From both of them? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes with a backhoe. So a backhoe does not need that much room. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You come do some backhoe work with me some day. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I will give you 12. I will make a motion to Approve the application with the hay bales be placed at the edge of the work area and that gutters and drywells be installed on the ~vhole house to contain the roof ran-off. That the disturbed area be re-vegetated after construction. Note that the hay balesbe placed no more than 20 feet from the addition. All in favor. ALL AYES. RAYMOND JAY AKSCIN request a Wetland Permit to install a driveway within 75 feet of wetlands to access basement garage. Located Bayview Road, Southold SCTM#88-2-17 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here would like to speak in favor of the application? RAYMOND JAY AKSCIN: I am Raymond Jay Akscin you have the wrong address on there. You have 12565 it is 13565. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right, is that your only comment? We met Mr. Akscin in the field and environmentally we did not have a problem with his project. Do you want to explain it to us. You do better than I would I am sure. RAYMOND JAY AKSCIN: Explain what? The problem I do not see it as a problem. The Trustees said to notify property owners and I do not consider DeHaan a property owner.. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Something that I do not know about? RAYMOND JAY AKSCIN: They have a quick claim deed that they got for a $100. in 1953 and my grandfather's deed dates back to 1914. He did not sell it to anyone. It was past through the family. Mr. Lark can explain it better than I can. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We may ask Mr. Lark to do that. Let me explain to the Board, they are unaware of this. A letter came in yesterday from Debroah Doty representing Mrs.Florence DeHaan who claims that she was not noticed of the hearing. It says that it appears that no notice was issued is that Mr. Akscin believes that he is the co-owner of the adjacent property and that she states that belief is incorrect and that the premises known as 14105 Main Bayview Road is erroneous included in the January 11th 1983 deed from Francis Askcin, George Askcin, Raymond Askcin, Robert G. Titus to Raymond Askcin and Geraldine Askcin and erroneously included in a deed dated May 2ncl, 1996 from Raymond J. Akscin to Raymond Jay Akscin. The grantors on the 1983 abd 1996 deeds have never been entitled to 14105 Bayview Road, accordingly because of the failure to provide proper notice my client objects to the heating going forth as schedule. RAYMOND JAY AKSCIN: They do not have title either? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Maybe Mr. Lark could clear this up? Is there anyone here representing either Ms. Doty. Or Mrs. DeHann MR. LARK: I got a copy of that letter last evening also. You are all familiar with the layout of the property, so by way of history here. The Akscin farm went fi:om Main Bayview Road to North Bayview Road with people by the name of Hall lived there was the Akscin Family Farm stood. The property that you are dealing with this application was the bam and so on and so forth in the original farm and it went all the way back to Northern Bayview. When the grandfather died. Basically they divided it into four parcels, because there were four brothers in the family. Raymond who is Jay's father got this southerly piece which included the house. Minnie Terry handled the estate and this was back in the early 60's I guess and there was some confusion because that the property that Ms. Doty refers here is immediately to the east of where you have your application. The pond in the area there was man made that was created by the grandfather way back .for an irrigation pond. Now, of course, the DEC has take~ that over and so on so forth. You have jurisdiction on it, but it was basically used as a form of irrigation pond. In the map of Cedar Beach which was filed in the late twenties, maybe early thirties. Which included all those lots all around the General Wayne Inn. That whole area down in there. They included this adjacent parcel which I will refer to as tonight as Park and Tennis Grounds it is on the early maps. Tennis/park and playground that is what it said on it. But whenever the owners by the name of Totter which was the developers of that map. Decided to do anything the Akscin Family came out shot guns and all and said get off of our property and nothing ever happened over all the years. They farmed it they did everything with it, in fact Jay's father used it as a means of eqress and egress to go to and fi:om his house when he got married and built his own house down on the creek, by the boat basin there. So it kind laid around nobody did anything with it and then when he died. The whole Akscin Farm was quartered Raymond though he had this piece and then he and his son went into the landscaping business, nursery business and so on and so forth. They planted the entire thing. Along in the late 70's early 80's Rudolph and Mrs. DeHann who is still alive Florence DeHann came along and said that you are on our property. They showed this quick claim deed that Ms. Doty has referred to here. You got to understand all these farmers "yeah fine get out of here" that was the end of it. There was a litigation in the mid eighties with the Supreme Court which ended up being a non-suit it was a combination of factors. Basically there was no judgment there was no decision rendered by the Court. That is how it sat ever since. When his father and the brothers were finalizing the Estate that is how these deeds emanated that are into Raymond and Geraldine Askcin at the time and then Jay's mother passed on and the father decided that he did not want iy in his name anymore so that is the later deed over to Jay it was all family transfer. So what Jay says is true it has been in the family since world War I. Or a little before World War I when the Askcin family had deeds everything to it. There has been a genuine dispute now however for purposes of this hearing. For the purpose of the Boar's jurisdiction when I got wind of this I checked the zoning code and you adopted in yon Wetland Ordinance the notice for any hearings the generic ordinance for the whole town which by the Board of Appeals, Planning Board so on and so forth Town Board and everybody and it does say that you have to mention all abutting land owners. So when I went over the map in my mind and spoke to Lauren I said in technicality that is what the ordinance said and I checked it and it did I said that you really have to give notice to the old Dickinson Farm on the other side, westerly side of Bayview because sub-division has not been filed. (Change Tape) By reading the technically reading of the ordinance that would abut so she would be notified by virtue of that anyway. Because if Jay is claiming ownership to this piece it would pass through to the next piece anyway. So I think you have a solid hearing from a legal basis you have to notify everybody anyway. So it probably has to be adjoined I do not think that anyone will object to the application. I looked at the application of the driveway I thought no big deal. But from a technical point of view the way our ordinance reads now that they have extended it across the street abutting because if I own property say with my wife and I am applying on my property alone which is adjacent to it. It passes through to the next one that is the interruption and that has been legally up-held in zoning type cases and not in case like this. But Zoning type cases, so I think it is academic and if you notice when Jay applied for the sub-division he did not include the disputed land. The park and tennis grounds. Which is the L shape inverted L shape piece he did not include it in the application because there is not clear title to it. There is no question I would be misleading you if I said that he owned it, she owned it. It is not clear title to it. It has never been adjudicated. They have come close to doing it again but somebody dies or something happens in the family and nothing happens to it. So Jay is using it. He is using 95% of it, he is using irrigation pond for his farm he has his trees on there, shrubs on there. His life has gone on as it has since World War I. So that is why he says she is not the owner. I am the owner. I am there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you satisfied with that? That it be postponed. RAYMOND JAY ASKCIN: I have a question as Mr. Lark puts it. Do I have to notify the people on the south side. MR. LARK: As the ordinance is written technically yes. I know. I am on your side. Because I am trying to do it right. RAYMOND JAY ASKCIN: Where does the line end. Do I have to notify everyone in Angel Shores. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just the adjacent - opposite your driveway I would think. The frontage on Bayview. MR. LARK: Is only about one hundred feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Less than 100 feet so whoever is directly opposite. RAYMOND JAY ASKCIN: So that would be the company, whoever has that property. Because that vacant land they cannot build there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh So you would just notify them. RAYMOND JAY ASKCIN: The old Dickerson Farm, Angel Shores which is a buffer zone. Who owns the buffer zone, the Town? MR. LARK: You have to check the tax role. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can come in and ask Charlotte she will look it up for you. We do not have a problem doing it properly. It will cost Mr. Akscin another month to notice everyone, I do not know if the Board has any comments. We have the hearing opened. It would be appropriate at this time if the Board made any comments concerning this. So that Mr. Akscin could address them completely at the next month hearing. TRUSTEE KING: I did not have any problem with the project at all. It was just a matter of notifying the neighbors that is the problem. MR. LARK: More of a technical thing that is what she is objecting to. RAYMOND JAY ASKCIN: It has to be put back in the paper again. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh You do not have to notify the people that you notified. MR. LARK: Because it really is postponed pending proper notification. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We are postponing it for a month, which we do in a lot of these. They get postponed for one reason or another. You only have to notify the two. TRUSTEE FOSTER: So we really could not even approve it. Pending notification because someone may object to it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So it will be re-noticed in the paper with the correct address 13565. So I will make a motion to postpone this application until next month. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES. Albertson Marine on behalf of BUDD'S POND MARINE Requests a Wetland Permit to tie into existing bulkhead next to travel-lift slip. An area 5'x8' will be added to make a launching area for the fork lift. The launch area will be 11 feet wide. Material will be treated lumber and 4 treated piles, No dredging. Located: 61500 Main Road, Southold SCTM#56-06-2.2,3.2&3.3 TRUSTEE FOSTER: We all looked at this and I think we all agreed that it was not a problem and that we should~approve the application. Is there any comments fi:om the aUdience on this application? For or against - no. Do I have a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE POL1WODA: Seconded. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I will make a motion to Approve the application on behalf of BUDD'S POND MARINE to precede with the work listed in the application. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor. ALL AYES SO MOVED. Fairweather-Brown on behalf of LEO & VIRGINIA ALESSI requests a Wetland Permit to build a two (2) car garage 24'x24'. Located: 1700 Cedar Point Drive, Southold SCTM#92-1-3 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone want to make a comment? AMY MARTIN: I am Amy Martin I lived at 318 Fifth Street, Greenport and I am here on behalf of the Alessi's and Fairweather- Brown. The architect 413 Main Street, Greenport. The house was built in 1980 and renovation took place in 1987 and the Alessi's would like to retire there now. Therefore, they would need a garage. We do know that all of the run-off and things like that will be provided for in dry wells and french drains and of course hay bales will be placed during construction, Thank you. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would anyone like to make a comment? I have looked at this application and I did not have any problem other than the roof run-off and drainage. Does another Board member have a comment? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I would like to make a motion to close the heating. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Seconded. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor. ALL AYES 10 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I will make motion to Approve the Wetland Permit for LEO & VIRGINIA ALESSI to build a two car garage located 1700 Cedar Point Drive, Southold with the stipulation that there be roof-m-off as well. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor. ALL AYES Fairweather-Brown on behalf of ALVIN BERMAN & ELLEN BUCHBINDER-BERMAN requests a Wetland Permit to install a stairway down face of slope and bluff to gain residential access to shoreline. Located: 215 Hillcrest Drive North, Hillcrest Estates, Orient SCTM#13-2-8.16 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anybody here would like to comment on this application? AMY MARTIN: I am Amy Martin again for Fairweather-Brown. The only thing that is different due to the fact that we went to the site after the snow storm and they are not clearing anything that has anything that has to do with cliff or the bluff. The staking that we were able to do there. It is 231 feet from the road rather than the proposed 278. So it appears that the stairs will have to go higher to make them accessible to the homeowner. The configurations as they are shown on the survey and as they actually are in the site are a little different than the terrain is rougher than it appears. We obviously will not make them any longer than they need to be. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I have looked at this application also, can you tell me how wide the stairway will be? AMY MARTIN: These are five feet wide. Again this is the first stairs that we have done down the sound in about twenty years.or fifteen years. So if there are recommendations. You realize that there is no platform allowed at the top, and we just want to make them accessible. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Most stairways I have been on are four feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have a survey in the file here. That shows the proposed dwelling well back of the Coastal Erosion line and then on the site plan it shows a proposed dwelling well a lot closer. AMY MARTIN: Yes it is one of those situations where the proposed dwelling was set-up before the property was purchased to make sure that it was a build able lot. The house site has been closer to what the surveyors call (cannot understand). So what they were hoping was to be able to put the house where it is presently proposed. We have asked for a letter of non-jurisdiction. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where it is proposed. Is definitely non- jurisdictional and coastal erosion with the wetland line. The problem that we have had in the past was you get into a land clearing situation at the top of the bluff. If you take a look at the contours from the house towards the water. They all run down towards the water. Most of the sound bluff, the bluffcrest up so that all the water is running from the house is running away from the edge of the bluff. Some cases the water accumulates from the house and runs down and destabilize the bluff and then you get into destabilizing the whole shoreline. We have seen that once in Mattituck which is really a severe situation where it affected not only the applicant's property but the neighbors property. We are seeing it again in Cutchogue where the same situation is occurring. Violations have just been issued to try to remediate that because it is damage to their own property. Which is taking place initially. There is one up here on Lighthouse Road at Horton's POint in Southold. Similar situation where the proposed house is on a slope facing the water. We have asked for a plan that would accommodate the up-land water. Up-land for recharge so that it does not go over the bluff once the lot is cleared and destabilizes the bluff. AMY MARTIN: Some sort of retaining situation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anything that would retain whether it is a French drain or a swale or something that is going to show complete containment of that up-land water. Because it is in the applicant's best interest as well. AMY MARTIN: You know that the neighbor to the east, Mr. Gerond, has already secured Trustee's approval. The question of his house is also further and we will be glad to meet with any thing that we need to do. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Technically, it is out of our jurisdiction. However, the less cleared and the water is directed down the face of the bluffand then it is in our jurisdiction. But then the damage has been done. So we are trying to apprize people of this, but this is a potential problem and we want to see the applicant put his own safe guards on it because it is his own property. AMY MARTIN: Are there recommendations or suggestions that have been done before that you have proved to work satisfactorily. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You minimize the devegation for one thing. TRUSTEE POL1WODA: The lot is cleared already. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Recently cleared. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well it is out of our jurisdiction. AMY MARTIN: You will find that the trees remain but they were cut so that you can walk through it. It is physically naked. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So the ground has been disturbed TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Not the bluff. TRUSTEE KRLIPSKI: About how far down? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It does run down, it could be a problem. AMY MARTiN: When we went to put the stake in we could only get. Because of the vegetation we could only get 231 feet from the circle. So it is nowhere near down the bluffas the stairs here show. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The problem will probably occur once the house is built. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before any construction you should consult some engineer that is familiar with this. Contours so that you do not have a problem. AMY MARTIN: Again the house will have French drains and dry wells for the run-off from the house itself. It will only be a one- story structure. We have the plan of that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We will put that in the permit and we will assume that the applicant takes responsibility for that, because it technically is not in our jurisdiction but we do not want it to become in our jurisdiction. AMY MARTIN: Very good, thank you very much. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken can you close the heating? TRUSTEE POL1WODA: I will make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POL1WODA: I will make a motion to Approve the Wetland Permit for ALVIN BERMAN & ELLEN BUCKBINDER-BERMAN to install a 4 foot stairway down the face of slope and bluff to gain residential access to shoreline. Also put a french drain in the rear of the yard before construction and once construction of the house occurs to show that there are dry wells. Hay bales be placed at the Coastal Erosion line and no clearing past the Coastal Erosion line. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. TP~USTEE POLIWODA: All in favor. ALL AYES. Fairweather-Brown on behalf of ELLEN ItUFE request a Wetland Permit to remove existing family residence replacement with new family residence in a different location. Located: 3745 Wells Road, Southold SCTN#70-04-09 AMY MARTIN: Again Amy Martin from Fairweather-Brown. We were before you earlier and we were told to go back behind the 100 foot line as I gave to Charlotte the corrected survey which is 102 feet 9 inches from the high water mark. We would like (cannot understand) Because there was an obision the last time. The house will be totally provided with French drains, hay bales and everything in place. For any work that has to go on the water side. There would be drywells existing septic system will be moved landward. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We will take another comments first. Is there any other comment on this? RICHARD LARK: Richard Lark, Jim Rich could not be here tonight he has family business out of town so he could not be here. So he asked me to appear and acquaint you and I would ask your indulgence. When I was here the last time I pointed out that you have a title problem here. You own their land, and no one wants to recognize that so what I have got is some aerial photographs to show you and if I can indulge you. You will have to come around here. What Jim did, he took three aerial photographs here. One is 1955 1 think we will start with that one because that shows when the land was basically virgin it was the earliest aerial that he could get. Now what he did he has taken this and sketched it as it is. This is lot 7 this is lot 9 which you are dealing with here. He shows you as you can see from the aerial in 1955. They are all 100 feet to an inch. Of what the coastal line was. When you take this overlay that he did there you maybe interested in Lot 9 and then you lay it on the 1964 aerial survey. As I explained to you before if you get out of the fluorescent lights you can actually see the dredging of the channel. What Carl did over a period of time after he built his house he would have the County, because he always kept big boats in there have them dredge it. Then they would put the spoil in here and the property over there. That is basically where they put the spoil, Jim was telling me they wanted to put spoil down in here. But he and the neighbors did not want it. Because there was an enbankment there and they only had it for small boat as docks in and out and it was very convenient to slide them on and offthe draft rather than to have them bulkhead so they did not want it there. So he just built it out over there over the period of time. This is probably the closest you are going to get, you can see the difference in the development between the two of them. You come over here to this one here you can see how it has been vegetated and filled in. The problem with all of that is. Is that filled land it is not normal addition that was done with the dredge spoiling. Jim is a witness to that as he explained this before and belongs to the Andreas Patent. Fortunately, or unfortunately belongs to you inherited all of that being the Trustees so you own the property down there. So you not only have the 100 feet as she referred to. You own it. There really is not clear title to it. In the old times they would come in when that happened especially when the County did the dredging and for a dollar for years Albo would give a deed, that is how the practice was. It happened in Mattituck Creek and I know that you are familiar with Mattituck Creek and it happened in various other places on the Creek. The people next door and she is here tonight, this neighbor right here. There was a deed restriction in the deed that Carl took it that they could not build 10 feet from the embankment. When you come over in these early ones you can actually see especially the 55 where the embankment was. There was an embankment all the around with oak tree.type that grew vegetation and it went all the way around. They wanted everybody back 10 feet back from that point. Carl kind of violated that and we know that nobody said anything at the time you have to live with it. So I explained to them that if they use the existing the footprint of the house. Whether they tear it down put one over night it really does not matter. That is where it is and that is what the neighbors wanted. When you stand on any of these properties over here. Especially the one next door and you look east you have an unfettered view over there and in the summer time you have the breezes as you know that is our prevailing com'mg up that way. That is why they are objecting as being put out further than it is. They are still pertruding out a little bit and the neighbor's are still objecting to it. Jim is upset because of the present situation here we have a classic case where there is no question that when the County who ever did dredging did dump the spoil there. Because I am a witness to it he said. And no body did anything about it. Now they are trying to compound the problem by coming forward and I am sure if they came to you with an application with property surveys everything give you the dollar and no one would object to it from that stand point He is not stand'mg in the way of that at ail because that happened so many years ago. The Hufe have not done any of that. They had lived over here. They sold that and bought Carl's over there. It is not a question of that. So he wanted to make you aware of it he is so upset about it. He is not upset to build it where it is and apparently the neighbor to the west is upset since her air flow is going to be blocked off. By moving it further out to the west which they are proposing. Although it is better than they did before. Identify yourself, so they k now who you are. MARYANNE HORAN: I am Maryanne Horan I am the neighbor to the west. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were out there Friday and this survey shows exactly what you said, this area is not located on the property. Having said that we measured from the Wetland line. Our measurement to the bulkhead I think was about 96 feet and if you go to the adjacent wetlands. Our jurisdiction is only 100 feet from the wetland. MR. LARK: I understand that, but you have got to understand something it is not only a wetland situation is is an ownership problem. You are the owner. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I understand that. MR. LARK: You have inherited that. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Who would establish that? MR. LARK: The surveyor would. Based on the evidence. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That is what we need to see in the field.. MR. LARK: No you cannot I have done the same thing and even with Jim Rich who remembers it who is using trees and stuff like that. That is not good enough. He can tell you where that old berm was and how Carl just leveled it out. But you are within three or four feet you are not accurate. Armed with the file map and with the earlier aerials and everything that can be accomplished. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: From the beginning we could say two factors one we only have jurisdiction at 100 feet. This is 102 we measured less than 100 in the field. We also measured the wetlands line in here I think it was more than 92 feet. We measured originally it was 94 feet to the bulkhead. It was less here. Our jurisdiction is only at 100 feet so you can bring it back more. Our standard policy on housing is that we keep them in line with the neighbors. So that eliminates a lot of problems MR. LARK: I want to address that they know it has been that way. They are not in line and they know that. Carl pushed it out initially. AMY MARTIN: That is what was talked about in the covenant is no longer. Presently the distance behind the fence, it is away from flood zones. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we would like to see them staked .. The property lines. We can only hold them back to 100 feet. MR. LARK: There really is no problem if they clean up the Title if they come in with all the right stuff. Which you historically have done all of that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We want to see the property line staked. AMY MARTIN: We will have the property line staked and we will propose it no further than the 100 feet from the wetland. I know that is out of your jurisdiction once you get that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Once you get out of our jurisdiction than I think it will be in front of the original house. Even though it is ourside of our jurisdiction. MR. LARK: You are probably right, what Jim showed me is the measurement early on prior to the other hearing. You are probably talking three or four feet. You are probably about right. Is that what you came up with. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We determined where the high tide was. We had a tape and measured it with a tape measure. We are high teck. Without it actually being staked by a surveyor when we meas~ed it. I believe the house from the stakes that you put in showing where the footprint was. I believe had to come back six more feet. That is without survey stakes. We do not know where the survey stakes are going to wind-up. AMY MARTIN: They will be 14 feet in this corner. We will definitely go back and have it properly stake it. MR. LARK: If they need any of these maps he will be welcomed to them. AMY MARTIN: One other apology I have to make. I was on vacation when the re-notification went out, and Mary Anne was not sent as a new homeowner. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MR. LARK: If Tony needs to borrow then he can. You have anything else you want to say to me. MARYANNE HORAN: We will have to see what the new map says. TRUSTEE POL1WODA: I will make a motion to Table the Wetland Permit for ELLEN HUFE until next month. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of WILLIAM F. TYREE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x178' catwalk with a 12' "T" structure shall be constructed 14" above grade of marsh for the purpose of kayak launching. Located: 2280 Moore's Lane, Cutchogue SCTM#116-01-8.3 POSTPONED UNTIL FEB R UAR Y AS PER A GENT'S REQUEST 10. First Coastal Corp. on behalf of LONE STAR INDUSTRIES. INC. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new marina & restaurant facility. The portion of the site adjacent to Mattituck Creek to be excavated to create a boat slip area the proposed marina to contain approximately 37 boat slips. The boat slip area is to be accessed through one 75 ft. wide opening into the site fi:om Mattituck Creek. Approximately 36,500 cy of material to be excavated to accommodate the boat slip area. Approximately 100 wood piles to be installed for pier and a slip fie-off piles. A proposed 10,000 sq. ft. building containing a 80 seat restaurant marine office, and restrooms and is to be located on the southerly portion the site landward of the boat slip. Parking area for the marina, restaurant and the office are also located on the southerly portion of the site. A 2 ft high landscaped eastern bern running along the southern limit of the boat slip area will prevent storm water from entering the waterway. Drywells will be installed in the parking area a to collect storm water. An area of wetland approximately 500 sq. ft. on the northeast comer of the site seaward of the proposed bulkhead, will Undergo wetland restoration. Located: Naugles Drive, Mattituck SCTM#99-04,1,1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would like to make a Resolution for our Board to co-ordinate the Environmental Review with the Planning Board. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Make a motion. I second it. TRUSTE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES. Is there anyone who would like to speak on it? NEIGHBOR; I have a petition from the neighbors objecting to the proposed proj ecu. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Feel free to submit it to the Board. You must have comein after the meeting started. Because we are not going to have much of a public hearing on this tonight. We met on the site on Wednesday, they did not have the information that we requested on the site. Then because of the magnitude of the project. This Board has decided to coordinate Environmental Review with the Planning Board. Because they need Planning Board permits also. So this is going to be an on going process here. We are not going to make any decisions tonight. We really do not want to discuss it. Because we did not get the information that we requested. There really is not much to discuss. NEIGHBOR: Is there a way that we can be notified because I called this mormng and they told me that the meeting was going on. Also that it would be taking place about 8 o'clock. That is why we were little late. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Call Charlotte in the morning and she can notify you if anything is going to move on this. So we past a resolution to coordinate with the Planning Board. Is there any other comment on Lone Star. Do I have a motion to postponed the hearing. TRUSTEEPOLIWODA: So moved. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES 11. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of JOSEPH CORTALE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a recreational dock facility consisting of 4'x40' fixed CCA timber Dock, 3'x20' float. The proposed fixed dock is proposed to be elevated a minimum of 4' above grade from that tidal wetlands line seaward. The ramp and float are proposed to project offofthe fixed dock at an "L" configuration. The float is proposed to be supported by (2) 6" Dia. CCA timber piles on the landward side of the proposed dock facility. A light post with an electrical outlet is proposed near the end of the fixed dock. Located: Glenn Road, Southold SCTM#78-02-39 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: POSTPONED AS PER AGENT'S REQUEST 12. Catherine Mesiano Inc.on behalf of JOAN MCDONALD requests a Wetland Permit to construct +/- 2000 s.f. single family with decks/porch, septic system, public water supply mhd pervious driveway. Septic set back 100' from wetlands, house and deck/porch to be setback from wetlands. Selective clearing to within 30' of wetlands, cut phragmites down to 12" restore 30' buffer with non-fertilizer dependent vegetation with 4' wide mulch path. Located: 705 Bay Shore Road, Southold SCTM#53-3-9 TRUSTEE KING: Would any one like to speak on behalf of the applicant? CATHERINE MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of JOAN MCDONALD proposing construction on this new residence.. After speaking with A1 on Monday, my understanding that there are concerns. He indicated a 50 foot non-disturbance buffer on the survey. However Ms. McDonald is hopeful that the Board will be a little more lenient and grant her a 36 non-disturbance buffer as she would naturalize the area in the back yard up to that area. Rather than have afull lawn, she just loves to do selective clearing just to gain (cannot understand) Also I understand you are concerned with the alignment of the property. This house is set no more seaward on the line to the house to the east. They are both set back 75 foot point. The house to the west does not come back that far. One of the major considerations in this site form was the consideration of the septic system. We realize that we have some concerns because two of the properties immediately across the street are still using wells for their water supply. Given that fact we had to maintain 150 foot separation between those wells and our proposed septic system. So essential what we have done (tape change). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any other comments on this application? TERRY HUGHES: I am Terry Hughes my husband and I live at 605 Bayshore Road. The property to the west of this one. We do not have a problem with someone building a house next door to us (cannot understand). But we have a couple of concerns. One is the placement of the septic system, we are on town water. But the septic system is about 15 feet from my back deck which is about another 3 feet fi:om my kitchen table. It is also only a few feet over where the flood zone changes on the property fi:om a X.