Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-01/22/1999Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Henry Smith Artie Fester Ken Poliwoda Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PRESENT WERE: ABSENT: MINUTES JANUARY 22, 1999 Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster, Trustee Ken Poliwoda, Trustee Diane Herbert, Clerk Henry P. Smith, Trustee CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Friday, February 12, 1999 at 12 noon NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 at 7 p.m. WORK SESSION: 6:00 p.m. APPROVE MINUTES: Approved Minutes of December 16, 1998 at Regular Meeting. TRUSTEE KING moved to approve, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for December 1998: A check for $8,276.06 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: 1. ALAN CARDINALE REQUESTS an Amendment to Permit %4787 to include a set of stairs down the bluff. Located: 4025 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM %111-9-6.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve the application with condition that the landings be no more than 4' X 8', TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES 2. MATTITUCK INLET MARINA requests an Amendment to Permit #4857 to reconstruct within 18" 200+' of bulkhead and backfill Board of Trustees~J 2 ~anuary 22, 1999 structure with 100 c.y. of clean sand trucked in from upland source. Located: West Mill Road, Mattituck. SCTM ~106-6-13.3 TRUSTEE KING moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES 3. DANIEL JENNINGS requests a Waiver for an existing 6' high stockade fence along south side of property. Located: 75 Lakeside Drive, Southold. SCTM #90-3-10 TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES 4. ED DOWD on behalf of WORTH ENTERPRISES requests a Waiver to place two split rail fences from bulkhead to high water mark as indicated on survey enclosed. Located: 470 Inlet Way, Southold. SCTM ~92-1-8 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to approve the application with condition that if the high tide changes the applicant must move fence back or forward according to the tide, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 5. FREDERICK COULTER requests a Waiver for an existing 24.8' X 26.3' deck on to an existing house. Located: 7020 Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel. SCTM #126-11-6 TRUSTEE KING moved to appove the application, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES 6. RICHARD & THERESA $IRIANO request a Waiver to enclose an existing deck with roof, glass & screens. Located: 600 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue. $CTM ~97-7-5 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to appove the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 7. Radigan Construction on behalf of STANLEY MALON requests a Waiver to construct a small addition on top of an existing house. Located: 1445 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue. SCTM ~137-4-33.1 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 8. Ann Johnson on behalf of CARL & CORINNE BOOS requests a Waiver for an existing 10' X 18' deck with sliding glass door. Located: 3715 Stillwater Ave., Cutchogue. SCTM ~136-2-12 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to table the application until we send a letter to them requesting that they clean up the debris on their property near the bank and we re-inspect it, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES 9. William Savino on behalf of CHARLES RODIN requests a Waiver to construct a 4' X 8' wide roof dormer and approx, a 40' split rail fence along west side of property. Located: 4025 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM ~111-9-6.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES Board of Trustee~~-~ 3 ~January 22, 1999 10. VIVIEN SO0 requests a second and last one year extension on Permit ~4558 issued to her on February 28, 1996. This extension will expire February 28, 2000. Located: 265 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold. SCTM ~90-3-9 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to off the Regular Meeting and onto the Public Hearing, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 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 TRAVELER-WATCHMAN. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF: FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS, IF POSSIBLE 1. En-Consultants Inc., on behalf of ANDREAS KARACOSTAS requests a Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permit to place on filter cloth within 4' of existing timber retaining wall 40' of 1-3 ton armor stone. Located: 21275 Sound View Ave., Southold. SCTM ~135-1-2 NOTE: Applicant wishes to change the description of project to read as follows: to remove and replace inkind/inplace the failing structure and area landward backfilled and replanted with Ammophilia breviligulata. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak either in favor or against the application? ROB HERRMANN: The Board will remember this application at last months meeting. There were some comments from the neighbor and from the Board and the Board requested that the project be revised as rather than installation of stone that the applicant proceed with the application be replaced the failing bulkhead so the application proposal has been provided at the Board's request. TRUSTEE KING: How are they going to do that work? Are they going to use a barge? ROB: The contractor hasn't been identified yet. TRUSTEE FOSTER: So they're gonna replace the bulkhead and plant above it. ROB: Well there would be no way they could go out front. You have to replace it. If it pleases the Board we could inform you when the contractor is chosen if your concerned about access. I noticed that myself and when I spoke with Mr. Karacostas it's problematic because coming down the beach from either side is obviously high tide and there's large stone down there and it's not going to be easy to come down the bluff either. There's gonna have to be some way to gain access along the beach. I'm sure that depending on which contractor they choose to deal with Board of Trustee~-~ 4 ~January 22, 1999 maybe they have different suggestions or recommendations as to get access to the site. TRUSTEE KING: Move to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll move to approve the application with condition that the contractor notify us before work begins. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 2. En-Consultants Inc., on behalf of THOMAS & ROBY GLUCKMAN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed timber dock, consisting of a 4' X 98' fixed catwalk, a 3' X 14' ramp and a 6' X 20' float to be secured by two 8" in diameter pilings. Located: 1350 West Cove Road, Cutchogue. SCTM ~111-5-2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to table the application as per applicants request. TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES 3. En-Consultants Inc., on behalf of WUNNEWETA POND ASSOC. requests a Wetland Permit to dredge a 20' X 170' area in channel to max. depth of 4' below ALW, and approx. 