Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-02/21/2001AtF0ert J. ~pski, 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 (631) 765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES Wednesday, February 21, 2001 7:00 PM PRESENT WERE: ABSENT WERE: James King, Vice-President Henry Smith, Trustee Ken Poliwoda, Trustee Lauren Standish, Clerk Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President Artie Foster, Trustee CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Thursday, Marchl5, 2001 at 8:00 AM. TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 at 7:00 PM. TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of January 24, 2001. Minutes were held until March. I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for January 2001. A check for $6,964.13 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES: MARY N. CODE requests an Amendment to Permit #4968 for the extension of the catwalk toward the dwelling by 22'. Located: 1555 Smith Dr. North. Southold. SCTM#76,2-4 TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES JOHN & NANCY WISSEMANN request an Amendment to Permit #5174 to shorten the existing 16' dock to 6' and to add a ramp and float to end where the dock currently ends. Located: 650 Private Rd. gl6, Southold. SCTM#90-4-11.1 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES S.E.L. Permits and Greenport Dock on behalf of MICHAEL & JANE SUEIRO request an Amendment to Permit #2170 to replace 5'X 20' float with a 4'X 40' catwalk, 3'X 12' ramp and 6'X 20' float secured with two piles, 3'X 4' access steps and two 2-pile dolphins. Located: 700 Snug Harbor Rd., East Marion. SCTM#35-5-36 Revised description: Install 4'X 5' platform, 3'X 12' ramp, 6'X 20' float and two 2-pile dolphins to secure boat. Lower 20' bulkhead by approx. 2' to create a 6'X 20' catwalk and 3'X 6' steps on landward side of existing bulkhead. TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve the 4'X 5' platform, 3'X 12' ramp, 6'X 20' float, lower 20' bulkhead by approx. 2' to create a 6'X 20' catwalk and 3'X 6' steps on landward side of existing bulkhead, and to Table the application for two 2-pile dolphins until the March meeting. TRUSTEE POL1WODA seconded. ALL AYES Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of TOM FITZPATRICK requests an Amendment to Permit #5181 to construct a single-family dwelling 106' from the landward edge of the wetlands, an attached deck 100' from the wetlands, septic system 130' from the wetlands and place 500 cy. of clean fill 69' from the landward edge of the tidal wetlands. Located: 1030 Clearview Rd., Southold. SCTM#89-3-11.3 TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES Jeff Butler, P.E. on behalf of MANZI HOMES requests an Amendment to Permit #5196 for anew single-family dwelling, deck, garage, and septic system. Located: 10505 Soundview Ave., Southold. SCTM#54-5-37.2 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KiNG seconded. ALL AYES CHERYL ItANSEN requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #4961 to replace 82.5 linear fi. of bulkhead inkind/inplace land 25" higher than existing, widen existing slip by excavating 2.5'X 25' section and construct new bulkhead at walls, backfill bulkheads with 100 cy. of excav. Material and related activities to complete, and a 10' non-turf buffer to be placed behind the bulkhead. Permit last amended June 24, 1999. Located: 445 Elizabeth Lane, Southold. SCTM#78-5-3 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES LESLIE GAZZOLA requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #4960 to replace 82.5 linear ft. of bulkhead inkind/inplace and 25" higher than existing, widen existing slip by excavating 2.5'X 25' section and constructing new bulkhead at walls, backfill bulkheads with 100 cy. of excavated material and related activities to complete, and a 10' non-turf buffer placed behind the bulkhead. Permit last amended June 24, 1999. Located: 495 Elizabeth Lane, Southold. SCTM#78-5-2 TRUSTEE KiNG moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES J. Kevin McLaughlin on behalf of ORIENT WHARF CO. requests an Amendment to Permit g474 to allow the existing 6'X 8' 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: 2110 Village Lane, Orient. SCTM#24-2-28.1 POSTPONED UNTIL MARCH AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE SUFFOLK TIMES. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF. F1VE (5) MINUTES OR LESS, 11~ POSSIBLE RAYMOND JAY AKSCIN requests a Wetland Permit to install a driveway within 75' of the wetlands to access basement garage. Located: 12565 Bayview Ave., Southold. SCTM#88-2-17 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? ls there anyone to speak against this application? We looked at it and I don't have a problem with it. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES ANTHONY SHANNON requests a Wetland Permit to install a 4' black chain-link fence and for the cleating of brush, planting of trees, shrubs and grass. Located: 3325 Wickham Ave., Mattituck. SCTM#114-4-1.1 POSTPONED UNTIL MARCH AS PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST THOMAS E. KRAUS requests a Wetland Permit to install an in-ground swimming pool and decking. Pool will be 18'-20' X 36'-40' with 4-6' of decking around it. Pool will be protected by child-proof safety fencing. Depth of pool will be 4-7'. Located: 3329 Manhanset Ave., Greenport. SCTM#36-2-23.3 TRUSTEE POL1WODA: Would anyone like to comment on this application? I looked at this. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this permit application and I found no reason to deny it. I'll make a motion to Approve the Wetland Application of Thomas E. Kraus. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES KEVIN SHANNON requests a Wetland Permit to expand the existing deck. Located: 1077 Bay Home Rd., Southold. SCTM#56-5-39 TRUSTEE SMITH: Is there anybody here that would like to speak in favor of this or against it? Being none, [ looked at it and environmentally, there's no problem here at ail. I'll make a motion to close the public heating on Kevin Shannon. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TED DOWD requests a Wetland Permit to construct an addition inside the footprint of the original home (100 sq.ft, of floor area). Located: 1775 Inlet Way, Southold. SCTM#92-1-8 TRUSTEE SMITH: Is there anyone here who would like to make a comment? Being none, I looked at it and there is no encroachment except straight up. I see no problem with it. I'll make a motion that we close the public heating on Ted Dowd. TRUSTEE POL1WODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion we Approve the Wetland Permit for Ted Do,vd to construct an addition inside the footprint. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES FRANK SHERLOCK requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, attached deck, and'driveway. Located: 155 Breakwater Rd., Mattituck. SCTM#113-3-4 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone who wants to speak on behaifofthis application? Is there anyone opposed to this application? KRISTEN TROJANOWSKI: My in-laws reside to the adjacent property to the north. I'm opposed to this application for several reasons. First and foremost being that the issue is self-created. When people plan to purchase, a survey is recorded and it cleared shows on the survey the boundary of the wetland. What's not shown on the survey clearly is the 100' wetland setback, which is within your jurisdiction. For my own benefit, I interpolated what the 100' would mean on this piece of land. I made copies if you would like to see that. TRUSTEE SMITH: The 100' wetland line is not a setback, that's our jurisdiction. KRISTEN TROJANOWSKI: Well it would still be, well what I have drawn on there still shows what 100' is meaning that the area that is within your jurisdiction. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right. It's not a setback. KRISTEN TROJANOWSKI: Right. We were never threatened but this property has been For Sale for years and years but no one has ever purchased it. We were never threatened that someone might build there or else we would've purchased it ourselves to protect our own interest. But this is virtually a non-buildable lot, without encroaching within your jurisdiction and the front and side-yard setback left you with a minimal building envelope, which we knew. One, it's self-created, two, building what's proposed here is an over 2500 sq. ft. structure which would have a very negative environmental impact on the wetlands. Since we've lived there for so many years, we know the adversity of this wetland and we know to increase the run-off for the driveway and the house, that's all going to flow into the wetland. We know that this wetland backs up regularly because we've had it back up into our yard all the way up to the maybe 20' off our backdoor. We know how it can do that. We don't feel that this is a umque situation by any means. Just looking at the items on the list, everyone is a wetland permit over and over, and it's almost disgusting how many people want to build or construct something within, what I consider, sacred grounds. I think it's an unreasonable and unnecessary request and I would just hope that it's your job to protect the environment because the environment can't protect itself and I just ask that you strongly consider not allowing, especially such a huge structure, to be built within your jurisdiction. We're not totally opposed to the building, we would just hope there was at least an attempt to not encroach half of an entire to be within this area. TRUSTEE SMITH: Any other comments? PAMELA TROJANOWSKI: My concern is over that marsh. I have live there for many years and I have seen that marsh come up to the back. Have you visited the property and seen my property? TRUSTEE SMITH: Yes. PAMELA TROJANOWSKI: There is a tool shed in the back of my property. That marsh has flooded in and over that. Not over the height of it but back to where my property comes down on the hill. I told Kristen that I'm fearful they're doing excavation and it could compromise that marsh and that marsh does come into quite a bit of that property. I have concerns regarding that. I have no real other problems. T~USTEE KING: When that was flooded that bad, was that from rainwater or was that from high-tide. PAMELA TROJANOWSKI: That was from a very large storm. It was in 1979 or 1980. It was so flooded that the kids had boats in there. The creek crossed over to the marsh. TI~USTEE KING: That's the point I'm trying to get at. I think that was one of those nor'easters that we had. It actually got flooded from the creek. PAMELA TROJANOWSKI: Right. That road does flood during storms, from the creek. TRUSTEE KING: That's one of the sites...I've been working on Mattituck Creek as far as trying to do some storm-water work to stop the run-off into the creek. That's really one of the worst spots we have. PAMELA TROJANOWSKI: There is no access out of that area once that happens. It can't leave that spot once it floods over. TRUSTEE KING: There was even some thought of, but we're going to have to get into this down the road sometime, but there was even some thought of changing the pitch of that road and putting more of that storm-water into that wetlands, but we're going to have to look at it. But, that's neither here nor there. PAMELA TROJANOWSKI: That's it and I thank you for your time. TRUSTEE KING: I think at one time this was an extension of that creek. This isn't on the DEC freshwater wetlands map. PAMELA TROJANOWSKI: From what I was told by Mr. Sledjeski who owned that property, initially that was sold as a three acre parcel. The house and each property on either side it, and then somebody else came and bought the property and divided it up, but apparently a lot of the run-off came from the ponds up the street. That quite full all the time, he said. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Mr. Sherlock, what is the set-off from the roads? Does it have to be 50' or can it be moved closer to the roads? MR. SHERLOCK: The setback for the house is 75'. TRUSTEE KING: I'm looking for a setback from the road to the house, is it 50'? MR. SHERLOCK: It's 50' from the property line. TRUSTEE SMITH: Would you have a problem moving the house 10' closer to the road? Instead of a 50' setback you would have a 40' setback. MR. SHERLOCK: I thought you wanted the 50'. I want to keep it as much natural as I can. TRUSTEE SMITH: We would hke to have a 50' buffer zone from the edge of the marsh. MR. SHERLOCK: There is 50' there. TRUSTEE SMITH: Right. lust 50'. TRUSTEE SMITH: Would that be a problem if we moved the house closer to the road by 10'? Could you do it? That would give us a 50' buffer back there and give you 10' between the buffer and the deck. MR. SHERLOCK: Now where the survey shows 50' from the edge of the garage to the edge of the property, move that forward 10'? 'No, that wouldn't be a problem. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It would actually be to your benefit because if we put a 50' non-disturbance buffer with hay bales, it's kind of hard to walk around your backyard if you have decks around the comers of it and hay bales. You'll have to step over the hay bales. You'll now have 10' there. The hay bales would be at the 50' mark. TRUSTEE SMITH: That's during construction so that there's no mn-offinto the marsh. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The size of the house and lot coverage is one issue that I don't think has ever come up. KRISTEN TROJANOWSKI: The other half is all wooded so in order for this house to fit, it would all have to be cleared. I mean, you can clear the m'mimum mount the fact still remains that it still has to be cleared which is going to ~ncrease the roof run-off off the roof-top. TRUSTEE KING: We would ask for drywells. MR. SHERLOCK: We tried to center it on the property as much as we could. TRUSTEE KING: My personal feeling has nothing to do with it environmentally, but that driveway looks like it's a natural short-cut. I'd be leery about putting a driveway in like that, I really would. PAMELA TROJANOWSKI: Are you going to address the driveway now because we know that that is a horrible curve right there and that is a recipe for disaster. TRUSTEE KING: It's a bad spot. I know there's been some people who just don't stop at Luther and they just right directly across. I'd think twice about how that was laid out. It has nothing to do with us as a Board but just common sense wise I'd look at it twice. That's a nasty spot there and there's been a lot of accidents. I can just picture people taking a short-cut. TRUSTEE POL1WODA: We can recommend that it's porous. MR. SHERLOCK: Can I have black-top platform up by the garage area? TRUSTEE KING: Yeah, I don't see why not. MR. SHERLOCK: Like I said, I want to keep as much natural as I possibly can. TRUSTEE KING: I think we can approve this showing the house 10' closer to the property line to the east and a staked row of hay bales at the 50' mark off the wetlands. MR. SHERLOCK: So move the house forward 10' more feet. The 50' buffer is non- disturbance tight? TRUSTEE KING: Right, and a staked row of hay bales. In that 50' there will be no disturbance. MR. SHERLOCK: When you say no-disturbance, can I clean it up? TRUSTEE KING: You can clean up the dead brush and stuff like that but no machinery and no cleating, MR. SHERLOCK: What about grass? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No. TRUSTEE KING: No. It's just left completely natural. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's the purpose of a no-disturbance buffer, so grass doesn't come in and pesticides and fertilizers and things like that. MRS. SHERLOCK: It can be cleaned tight? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It can hand raked but no grasses and no turf. TRUSTEE SMITH: Nothing that you have to use fertilizer. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll second that motion. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application based on a new survey showing the house 10' closer to the road, Luther's Road, I guess it's Breakwaters Road really, a staked row of hay bales 50' off the wetland line, shown on the survey and drywells to take care of the roof run-off. And, a pervious driveway with the exception of a black-top apron in front of the garage. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll second it. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES Redwin Industries, Inc. on behalf of DEBORAIt PENNEY requests a Wetland Permit to build a porch enclosure and deck. Located: 1 Sailor Needle Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#144-5-26 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would anyone like to comment? I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded~ ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES Chi-istopher Stress, AIA on behalf of GARY LAUBE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story wood frame addition to an existing two-story frame residence. Located: 310 Ackerly Pond Lane, Southold. SCTM#70-5-5 TRUSTEE SMITH: I don't know if anybody is familiar with this but this is that little old house on the comer there that somebody has recently purchased and they want to do a restoration of the house to something that they can live in and be very much like it was back in the Civil War. Does anybody have anything they would like to say against this application or for this application? You can come up to the microphone and identify yourself. CHRISTOPHER STRESS: My name is Christopher Stress and I am the architect for Gary Laube and I'm hoping this will be real quick but I wanted to bring a few things to light on the application. The NYSDEC application is pending on the project as well as the NYS and National Register listing. As some of the board members may know, the house was built in the 1660's. It's one of the oldest homes here in Southold. It's, again, the National Register listing is pending, in 1984 it was granted a Town landmark by the Preservation Board of the Town of Southold. We have the original sign on that. There's a tree on the property, it's a historic buttonwood tree that was given election to the National Historic Tree registry in July of 1990. The tree in front of the house is approx. 300 years old and it's one of 65 trees state wide with this distinction. Essentially Mr. Laube, who is a historian and a colonial reinactor, is going to be restoring the house to it's, at least the front part of the house, to it's original appearance of the 1660's. It's his intent that it should look the way it was back then. The original section will remain ~ntact. The addition itself, it's going to complement the original section, and it is not our intent to go any closer to the wetlands than the other existing build'rog on site, which is the shed. Mr. Laube is has also hired a consultant from Rhode Island to work on this project to ensure that we get it constructed and put back together to it's 1660's appearance. Essentially, that's it. I just want to thank the Board for letting us have the opportunity to speak about the project and to let the Board and everyone else know that we're going to do the right thing with this project so we hope the approval would be unconditional. Thank you very much. TRUSTEE SMITH: Does anyone else have anyflfing they would like to say? Does the Board have anything they would like to comment on? Being no comments from the Board, we all looked at this and we thing that it's a wonderful thing Mr. Laube is doing and I would like to take this time to make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion we Approve the application. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES Amy Martin of Fairweather-Brown on behalf of ELLEN HUFE requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing single-family dwelling and replace with a new single- family dwelling in a different location. Located: 3195 Wells Ave., Southold. SCTM#70- 4-9 TRUSTEE KING: Would anyone like to speak on behalf of this application? AMY MARTIN: When we met there on Valentine's Day and we had it staked where we thought we were allowed to go and we moved it back 2'. I don't have a new survey showing that but I would gladly submit one. The lot coverage now presently with the house the way it is and all the black-top that is there, is 34% and when we are finished with the new project, all of the black-top will be porous surfaces, there will be french 10. drains for storm run-offand the new house and the paved surfaces will only be 20% which greatly decreases the impact as it presently stands. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone who wants to speak against this? We all looked at it. TRUSTEE SMITH: We all looked at it and I have not problem with it. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application based on a new survey showing the changes. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of JOAN MCDONALD requests a Wetland Permit to construct a +/-2000 sf. single-family dwelling with decks/porch, septic system, public water supply and pervious driveway. Septic system set back 100' from wetlands. Selective clearing m 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 Rd., Greenport. SCTM#53-3-9 TRUSTEE ?OLIWODA: Would anyone like to comment on this application? CATHERINE MESIANO: This as you recall was held over from last month.~ There were some problems we had to work through so as you know we do have the wetlands re- flagged because there was some question as to their accuracy and we found that the original flagging had been tampered with in some manner and flags were placed in a manner that met with your approval when we met on the 14th. I would just like to say that we now have a map that is accurate, and you have a copy of that, do you not? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. CATHERINE MESIANO: We now have a map that is complete to your standards. The house that we proposed is set back 75' from the wetlands. The septic system is setback 100' fi:om the wetlands. The project that we proposed is conforming and we request that the Trustees grant us an approval. One of the things that I would like to add, we don't show it on the map but we would like to put in a 4' wide mulch pathway. Ms. McDonald hasn't finalized her plans so she would like to select that site at a later date, but we would like the option of installing a path at a later date. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I do have a question about the selective cleating within 30' of the wetlands. CATHERINE MESIANO: Yes, after our meet'rog at the site, I understand that the Trustees wanted to maintain a 50' buffer, no disturbance buffer. Is there any flexibility in that? TRUSTEE SMITH: Not really. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I can't remember the last time we permitted a new construction request with less than that. CATHERINE MESIANO: I spoke with Ms. McDonald and she understands what that's all about and we're prepared to accept that. TRUSTEE KING: Well it can be cleaned up if there's debris and stuff in there because sometimes people use vacant lots for a dump. We don't have any objection to clean'rog it up, but as long as nothing in there is cleared. CATHERINE MESIANO: Well that's basically where we are and we came away from the meeting on the 14th feeling that we had satisfied the Trustee's requirements. Please tell me if we haven't. TRUSTEE SMITH: You can do hand-trimming too. CATHERINE MESIANO: She just wants to clean it up, dead branches, debris and that sort of thing. Her intention is to have the lot maintained to as much as it's character as she can. She doesn't intend to do a lot of formal gardens or anything like that. She intends to keep the site as natural as possible. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments? TERRY HUGHES: I live next door to the west and we've been here before. Two things, number one, when this whole thing started, there was a question of, well it seems to me that there's been some problems from the beginning. The first survey that was submitted them was error on who was on Town water and who was on well water then the flags were tampered with. The only who benefits from the flags being moved 10' towards the water was the person who wants to put the house closer to the water. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That was addressed on the second visit and that was cleared up. TERRY HUGHES: But they were moved from the time that the original guy was out there who put them there, to when they put the flags down toward the water so that when the tide comes up, the flags to underwater. Obviously, that wasn't the edge of the wetlands. My understanding is that you have jurisdiction up to 100' from the wetlands and that you could, if you wanted to, push that house up more towards the street to conform with the other houses that are surrounding it. It was also push the house out of an AE flood :zone, which the Building Dept. is going to require more stringent building requirements for them ~to build since part of the house is sitting in an AE flood zone. They have the room to move the house up to a 40' setback from the road and put the entire house in an X flood zone. It is my understanding that you were going to take that into consideration on the 14th when you looked at it. All I see is that the house was moved 8' towards the road because of moving the flags from the wetlands. Nothing has been done about the septic system. That hasn't moved. That's still in the same spot. Nothing has been addressed about, I mean the Health Dept .... I can't get anything on the phone from the Health Dept. TRUSTEE POL1WODA: The septic was addressed on the second field inspection and I personally walked it off to the 100' mark, from the septic system to the edge of the wetlands, and that put it out of our jurisdiction. TERRY HUGHES: The fact that it's 10'-15' from myback deck doesn't seem to bother anybody that the septic system...you can't put in deep wells there because it's so close to the water. If they move that closer up to the road, then the septic system...you would have less ~vells there. I showed those plans to the Planning Board and he said he doesn't see how the Building Dept. is going to allow them to do this. But obviously they have to get through you first, then the Health Dept. then the Building Dept. and we intend to be there every step of the way. I was told when I was in your office today that the Trustees take into consideration also the setback to the water of the houses so that it doesn't obstruct neighbors' views and that part doesn't appear to have been taken into any consideration as far as I can see. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It was taken into consideration as far as the houses line up out to the east. That's how we found the boundary of the house. TERRY HUGHES: To the east, but my house is the one to the west. So, the fact that this house is being pushed...the beginning of this house doesn't even start until the rear of my house is which means that the entire house is 40' back into the backyard adjacent to mine. How would you feel if it were your house and you were sitting on your back deck in your backyard and all you're going to stare at is the side of somebody's house, that is still unclear as to the size, that is plus or minus 2000 sq.ft. Is there even a set plan for this house? It doesn't say how many stories the house is here. In the file that I went through in the Trustee's office, it says that it's a one and a half but before there were just decks and now it's decks and a porch and now they're requesting to clear more and to put in a mulch path. They already cleared an entire path down to the water. That's already been done. They already went in there and did that. They didn't ask anybody to do that. They just went in and did that. CATHERINE MESIANO: May I address these issues? First of all, with regards to the survey's inaccuracies, it serves the surveyor no purpose to put out an instrument that is fraudulent. There was an error and as soon as it was brought to his attention, the error was corrected. There was a question as to a neighbor across the street and the source of that neighbor's ~vater supply. We amended the survey and corrected that survey and that survey is now accurate to the best of our knowledge. As far as the tampering where the flags are concerned, the flags had been placed, they had been moved, and when it ~vas brought to our attention, we had it redone, at Ms. McDonalds' expense it want to add, and we met at the site and agreed that the flags are now in a place that makes everybody and everyone is satisfied and there was no question as to that validity. As far as the septic system is concerned, the septic system we proposed is out of your jurisdiction and does conform to the Health Dept.'s standards. I believe that the septic system's location is not an issue with this Board to discuss because it is not within your jurisdiction. This matter will go before the Health Dept. The septic system cannot be moved forward because it will not be conforming and the Health Dept. would not approve that. I think that any discussion with the septic system is inappropriate and as far as the Planning Board's involvement, the Planm'ng Board in general does not have any jurisdiction over construction of single-family residences. The building envelope that we proposed conforms to the present zoning as does it conform to your regulations and we see no need to belabor this point. We have brought to you a conforming proposal. Ms. Hughes has every opportunity to add onto her house, build a swimming pool, build decks on the back of her house, if she wanted to take down her house and build a new house she would have the ability to do that in a matter that conforms such as we are. As far as the flood zone is concerned, I believe there is some misconception on that part as well. The Town Building Dept. is now taking the position as to whether a property is located in a flood zone or near a flood zone, the flood zone designation, that being AE elevation, that elevation 8 is in the area that the house is being built in. The Building Dept. is making the owners of the property, the builders of the property, conform to the FEMA standards. So whether that house is in a proposed location or any other location on the lot, it is my belief that the Building Dept. will insist that the house conform to the FEMA standards, with that meaning no basement will be allowed, there will be nothing constructed below the 8' elevation. I think I covered ali the points. As far as the path is concerned, that path was required by the Trustees so that we could gain access into the property. I was very overgrown and il could only be accessed by trespassing and in preparation for DEC 11. application, the path was cut because the DEC does allow hand-cutting of a 4' wide path for safe access and that path was hand-cut and no heavy equipment was used, and it was cut in a manner that was conforming to this Board's standards as well as the DEC's. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments? ~What's the Board's pleasure? TRUSTEE KING: I think we've done all we can with it. TERRY HUGHES: The last time we were here, it was discussed that perhaps the house is too big ora house for the property, and that's part of the problem. You brought up the fact that you have jurisdiction for 100' to the water so you went out and looked at it and all of a sudden 75' is ok when a month ago it didn't appear to be ok to you. So, what changed your mind from a month ago to now? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Those points were brought up by a member who is not here tonight. TERRY HUGHES: So since he's not here, those points no longer matter? CATHERINE MESIANO: I'd like to ad&ess that as well. The house that we proposed conforms again to the Building Code. We are not exceeding a 20% lot coverage. Just looking at the survey and I don't see a calculation on here unfortunately, but we have checked that and there is not a greater than 20% lot coverage and there will not be greater than 20% lot coverage because the Building Dept. would not approve a plan that exceeded that nor would the DEC. As far as the problems with both the setbacks and more jurisdiction, I believe that your Town Board extended the limit of your jurisdiction to 100' so that you could take a closer look at what was happening within 100', not necessarily to impose a greater setback but to give you a greater limit of jurisdiction so that when a house was built 76' from the wetlands you didn't have the ability to look at the project and comment on it and request that the appropriate measures be taken. I don't believe it was the intent of the Board to require 100' setbacks but rather to give you a greater overview of any development within the Town and property within your jurisdiction. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comment? TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion we Approve the application with the 50' setback and hay bales during construction, no mechanical clearing within the 50' buffer zone, only hand-trimming, a 4' wide mulch path which will be located at a later date, and all mn-off from the roof will be contained in drywells from the house and driveway. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES Crowley Marine Construction on behalf of WILLIAM & LOUISE SEGALLIS requests a Wetland permit & Coastal Erosion Permit to re-sheath 130' bulkhead on seaward side using treated lumber and armor with 500-1000 lb. rock. Located: 1170 Willow Terrace Lane, Orient. SCTM#26-2-23 TRUSTEE SMITH: Is there anyone here who would like to comment on this application? IAN CROWLEY: I'm here on behalf of the homeowners if you have any questions. TRUSTEE SMITH: Does the Board have any comment on this? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this. h~stead of using treated lumber, I'd prefer you use the vinyl C-loc. lAN CROWLEY: With the debris there? 12. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: But you're putting 500-1000 lbs. of Stone there. IAN CROW-LEY: Yeah but the tide in a storm is over the stone. The stone is just for scouting and number one, not that it concerns you but they didn't like it. I tried to get them to use it but they were against it and also with the debris like logs and trees and the wave action from the south~vest. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I thought that C-Loc was proven to be stronger than lumber. I'm really trying to make an effort for everyone in this Town to use C-Loc. IAN CROWLEY: I understand. Another problem with that Ken, is that we would have to come out further with the C-Loc because the profile of the C-Loc is a foot. TRUSTEE POLlWODA: Well that would be acceptable if you're within a foot of replacing it, I would think. TRUSTEE SMITH: Well I know that you like C-Loc Kenny but you would have to change our Code or something like that. That's the way to address that. TRUSTEE KING: We can suggest it but we can't force the owner to use. Not right now. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Ok. TRUSTEE SMITH: Does anybody else have any comments? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE SMiTH: Seconded. ALL AYES Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of JOSEPIt CORTALE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 40' fixed CCA timber dock, a 3'X 20' ramp and a 6'X 20' float. The fixed dock is proposed to be elevated a min. of 4' above grade from the tidal wetlands line seaward. The ramp and float are proposed to project off the fixed dock at an "L" configuration. The float will be supported by (2) 6" dia. CCA timber piles on the landward side of the float. A 4'X 75' natural wood chip access path is proposed from the residence to the proposed dock facility. A light post with an electrical outlet is proposed near the end of the fixed dock. Located: 2200 Glenn Rd., Southold. SCTM#78- 2-39 CHARLES BOWMAN: Good evening. Charles Bowman representing Mr. Cortale. After discussing this with the Board on the 14th, you have plans that conform to the plans of the other docks up and down the creek. What we did was we shortened the little fixed dock to just the high water line and then there's a ramp and a float which extends to about 3' of water, all in line with the docks on either side and in fact we even measured up the dock on the west side of the Cortale property. It was pulled out of the water. The other ones are actually still in the water. They are all 6'X 20' floats, they all have about an 18' ramp, except for the one to the west which has a little bit more of a fixed dock going actually to low water. TRUSTEE SMITH: Is this private bottom or Town bottom? CHARLES BOWMAN: I assumed it was Town bottom. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: [frs Town bottom. CHARLES BOWMAN: This should put them right in line with all of the other floats that are there. We also put in a 50' buffer in the plans as well. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The 4' elevation of the catwalk above the marsh, can that be lowered. 13. CHARLES BOWMAN: Oh sure, absolutely. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: How about 3'. CHARLES BOWMAN: That's Frae. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's going to be a monster with hand-rails. The lower the better because I see you have handrails set above it. CHARLES BOWMAN: Well we'll remove the handrails. TRUSTEE SMITH: If you could just, where it shows it coming off of that bank, instead of going up, just run it right straight down and I think it would be beneficial to whoever is using it besides the looks of it and everything else. CHARLES BOWMAN: That would be fine. We'll take the handrails offbecause you really don't need them. I checked all of the other docks and none of them have them either. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It just wouldn't conform to the area. TRUSTEE SMITH: No other comments? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the condition that they lower the catwalk to approx. 2 '/2' above the marsh. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf ofRICItARD & MARIA KICK requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 2 ½ story single-family dwelling with an attached garage (1,869 sf.), a gravel driveway and sanitary system, a min. of 90' landward of the tidal wetland boundarv. The sanitary system shall be located a min. of 150' landward of said boundary and shall be installed a min. of 2' above groundwater. Install a 4'X 4' timber access stairway, a 4'X 8' fixed CCA timber dock secured by (4) 6" dia. CCA timber piles and elevated a min. of 4' above grade, a 3'X 18' ramp and 6'X 10' float secured by (2) 8" diameter CCA timber piles. Dock shall be accessed on site by a 4'X 92' natural wood chip pathway. Located: 500 Tarpon Dr., Southold. SCTM#57-1-5 TRUSTEE SMITH: Is there anyone here who would like to make any comments on this application? CHARLES BOWMAN: I'm here to represent the Kicks. I had gotten involved with this application as this Board's aware, there had been an application with the DEC by the architect, to continue dredging the canal up to this property. The canal extends almost up to the Main Road on the old subdivision maps. The area to the north is dominated by a lot of freshwater wetlands. That's why the canal was put there, I guess, to begin with, it was dredged out and spoil was put on either side. So, ~ve advised Mr. Kick that that was not a good idea and this is the onlyplace for a little dock that he is proposing. He does have an easement that allows him to put it within the canal bed from the developer and the house certainly conforms and we would hope that you'd approve it but say if you tried to put the dock in any other location, just getting to it you would have to cross over freshwater wetlands, which would be very difficult to get approval for. If the Board has any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. TRUSTEE SMITH: Does anyone else have any comment? NEIGHBOR: I'm opposed to this float and ramp. I have pictures here to show that most of this land is out of water at medium low tide. This dock is going to be on the wetlands. I live adjacent to this property and as you can see on these pictures, the way they have this, and I have a map on the way this is designed. As you can see in this picture, the end of the bulkhead, the dock is here and it's out of land and if you look at the floating dock on that print, it shows that the floating dock is beyond that last piling. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'm sorry but I don't clearly understand what you mean. NEIGHBOR: I'll show you the chart first. This floating dock is at this last piling. TRUSTEE SMITH: Oh I understand. NEIGHBOR: Now it's medium low-tide. It's not dead low. If they extend it, or push it out any further, the ramp is going to be out even longer. TRUSTEE SMiTH: I see what he's saying here. NEIGHBOR: Another thing, anyone living in this community, there's a possibility that they have access to a marina. The Association has a beach and a marina that they can possibly put a boat. I think that in this particular location, it's just going to make it congested. CHARLES BOWMAN: I believe the neighbor has a 118' of bulkhead of his own so I don't see how this could possibly impact navigation, where it's the end of the canal. No one is trying to get past it. There's 118' of bulkhead for him on his own property that he can certainly utilize. The second point I would like to bring up is that I believe this is not Trustee bottom. It'is a dredged canal that has been dredged through the upland area, so I would like the Board to take that into consideration as well. Certainly Mr. Kick would like to be a nice neighbor and anything we could do to accommodate but I think all of these people on both sides at the end of the canal, on all three sides actually, certainly have to come to some sort of accommodation so that they can all use the waterway. I have talked to Pat Moore who is the attorney for the neighbor, expressed my desire to work something out and we certainly would still like to work something out, but I haven't gotten any indication of what that might be. PAT MOORE: I have been retained by Mr. & Mrs. Wilson who are in fact the adjacent property owners and this proposal is inviting an encroachment onto the Wilson's waterfront. The setback, where it is proposed, and the depth of water, if let's assume that this 10' dock could accommodate a boat, maybe 10' or more, anything that extends beyond that 10' will be in the watert~ont of the Wilson property. There is a reason why this property has not obtained a dock before. It is because it encroaches too closely to the adjacent property. The Wilson's have no objection to the house. They too want to be a good neighbor. The last thing they want is a difficult situation in a neighborhood where they choose to live, however, they would certainly support dredging, if the Trustees would accept some dredging of the canal. We have voiced our objections to the DEC as well. Your policies are generally a 15' setback from the property owner. CHARLES BOWMAN: I flagged the freshwater wetlands. There are a whole bunch of lots up in there and over the last six months they have all come in and I flagged all of the wetlands and it's quite an extensive system and there's not a chance that we could do any dredging. Not a chance. PAT MOORE: I don't whether it's "not a chance" but maybe with some support of the Town Trustees, I don't know how the rest of the community feels but dredging would certainly help the entire community, it's not just for this property owner. To have this proposal right now would be a detriment certainly to the adjacent Wilson property and to the neighbors across the way. It is a tight area and a boat that goes in still have to make it's way around and it's a dead end so it's going to be a difficult maneuver to begin with. Docking the boat, you're going to end up with problems because the boat will exceed the perimeter of the length of the property and you yourselves have a policy to try to retain a 15' separation between the boundary and the proposed dock for precisely that reason, to try to keep peace with neighbors. That's our objection. CHARLES BOWMAN: The freshwater wetland boundary is on the north side of the canal. It was dredged through freshwater wetlands. There is no way that we are going to get permission to destroy freshwater wetlands to increase the canal. It's just not going to happen, nor should it happen. I think a more logical solution here since the Wilson's have 118' of bulkhead and the neighbor on the other side has 118' of bulkhead, that there's plenty of room for all of these people to certainly accommodate their vessels. There's plenty of room there. Whether they would like to have a dock there is another question but there is certainly plenty of room for that to happen. This would be the last one. There would be no dredging, there is no canal that's going to be extended, so this is not an accumulative Problem that will keep on growing. NEIGHBOR: The fact is, is that you can't put a dock there because at low tide it's going to be sitting on the wetlands. It's just not going to float. So, what you're doing is defeating the purpose. What's he going to do, just come down there at high tide and what's going to happen to the boat. You can't have a boat in shallow water. If the canal was dredged, I could see it. It would be possible. But, since there isn't any dredging, I can't imagine how a floating dock is going to be at that particular location. It just seem feasible. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: How many feet of water is in that area at low tide. NEIGHBOR: :I just showed you, it's out of water. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: How about the canal itself. NEIGHBOR: It going gradually down, I would say two to three, four feet, maybe, within 15' of the location. PAT MOORE: If it would be helpful, as a matter of fact, I suggested to the Wilsons, to start a process for getting a dock permit for their own property so that we would know exactly where would be the appropriate location for their proposed dock. I have asked En-Consultants to provide some depth of water in that area and I think the intention is to get some measurements in that canal. Is that correct? Mr. Hen-mann is going to do some of the soundings for us so that we know precisely where the measurements are. CHARLES BOWMAN: I have no problem working with Rob and coming up with a plan that's going to accommodate everyone's docks in here. As long as we can agree to work together to do that and present that to the Board. TRUSTEE SMITH: We're not going to approve a floating dock that sits on the bottom at low fide. CHARLES BOWMAN: Absolutely, and again, I can't believe that was taken at mid- tide. DONALD BAYLIS: I live at 785 Albacore Drive and I've lived there since 1973. It's about 200' from where this proposed construction is going to be. My main objection here is that face that, and I don't think they can do it, they propose to put two pilings to secure this floating dock and these two pilings are going to be on property owned by Harold ' Reese. Harold Reese owns a 50' strip of land, which runs from Sage Basin all the way up and it's shown on the map as a proposed canal. He has always owned that land and he pays taxes on that land, so I see no way that you or anybody can give somebody a permit to put pilings on his property without his permission. CHARLES BOWMAN: We have on record that we have an easement from Mr. Reese. DONALD BAYLIS: I don't think there's any easement. Harold Reese owns that 50' strip of land outright and there's no easements or anything there. CHARLES BOWMAN: This was just recently gotten from him. DONALD BAYLIS: I doubt that very much. Harold Reese lives with Gary McLean who lives on Blue Marlin Drive and of course Harold is not too keen now but he says he gave no permission to anybody to put pilings on his property. TRUSTEE POL1WODA: I think it would be wise for us to see what the Town Attorney has to say about the easements. CHARLES BOWMAN: I'll provide you with a copy because it was a concern. Mr. Baylis is absolutely right. Mr. Reese did own the whole canal right through the freshwater wetlands. The only way this was going to happen is if an easement was granted. NEIGHBOR: I'd like to give you a httle history on this canal. I've been there and we've seen a lot of dredging done and when I first went there the whole canal was practically bare bottom up to my house and I had to have a crane come in and dig it out just so I could get a boat and I didn't have a permit to do it because we didn't need a permit back then. That canal, it shows, extending as a proposed canal up to about a 100' but it just barely reaches the property which they're going to build this house on. Now, some years ago, maybe 20 years ago I think, Mr. Douglas from Orient stopped at my house and sa/d, would I sign a piece of paper stating that extending the canal up to the highway would not affect, or whatever you want to call it, and I said, "No, I'm not going to sign anything because it's going to mean more traffic for me," so Mr. Reese did want to extend that canal but there was no way he could get a permit to do it. So, that's the way it stands and there has never been any cross pilings put in the canal because it wasn't necessary. That's my only objection because I don't think they can put pilings on that property. That's all. NEIGHBOR: There is a marina that they can use that is not on the canal itself. There is open dockage down there. There is no reason for that to be put in there. CHARLES BOWMAN: IfI could make a suggestion, I would request that the Board approve the house and put the dock on hold pending the easement, I will talk to Rob Herrmann and we will give you all of the information and hopefully work this all out. TRUSTEE SMITH: Sounds good. Does everybody agree to that? MRS. MANO: I am diagonally across from the property in question and we have no objection to a house being built there, we all hate to see our wetlands being built upon and I think everybody in Southold feels the same way and we don't want to deprive our new neighbors of access to the water. Our problem is if you have seen our canal, the canal is very narrow. If you have the floating dock that they have proposed, it's set almost into the middle of that canal which would make it very difficult for the Wilson's, who are adjacent to them, and ourselves, to turn our boats around at the end of the canal to get to our own docks. Do you understand what I mean? It's not like a bulkhead, which is right up aga'mst your property, you're coming out almost into the middle of the 14. canal. It's very, very narrow. The other thing I would like to address is our wildlife. We have a lot of wildlife in the wetlands there. Last week there was a whole group of people walking through there and maybe it was some of you looking at the piece in question, but as you were coming down, there were two red fox that were within 10' of you walking down there and also there is a great blue heron that comes there every winter since, well we've been living there for 4 years now, but he comes every winter and comes and feeds off the freshwater that comes out of that property. There is a family of swans that come and feed off of that freshwater that come off of the ponds of the property in question. We know that the building of houses will deter the wildlife in our community and we do want to protect the wildlife as much as possible. Thank you. NEIGHBOR: Just for your information, don't think that these docks are not going to rest on the bottom because at periods of low tide, all of our docks rest on the bottom. If you go back about 20 years ago, we had the lowest tide that anybody in Southold has ever seen. I don't know the year. At that time, all the water went out of the canal and it was about 6". I had a boat and every boat was sitting in the mud. That was the tide the Shelter Island ferry couldn't run and it was the lowest tide anybody has ever seen. TRUSTEE SMITH: I was talking about a normal low tide, every six hours. NEIGHBOR: In the winter-time they will rest on the bottom at low tide. TRUSTEE SMITH: On the public hearing of Richard & Mafia Kick, at this time I think what we're going to do is postpone the dock application, and we're going to go down and look at it ourselves at low tide and I think we're going to get the problem with the placement of the piles and the easement, or whatever that is, cleared up and we'll address it at that time, probably next month. So, at this time, I'd like to Approve the construction for the 2 ½ story single-family dwelling as written with a 50' buffer lined with hay bales and that all of the roof run-off be contained with drywells and also the driveway will be either pervious or have drywells in it if it has black-top. I'd like to make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to Approve the single-family dwelling. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of BARBARA DeFINA requests a Wetland Permit to construct an addition to a one-story single-family residence, including a 24'X 26' second story addition and the enclosure ora 12'X 12' breezeway. Two 8' diameter drywells are to be installed in order to catch roof run-off. Remove the existing chimney and build a set of 6'X I0' steps towards the east elevation of the existing house. Located: 192 Willow Terrace, Orient. SCTM#26-2-7.1 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would anyone like to comment on this? BRUCE ANDERSON: I'm from Suffolk Environmental Consulting. You may remember this or at least some of you might. This was originally approved in 1997. We then added the addition on the one side of the house. In March of 1998 this expired (can't understand). TRUSTEE POLWODA: Would anyone else like to comment? I'll make a motion to close the public heating. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES 15. 16. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this and I didn't find a problem with it and I don't have any reason to deny so I'll make a motion to Approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Barbara DeFina. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. 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; place approx. 850 cy. of sand fill. All proposed structures will exceed a 75' wetland setback and the sanitary system is proposed more than 130' from the wetland boundary. A 50' wide non-disturbance/non-fertilization buffer is proposed adjacent to both wetland boundaries. Located: 9326 Main Bayview Rd., Southold. SCTM#87-5-25 POSTPONED UNTIL MARCH AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of EILEEN KASSCItAU requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace (inp!ace) existing 34' and 29' timber groins with 27' and 22' low- profile groins. Located: 8500 Vanston Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#118-1-1.2 TRUSTEE SMITH: Would anyone here like to speak in favor or against the application? ROB HERRMANN: This hearing was open last month and I think at the time the board or A1 hadn't specifically had a chance to take a look at it, but it's a pretty straight forward application. We're proposing to remove and replace the two existing groins actually with somewhat shorter groins maintaining their low-profile nature and the existing height off the top of the bulkhead to the top of the groin is shown on the plans. If there are any questions, I'm here to answer them. CHRISTINE HUNT: I'm the neighbor to the north of the Kasschau's. First of all I would like to thank you because I had requested a postponement so I could participate so I thank you for that. My request in regard to this application is that the Trustees look at my property and the Kasschau's together as one piece in the sense that what is currently there right now, on my property to the north end is a fully functioning groin then there are two groins that are also on my property that are in similar states of disrepair to the Kasschau's. Then there is, beyond their property, another fully functioning groin. On my property there is a small stable beach and there is some serious erosion around the back on the northern end coming from that neighbor's property. I th'mk it's very reasonable that the Kasschau's would like to repair these groins. Our interest is that what we have currently there is not made worse or is not disturbed and in my talking to a number of experts in the field, what I have been told is that if the Kasschau's replace their groins, and we take no action, then there is a possibility that there would be some detriment to us, to the stable beach that is there. So, I would like to be able to support the application with two provision. One is that you tell me from your own considerable experience is that you feel it won't be harmful and secondly that in making the approval of that, it won't preclude us from doing what we may do to repair, to make our own repairs, to maintain the status quo to prevent any further erosion. So, I'm very interested to hear your perspective. I know you went and looked at the whole property. TRUSTEE SMITH: Well we make no guarantees to what's going to happen and what's not going to happen but if you do have a functioning groin and you want to repair it, you can get a permit to do that. The only thing we request today is that they be of a low- profile. In other words, we