&E Zone. I think that everyone is aware that the houses across the water on Bankment Road, every time there is a storm. There septic system is under water. I do not really want to smell this right offmy back deck. We live here year round. Ms. McDonald lives in the city has not been here much of the time and if there is a problem. What could be done about it afterwards. I saw a the surveyor there in December.. He specifically asked me ifI knew who had well water and who did not. I specifically told him that the three houses directly across the str fi:om that property were on well water. I know that Mrs. Dobsonski sent a letter stating that she did have well water. In placement of the septic system was put where it was. Because they put on the original survey that her and us both had town water. My second concern is that the policy is to keep houses in line with the neighbors so why is her house going to be pretty much in my back yard. Her house is set so much further back then our house. Why can't it be set up even with our house. Keep it in line with the rest of the neighborhood. The only house it is going to be in hne with the home that was built a year ago. All the other houses in the neighborhood are set offthe road. So why wouldn't this house be set to keep it in line with the neighborhood and the existing houses. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was our observation from the field.. TERRY HUGHES: I think some of you people were there on Friday. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We saw you looking out the window. TERRY HUGHES: I tried to meet you but you were gone already by the time that I got outside, But that is how close that where I was standing where you waved to me I could touch my kitchen table. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Normally the cesspools are outside of our jurisdiction and we do not have any say. We only have a 100 foot from the wetland jurisdiction. The survey that we had in the field the wetland line is the same on it, but we disagree with the wetland line as flagged. So the wetland line really moves in land another six feet in reality. Not on the survey, so we would push the septic system. We can always push it with our jurisdiction back another 6 feet toward the road. That is as far as we can legally push our jurisdiction only extends that far. You will have to go to the Health Department because they ultimately are the ones who place the cesspools. TERRY HUGHES: I called the Health Department today, I was down at the Tmstee's office this afternoon and they gave me the name of the senior engineer. Which I placed a called to him this afternoon but I have not heard back. We are not looking for problems with Ms. McDonald we just want to do what is right. TRUSTEE KING: They are legitimate concerns. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The septic system you probably would have to go down to the Health Department. TRUSTEE FOSTER: This is all subject to their review. They do not let too much slip by. This comes here and then it will go to the Health Department before there is a building permit issued and it will get a lot of screening down there. Believe me. If any thing has to be moved it will. In terms of the odor it is a subsurface system and I do not think that you should be concerned about that. It is not going to smell, it is not going to hurt anything. TERRY HUGHES: If it is underwater? TRUSTEE FOSTER: That is another concern where are your cesspools? TERRY HUGHES: In the front of my house. TRUSTEE FOSTER: How much higher, is that considerably higher. TERRY HUGHES: Her property is down lower than mine. Our property is even where they have the line going straight across the property. That does not go straight across on our property, It goes back here, we only have one far comer back here. That is really which is in the E zone all the other property is all land exposed. TRUSTEE FOSTER: This will also be addressed by the Health Department. They have roles and regulations about flood plans so forth and so on. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This will be pushed out of our jurisdiction so you will have to talk to them, because they are the governing agency on septic systems. TRUSTEE FOSTER: But this system, today's requirements this will all be covere& The cover that is only up to grade. Is a cast iron cover which is a locking cover and it is sealed. So if the land floods no water would get into the septic system other than what drains through the ground and get into there. TERRY HUGHES: But what if the ground is saturated with water. What happens then? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I do not know them is no such thing as 100% prevention. Acts of nature take place The Health Department will give it the attentiom TERRY HUGHES: I do not want to have it there. We spend a lot of time in the summertime on our deck. We are here all year round. MR. HUGHES: What I would like to address why this house is not in line with our house. Why will it be in my back yard, we go all the way back. ABIGAIl, WICKHAM: Could I respond to that comment, my name is Abigail Wickham and I am Ms. McDonald attorney and as you explained the Health Department is really the one to look at the cesspools. As far as the placement of the house back from the wetlands. Once we figure out where the line is going to be 75 full feet from it. The point that she made about the house where it is supposed to be located being in her back yard is really very challenging point, because it is not her back yard. It is our property, and the leveling of the part of the house with the adjourning property on the east is creating a line of houses and that was a president that you set on the house to the east. A neighboring property has no legal right of view or water view or any other type of view over an adjourning piece of property or a house placement should be determined because of the view of a neighbor might get. I think we would set a very dangerous president certainly with regard to legal president in this country for hundreds of years. TERRY HUGHES: Can I respond, I do not object to the placing of the house, because we are not going to loose the view. We always have the view of the water in the back. That is not going to be taking away from us. As far as the view to the east the main view really is from our second story. Yes, I can see at this point all the way and watch the ferry go from Greenport to Shelter Island. Which I probably will not be able to see anymore if the house is put where it is. We realize that we do not have a right to say that you cannot put the house there because we are going to loose the view what we were reflecting was what you said earlier was that it was standard policy to keep houses in line with the neighbors. So if 99% of the houses are 40 or 50 feet from the road why is this house going to be 85 feet from the road. You are using one house that was built last year which was built on an angle. It was built and she was talking about the back of the house being 75 feet from the wetlands. That house over one comer of that house is close to the wetlands. Because the house is set at an angle. She wants to put this house straight across and put it 75 feet and first of all I thought it was suppose to be 100 feet from the wetlands. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When we approved that permit for that house. Our jurisdiction was 75 feet from the wetlands. We pushed that house back as far as we could under the Town Code. The Town Board in its wisdom increased our jurisdiction recently to 100 feet. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: That is not a set back as I understand it. It is jurisdiction. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It is a jurisdiction. It does not mean that a house has to be 100 feet back from the wetlands. That we have jurisdiction within that 100 feet, TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because of your house is not built right on top of the wetlands we set back the existing neighboring house. As far back as we could. Because of environmental reasons. It was not a view factor. Strictly environmental reasons to set the house back as far as we could. So we have jurisdiction now 25 feet greater on the last existing lot. TERRY HUGHES: Well it is not the last existing lot there. There are properties to the east of us that are not built either. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that there is only one that does not have a hole there. TERRY HUGHES: But what we feel is that we have woods com'mg up to our house and then our house is set in line. As the same as the houses across the street from us. Further down the street from us. If you are going to go just past us and you are going to push the house way back, and then if somebody ends building on the east side of us.. There house is going to get set way back. Everybody houses are going to be when I said in my back yard I meant in line with my back yard. ABIGAIl, WICKHAM: Just to get back to the house to the east, that we are in line with and that is a neighboring house. So I think that is important to the Trustee's look at placing the house. The reason that the house is angled if you recall I have that map here. As you precede east ward along the creek. It would be southward at that point, and therefore, the house had to be angled in that direction. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is where they wanted it. We put that house back 75 feet, we put it back as far as we could. The set back as far as we could at the time. We could not put it back another inch. They angled it because they wanted to angle it. ABIGAIl, WlCKHAM: Her point was that it was one little point. That was 75 feet away from the wetlands. That is because the house is actually 75 feet but that is why it is like this. Instead of straight across. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But they could have made it straight across here to. But they choose to do that. 'They did that because they wanted to. We could not have put it back any further. They could not have gone ahead any further. It was an impasse there. So it has always been the Boards policy to keep the house or any activity as far away as practical from the wetlands. To afford the greatest mount of protections for the wetland that is the environmental reason. ABIGAll, WICKHAM: I would hope that you would feel that based on the entire approval a few years ago. The alignment with the neighboring houses to the east and the verification of the true wetland lines is to the 75 feet. Again we have to deal with the Health Department. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it was approved on the basis of maximizing the distance from the wetlands. The 75 feet was the number in the code at that time. That is why we maximized that distance. ABIGAIl, WICKHAM: All we are asking is that you maintain that distance. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Except that the code has changed now. So now we have an extra 25 feet. I mean it was 100 feet before in all likelihood we would have had them put the house back at 100 feet. We did not have that obis ion. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: Well you cannot put the cesspools up any further. Because the wells are across the street. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Take a look at this Ken, Artie. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You are going to fred that the wetland line obviously is 9 feet landward. ABIGAIl, WICKHAM: What ever it is it has got to be a line. The house has to be a lined to what ever it shows. I do not know why he did not stake it the way you saw it. TERRY HUGHES: Is that the revised survey? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is your house. Here is the neighboring house. Draw a line in between from this corner to this corner. The wetland line is, this is the 75 feet. What is the set back on that road. CATHERINE MESIANO: The building line is on that survey. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, I see. ABIGAIL WICKt-IAM: We will have to re-map this again. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We want the wetland line put on the map. CATHERINE MESIANO: When we spoke on Monday, ifI had know this I would have had it done. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sorry you caught me in the barn. I was not completely focused on this. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I do not think that any of us where of this until tomight. TERRY HUGHES: The surveyors came back yesterday, they were there 8 o'clock yesterday morning to define the Deboskies well, and the Board wanted to see the placement of our house. CATHERINE MESIANO: There was an error created an error corrected. At this point and time we believe the survey should be accurate. When we were given other information. TRUSTEE FOSTER: One thing that we did notice when we were out there it did not have floats. Is it not a building department requirement that there be a minimum set-back or in line. 23 ABIGAIl, WICKHAM: What you are saying is that you want to be closer than the front set-back. In other words if there are houses like hers less than 40 feet. As long as other houses on the street are less than 40 feet. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Minimum of 40 or in line with the other. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: No that is only if you want to make your set-back closer to the road. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Moving this back does not make it a hardship for the applicant. Because there is clearly room. TRUSTEE FOSTER: What will come into play, is if you move this house back You are required to have a certain distance from the foundation to the septic system. If this house comes back, it will be too close to the septic system. Then according to Health Department regulations, then you cannot move the septic system because here is your 150 feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What you are saying is that this house cannot be accommodating on this lot. CATHERINE MESIANO: If you bring the house forward. We are creating a situation where the septic system is no longer in the front yard. Then I have a problem with the Health Department. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But our main concern is not what the Health Department set backs are. Our main concern is protection of Pipes Creek and to maximize all the activity that we can from it. We try to make compromises to accommodate everyone. CATHERINE MESIANO: We are just looking for what you recently approved. In a very similar situation without looking for anything more. ABIGAll, WICKHAM: If this property was able to accommodate a bigger separation. They probably would not have approved the variance. This is 100 foot separation probably could not. TRUSTEE FOSTER: By present day criteria without no variances in place that is the only place on this lot that this septic system can go. ABIGAIL W~CKHAM: Where they put the house more than 15 feet away from your side yard set-backs. The house it self could have been closer. It has been angled away from you. You do have that advantage. As A1 said 75 to 100 feet is kind of an arbitrary determination by the Town Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that the Board's focus is always to minimize the impact so any time that we can minimize the impact on a project that is what we are looking for. TERRY HUGHES: As far as environmental impact when this house is built. Any body that lives on this creek. The deer were worse this past year. Because they were chased out of the woods. We all had nice the entire winter and summer when the house was being built because they all got chased out of the woods they had no place to live any more. Any time there is a house built on a piece of property and clearing has taken place you are making an environmental impact on the land. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure this is going to happen. 13. TERRY HUGHES: But as far as the house being put closer to this one to me. If she put it in the middle of the lot I would not really care. Rather not have the septic system over there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I guess we will have to re-visit this again. He has a straight line here. Did Chuck Bowman do this? ABIGAIL WlCKHAM: Chuck did it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We Will be happy to meet Chuck to re-flag it. In fact that might be the best way. CATHERINE MESIANO: I will have him call you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You call Charlotte and thank you for having it cleared. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You know what we need is to measure from the house comer. We need to measure from the house comer to where we felt the wetlands. The deviation line is? But we could not because the thick brash. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We will meet Chuck in the field and establish the wetland. You might not be able to because of the septic you might not be able to accommodate that size house. There are limitations. It is less than an ½ acre lot. TRUSTEE KING: Fifty foot wide. ABIGAIL WlCKHAM: I do not know if the size of the house is a problem so far it is in the building operation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let us move on. I will make a motion to Table the heating until next month. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded, En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of LUKE LICALZI requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 52 linear foot extension to existing bulkhead and backfill with approx. 50 cubic yards of clean sand fill to preserve existing beach cottage. Place approx. 147 liner ft. of 50-100 lb. stone tip-rap on filter cloth along eroded embankment and plant intertidal zone with Spartina altemiflora (12" on center) to re-vegetate eroded former marsh area. Construct 2.5"x3.5" timber steps to beach from existing catwalk existing 8'x19' timber deck attached to beach cottage will be removed and replaced (in/kind and in/place0 for construction of bulkhead. Located: 2105 Calves Neck Road, Southold SCTM#70-4-46.1 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Anyone like to speak in favor of this application. ROB HERRMANN: I am Rob Herrmarm of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant LUKE LICALZI. Just quickly the project is pretty straight forward. We submitted quite a few photographs of the application. I understand that the Board had seen the property. This area as Dr. Licazzi might wish to discuss briefly used to be much higher much better vegetated. There was intertidal and high marsh at this location as you can see, on the accompany photographs that we submitted. Basically we are looking to secure some of that area, prevent the further land ward transgression of that embankment. Also preserve the integrity of that small beach cottage that exist adjacent to the bulkhead half of the property. Essentially we would be placing the riprap stone along the toe of the embankment. In the area of the cottage we actually did meet on site with Ctu:is Arsten of the DEC and of course pursuant to Chris suggestions. The bulkhead would be constructed as close as pratical.to the foundation footings of the cottage. It would basically extend directly off the angle bulkhead to the northeast so it would not leave any alley way there: Extended across the front, 19 feet across the front of that cottage and tie back into the retaining wall which is just landward ofthe cottage. Dr. Licalzi is going to try to revegetate that intertidal marsh area with Spartina. alterflora. Basically work to try to restore this area back to a condition which it used to exist. Dr. Licalizi has invested a lot of time in the Planning of this. He will go on briefly and address the Board. LUKE .LICALZI: Good evening, I am Luke Licalzi I am the hone owner. I purchased that property in 1996 and previously there was one owner of that property for fifty years. That little beach cottage was built in the 1940's I had submitted some of the photographs and one of the photographs was taken in 1996 or 1997 when my youngest daughter was sitting on that catwalk. I understand that you all went out to see the property. That catwalk is turning into (cannot understand) We have seen a dramatic change in the wave action in that particular area. As observed by myself and my neighbors. The consequence is that there has been a tremendous amount of erosion. My primary concern initial the intrigue of the beach cottage. The foundation became exposed and also along with that we lost a lot of beach. The whole beach was Sand; There was grass along the beach in certain areas. We also lost some of the dune effect of the other grass that is high up. I guess the application is two fold. One is to try to preserve that cottage and prevent further erosion. Actually I went out this evening in the dark, this is the second home that I have. Over the last three weeks there has been additional erosion. That little picket fence in the enclosed area because now there is a 6 inch space under the picket fence. My neighbor, John Kramer, I spoke to him by telephone because he had intended to attended, the meeting. He was telling me that there was a very bad storm, there were three foot waves. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you know why this area experiencing that king of erosion. If you look off shore from your property. I would imagine when the creek was originally dredged the groins were put in. The groins were allowed to fall into disrepair and all the sand washed away 10 years ago due to the dredging project to the west of the channel. The sand filled that groin field again, to restore that beach area. The DEC would not allow it. That would have provided protection for your property. Now you almost have bay front there as opposed to the creek. LUKE LICALZI: I went out there off that Lighthouse property and John Kramer told me that the last storm all the trees. All the tress on that island have washed off and ended on some one properties. There had been a lot of action. This project is to try to preserve my property and I am willing to do almost anything. Within whatever the Trustee's and the DEC would allow to replenish the beach addition to the refurbishing the cottage. I guess the application that we have, pretty much is what Rob felt is what the DEC would approve. Even the bulkhead in front of the cottage it comes back in. We had to put it pretty much against the building there. We had to pull up the patio to do it whatever it takes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I had a suggestion to Rob when I spoke to him on the phone the other day. When you put the bulkhead in front, first of all it should be the vinyl bulkhead in front of the building. To extend the stone all the way in front before that protection as well, Not to stop the stone at the building but just to extend that in front of that. ROB HERRMANN: Prompted by that conversation and this is a redone dent. situation out there. I was able to speak with Chris Arsten about coming tonight. He disagrees with your assessments. I suppose there is a sense that the bulkhead is going to be quite close to the high water mark and the placement of the rock would basically add fill into that intertidal in there now. To me, I am not sure who to agree with. Because you are applying. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Where that shack is I believe that is 10 to 20 feet above the high tide mark. ROB HERRMANN: The lovely beach cottage you refer to as a shack. It is closer than that Ken. But I am not going to assume the position I will only say that in my professional judgment of it would be it probably would not create too much harm or benefit one way or the other. I think it would afford additional protection to the structure if you have circumstances of inclement weather. You are going to have an increase ability to dissipate wave energy coming in rather than reflecting up and down. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was my feeling. RIB HERRMANN: By the same token it is going to be a short bulkhead. It is only about 2-1/2 feet above grade; it is going to be under the deck, I do not know if you would have that open water wave situation. We had tremendous waves deflecting up and down. There are obviously problems so I do not want to underestimate the enmity. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you look at the photographs you can see on the pilings the amount of sand that has been lost. ROB HERRMANN: My question is if the people put Dr. Licalzi in the situation as well it seems like a good idea to agree to it as a condition of your permit. We submit a revised plan to the DEC and the department then objects to the placement of the stones. So Dr. Licalzi ends up in a position of whose permit does he violate. I do not want to get into a position like that. So I would ask maybe if any of you would be willing to IfI do submit it and it comes back with an objection from the DEC. If we can call on this Board at that time to maybe make your sentiment known as far as your feelings for the need for that additional protection. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What does the Board feel. It is something that I thought of afterwards. I did not discuss it as a Board. TRUSTEE KING: I think it would help in a storm event. ROB HERRMANN: It is the same stone that we are placing on the embankment.. TRUSTEE KING: How far would that extend. ROB HERRMANN: We are showing a width of about three feet for the rest of the bank. Two feet high, three feet two on three floats. Chris's feeling was that it really never happens that way. The stones go out and it kind of starts to spill out farther. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it is spilling out under that deck. ROB HERRMANN: That is right I think it is unfair to regulate based on the assumption that a good plan should not be designed because everyone is going to violate the plan. I realize that this happens that is the reality of it. But I think Dr. Licalzi will be pretty meticulous in terms that he does not want'~o end up in a situation of a violation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I do not think that we are trying to encourage him. I would like to see you try and if you do not and if it comes to push to shove I would be happy to yield because it looks like a good project over all. But it seems like a conscience thing to continue that as an easy component of the project. It is not like something unusually. ROB HERRMANN: It would be continuation of the riprap that you are placing along the edge of that embankment, anyway. So it is not like would be an introduction of a new aspect of the property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, and cost wise it would not be a burden to the applicant because it is the same project, only 15 feet or so. You mention re-establish a beach. In the past we have required some of these structures to be covered with sand and planted. Would that offer any appeal? Because you have lost so much you demolished such as dramatic such a loss it does not have any appeal to have that sand placed there? In an attempt to re-establish what was lost. ROB HERRMANN: That was part of our original questions when we meet with Chris in the field of the sense of how far would you take the beach replenishment. How much of volume of. sand. (Tape Change) TRUSTEE KRUPSK8I: I am just looking at the pictures showing. You are doin~ to plant that whole area. You might as well get a little more material at a planting. ROB HERRMANN: I agree with that. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I do not see how the DEC could disagree. If planting is actually is done. ROB HERRMANN: [ would not anticipate an objection there. TRUSTEE POL1WODA: It would enhance the water fowl habitat. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is the only suggestions I had.. ROB HERRMANN: They are good suggestions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We do not hear Rob say that often. Any other comments. Do I have a motion to close the hearing. 14. TRUSTEE FOSTER: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES I will make the motion to Approve the application with the extension of the stone rip-rap underneath the cottage. TRUSTEE FOSTER: There are no toilet facilities in that cottage is there? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The addition of covering the rip-rap with the sand. Planting with beach grass 18 inches off center. You might want to get your DEC permit first before you change your plan. Instead of giving us a set of plans what is the difference you can easily add that on. ROB HERRMANN: I would have to change the plans and resubmit them to the DEC. That is the only way find out what they will do. DR. LICALZI: With regards to your comments regarding the groins out there. Ten years ago was to put the dredge fill there. Do you feel that way? TRUSTEE FOSTER: They will not allow them to rebuild the groins. That is the only thing that saved the whole area for years. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It was upland but who knows what it looked like a 100 years ago. See the mouths of the creeks have been altered so much. Before they dredged ever. DR. LICALZI: Are there any plans to dredge any of the two creeks at all. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Only the mouth. The county only dredges the mouth. TRUSTEE FOSTER: If they thought they could get away with it. They would not do that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I will make a motion to Approve that with those conditions. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of LISA EDSON requests a Wetland Permit to construct on pilings a one-family, two story dwelling, deck and swimming pool. Install a pervious driveway and sanitary system and that the sanitary system proposed be more than 130 feet from the wetland boundary place approximately 850 cubic yards of sand fill, establish a 30' non-disturbance buffer adjacent to the tidal wetland boundary, and connect to public water and other utilities. Located: 9326 Main Bayvuew Road, Southold SCTM#87-5-25 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The site was not inspected because of adverse soil conditions. So I will make a Motion to Table until February meeting. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES ROB HERRMANN: But I have relative information for you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Go ahead. ROB HERRMANN: I got a call today, from Chris Arsten, You will get a chuckle out of this. Apparently, the wetland on the Kirsch's property, the ~ .... 29 southerly of the two wetlands on the Kirsch's property which I flagged is actually closer to the development as now proposed than it was initially. The surveyor not having placed that wetland flag by eye on the map. I was not aware until today: phone call that the sanitary system as presently located. May actually be and I do not have a scale version of the Kirsch's map but it maybe 80 feet plus or minus, as opposed to 100 feet as required by the DEC. So we may have to enter into Stage Three, with yet a third constricting wetland. I have to see what can be done with the site plan in terms of trying to meet that. There is an erratic finger that extends to the south of it. It seems odd to me again I am talking about my own wetlands but I do not. It is something that is very strange looking. Would not have affected the Kirsch's cause it was all the way to the south. But none the less will affect Edson, so what we need to do again is revisit the design of the site plan because when we through on the wetland on the Kirsch property onto this map. There maybe yet a one, two, third wetland that we need to maintain a proper setback. The house would meet it and exceed it, however the sanitary system requiring a one hundred foot setback under Article 25 may not meet that. Point being properly would have been the first thing that Ms. Kirsch brought up to the Board tonight. So do not go out and review the property. As we need to adjourn this pending my request to rehear it. Only because I maybe able to save us all some time on this. Coming in with a plan that conforms to every conceivable wetland in that area with a 50 foot buffer all the way around. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Great - thank you 15. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of ELLEN KASSCItAU requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace(in place) existing 34'x29' timber groin with 27" and 22' low-profile groin respectively, within area of 35' use frontage associated with easement of Wunneweta Pond, construct fixed timber catwalk with 4'x4' steps at landward end (elevated a minimum of 3.5' above grade) a 3'x14' hinged ramp and 6'x 20' float secured by (2) 8" diameter pilings. Located: 8500 Vanston Road, Cutchogue SCTM#118-1-1.2 Withdrew without prejudice proposal to construct a timber dock in easement frontage on Wunneweta Pond. TRUSTEE KRUPSI: So it is just the groins on the proposal ROB HERRMANN: Correct. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Unfortunately, I had a sick child and another problem today with another child. I did not make it. Sorry. ROB HERRMANN: As long as you promise to do it next month. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So I will make a motion to postpone the heating. 16. JENNIFER & PENN SANGER requests a Wetland Permit to rebuild and improve an existing rock revetment. The seawall will consist of 2-4 ton boulders placed in a bed of rock chips and backed with filter fabric. 17. All rocks in the existing seawall will be reused. Located: Penninsula Road. Pole #466, Fisher's Island SCTM#10-3-20 TRUSTEE KING: I looked at this Monday, there is no problem. The only thing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You went over there Jim? TRUSTEE KING: Yes I was over there on Monday. Instead of a straight line of stone on this bank. They may terrace it in a couple of spots So there was no problem whatsoever. Everything is pretty accurate. I will make a Motion to Approve, close the hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Seconded. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor. ALL AYES J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of FISItER'S ISLAND COUNTRY CLUB requests a Wetland Permit to remove material that has eroded into an existing drainage ditch, then to install soil erosion matting in the existing ditch to provide for proper drainage between fl~e 1st Fairway and the 2nd Green. Between the 17th Tee and the 16th Tee. The applicant proposed to remove existing collapsed drainage pipes and to remove any material restricting the flow throughout the existing ditch. Collapsed pipe shall be replaced with 18" PVC piping. Between the 1st Tee and the 1st Green the applicant proposed to re-grade a 60'x70' area and then to re-vegetate area with Spartina patens which shall be planted on 6" centers. Along the 14th and 16th Holes, the applicant proposed to install erosion control blankets, place staked hay bales on top of the blankets, and to raise: the elevation of the area to prevent flooding and therefore erosion into the existing marsh area shall be replanted with grass. Located: East End Road, Fisher's Island SCTM#1-1-13 TRUSTEE KING: We are going to have to postpone it. I will make a Motion to Postpone. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI MOVED TO GO OFF THE PUBLIC HEARING AND GO BACK TO THE REGULAR MEETING. TRUSTEE FOSTER. SECONDED. ALL AYES V. RESOLUTIONS DOCKO INC. on behalf of DAVID HARRINGTON requests a Grandfather Permit' to reconstruct 148+/- 1.f. of an existing 172+/- lfx7 wide fixed dock including seven batter braced tie-offpiling water-wards of the high tide line. Located: East End Road, Fisher's Island SCTM#002- 1-12 TRUSTEE KING moved to deny Grandfather Permit applicant must come in for a Wetland Permit TRUSTEE FOSTER Seconded. ALL AYES . VI. MOORINGS; KATHY LOFRESE requests an offshore stake with pulley to onshore stake in Corey Creek for a 12 foot row boat. ACCESS: Private TRUSTEE POL1WODA moved to approve the application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI seconded. TRUSTEE FOSTER All in favor. ALL AYES MEETING ADJOURNED A T: 9:45 P.M. RECEIVED 2001 RespectfullY submitted by, Charlotte Curmihgham, C~rk Board of Trustee.