375 c.y. of resultant spoil will be spread evenly over irregularly shaped area on adjacent property to southeast. Located: Bridge Lane, Cutchogue. $CTM ~118-1-11 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? ROB: This is a permit that the Board has issued in the past and renewed. We are before you with a new application as according to the regulations, and is not dead in terms of renewal. The Association is essentially proposing to tear out the same exact project that was approved by the Board before and if the Board could grant it as a longer term maintenance permit the Association would be very grateful. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right now, who dredges from that area out into the Bay? Does the County dredge that? ROB: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why doesn't the County dredge that? TOM SAMUELS: Lack of public access (could not hear him) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did they ever? TOM: Not to my knowledge. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where the lagoon is privately owned bottom, this is publicly owned bottom. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is a pretty straight forward project we have. We have issued permits in the past. What was the time limit on the previous permits? ROB: I think it was the standard period. In October of 1997 the Board approved for a second and last one year extension. I guess it is approx, one year to expire January of this month. Prior to that the same was made in 1996 to extend to January 1998. TOM: It goes back to 1967. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. I was just wondering why we didn't grant a 10 year maintenance permit originally. Does the Board have any problem issuing a 10 year maintenance on this? Is the area that's outlined here, is that gonna be satisfactory for a Board of Trustees- 5 ~anuary 22, 1999 10 year maintenance permit or should that be enlarged to the west out towards the Bay to give you the option of going further out into the Bay if it shoals out further out. Instead of locking you into one small area, suppose you have to go further out into the Bay. ROB: That sounds great, but the DEC is not gonna afford that flexibility. You have to go in and ask for the exact location you want to dredge. TOM: The lagoon has had major problems there but the Pond has not had that problem. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just didn't want you to get locked in and then next year you say, 'well we really have to go another 50' to the west'. ROB: If they had to do it we would absolutely have to go back to the State and a big part of that process is to ask this Board for an Amendment to adjust the area. TRUSTEE KING: Move to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll move to approve the application with a 10 year maintenance permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The CAC comments are that the work be done outside of the nesting season and that the spoil should be better manipulated to replenish the beach. I think that is being accomplished. ROB: The DEC has been extremely precise about the spoil site. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 4. En-Consultants Inc., on behalf of JOHN SKI requests a Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permit to construct 93+/-' of stone revetment to complete the protection of applicants shoreline, and approx. 30 c.y. of clean fill trucked in from upland source, and maintain an existing gravel road by periodically adding gravel. Located: oriental Ave., Fishers Island. SCTM ~10-10-8.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of this application? ROB: The application is fairly straight forward. It's based to finish off existing rock revetment on West Harbor in Fishers Island. Part of this is also to maintain periodically the road existing just upland of the site. There was a letter from Mr. Parsons, the adjacent property owner to the Board on Dec. 1st. The concern was about the representation of the exact location of the road in relation to this property. A revised sketch was forwarded both to Mr. Parsons and to the Board and a letter dated Dec. 12th which was sent to the Board and copy to us. Mr. Parsons stated, 'we appreciate the assurance and revised sketch furnished by Mr. Haje in his letter to you of Dec. 7. In reliance on that assurance, my wife and I wish to confirm that we have no objection to the grant to Mr. Ski of the permit requested.' TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were unable to inspect this because of the weather, so we're gonna poll a public hearing and then go over and vote on it then. Is there any other comment? I'll make a motion to table this until we make the inspection. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES Board of Trustees~-~ 6 ~January 22, 1999 5. En-Consultants Inc., on behalf of GEORGE CHRISTMANN, JR. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 90+' timber retaining wall to be tied into adjacent structures to east and west, backfill with approx. 100 c.y. of clean sand trucked in from upland source and replant with Cape American beach grass and remove existing landing and stairs and construct a 4' X 5' seasonal set of stairs to beach. Located: 8860 Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel. SCTM ~126-5-4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak either in favor or against this application? ROB: This is another fairly straight forward application where this is a site that is sandwiched between two existing retaining walls on Great Peconic Bay. The one property has been receding landward due to erosion on the Bay and it's location between two existing bulkheads leaves us with two alternatives to constructing a bulkhead to tie into the face of either structure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is an interesting application. At our Work Session someone gave us some material on bio-engineering applications of shoreline stabilization. I was wondering if you would like to take a look at these. ROB: The problem with the alternative engineering at this site is that these structures ..... not only these vegetative erosion structures are designed for the creek banks and the lake banks or pond banks ..... same as the concept of the loss of bulkhead, requires a low wave energy site and a site that is gonna be constantly inundated by tides. One of the gabions and the makers of the structures that we discussed during the worksession for a couple of the other projects such as the Cardinale project, which is gonna be a much lower wave energy environment, is that gabions specifically are not to be used in this kind of environment. Obviously this is not the same type of situation in the Sound in that there's not gonna be wave energy. But it is open water environment, much greater fetch, and there's not tidal wetland fringes here. Tidal wetlands, as the Board knows, would not make it at this location. Again, the only alternative in terms of soft alternative, would be be to continue to fill and plant it but it's not a site that is void of that now. It is well vegetated and there is beach grass and other native grasses on it. But it's just too much in the open wave energy environment and also it is in fact that it is sandwiched between two other bulkheads. So there's no input in upland sand coming from either direction. It has been cut off by the brick retaining wall. It is on the one side and existing timber retaining wall on the other. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When we were out there we noticed that most of the problem came from the structures, especially from the one on the west where a lot of yard waste had been dumped over the bank and basically was smothering the vegetation that existed there. For the most part it is a pretty stable site. But on the west side it was the worst because of the yard waste being dumped on it. ROB: I did not notice that when I was there. I took photographs on November 10th. Board of Trustees~ 7 ~January 22, 1999 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Of course that corner catches most of the easterly winds and that corner tends to take a beating. ROB: The problem is we can address this issue on some sites like Southampton Town where there the Trustees are obviously in a much more extreme environment, but the ocean had taken a strong stance against any hard structures and new structures on the ocean but even during those deliberations had begrudgingly issued permits for bulkheads for sites that are sandwiched between existing bulkheads. It's an unfortunate situation but it really leaves the owner in the middle with little option. Again it's not a natural erosion protection system here. This to me is pretty well vegetated site. It's a pretty steep bank and the reason that the owner is in ...... has been unhardened for a petty good period of time. And if you look at where the bank is it has receded about 15' landward of the adjacent properties. Essentially it's a situation where your not changing the dynamics of the natural system. Because it's already unnatural on either side of it. In terms of impacts there aren't any because they are already hardened. It's basically ...... it's a micro-cosmic version of what we see on the Sound all the time. Where the property owner comes in and proposes a retaining wall on the Sound between the two existing retaining walls. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any way the applicant would be happy with a lower bulkhead or something like that? ROB: Something that doesn't end up as high? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. TOM: Well, historically, when I first saw the site after the '92 storms it was badly chewed up and Mr. Christmann and his brother owned it at the time he did have beach grass pretty well and it's done pretty well. We know two or three tides could chew it out again. That shoreline is pretty well bulkheaded from the park to Laurel and beyond. It's difficult after a 5 year interval to look and see it was. The benign weather after those three storms, it's not that far back. In any event that's his plan. He want to live there year round and he is going to renovate the house and he just wants the security of knowing that he is not going to loose the back yard. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any thoughts of raising the beach elevation in addition to this and planting in front? Because I think that's half the problem there, that the beach elevation is lower there and if you raise it up you can plant it and stabilize the whole section. TOM: I'd like to think that there could be some community of mind on doing this. You and I have known that shoreline for a long time. I sail it every week and the water is so shoaled and it never used to be. It is so shoaled from Peconic Bay Blvd., out that when we dredge Brushes Creek for example for the County we had to go out about 400 yards to get to where we could dredge it to 4' at MLW and that's pretty typical of that whole shoreline. If you race in the Bay you can't take your keel boat in within a quarter of a mile of the shoreline. So it's a very shoaled area and as a result when there are storms and easterly storms the waves, as they build up from deep water assume a much Board of Trustees~ 8 ~-~January 22, 1999 higher height. And that's why that shoreline took such a beating in the Halloween storm and the Dec. 1995 storm. Waves travel through the water and in deep water there's waves under water, and when it hits that shoal it just comes up and builds up. So that's the problem, i don't think the bulkheads are too high for 99% of the weather that we get and these structures are constructed to last about 35 years hopefully. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any Board comment on this? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: A buffer zone? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He's got a pretty big one now. ROB: It'll go back to at least what it is now. I think we're showing it as 15' There is natural non-lawn vegetation that goes back further than the 15' and that will be maintained. TRUSTEE KING: Move to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the application with condition that a 15' buffer be maintained landward of bulkhead. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. ALL AYES 6. Costello Marine on behalf of BUD HOLMAN requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct three low-profile jetties' one 65' and two 50' long. Located: 350 Park Ave., Mattituck. SCTM #123-7-8 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? JOHN COSTELLO: In meeting with this Board on site a week or so ago Mr. Holman ..... and I recommended that he approve maintenance all three jetties the same length and lowering the elevation of the west jetty approx. 34". He agreed, very reluctantly, because he said it seemed at times where it is as high as that jetty. But when I told him it served no purpose on saving his bulkhead, and the low profile groins would assist everyone and provide better access along the beach, he agreed to go and resubmit the drawing showing that the amendment. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In the drawing it shows what we discussed on field inspection. KEN: The eastern one drops out. JOHN: It drops out. But if your standing at the west one it winds through the preexisting jetties that are down the beach. You'll find out that the west jetty, even though there's that jog in the bulkhead, would be roughly in line with what is preexisting along the beach. The only jetties that are longer is the single one to the west and the west jetty on Mr. Holman's property. TRUSTEE KING: So the new west jetty is gonna measure 54' JOHN: Yes. And as Mr. Samuels said earlier, there is a tendency right now to have to be going through a phase of shoaling in that area and the aerial photographs that I showed this Board previously, shows that most of the literal drift of sand is off shore and inshore, not east or west. Depending upon the right wind conditionS it's on shore in that area. There is a major degree of sand on shore right now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: More so than 20 years ago? Board of Trustees~- ~January 22, 1999 JOHN: Well it depends upon weather conditions. We've had barges in there 20 years ago supplying material. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Move to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application based on the resubmitted drawing where all three groins be 54' and low profile in nature. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. ALL AYES 7. Costello Marine on behalf of JAMES RILEY requests a Wetland Permit to install a 4' X 35' catwalk (4' above marsh) a 4' X 60' fixed dock, a 3' X 12' ramp and a 6' X 20' float with 2- 2 pile dolphins 20' offset from each side of float. Located: 3600 Vanston Road, Cutchogue. SCTM #111-5-12 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When we visited the site, the one thing that struck us was the neighbors dock which has been there a long time. Really we would much have Mr. Riley's dock placed adjacent to the neighbors dock. And make that sort of a boating. area. We'd rather not bisect each parcel with a dock and a boat. In this case keep your dock with the Collins dock together. So your not going over the marsh, the boats will be staying in the one general area. JOHN: Certainly we had that intention at one time. It was discussed with the Army Corps of Engineers and actually recommended that it be away from the top of the line. The DEC obviously (could not understand him) The neighbor, Mr. Collins had very little concern whether it was gonna restrict his dock. I think the location is fair. Your probably right. I can't say. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our general policy is to have the dock no closer to the property line than 15' We feel that leaves for safe navigation. So we would really rather see the dock placed 15' off the property line which would place it on the adjacent to Mr. Collins dock. JOHN: I just had one question for the Board. Would it be possible if the neighbor has concerns to angle it slightly, to start it at 15' off the property line and angle it towards the center of the property just so we don't interfere with navigation with the neighbor. JAMES RILEY: If you look at the property, the one concern we have with that is about 90% of the property, there's only on little patch of a beach where the kids could go down to the water, and that's exactly where your suggestion is ...... I only need 10' and if I had that would be fine. Now I'm just concerned about where they're gonna come down there and there's the dock ...... just from a safety perspective. I would prefer to be away. I just don't have any room to maneuver. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Except that right now they're swimming right next to the Collins dock. I'm familiar with that. I swam there as a kid. MR. RILEY: I just wanted to imagine if I came out on that beach like that, straight out where are they gonna swim? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want to meet us out on the site? Board of Trustee~-~ 10 " January 22, 1999 MR. RILEY: Sure. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If we move it how is the water depth gonna change? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The length in the dock is in question also. We wouldn't want it to go out any further than the Collins dock. What we always try to do in any structure is to minimize the length of the structure because that is all public property. We don't want that to intrude into public property any more than necessary. We want to to give you safe access from upland over the marsh to get to your boat. We don't want that to intrude any further than necessary. MR. RILEY: Is the concern more of the length of it or .... JOHN: By moving it to the north you are reducing the length of the dock and possibly shoaling to some degree. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll move to table the application until we can inspect it further. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 8. Pat Moore on behalf of BERNICE LETTIERI, ANDREW LETTIERI & JOE GAZZA request a Wetland Permit to improve an existing access road to 4 parcel. Located: at 5 acre parcels off Main Road, East Marion. SCTM ~22-3-19, 20, 21 & 22 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? PAT MOORE: I'd like to establish for the record that all the information that I gathered over the years be put in the record and hopefully place the whole thing in to a perspective. We are applying for a wetland permit because the properties north of Dam Pond ..... there are 4 lots and each lot is 5 acres in size. Each of those lots is owned individually. On the westerly side by Bernice, then heading towards the east is Andrew and further to the east is Joe Gazza, and the far eastern parcel is owned between Joe and Andrew Lettieri. So each of these properties have been in private ownership since ..... for the last 15 to 18 years these property owners have sought different application processes. At one point there intentions were ..... well they came in individually with a two acre, two lot subdivision of each of the lots. What occurred is that all of the minor subdivision applications each was lumped together so that it resulted in being somewhat stopped because it was being considered as a project separation and several years went by on the piece to the west which is owned by Mr. Witiman had been owned by the Reese family. The Reese family (could not hear her) My clients have been in touch with the Reese family and verbally tried to obtain access to those parcels by way of the Reese property. There was some discussion, and very positive, movement in that direction and then alternately Mr. Reese sold the property to Mr. Witiman and at that point there was nothing in writing so that's where it stopped. What we have not at this point is what is called a 280A application. Under the Town law 280A if you are not a road ..... we don't have road frontage. You have to seek a variance from the Zoning Board to give yourself access over private property to get to the lot you alternately want to get a building permit on. So that is really all that at Board of Trustee~- 11 ~ January 22, 1999 this point we are seeking. My clients have gotten 15 years older. They are tired of the whole process and their position is, "listed, I have a5 acre lot, it's gonna be one beautiful home. I am somewhat isolated on a one acre lot". So at this point that's what they're seeking. Just the approval of the access road to these lots. We had submitted a wetland permit application and as you can see from the map that is in the file, the DEC had mapped certain