don't want these high groins, we want the low ones where when they fill up a little bit, the sand spills over. Probably you'll be getting more sand, I don't know which way the lateral drift is there. CHRISTINE HUNT: From my experience, it would appear that we would be getting less. ROB HERRMANN: Ms. Hunt is down-drift from the Kasschau's. If you look at the actual configuration of the shoreline, and I've actually had the opportunity, as the board may recall, I have represented Ms. Hunt in the past and may be doing so again in the future, if you look at figure 3 that was submitted with the application, this long groin at the end, what is probably the most functional and longest groin out there, is actually on the down-drift most portion of Ms. Hunt's property. This groin actually maintains most of the beach from this location and so actually probably all of these, this entire groin cell, and the fact that the bulkheads are here, have surely contributed historically to some of the erosion that you're seeing on the down-drift. As I had discussed with Ms. Hunt, the Kasschau's prepared, repairing these two particular groins should have negative effect on her parcel because she does have the longest and most active groin in this cell, because as you can see just looking at the scalloped shaped sand, it's built up on that end. In fact, that was the reason why...when I had spoken with Ms. Hunt at one point, I had recommended as far as replacing the groins on her property, that she not replace the southern most one on her property because if you look at the plan here, is that repairing this groin on Ms. Hunt's property would actually probably give greater benefit to the Kasschau's than to herself. My comment was that she could probably repair the middle groin and over time I don't think the northern most groin necessarily needs replacement at the moment but it probably will in the not too near future and there going to derive the most benefit for making sure that they maintain that particular structure on their property. So that was assessment looking at each property. CHRISTINE HUNT: Again, I'm wanting to support the application, but I'm also wanting to make sure that you're doing so that then as Rob has said, I agree with his assessment that the one that is most southerly, I wouldn't put in an application for a permit to repair that but for the middle, I am asking that En-Consultants do that. So, I'm just saying to look at the whole thing together. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's hard to look at yours with the same respect as the Kasschau's because yours aren't functional. You don't have functional groins here, looking at the picture. ROB HERRMANN: That's not true. The one that is the northerly most on her property is in fact the most functional groin. It's the picture I just showed you. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: This one? ROB HERRMANN: No, if you look at figure 3 that would be with the application, there is a groin that is all the way, it's the farthest one. CHRISTINE HUNT: Actually, this one is even longer, to my eyes they are in very similar situations. TRUSTEE KING: I have notes from the field inspection, they're to be 5' down from the top of the bulkhead. We all thought that would be appropriate. 27', 21 '. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 27', 22'. TRUSTEE SMITH: Being no further comments, I'd like to close the public heating. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 17. TRUSTEE KING: Did you have a measurement on that? Rob, I thought you did. ROB HERRMANN: I have 4' 6". TRUSTEE KING: Can you live with 5'? It still above the beach level now. ROB HERRMANN: There's only 8" from the beach to the groin so it you went to 5', it would be only 2" above the sand, and that level may have since dropped, since I measured this a few months ago. I would say between 4 ½' and 5' is... TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion a motion to Approve with 27' and 21' low-profile groins. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll second that. ALL AYES Eh-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of ERIKA SWIMMER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story, one-family dwelling; sanitary system with retaining wall; pervious driveway; and connect to public water service. Approx. 250 cy. of clean sand fill will be tracked in to raise grades. Located: 850 Orchard Lane, Southold. SCTM#90-4-12 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? MR. W'ISSEMANN: I have a comment. I'm the adjoining neighbor. ROB HERRMANN: Can I represent the application first please? MR. WISSEMANN: My question should not be taken against this application. I'm only concerned about the amount of fill and where's it's going. The notification I got left an open end on the amount of fill and I can't tell where it's going. The reason I'm asking that question is that a lot of that land has been extensively filled in the late 50' early 60's. The first house built down beyond me, that neighbor, every time there's a northeaster, I've had to get a rowboat out and row her home. The tide is always up to that roadway. So much fill was put in, and over the years it has disappeared, most of it came into the creek, just east of my little dock, I used to swim in the channel, and no longer do that, and after a big storm you.could see sand on top of the mud. So, the eastern part of that, inland, has been largely filled in by this sand washing in. I'm a little concemed that that side of the creek is getting filled up slowly, especially the end where I am. Can you tell where the fill is going? TRUSTEE POL1WODA: Thank you and we'll find out from Rob. ROB HERRMANN: This parcel is located on Orchard Lane and this application was before this board about 10 years ago. I have a copy of a letter to the NYSDEC that was copied to your board dated January 30, 2001 that is in your file. Rather than read the letter into the record, which I ~vill only do if it would appear necessary to do so, I will cover some major points as far as the application is concerned. What I will do first though is answer this gentleman's question in that on the site plan, there is an indication that there are 375 cy. of fill proposed. The proposed contours and indicated by dash and solid lines respectively as indicated on Note #1 on the survey. The fill is being placed primarily in the area of the sanitary system because the bottom of the leaching pools must have a separation, there's a separation requirement between the bottom of the leaching pools and the elevation of groundwater. So, to maintain that to satisfy the DEC, we have to bring in a certain amount of fill to elevate that system. With regard to the prior applications, and also the prior permits there was a DEC permit issued back on June 21, 1990. The expiration of that permit was extend both to December 4, 1992 and December 31, 1994. The Southold Board of Trustees issued a permit for that same project on April 26, 1990 and then extended the permit twice to April 25, 1993 and April 25, 1994. The Suffolk Co. Dept. of Health Services issued a permit on September 3, 1993 that was issued in accordance with a Board of Review determination rendered October 1, 1991. Copies of all of those approvals were submitted to the Board with the application. What is different about the two applications is that while the substance is virtually identical, the limit of the wetland boundary appears to have transgressed landward since that time. The only think that I can attribute to this and this may also have something to do with the flooding that was commented on the beginning of the hearing, is that there is an approx. 2' wide Vector Control ditch that is present on the property and if you look at the site plan, the limit of the tidal wetland tends to mirror the location of that ditch pretty well. But, you have actually seen a landward transgression of the wetlands overall. In fact I pointed out in the letter, that the limit of the wetlands along the southerly property line was located approx. 45' landward of the southwest property comer in 1989 where is that boundary is now 60' landward of that comer or 15' closer to Orchard Lane. It appears from the correspondence in the old files, En-Consultants represented Ms. Swimmer 10 years ago, that the Vector Control ditch was present at the time. In fact, your board raised some concerns about the location of the ditch and the vegetation that was associated therewith and I believe there was some question of concern in the letter of yours that requested some confirmation from the Health Dept. that a permit could be issued for an adequately functioning sanitary system. Again, a variance by the Health Dept.'s Board of Review was issued and ultimately a permit was issued by the Health Dept. for the project. My only guess for the changing conditions is that it's possible that over the past 10 years that the volume of flow and/or the size of that Vector Control has increased. Most of the vegetation around it is phragmites. The presence of the phragmites could also be considered for this gentleman's points of information regarding that the property having been filled. There is however, due to the tidal flow of the marine waters, is the presence of spartina patens and bacharis along that area as well and that is generally where I flagged the wetland on the property that follows where the phragmites begins to mix with patens and bacharis as opposed to mixing say with poison ivy and wild rose. So, what you have before you tonight is almost the 'same thing that you had before you 10 years ago but rather than needing the 75' wetland setback, you have a proposed 52' wetland setback. You also have a property that appears to be flooded in the wetland area perhaps more extensively more than it had been. Nonetheless, the applicant is basically trying to minimize the proposal as much as possible. I detail in my letter and I can just review that quickly for the board because it is important, and I'll read from the letter, there are no alternative locations for the placement of the structures. The shallow depth to groundwater necessitates the placement of fill to obtain the minimal required separation between the bottom of the leaching pools and the groundwater table. Because the close proximity of the property boundaries prevents it's grading to a 5% slope is required the Health Dept., we have to use concrete retaining walls to confme the fill. The Health Dept. then has specific separation requirements between the retaining walls and the leaching pools and then ultimately between the septic tank and the house. So, the house is as close to Orchard Lane as it can possibly be situated. The footprint of the house is 840 sq. ft. There is a pervious driveway proposed. There are no accessory structures proposed and we are proposing to maintain a 40' non-disturbance/non- fertilization buffer, which is really the maximum that we can propose in this particular lot given that anything father than that would prevent the construction of the driveway and in some part, the house. Obviously the non-disturbance/non-fertilization buffer is essential is a case like this because you want to maintain the natural vegetation, whatever it might be, between the development and the tidal wetlands as a natural buffer so that you don't impair the function of the wetlands that provide the various values that are sought to be protected by both this board and the DEC. There is a drainage system that is proposed using gutters and liters for the house as well as drywells and again the sanitary system will again require a variance from the Health Dept. The variance had been issued in the past and we anticipate that they would issue it again. Again, this is the best practicable site plan that we can come up with given the current restraints to the lot, be they a bit more extensive than they were 10 years ago, the last time the board issued a permit. Thank you. MR. WISSEMANN: So the fill I understand will be mainly between the house and the sanitary system. ROB HERRMANN: That's correct. If you look at the sanitary system, and you look just above that, there are numbers that say 6,5,4,3, and those numbers are circled. The contour lines that follow those numbers are solid lines. Those solid lines remain at their seaward most extend landward of the proposed buffer area. All of those other dash lines with the numbers around them are the existing contours. So, there is basically grading out the certain distance so that we don't overly mound the fill for the septic system. MR. WlSSEMANN: Unfortunately the house and the septic system take down about 90% of the trees. There is only that one comer where there really is land. There are trees.., is any assurance that the trees, the few that will be left to the northeast could be kept? ROB HERRMANN: What I beheve would be the applicant's intent to do is to maintain as much buffer as possible. Are you the owner of Lot 44? MR. WlSSEMANN: 47, I'm across and also adjoining around the creek. ROB HERRMANN: There would be no clearing allowable at all except for in this envelope. Basically the wetland boundary follows the property here and then this 40' buffer would follow this whole area, so in fact, as a condition of the permit, this entire area, this entire upland area that's vegetated, would have to remaia vegetated as you see it now. It would actually not be a choice of the applicant as part of the condition of the permit, that area has to remain naturally vegetated. MR. WlSSEMANN: So there's assurance that no more fill or sand will be washing into that end of the creek. ROB HERRMANN: Up on this northerly part of the area, they would not be allowed to do anything. Only this area, where you see 40' non-disturbance/non-fertilization buffer, so the only area that can even be cleared for purposes of construction would just be in that triangle that's outside of the hatch line. So yes that assurance would not only come as a commitment from the permitee but it would be a mandate. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Rob, I have a question for you. What's the distance from the wetland to your septic system. ROB HERRMANN: The distance from the wetland to the septic system? At it's closest point to one of the primary leaching rings, it's approx. 68'. There is, required by the Health Dept., room for expansion pools which at it's closest point would be 66'. But as far as the pools that would actually go in, the closest would be 68' and the farthest would be 97'. TRUSTEE SMITH: To the wetland? ROB HERRMANN: Correct. IfI come to the other side, that's on the north side, ifI come to the south side, actually the entire system is more than 90'. So, the first numbers I gave you would be the minimum you would see constructed, wait, I'm sorry, it's 73' on the south. On the north side, that closest pool would be 73'. It's surprising a better than what I first gave you. I was measuring from the wrong point. It's 73'. And then again, on the south side it would be more than 90'. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Jim and I walked it off and from the bacharis line we measured somewhere around 80' where your flag was. ROB HERRMANN: Yeah it's pretty close. TRUSTEE POL1WODA: That's on the southerly. ROB HERRMANN: Yeah, on the southerly 90'. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We actually measured it be approx. 80' on the dot. ROB HERRMANN: Well I don't know where you're measuring from. I'm just measuring from the wetland boundary that was flagged by myself and located by the surveyor and measured out to that cesspool. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Well as you well know, our policy, since I've been on this Board, not to allow a septic system within our jurisdiction. Both those numbers come within our jurisdiction. ROB HERRMANN: Well the interesting point on that Kenny is that your jurisdiction has actually changed from 75' to I00'. In this case it would not be possible to situate the sanitary system on this parcel outside of either of those jurisdictions. So, the system as proposed is literally as far from the wetlands as it can possible fit according to standards that are approvable by the Suffolk County Health Dept. So there's nothing we can do to better that. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Well we're trying to protect the wetlands further and I'm a finn believer that we shouldn't have a septic system within the maximum allowable distance from a wetland. You're numbers can't come up. ROB HERRMANN: Well you're only way to resolve that on this parcel would be to deny the permit outfight because there is no where that we could put a sanitary system on this parcel and have it be outside of your 100' jurisdiction. That is why, in fact a variance will be required from the DEC for it because the sanitary system as required by the tidal wetland act has to be 100' away which coincides with your jurisdiction. So we are effectively asking for a variance from this Board and there is obviously no variance procedure formally but we are in effect asking for a setback variance from this board for the sanitary system. ROB HERRMANN: I should also point out the CAC, they also disapproved it because of the septic system's distance to the wetlands. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'd like to take a look at this again Rob, but I want the retaining wall flagged out where it's going to be and also the height of it. The finished grade. ROB HERRMANN: The location of the retaining wall? TRUSTEE SMITH: The location of the retaining wall with the finished grade. ROB HERRMANN: Okay, I don't know if the latter part of your request is reasonably possibly in that the, I believe the maximum height for the finished grade above the 18. existing grade is 4 ½' according to the retaining wall detail shown on the site plan but it indicates that it varies. So, in certain locations that wall would be situated much lower where the grade is more cooperative if you know what I mean. Where the grade is at it's lowest point, that wall is going to be the highest above that grade. So, I don't know, I mean we can flag the location but I don't know that it's possible... TRUSTEE SMITH: Well I think that you could put poles in and run a string with the height and I think it can be done without too much of a problem. ROB HERRMANN: To what end are you making that request Henry in terms of the height, just to visually see what the finished grade is going to be? TRUSTEE SMITH: Just to see what the finished grade is going to be with that retaining wall. TRUSTEE KING: Is there going to be any fill where that driveway is...is that driveway going to be raised too over what it is now? ROB HERRMANN: The driveway grade would be raised according to the proposed contours indicated on the plan. Now your looking generally anywhere from about 2 ½' to 3' and then ~at it's highest point near the sanitary system the grade is basically increasing from 2.2' to 6' and again this is going to be within that area where the fill would be contained by retaining wall. TRUSTEE KING: Flag the driveway too Rob. ROB HERRMANN: Okay BOB MOSS: I live across Sandpiper Basin. My question is what type of material is this retaining wall going to be made of. ROB HERRMANN: Concrete. And the reason for that is the retaining wall is not proposed for any aesthetic purpose as part of the improvement but as a mechanism of retaining fill required for the sanitary system. So, the specs for the sanitary and the concrete retaining wall are dictated by the Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services. I can't fred you a client that was ever happy about it but they don't have any choice is the grade is such that requires retention. When you raise the grade for a sanitary system, you have to be able to grade out the fill that you placed at a 5% slope. If you can't do that, you have to...obviously you can't grade onto the neighbor's property or omo the road to you have to then contain the fill artificially. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any more comments? TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to Recess this hearing until Rob get it done and we can take another look at it. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of CAROLYN PFANNER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 48' fixed timber catwalk (elevated 3.5' above marsh grade) with 4'X 5' steps to bottom at seaward end. Convert existing 3.5'X 8.5' timber steps down bank to 3.5'X 4.5' steps to landward end of elevated catwalk. Located: 320 Oak St., Cutchogue. SCTM#136-1-49 TRUSTEE SMITH: Would anyone like to make a comment on this? ROB HERRMANN: I'm here onbehalfofthe applicant. I was contacted by your office indicated that we would need to provide pedestrian access steps up and over the catwalk from either side of the structure which would be acceptable to the Planners at this point. 19. 20. 21. TRUSTEE SMITH: Does anyone have any comments on this besides Rob? Does the board have any comments? TRUSTEE KING: I just have notes from A1 that ~ve need the steps up and over and hand dig the pilings. TRUSTEE SMITH: Being no further comments, I'd like to close the public hearing on Carol Pfanner. TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'd like to make a motion to Approve the application with the stipulation for the stairs placed up and over the catwalk and pilings must be hand-dug to minimize the disturbance to the wetlands. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of DOUGLAS & CAROL RYAN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling with deck and sanitary system. Located: 3710 Beebe Dr., Cutchogue. SCTM#103-9-2 TRUSTEE SMITH: Does anyone have a comment? PATRICIA MOORE: We're here because the original jurisdiction of this Board was 75' and the house was placed where it's proposed and now your jurisdiction changed so now we're here before this board for a permit for the identical house. I know Mr. & Mrs. Ryan also mentioned something to you about the dock but I understand that has been resolved. The only one comment I had, I heard it from some of the applications that you had, was a pathway from the house to the dock. I assume that you have to get from one to the other so I'd like to include it as well. TRUSTEE SMITH: We didn't find any problem with it Pat. Does anyone else have anything they would like to say about this request? Being no further comments, I'd like to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'd like to make a motion to Approve the application with a 4' pathway to the end of the catwalk with a woodchip base or something similar. No hard structure and a 50' non-disturbance buffer. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES Patdcia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of WILLIAM F. TYREE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 178' catwalk with a 12' "T" structure, constructed 4' above grade of marsh for kayak launching. Located: 2280 Moore's Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM#116-1-8.3 POSTPONED UNTIL MARCH AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of C&D REALTY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling with private well and on-site sewage disposal system. Located: 3640 Cox Neck Rd., Mattituck. SCTM#113-4-1 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any comments? JIM FITZGERALD: We have been here about this many times and at the last inspection it was requested that the (can't understand) be indicated on the survey map and I gave the maps to Lauren earlier it the day. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Anyone else? Any board members like to comment? 22. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'd like to take a look at it with the new survey. JIM FITZGERALD: Take a look at what? TRUSTEE SMITH: The house with the new survey. JIM FITZGERALD: Again? We've been kicking this thing around for months. We keep adding things to the survey and nothing ever happens. IfI may, just let me add that the Trustees issued a permit for the same project in 1990. TRUSTEE KING: Is this house proposed to be on poles? JIM FITZGERALD: Not unless somebody says it has to be. TRUSTEE KING: This is really a tight spot. JIM FITZGERALD: And it may have to be because of the flood zone. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What is the measurement fi:om the wetlands to the septic? JIM FITZGERALD: 72' from the phragmites. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there any room to move it further upland? JIM FITZGERALD: No this puts it right at the minimum distance from the property to the north. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What did CAC recommend? TRUSTEE KING: They Tabled it. I don't think they've looked at recently. I don't know. They haven't been there since November. This is dated the 15th of November. They should go back out. Let's have them go out before our next meeting. JIM FITZGERALD: May I ask what it is you will be looking at this time that you didn't look at last time? TRUSTEE SMITH: I just can't visualize this house in this location. I need to look at it again. TRUSTEE KING: Do they plan on putting a well here for water or are they going to try to tap into public water? JIM FITZGERALD: Public water. Interestingly back in 1990, the DEC issued a permit for it too. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of JOHN BIGGANE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a bulkhead 152' long at toe of bluff with return at western end of length so that top of bulkhead return meets the slope of the bluff; backfill behind bulkhead to level of top of bulkhead; plant filled area with American beachgrass on 18" centers; place rock armoring at base of bulkhead on seaward side. Construct stairs from top of bluff to beach at seaward side of bulkhead, overall run approx. 85 ft. Located: 8871 Oregon Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#83-1-34 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would anyone like to comment on this? JIM FITZGERALD: We talked about this before. The most significant problem during the mspection, as I understand, was the grading problem of the top of the bluff and I have given you a proposed grading plan which was provided for the construction as well with a drywell or wells and sufficient capacity to handle 2" of rain to keep it on the property and keep it fi:om going over the bluff or onto the neighbor's property. TRUSTEE POL1WODA: Any other comments? JIM FITZGERALD: The construction of the bulkhead is intended to match that of the existing bulkhead to the east. 23. 24. TRUSTEE KING: The CAC did not make an inspection. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What type of material will you be using for the bulkhead? JIM FITZGERALD: CCA treated timber. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Was there any consideration of using vinyl. I'm just curious. JIM FITZGERALD: The builder has a quotation for wood and whether he would discuss that with the contractor specifically, I don't know. TRUSTEE SMITH: The stakes look like it's quite a ways fi:om the toe of the bluff. JIM FITZGERALD: It's about in align with the one next door. It will be done at the toe of the bluff. If the stakes don't seem to mark it adequately, we'd be happy to move them as necessary because it's to our advantage to have it at the toe of the bluff. TRUSTEE POL1WODA: How about a set of pictures before the work and after the work? TRUSTEE KING: Okay. Then I can take a walk down and look at it. TRUSTEE POL1WODA: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the permit along the toe of the bluff and request that pictures be taken before the work is done and after it's completed to make sure it is at the true toe of the bluff. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALLAYES Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of SUSAN L. BECKER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling with on-site sewage disposal and private well, in- ground swimming pool and surrounding patio, and wood deck or grade-level patio behind a retaining wall. Located: 4483 Wells Rd., Peconic. SCTM#86-1-9.6 TRUSTEE SMITH: I had no problem with this one. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to Approve the application and that the road run- off and the house be contained in drywells and there be a hay bale barrier put up during construction to cease any road nm-off, and a limit of clearing to 75' of tidal wetlands. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of CAROL MITAROTONDO requests a Wetland Permit to construct an in-ground swimming pool and surrounding decking and/or masonry patio, and relocate existing wood fi:ame playhouse, and relocate the existing Town of Southold street drain pipe in accordance with a plan mutually agreeable to the Town and the owner. Located: 950 Little Peconic Bay Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#111-14- 15 TRUSTEE POLlWODA: Is there anyone here who would like to comment? JIM FITZGERALD: As you know from the discussion after the inspection, we don't know at this point if the drainpipe is going to be relocated or has to be removed. TRUSTEE KING: I just don't want to leave this open-ended so that nothing gets done. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: When this work commences this pipe is ultimately going to be hit so when your ready to commence work, the Highway Dept., you should work something out with them. 25. DR. MITAROTONDO: I spoke to Tony Tohill and (can't hear). We spoke with Ray Jacobs and Jamie last year about this and they put in a basin on the road side which really helped the situation. (can't hear) TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We were told those ten rings would catch 1" of rainfall. If we get an inch and a half, that's a lot of water. DR. MITAROTONDO: There a lot of rocks and sand washing down from both ends. You can see all the sand that has been washed down. TRUSTEE SMITH: Do you notice any build up on Wunneweta Pond from road m-off? DR. MITAROTONDO: If you look at the pipe, which was cut offa little bit, it's silted up. (can't hear) TRUSTEE KING: It's a problem all over Town. Every place we look, it's happening. But, I'd like to see some plans from Jamie in conjunction with this for the drywells. Other than that, I don't have a problem with it. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve with the understanding that this all has to be coordinated with the Town and the property owner as far as the easement goes, and along with the plans for showing the relocation of the pipe, I'd like to see plans for drywells above on the road to try to handle at least another inch of rain before it goes into the overflow. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of MICHAEL CARBONE requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing wood frame house. Construct new wood frame house with new septic system approved by SCDHS if required, and with deck and attached two- car garage. Located: 1580 North Bayview Rd., Southold. SCTM#70-12-34 JIM FITZGERALD: This is'the one with the dock that's too big. TRUSTEE SMITH: Yes, by the Goose Creek Bridge. JIM FITZGERALD: I gave Lauren a letter today and indicated that we would like you to act on the application for the house renovation and we will submit an application for an amendment to the existing permit for the dock and either get you to approve it the way it is or say that we will cut it back as much as necessary to put it in compliance. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Does he has a permit for the dock right now? JIM FITZGERALD: Yes but it's significantly different. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We have a picture. The dock is 33' overall length. JIM FITZGERALD: They said it was there when they bought the house. It was issued in 1972. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I think what he has is acceptable to us just cut the top part to make it narrower so sunlight can penetrate the wetlands under it and then the extra floating dock has to go. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the permit with the Stipulation that he makes an Amendment to the dock Permit #698. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES r~ ~ , 30 26. 27. Docko, Inc. on behalf of VEILLIAM REED requests a Wetland Permit to construct 65 linear fl. of 4' wide fixed wood pile and timber pier, an 8' wide X 20' float with an associated 4'X 16' hinged ramp and four float restraint pilings, waterward of the mean high water line· Located: The Peninsula, Fishers Island. SCTM#10-3-12 WILLIAM REED: I'm the applicant if you have any questions. This is just past the marina. TRUSTEE SMITH: I think I've been here. Is there an old house there? WII,LIAM REED: There is no house. I have a permit to build a house· If you go by Pirates Cove, there is an outstanding application for Scudder Sinclair for a retaining wall and is you continue past his and go up to the stretch... TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Do you know the distance to the nearest land straight across? WILLIAM REED: It's across the channel quite a ways. I would guess it's over hundreds of feet. It shows on the picture that my adjoining property owner has a dock about the same size. TRUSTEE POL1WODA: Right. Is there a narrow channel? WILLIAM REED: There is a channel, there's a buoy which is probably 75' off the end of this proposed dock. This dock is mainly for a dinghy for my kids. TRUSTEE POL1WODA: One thing I should point out is our policy is 6'X 20' floats. You have 8'X 20'. WILLIAM REED: Docko said that this was the preferred size· TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No, it's 6'X 20'. WILLIAM REED: That's fine. I don't have a problem with that. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded· ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with a 6'X 20' float. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES First Coastal Corp. on behalf of LONE STAR INDUSTRIES, INC. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new marina and restaurant facility. Located: Naugles Dr., Mattituck. SCTM#99-4-1.1 POSTPONED UNTIL MARCH AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST RESOLUTIONS: The Southold Town Board of Trustees may designate up to one (1) acre of bottom land per named creek as a shellfish spawner sanctuary. This bottom land may be closed to shell-fishing for up to two (2) years. TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES Meeting adjourned at: 10:15 PM