wetlands points. The actual ordinary high water mark in Dam Pond is about 187 feet from Dam Pond. But there are some marshy areas. The whole here is that the permit should be ...... we don't want to put in a major road. We don't to necessarily black top. What they want to do is get a stable safe access to these lots. The code speaks by way of a 15' is what the code recommends. The Town recommends as a legal access requirement which according to the Town should be suitably improved to gain access to the main road. The State had in the 1980's approved a 30' opening, which is actually a 50' road opening at the time of the major sub-division application and there is actually a State approved opening to the main road which is 30' wide. That is presently in place. The road as you know from your own inspection, is still maintained and cleared and still used. For the most part continues to be used by hunters and clammers with permission of Mr. Lettieri. I believe he has an agreement with the hunter group giving the group permission to enter on private property and use for recreational purposes. But the road has been maintained throughout this whole period and we all got access. With regard to the history of this property, I did a great deal of research with the help of Antonia Booth, the Town Historian, reading back the records from the original owners of property out in this area and I gathered a great deal of information both literature and Town records as well as an oral history from some of our local East Marion/Orient people. The first document that I want to submit for the record is the Agustus Griffin's journal of 1857 and in this journal they refer back to the history of this area. They specifically say that for the last 100 years it has been nearly equally divided into 2 farms on which are convenient dwellings with very thriving families. The Tuthills and the Trumans's. They have been the proprietors of the above mentioned terms. Our position is that the properties have actually farmed for generations going back certainly 100 years before this literature of 1700's and we believe the Tuthill family was one of the original families which you derive your jurisdiction from. Your jurisdiction, from the Andros Patent was the land bearers at the time. In 1857 they referred to the Rocky Point Farm and thereafter the Bokens, and Beukens, the names are very similar, Joseph Boken and Joel Beuken, known as the Addison's Point, then became Bokens Point. In the 1930's the Tabor family farmed this property and much to my surprise and delight when I was doing the oral history, I found Fred Tabor and he provided me with an affidavit of his memory of this area. I want to present this to the Board for the record. He states that he is now a resident of the Village of Orient. But his Grandfather was Fred Tabor who owns the property that we are Board of Trustees-'~ 12 ~' January 22, 1999 dealing with. He states that the family always farmed this land and recalled farming the lots with a horse drawn plow in the 1920's. He continued to farm this land until he sold it in 1978 to the Lettieri's. He recalled with regard to ...... as you go in and on the westerly side there are the stagnant ponds that Jim King said that these ditches which today are accumulating water from apparently Dam Pond, are the remains of irrigation ditches which were maintained by generations of farmers. Both the Tabor's and Bokens who grew crops on this land. He obtained the access to his property through two dirt roads. One dirt road crossed through the woods between Irving Latham's property across land, owned by the same (could not hear her, shuffling of papers) And the second dirt road off the main road which is the primary source of access still used today. This dirt road crossed between Boken's land on the south and my land on the north. This dry dirt farm road which runs just west of Dam Pond has been in existence in all his family. So it's been in that family for a great deal of time. What I also discovered is that these ditches were actually dug by Teasdale. They were pits with stagnant fresh water sources that the water table is so high in that area and digging down ten feet below the water table produces the fresh water source for the irrigation of the farm field. That later in the 1950's Irving Latham, Terry Latham's father also excavated these irrigation ditches and maintained them. These ditches are so large as you can see as you recall from your inspection, that they resulted in a mosquito districts in the 1900's. Orient has one of the few mosquito districts in the area and what they would do is not only control mosquitos but the gutter that is under the road which we wondered how it might have been created ..... that gutter was actually a form of providing and allowing the fish to come out of Dam Pond to go through the gutter to be able to feed off of the fresh water or stagnant water there so that they would eat the mosquito's. They would control the mosquitos, not only through the fish that made they're way there, but also by way of kerosene that they threw on the water and burned the mosquito larvae over a period of time. So based on that history the Dam Pond area actually the ditches west of the road were actually man made ditches rather than what Tom thought might be a connection to Dam Pond. I also have from 1937 a tax map that shows the area of Dam Pond. And that too shows a ditch that runs through much of Joseph Boken's land and Bernice Lettieri's property on the north. And you can see again the connection points that Dam Pond ends and the ditches. Also for the file I have the copy of the State permit from 1982 that allows for the opening of the State road and the diagram of the 30' opening that is now presently built out. Finally, Mr. Lettieri says he doesn't plan on sub-dividing any of his parcels. Again these are going to be 280A which allows for access to the house. The Town lumps them all together and reviewed the applications as one and at this point Mr. Gazza prepared the letter which says that as he obtains the 280A approval for each of the lots he hereby withdraws his sub-division application. So I have that for you. And finally I have photographs of the DEC aerial maps Board of Trustees 13 January 22, 1999 which show the road that is used on this parcel. It actually shows from the 1970's. It looks like it was already farmed at that time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think you gave us an awful lot to look at and I think we're gonna have to table this and take a look at this. There's just one contradiction though in what you said about it being a mosquito control and an irrigation pond. Because it can't be both. MS. MOORE: It started as an irrigation pond, and ultimately became a mosquito control. I know that mosquito control was in effect only in the 1950's. That's when the mosquito commission was started. So they've been the one to control these ponds. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh, I'm sorry I thought you said 1900. And also could you ...... the CAC had a problem with the road. They were unclear because it wasn't staked out. Could you have this staked out in that location showing the proposed width of the road and height of the road on either side and in the middle. So we could see in the field exactly what we are looking at. The final grade on either side because it's crowned in the middle. MS. MOORE: We had at one point sued on behalf of Lettieri, sued the Planning Board because when they approved the sub-division we thought they were not acting in good faith and certainly not acting in the best interest of the Town by requiring two separate roads and maintaining this as the access to all 4 pieces. We hoped and pushed and asked and begged that they please consider a common road system so as (changed tape) the Planning Board didn't want to do it. We suspect that their choosing not to do it was to keep the development of those 5 acre parcels from ever being developed. Gently putting up obstructions in front of these applicants. Bled them and exhausted them and ultimately won what they wanted which was get them to a point of submission so that they would say, "you know what, just give me a building permit for one house, I've had it." And that's where they are today. The Peconic Land Trust had been in touch with us. They have been working with everyone involved. And at this point 15 years have gone by and they've spent a fortune in plans and lawyers ..... and we're at a point where all they want is a single family road. Four lots, four houses .... one house on a 5 acre parcel is certainly going to be the type of house that I'm sure Mr. Whitiman would feel an asset to his development. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any other comments? MR. CHARLES CUTTY: I represent Raoul Witiman who owns the property to the west. The 100+ acres of land. Two thirds of that land has been given over to the Peconic Land Trust and the remainder is being developed probably when he gets through when that 100 acres will be water front access. He's been concerned with this application because it's been on-going for years. He bought this property a number of years ago. It appeared to him that the land to the east which is the land of Lettier± and Gazza, would remain as it is for a number of reasons. One because there is wetlands on the site. This is to me hearing what I heard tonight one of the more imaginative applications Board of Trustee~~l 14 ~J' JanUary 22, 1999 that has been made. As I understandably it, there appears a road on the map, with a segment of a map showing the 50' wide road. That road was created remarkably and daringly by the applicants who in 1998 actually put a road in place through an easement. I've never seen that done before. In other words the owner of the property said, "I have a road, and you want to know why I have a road, because I did it myself". That's the road that appears on the map that is before you. To say that is lodacious is just beginning. They actually have made up a road then said to you, "I want to improve the road'. It's hard to really comment on that. It's a road that they made up and can un-make it, they can move it, they can do what they want. But I want to point out some things to you about what I believe is the map before you. I hope we're looking at the same map. That map has things on it that are years and years old. It's not updated. It has contour levels at 10. It does not go below. All of these things were done 10 or more years ago. The high water mark has not been updated. The test holes haven't been updated. There's virtually nothing on it that is current. We don't know where the water goes, how high it goes up or what the dwellings will be on that map. we don't know how close they're gonna be to the high water. We don't virtually know anything that is current. I don't know what they are doing, but I can tell you that there are at least 5 applications pending in the Planning Board. There's an application in the Zoning Board of Appeals. It's been there for years. They talk about tonight. 'well, we'll withdraw those applications if we get a 280A. But what they're really saying is, "if you give us your approval that we ask for we'll go ahead with the sub-division". If they go ahead with the subdivision on this site, then we have to talk about what's really happening to Dam Pond. Because we're talking about a number of houses, we're talking about runoff from the road and shellfish area that's really a pristine area. For the Trustees to indorse what they are asking for I think would just be the wrong thing to do. There's a SEQRA application with the Planning Board. It has never been completed. There's a positive declaration on this site. Your being asked to approve something without the SEQRA application being approved by the lead agency which is the Planning Board. I don't think you can do that no matter what happens. I would really say to you there are so many things here that should be looked at by three boards. The Zoning Board, the Planning Board and this Board. There should be a coordinated review. Otherwise what we really have is somebody comes in a segment the whole process. Break it up a little bit before the Trustees, perhaps go back to the Zoning Board and perhaps go back to the Planning Board. I think that's a wrong approach by this applicant. I think that they also have failed to tell you, quite frankly, that the 600 feet that they have ..... they have an entrance way. The Planning Board insisted and the judge determined that the entrance way is not the 30' that they show but the road into the Witiman property. Initially the Attorney tonight talked about going over the property of Reese which is my clients property. The reason they are doing that is because they didn't have any Board of Trustees 15 January 22, 1999 access over this property. Now tonight they come before you and say, "we have access". At one time these very owners acknowledged they have no access. Tonight they have a made up access. I don't think they have any access at all. My client does not want this to proceed without some more input from the other Board's. I'm really asking seriously to consider to have a coordination and have this all done at one time. Otherwise it has been segmented. I think that the Town gets hurt by this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I do have one question. When you said all three Boards, our Board has spoken to the Planning Board about this. Because of the nature of this project it's important that everyone coordinates all their information that is available. But it's not unusual for each Board to act independently on other projects. MR. CUTTY: I understand that, but in this application where there is a unique site and it's been going for years and years, and there's an open SEQRA, I think that is important. MS. MOORE: I want to clarify the information that was given to you. I think it was misleading. There is one 280A application before the Zoning Board and that is the process that is undertaking to get access for one lot to get a building permit. Yes, the deeded ROW, the one that is now placed on record with meets and bounds description is the access that you have before you, was agreed upon between the adjacent property owners. There was a descriptive easement by the fact that this road has existed from its' beginning. The lots on the 5 acre lot, each of them got access to the main road forever. And what these property owners did rather than a verbal or continuing descriptive easement which is a state of the law and you don't landmark parcels. And Mr. Cutty knows that. They agreed among themselves. The Zoning Board said, "we'd like you to be able to identify, if your gonna ask for a particular access tell us where it is. The three property owners that, o.k., we know we have descriptive easements, we know these are the roads, and what we're gonna do is grant each other easement so we know precisely where they're gonna go. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Which three property owners? MS. MOORE: Lettieri, Bernice Lettier, and Gazza. Mr. Lettieri owns the farm land that is almost 15 acres on the south that fronts the main road. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is the current zoning on that? MS. MOORE: Bernice and Andrew Lettieri, each individual have their 5 acre lot and Mr. Gazza. So they agreed amongst themselves to actually grant an easement. Most of you have probably seen a deeded ROW better created between property owners. If you want to create an easement. Ideally if you put it in writing you identify, that's the best way to have it, rather than have it descriptive, have it created all the time. But that's what we have here. We have the descriptive easement that has been written out and placed on record so that future owners knows where it is. With regard to the SEQRA process. The reason that it is a positive declaration, was because Reese had a subdivision going and there were individual subdivision applications that have been committed by separate property Board of Trustees 16 January 22, 1999 owners. And they looked at the cumulative impact of the development of all those parcels all at once. That was an appropriate way of review for the property. My only disagreement with the process was that they excluded from the cumulative impact probably the most important piece because the westerly piece is owned by Witiman. But they the Lettieri application that was separate subdivision ...... two lot subdivision application each of them individual lot applications. I'll also remind you that 280A under the Town Law is a Type II Action. I've already given you a letter that says that they're not pursueing the subdivision application. They got 'stone-walled' with the SEQRA process. The SEQRA process is viewed as restored against the development of these parcels. I'm working with Mr. Gazza who is .... well, both of them really, Mr. Gazza and Mr. Lettieri, they're skeptical about the cooperation that they're getting from the Town. Understandably 15 years went by when they were 'stone-walled'. No matter what they said, no matter what they asked for, no matter what appropriate planning for the Town could have applied, the Town chose to apply certain planning tools, or certain property owners and other more stringent tools to keep this process from being developed. Given that cynicism that I'm working with clients think that, 'I've been screwed in the past, and I'm sorry, I just don't trust the Town". But that is what I am getting back from them. They say, "we're gonna withdraw our subdivision applications. We don't want to subdivide, we've been beaten up death, and we're not subdivide". The thousands of dollars in maps and consultant fees and everything else, they're not gonna start from square one just because you tell us that 280A is no big deal. So, that's the reason that the specific Planning Board applications have been withdrawn. As to the house and the impact of the houses on the wetlands, there are 5 acres and one house. There is minimum impact. Just like Mr. Witiman one house on a certain number of acres. One house will not make an impact. All they're asking for right now from the Town is the degree of improvement. 280A means that you have to go to the Zoning Board for the variance, and you for the wetland permit. We don't disagree. We would like to have the two of you work together. The Zoning Board and the Trustees because one will certainly impact the other. The Zoning Board will look to you and your gonna tell them, 'we don't want to see black to". Great, we don't want see black top in. You want a width of the road with a 50' width, there's no need for a 50' width. Our position is a long driveway will suffice. We've got 4 houses and a shared driveway makes a lot more sense. We'd like you tell the Zoning Board that's what would be appropriate here based on the wetland application. Mr. Baylis is in his 90's. To ask Mr. Baylis to go back and revise his map is difficult. The ordinary high water mark is deviated slightly. It's not significant in this particular case because you've got lots that area a 5 acre in size. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On the survey, first of all as far as coordinating with the Planning Board, I think we'd rather look at it again so that we can even coordinate with them in the Board of Trustee~ .... 17 ~'~ January 22, 1999 field, so we can get a better idea of exactly what this is gonna entail. From our end, the 75' jurisdiction upland. MS. MOORE: The Planning Board doesn't have any more jurisdiction over this. I just want to make sure we are going to the right Board. The Zoning Board is the 280A. The Planning Board, we are not going through with the sub-division. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But don't you have an application pending with them? MS. MOORE: The Planning Board Application right now is stalled. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But there's an application there. MS. MOORE: It can be stayed, indefinitely. We're not going to subdivide so why would we want to ...... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: My point is that the existing roadway over the marsh should be ...... now you said something about the surveyor. I don't think his age has any bearing on this Board's decision, so we would like to see the existing roadway and 75' upland of that be put on the survey. Because what's put on here is just drawn in pencil. We'd like to see what's actually existing. When this says, 'updated'. How is it updated. MS. MOORE: The Zoning Board had asked for the names of the property owners to be shown on each of the maps. The road changed. I think they used the same map for the subdivision application. It seemed to me that the road should be further to the south rather than the center, but I'm not the owner. And the owners agreed that they liked it right there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They can put that anywhere they want to. I'd just like to see the location of the existing road. It's always been the contention of this Board ..... and we met out there on the site with you a couple oX years ago, on this exact same question. That inter-tidal patent lands running underneath that roadway and that roadway has been filled and used historically. We don't relinquish any ownership of that marsh area there. MS. MOORE: We don't plan on taking any more ownership of that area than the need to put a road in. The Trustees and the owners have a common goal which is ..... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, we don't want to develop this property. So we don't have a common goal. MS. MOORE: We all agree that there has been a road there to get access to those parcels. We want to continue that road and that access point. We want to improve that access point to the degree that the code or the Town woudl require us. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Chapter 97 which is Wetlands Section 21-G "such application shall be accompanied by a survey and topographical map of one year or less with contours at 2' intervals showing the area in which the removal in which the deposited materials is proposed". And it goes on. That would be really helpful to follow the code on that simple section if we had a survey with 2' intervals. MS. MOORE: Well this is a huge piece of property with a long road. The only applicable section would be the area that is over this focal point. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think this Board would want the whole property survey at 2' intervals, but we would like to see that in black and white in the code in that area. Board of Trustees 18 January 22, 1999 MS. MOORE: O.K. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: And 75' on either side of that too. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The day we were out there, I walked the width of that road to 12', and when you say 15' and you mentioned 50' that makes me believe you are gonna have to add fill in the wetlands at least 3' and up to 38'. MS. MOORE: Unless the Zoning Board says the 12' is sufficient. I think that the code directs, because of the emergency access vehicles, it recommends 15'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we're not gonna get caught up in that. MR. CUTTY: I don't know, but I think it's worth checking but the ZBA is the same map that is here. I don't believe it is. The ZBA is looking at one map and there's this one. Whether or not a 90 year old surveyor is in good shape or not is really not important. Whether we have 5 acre lots is really a concern. No one knows (could not hoar him) Your saying 75' I understand that. But certainly this applicant is asking this Board to participate (could not hear him) It's not one lot. We're talking all lots. They're really talking of minor subdivisions. I would hope this Board would find within your means to discuss it with the other Boards. I think this land needs a SEQRA analysis. MS. MOORE: Look at the titles of record. It's as if each one of you bought one lot and agreed among yourselves, rather than build out individual driveways to have a common shared driveway. That is what is going on here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you look at it from our prospective we're looking at a significant activity over our property to serve 4 lots. MS. MOORE: We still disagree whether it's over your property, it's within your jurisdiction. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But to serve 4 lots. MS. MOORE: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll move to recess the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 9. Docko Inc., on behalf of DAVID PATTERSON requests a Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permit to construct 114+ 1.f. of a 6' wide fixed dock and install new tie-off piling and ladder. Located: Central Ave., Fishers Island. SCTM ~6-4-5 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll move to recess this until the Trustees can go over with the DEC. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to go back to the regular meeting, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES VI. RESOLUTIONS: 1. Costello Marine on behalf of THOMAS FALCO requests a Grandfather Permit to do maintenance repair on dock by replacing 18 inside pilings, about 30 pieces of deck, replace stringers and install one 2-pile dolphin. Located: 945 Lighthouse Lane, Southold. SCTM #70-6-32 Board of Trustee~~f 19 January 22, 1999 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 2. Costello Marine on behalf of NANCY L. WALZOG requests a Grandfather Permit for existing easterly jetty that is 36'4" with approx. 9' of rock jetty at the end and elevation approx. 12" above beach grade on west side and approx. 16" on east side, and existing westerly jetty with approx. 8' of rock jetty at the end, the west side is approx. 18" above beach grade and approx. 24" on the east side, with two shorter jetties in the center of property one on each side of the existing 5' X 14.5' dock, an existing stairway that extends from the top of the bulkhead to the lower dock. The stairway is 5' wide and has a rise of 31.5", and a pre-existing port of decked dock from the bulkhead 5' X 14.5' and is approx. 1' to 1.5' above beach grade, existing 4 undecked pile bents encompassing 26' on length, 3 of which have cap timbers installed, an existing 6' wide X 36.8' deck over the beach, and an existing bulkhead 115' long with a 29.9' eastern return, and an existing house. Located: 12832 Main Road, East Marion. SCTM ~31-14-15 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to approve the application pending proof of 'Grandfathering", TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES 3. BARBARA BODKIN requests a Grandfather Permit for an existing bulkhead, wood deck, stairs, cement seawall and floating dock. Located: 610 Bayview Drive, East Marion. SCTM ~37-5-2 TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 4. John deReeder on behalf of RONALD CASSARA requests a Grandfather Permit for an existing set of stairs down bluff and to repair any damage to them. Located: 30185 Cabot Woods Road, Peconic. SCTM #73-4-1 TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES V. MOORINGS: 1. DANIEL V. O'BRIEN requests a mooring in Jockey Creek for a 25' sailboat. Applicant is taking over a mooring previously owned by Garben. ACCESS: Private - ROW 2. JOHN PEARSON requests a mooring in Jockey Creek for a outboard. Applicant is taking over a mooring previously owned by Garben. ACCESS: Private 3. HENRY J. LOEFFLER requests a mooring in Deep Hole Creek for a 16' outboard. ACCESS: Private - ROW TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to adjourn the meeting, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES Board of Trustees 20 January 22, 1999 Meeting Adjourned at: 9:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted By: