Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-11/30/1999Albert J. Kxupski, President James King, Vice-President Henry Smith Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-18~2 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES NOVEMBER 30, 1999 PRESENT WERE: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President James King, Vice-President Henry Smith, Trustee Artie Foster, Trustee Diane Herbert, Clerk KEN POLIWODA, Trustee absent PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALLED MEETING TO ORDER NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 at 11:00 a.m. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. WORKSESSION: 6:00 p.m. APPROVE MINUTES: Approved Minutes of October 27, 1999 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. AYES ALL I. MONTttLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for October 1999: A check for $4,363.39 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. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of MICHAEL L. LAUGHLIN requests a Waiver to reconstruct existing timber deck which was constructed prior to 1980 and to construct 2- 10' X 15' additions to deck. Located: Crescent Ave., Fishers Island. SCTM ~6-7-16.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to table the application and a suggestion for a full permit or an amendment to a Grandfather Permit was suggested, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 2. FRANK DI'ORIO requests an Amendment to Permit #431 to extend existing fixed dock 16'. NOTE: Applicant changed description Board of Trustees~_~ 2 Noves~jsr 30, 1999 to the following: a 16' extension on existing 36' fixed dock and reconfigure offshore float to create an "L" configuration. Located: 1650 Mason Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM 9104-7-11 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to table the application, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES 3. VIRGINIA R. CO~A¥ requests an Amendment to Permit 91812 to replace pilings and to reduce the amount of pilings. Located: 5150 New Suffolk Ave., Mattituck. SCTM 9115-10-4 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES 4. DA~:IEL'J~i~GD requests an amendment to Permit #4972 to reconstruct a 4' X 6' upper platform and 4' X 5' access stairs, install a 3' X 16' ramp and replace a 6' X 10' float with a 6' X 20' float secured with two 2 pile dolphins. Located: 3340 Oaklawn Ave., Southold. SCTM ~70-5-54.1 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 5. Christopher Stress on behalf of JA~,'~ DX L~: requests a Waiver and Coastal Erosion Permit for a second story to an existing house. Located: 930 Leeton Drive, Southold. SCTM 959-1-4 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES requests an Amendment to permit 94378 to add a 4' X 10' ramp and a 6' X 20' floating dock to existing catwalk, and Transfer permit from Henry Barry. Located: 1375 Pine Neck Road, Southold. SCTM 970-5-39 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to table the application, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES 7. Ocean Consulting on behalf of ~ requests and Amendment to Permit 94476 to extend the rock revetment 40' as drawn. Located: 2260 Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel. SCTM 9145-4-4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES 8. Amy Martin on behalf of CIL~".LES D.~IE~ZA requests an Amendment to Permit 94476 to extend the rock revetment 40' as drawn. Located: 9775 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM 9119-1-5 & 6 TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 9. Samuels & Steelman on behalf of CIL~r~ES DOVI~:O requests an Amendment to Permit 94914 for a shallow fresh water line down the bank to the deck area between the lower and upper bulkheads. This proposed water line will be seasonal only in nature and drained during the cold season. Located: 9775 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM 9119-1-5 & 6 Board of TrusteesTM November 30, 1999 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES 10. ~.~ATT A ~.~A~,~._-=,~L... ........ requests an amendment to Permit #5083 to remove electric box and all electric wires and cut out a 30' X 70' land area on the south west side of boat basin, as per DEC recommendations. Located: 2255 Wickham Ave., 500' north of intersection of Route 48, Mattituck. SCTM %114-3-1 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 11. Studio A/B on behalf of JO:~: i:~,,~-I¥ requests a Waiver for renovations to house. Located: 2440 Village Lane, Southold. SCTM ~26-1-16.1 TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to approve the application with condition that the applicant remove drain pipe from bulkhead, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES 12. ~DWA~"~D L~C~S~I requests a Waiver to extend the existing residence 8' X 10' Located: 3700 Minnehaha Blvd., Southold. SCTM #87-3-5 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve the application with condition that they extend both decks and drywells be placed for roof run off, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 13. Diane HerOld on behalf of .............~, =~,,~,~"" requests a one year extension for Permit %4855 to relocate existing house to the north side of existing location and place on piles, construct a roofed porch on south side, a 12' X 38' deck and a deck and addition on north side, existing garage to be rebuilt and relocate existing walkway. Located: 220 Park Ave., Mattituck. SCTM #123-8-26.1 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. 1 Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of DGUGI~S ~L, requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' X 8' catwalk, a 30" X 16' ramp to a 5' X 20' floating dock. NOT~: Applicant changed description of the following: construct a 4' X 10' ramp leading to a level 4' X 4' platform, then to a 32" X 12' aluminum ramp heading southwest leading to a 6' X 20' float, construct a low 40' retaining wall with a 12' return on each end, dredge 62 c.y. to obtain 2' depth and depositing spoil on upland part of lot. Located: 700 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM #97-7-6 Board of Trustees~-~ 4 Novem~r 30, 1999 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to ,speak either in favor or against the application? The whole description has changed, so I'm gonna read the letter from Costello Marine. (Trustee Krupski read exactly what is in the description above). This is a letter from the contractor saying that, "the objections and concerns of the neighboring property owners should certainly be considered with regards to any structures or boats encumbering the existing water way. Particularly, if it restricts the waterways used the adjoining property owners. I have obtained copies of Mr. Foerths deed with a schedule of all covenants, restrictions and conditions that are included on all the properties of this subdivision. Nowhere does it indicate the exact location or restrict the uses that encumber Mr. Foerths property. I sincerely hope the Trustees have considered the neighbors objections of restricting the waterway and indicate to us the desired location and method of construction while considering Mr. Foerths rights to utilize his property for recreational purposes. The Southold Town Trustees concern for preserving environmental sensitive areas should be a common ground for all parties. Enclosed please find copies of revised plans showing the most severe indentation into the property. A compromise location may be preferred in order to meet everyone's concerns. Mr. Costello we received your drawing and we had some questions about it. I don't think the Board has a problem and I'll take comments later with the concept of the boat basin as all the other adjacent property owners have here. Our concern is the return which extends into the elevation of it and also the fact it extends down into the channel. MR. COSTELLO: Let me modify this slightly. First of all I enclosed in this letter a copy of the deep from Mr. Foerth. Your attorney has looked at it and I have looked at it and had an attorney look at it and these gentlemen interpreted it one way and I hope this Board has reviewed it looked at it. If this is interpreted that nobody can protrude the deed ...... just read that one paragraph on the deed ..... together with all rights, titles and interests of the party of the first part, that's the owner of the property, to the canal adjacent to the premises to the extent of 15' from the boundary line. He has a right 15' offshore of that boundary line. That's the first part. Together with the use of the said canal leading to Eugene's 'Creek for access between said premises and Eugene's Creek. So he has an access to the canal. That's that paragraph. I'm not gonna interpret it for you but I certainly think he has rights to the canal. Subject, however, to the use of the said canal by adjacent owners for access to and from Eugene's Creek. And these gentlemen certainly should have access along that canal. As you well know that was one of the concerns and we've been here three times for the same purpose and try to meet all the needs including the Trustees. This is the most severe indentation of property. This puts the entire basin and the boat, if it's a 10' wide boat, into this guys property. That's what this drawing is. That's the most severe. My interpretation is that he is not restricted from doing anything Board of Trustees''~ Nov~m~r 30, 1999 outside his 15' boundary line. As long as it does not impede the access of other people. That is my interpretation. You know that this is dry land. Eight feet from this boundary line, on the north side, is dirt. That is not impeding anybody's use of the water way. Most of the these surveys have monuments and in digging back that far ..... on this end the monument is located six and one half feet from the property line, as is shown on the photograph that was submitted to you. You know and I know that at iow tide this is beach. Their concern is at high tide the water hits the edge of that cliff which is 6 1/2' out on one side and 8' on the other side. This Board has expressed concerns to me, and I have previous drawings, that if you can promote the wetlands to grow in this area, they would desire that. They wanted a iow profile. One of the things that should have been on this drawing and is not, is that this was intended to be an elevation 6. This was an elevation minus 1. It tapers down so it disappears. What you don't want to do is dredge on one side of it and have it immediately fill in. What's the purpose. You would be dredging every couple of years. So the location of this should meet the concerns of the neighbors that it doesn't impede the use of this narrow channel way. Because the channel way outside here is the only depth of water. The depth os water along the shoreline right now at high water is 2' The location ...... if this was moved out, these wings would be lessened and the grading would be less and the dredging would be less. The other concern was that the dredging not go below the 2 foot level which is the prevailing depth in the center of the canal. That should be little bit of a problem somewhere in the future. BeCause that canal was dredged in approx. 1958, to a depth of 4' it silted in in the center. Right now it is 2' And you could sink down 2' into the siltation at the center of the canal. The canal is not as navigable as it once was. NEIGHBOR: That's precisely why we are here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does everybody see how his drawing are? MR. FOERTH: My only comment would be is I'm not really fussy about the kind of dock or facility that I have. I do have a 20' outboard boat that I would like to keep on the property, so obviously I would like to have something. I'd like to have something that has a reasonable chance of being approved by the DEC. It is my understanding that they don't particularly like dredging or bulkhead and this involves both os those. So I'd like to keep the dredging to a minimum. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well actually they don't like docks either, lately. MR. FOERTH: But maybe in terms of priority they dislike dredging and bulkheads a little less than docks. I'd like to keep the amount of dredging and the amount of bulkheading to a minimum, of course. I don't see how this would be impeding the waterway if off of where the water would be at mean low water. NEIGHBOR: You always talk about mean low water, let's talk about mean high tide. MR. FOERTH: Well because at high tide there's plenty of water. NEIGHBOR: Yeah, but I don't want anything under the water that I can't see. November 1999 Board of Trustees Jr, MR. FOERTH: Of course. That's why I liked the first plan better. It doesn't have anything going out. It's all returning back. It just bulkheads the shoreline with a dock .... NEIGHBOR: The only thing we're objecting to on this plan is your bulkhead going from the bank into the water. NEIGHBOR: Let's take this one at a time. There's this 13 foot return that's going out into the canal that will do two things. It will impede the flow and the flushing of the canal itself and it also can impede access to and from the property owners to the north. Otherwise the plan is fine. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mr. Costello said, and maybe I'm wrong here, it's one foot negative. NEIGHBOR: Over here it shows 13 feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I know, but he didn't show the elevations here. It starts at 6 feet on the corners and it tapers down to one foot. NEIGHBOR: But even going out 13 feet, it's unnecessary. NEIGHBOR: Where does the taper start? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: At the top of the bank. MR. COSTELLO: The elevation of the property according to the surveyor, is 5.5 feet. NEIGHBOR: Is this where your bulkhead starts to go down? MR. COSTELLO: yes, it's starts here and goes down to minus 1. (indicating on map) NEIGHBOR: So over here your talking about maybe 2 feet. MR. COSTELLO: Actually it will be into the bank. At that stage it will be under the bank. NEIGHBOR: Why should it have to past the creek into the bank? MR. COSTELLO: Low water is out here and you dredge this, this will fill in and you will have to maintenance dredge it quite often. NEIGHBOR: Well, how come the property owners to the north don't have to maintenance dredge? MR. COSTELLO: They should. NEIGHBOR: Maybe we should, but we don't have to. MR. COSTELLO: You have two foot less water now than you did. NEIGHBOR: I don't have any bulkheading and it hasn't filled in in 19 years. MR. COSTELLO: Your lucky. NEIGHBOR: Well, you don't think the luck is gonna move another 100 feet to the south? MR. COSTELLO: Not the same luck. Not when you dredge two foot on one side and ..... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's a valid point. Can you show it on this picture where it will be? MR. COSTELLO: No, it will be underground. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The whole return will be? MR. COSTELLO: It will be underground. Sure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, but it will stick out.. This area right here is the area that will be dredged. You can see it from this side. MR. COSTELLO: It will be under the dirt. We're not going out into the canal but a certain distance, we're not going 24 feet out with a return into the canal. Board of Trustees November 30, 1999 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where would it end there? MR. COSTELLO: It's probably about 10 feet from the top of the bank. NEIGHBOR: That means your gonna put that bulkhead on someone else's property. NEIGHBOR: This shows 13 feet. MR. COSTELLO: On a diagonal. It's a diagonal line. It's 10 feet out. NEIGHBOR: 10 feet out from the property line here and the part from the bank that's actually in the canal will be under land. MR. COSTELLO: This is 8 feet now this dry land on the bank, so if this is 10 ..... NEIGHBOR: The high water mark is nebulous. It varies with the seasons, the wind and the direction of the wind. MR. COSTELLO: Not is it's vertical. That has practically a vertical bluff there on that property. MR. KRUPSKI: That's a good point. The only reason we are entertaining this is because you have a lack of what we consider a wetland vegetation in front of your property. It's phragmites. If it were one of the neighboring properties we would not even entertain this because you would be destroying all that. But because you have phragmity bank there would be no wetland fringe. MR. COSTELLO: What happened to the previous plan. MR. KRUPSKI: Well you have that navigation problem. MR. COSTELLO: If my boat is out of where low water would be now, I don't see how it would be infringing on the water way. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, there's also the history of the area that shows every other property with a boat slip cut into it. And that must have been done for some reason. MR COSTELLO: At one time you could do that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'd hate to have to go out there one more time. Could you take us out there one more time at low tide in the field. MR. COSTELLO: Are you gonna accomplish anything by this? How many photos have I sent you at low tide? If your gonna accomplish anything I will. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, definitely. MR. COSTELLO: I have no objection. NEIGHBOR: If this bulkhead is gonna be below the layer, than I withdrawn my objection. I just don't believe it is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why not? NEIGHBOR: And once it's there I don't think he's gonna cut it down. MR. COSTELLO: It was to try to keep the wetlands fringed that they're concerned about and have two feet of water on the other side, that's all. Here's the top of the bank that exists down... NEIGHBOR: Why don't you have it parallel to the land? MR. COSTELLO: If you get the permits for it I would certainly agree to it. NEIGHBOR: Can't he have it this way? MR. COSTELLO: What's gonna hold it from filling in. Two feet on one side and nothing on the other? NEIGHBOR: Filling is a nebulous point. Board of Trustees 8 Novento~r 30, 1999 MR. COSTELLO: To you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Maybe I don't understand it. Do you see what they're saying, John? The bank is fairly level to the edge of the bank. If you start at 6 feet here your gonna cut down... MR. COSTELLO: That's starting 6 feet at the edge of the bank, but it starts way back here it starts at 6 feet. By the time it gets to the edge of the bank it's probably way down. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What's gonna keep this side ..... MR. FOERTH: The water doesn't come up there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I know that. MR. COSTELLO: We will have to grade to keep it from washing in. Hopefully they're gonna plan something. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: OK because the plan doesn't show that. When we looked at this we had a lot of questions. You just raised more questions. TRUSTEE FOSTER: The whole thing is designed to be iow fill. MR. COSTELLO: I tried to get it to iow fill because of the concerns of the Trustees. MR. COSTELLO: If you allow us to dredge minus two feet at that location and there's beach adjacent to it, the idea is for that groin under the sand is to hold it from filling in. TRUSTEE FOSTER: But they're gonna be underground. MR. COSTELLO: Just at that location. TRUSTEE FOSTER: For the most part they're not even gonna be above the grade. NEIGHBOR: If this going out into the canal is gonna be ground level, I have no objection. But I have to see how he's gonna do that. As long as that wall is gonna be ground level in the canal, not on his property, I have no qualms about this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about the surrounding area. the house was given a non-jurisdiction because it was more than 75' from the top of the bank. Normally on a house that is within our jurisdiction we require a 50' non-disturbance buffer from the wetland, but your gonna have a lot of disturbance and some grading in these areas. MR. COSTELLO: Most is the pulling back because you have to taper it off, so it doesn't wash right in. There's no use building it and have it fill right in. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, but what we need is .... this is all new to us because when we looked at this we weren't quite sure what we were looking at. Without the elevation it's a little confusing. MR. COSTELLO: It is but that was a mistake. It was made to try to meet your concerns when you told me to make it a Iow wall. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When we looked at this without an elevation and we are kind of stuck. So now it brings up the question of grading plan or elevation. What we still want to see is a buffer area between the yard area and the house. MR. COSTELLO: I have to get approval on all agencies. This is the most severe ..... this is putting everything, including the boat beyond the property monuments. If this board desires or any other action and if you go for this, you have to make an impression some how on the DEC that this is what you want. If we change and continue to change, is have an approvable project Board of Trustees November 30, 1999 that gives him the rights ..... NEIGHBOR: What we are saying is that we don't want to deny the gentleman the use of the canal and deny us the same use. We don't want any infringes on our own. The trouble is not readable. You can't determine what they're gonna do. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now I think we are getting to it. What we need to know though is how much is gonna be disturbed and graded on either side. Of course not much in the back. MR. COSTELLO: The fact of the matter is much of that is gonna depend upon what you will approve. If you allow this to move out some these walls get reduced in length. There's less dredging. And your gonna have to go to bat with the DEC because those structures were built before the DEC existed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The only reason we're considering this is because there is no wetland fringe. We had hope to establish one with a low sill bulkhead, but that seemed to be impractical. Why don't we try to to come in four feet then? MR. COSTELLO: I'll bring stakes and we'll stake it out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could you stake this out then. Have this staked out and we can work it from there. At least we'll have something on paper and in the field. MR. COSTELLO: Except the stake underground, I can't ..... I can get the line but not ..... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. NEIGHBOR: If you extend a foot or 18 inches beyond the bank we have no problem with that. We're not gonna take our boats up against the bank. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI" That's what their talking about. This is about 2 feet passed the top of the bank. I'd like to try and get a look at it Wednesday. At low tide. I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 2. Costello Marine on behalf of -_ z -~ requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 102' long retaining wall of C-loc vinyl sheathing. Located: 905 Willis Creek Drive, Mattituck. SCTM #123-10-3 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? MR. COSTELLO: I'm here to speak on behalf of Mr. Costello. MR, SCOLLARD: I'm here to answer any questions. MR. COSTELLO: There is some serious erosion going on that property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is exactly what we saw when we were out there. We saw basically what was a wetland that was filled with dredge spoil and it's sand and getting washed into the Bay. We told Mr. Scollard and Mr. Keith when we were out there, our concern with a wall here was that you have this wetland here at the mouth of Deep Hole and if the waves hit it at this angle it will push all that wetland into Deep Hole Creek, into the channel. MR. COSTELLO: It's falling in now. Photographs were submitted to you. There's chunks of bog laying all over the beach. Right now there's pieces of clay and you can pick them up in chunks. Board of Trustees~'- 10 Novea~er 30, 1999 Those pictures were more recent. There's an additional 10 or 12 feet that was lost from the other submittals ..... the pictures we gave before that ..... another 10 feet of the property is going. Where is that little water wash bit now? It's still there. With the pipe showing. Is it suffering more exposure from when we were TRUSTEE FOSTER: MR. COSTELLO: TRUSTEE FOSTER: there. MR. COSTELLO: MR. SCOLLARD: It's more exposed. Probably about 2 feet further back. we've lost 23 feet from mean high tide in four years. It goes 105 feet to 82 feet from the porch of my property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: who owns the adjacent property. Is that Mr. Keith? MR. SCOLLARD: It's the the Bayview of Mattituck Home Owners Association which I'm a part of. I have a letter from then which they have agreed to participate to permit the extension of the approved structure eastward onto the community beach and then north to the east of the outfall boxes currently situated. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What would keep this area the wave action from bouncing off here and pushing that wetlands in a storm event right into the creek. MR. COSTELLO: It's going there now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, but if you put a wall there with a storm against it in a westerly direction it blows out of the east it will push that right into the creek. MR. COSTELLO: That end of it right now, when that drawing was done that end of it was quite low. Now the elevatiDn ...... those topos were taken off a survey. Those topos, when we first submitted this application, changed. As evident by those photos last submitted November 17. The bog is a survey monument, because everything is laying out there now. You can't continue to allow ....... that leaching pool there was underground. There was no pipe out into the Bay. That was made to percolate the water down through the sand and filter it. It is not being done ~ow. MR. SCOLLARD: We planted beach grass along that whole bluff. We put in plugs. Plus I put down seed. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Wasn't that natural beach at one time? MR. COSTELLO: It would have had to be. One of the things that is happening and that whole stretch as you welll know is shoaling. It's going off shore. The sand moves on shore and it moves off shore. There is no tremendous literal drift. You have an easterly wind the literal drift will move to the west. The prevailing southwest winds, the sand does move in the other direction to the east. It's all shoaling up everywhere including the entrance to Deep Hole Creek. The sand that Mr. Scollard has lost is somewhere. It is out in the Bay in the system shoaling the community. It's gonna move onshore/offshore. The only trouble is. and why we're recommending this, has to stop it at some point and try to curtail it to a reasonable ..... We picked plastic for the simple reason we thought it was more environmentally sensitive. It doesn't have the toxicity. Board of Trustees 11 Nove~ber 30, 1999 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our concern is there is no hard structure any where near this. MR. COSTELLO: There are aerial photos and if you look at one of them there are plenty of structure, not adjoining, but there's a jetty and a couple of things to the east, and there's bulkheads to the west. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To the east once you get passed Hall's Creek. MR. COSTELLO: This place is eroding. MR. SCOLLARD: When I purchased the property back in 1993 the property had a permit to build a dock out into the Bay extending either 75 or 100 feet out into the Bay which I chose to let dormant because I wasn't interested in building a dock out into the Bay. I didn't like that idea at all. At one point there was an approved dock that would have gone out. I'm not a big fan of building bulkheads. I've lost 23 feet in 4 years. I can't believe the kind of erosion that is going on. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But you haven't addressed our concerns of what happens in a storm event when it blows out of the east. MR. COSTELLO: Right now if there is a storm that blows out of the east, Mr. Scollard is going to loose a considerable amount of sand and is going to go to the west. MR. SCOLLARD: It goes into the creek and the creek gets dredged. Normal literal drift takes the sand from my property and moves it east so I'm loosing sand either to the east or west in all conditions and I can't do anything about it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our concern is if you put a wall up here a storm event is going push that bog and destroy that and push it right into the creek. MR. COSTELLO: Eventually, it's gonna be destroyed anyWay. It droppihg off right now. there is deterioration and erosion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No question about it. In the field what we saw that day it didn't seem like it was more than erosion. Whereas if you put this wall up our concern was that it would really super accelerates the problem existing there now. MR. COSTELLO: The bulkheads don't super accelerate erosion. Storms do and weather conditions do. The material that's here on site does. When would you want to stop that and where is the sand going? It's going into Deep Hole Creek on an easterly. There's no attempt to try to reclaim any more than the minimum, and what I'm going to ask the Board is if they do approve this to extend the return a little further because the return when it was designed earlier in the year only needed a 12 foot return. You need about 24 now. TRUSTEE FOSTER: What are you proposed to do with the spill basin for the water? MR. COSTELLO: Just back fill it and include it so it percolates down into the ground. TRUSTEE FOSTER: With the wall in front of it. MR. COSTELLO: Yes. There's ~o exit hole in the basin just down in the ground. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But then your gonna be putting a bulkhead basically in the water. MR. COSTELLO: Right now its on the edge of the water. Board of Trustees 12 Nov~ber 30, 1999 MR. SCOLLARD: I think when you were there one of the suggestions that one of the things that might be helpful would be that by positioning some rocks in front of a certain part along the way I would be willing to go along with anything that ..... TRUSTEE FOSTER: I suggested putting armor stone down there to transfer any of that wave action. Certainly something has to be done with it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know if a transfer if much though. Our concern is still that ..... this would be right in the water at high tide. What's gonna keep that wave action from pushing that wetlands into Deep Hole Creek? MR. COSTELLO: What's gonna keep it from going in there now? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you put this up and it pushes it in there, we did it. TRUSTEE SMITH: And if we don't, and it goes in it still gonna do anyway. MR. COSTELLO: I'm surprised that that chunks of clay is breaking up in particles. There are probably 10 pound chunks of that clay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: O.K. we'll table this until Wednesday. I'll make a motion to table this. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 3 J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of R. VI~E~T ....... JR requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' X 130' fixed dock, a 4' X 4' steps, a 4' X 18' ramp and a 6' X 20' float with 4 tie off poles. Located: Crescent Ave., Fishers Island. SCTM #6-1-15 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak either for or against the application? MR. JUST: I'm here to answer any questions. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Right where they propose that dock to go there's a low point in that road from east and west and there's a tremendous amount of erosion there and the guard rail is laying there. Something is certainly going to have to be done to prevent that. I don't know where the right of way line is. MR. JUST: It's actually,two separate parcels. There's about 15 feet from the road bed. There are two single and separate parcels. This where the house is being reconstructed and here's Crescent Ave here, and they own 15 foot off the road bed. TRUSTEE FOSTER: They tell me that the tide comes up over the road at this point. One of my concerns is what is gonna happen with that. Who owns that piece of land was also another concern. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We couldn't let him put a dock in the road, that would be a mistake. TRUSTEE FOSTER: The Town has a 50' right of way. So the Town actually owns this land. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we couldn't let him put anything there. MR. JUST: On Town property? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. On the road right of way. It looks like the dock would start in the water. MR. JUST: No, this is where it is. (indicating on map) The dock starts at the edge of the road. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we couldn't let that happen. Board of Trustees 13 Nov~Jber 30, 1999 MR. JUST: That's something I'm gonna have to ask the surveyors about. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You might want to check with Ray Jacobs what the policy is on that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Another thing is the length of the dock ..... if you go out your getting less water here. If you cut it back 50 feet you'd get roughly the same amount of water and you'd only be 50 feet out into the water. MR. JUST: This is something we are going to have to meet with Mr. Hamilton when he goes out because when Chandler Palmer and King did this it was supposed to be 2 1/2 to 4 feet of water but the datum is showing all this as really shallow. When we took these original depth measurements there's a lot of water. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It didn't look to me like it was shallow. MR. JUST: This is something that Mr. Hamilton brought to our attention. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to tabel the application. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 4. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of J~A~: ~. CAL::O~: requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' X 150' catwalk, a 4' X 15' ramp and a 6' X 30' float and 4 out piles. Located: Private Road, Fishers Island. SCTM %3-2-7 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application. MR. JOHN B. AMROD: I'm here on behalf of some of the adjoining land owners and some of the neighbors. I'd lfke to hand you 4 sets of that package that consists of two letters from my client to the Board expressing here reservations and attached is a report of our engineer and his curriculum and petitions signed by other land owners. I'd like to make it clear that we are not objecting to the project per se but we are objecting to the scope of this. We have serious reservations about what is gonna happen in the event of a storm and what this is gonna do and how it will affect the people in the neighborhood who are concerned about the aesthetics and the affect it will have on the property value in the neighborhood. They are concerned it's gonna be an obstruction to navigation and a potential safety hazard in the source of debris in the event there is a hundred year storm. Sarah Tremain is an adjoining land owner and the other people that have signed the petition live in that area. I have a map showing where these people live. You can see from the engineers report he has examined the plans and has some serious questions. Stanley White of Erosion and Coastal Consultants. This is a very ambitious project and there is a question as to wether the application is gonna use this for ordinary residential purposes or whether she is gonna be operating a business. She has a business and I believe she is a contractor. The suspicion is that she is gonna be moving her contracting business from the house that she presently occupies and which we understand is in the process of being sold to this location. TRUSTEE FOSTER: She operates a B.D. remodeling out of her house? Board of Trustees 14 November 30, 1999 MR. JUST: B.D. remodeling operates out of the house she now lives in. Is that what your saying? MR. AMROD: My client tells me that she is operating out of two locations. MR. JUST: Have you been to the sight? MR. AMROD: No, I haven't. MR. JUST: Has your consultant been to the sight? MR. AMROD: I don't believe it has. MR. JUST: Your saying she is running an illegal commercial business out of a her residence. MR. AMROD: I didn't say that. MR. JUST: You stated that she is running a business out of her residence. MR. AMROD: I don't know whether it's legal or illegal. She might have been operating before any ordinance went in. MR. JUST: Is there a dock at her current residence? MR. AMROD: I believe there is. That's what my client tells me. MR. JUST: I plead your incorrect. The dock was never constructed. There is a dock at the inner harbor where she runs here business which is zoned MR2 where there is a boat that goes back and forth every day to pick up people instead of taking the ferry. To say that she is gonna be bring these people into a residential area, you'd have (could not hear him) MR. AMROD: Why is it necessary that we have this .... MR. JUST: Well let's take this point by point, your saying that she is going to be moving a commercial operation from her house. MR. AMROD: I didn't say she is, I said she may be. That's the suspicion that we have because of the size of the project. What is the need for this enormous dock. There isn't another dock around there that size. MR. JUST: That point is obsurd to begin with. As far as the commercial operation out of a residence. Who would want 30 or 40 workers coming into here driveway everyday and being shuttles back and forth. You'd have to set up a caravan. It would take 30 minutes to drive from her house to the base of operation. It's much easier to bring the shuttle boat from Connecticut into the inner harbor which takes 20 minutes where the guys can go right to work. It makes absolutely no sense. MR. AMROD: Then what's the purpose of this huge project? MR. JUST: Private recreation dock. MR. AMROD: It's totally out of character with ..... MR. JUST: According to? MR. AMROD: According to my client, the neighbors that have objected to this. MR. JUST: The first objection was aesthetics. To some people a dock is a nice thing to look at. MR. AMROD: Well it depends upon the size of the dock and the configuration. MR. JUST: How big is the dock gonna be? MR. AMROD: Its out of character with the neighborhood. It's 130 plus, well its a total of about 190 feet. MR. JUST: How far of that is seaward of mean low water? Board of Trustee~"~ 15 November 30, 1999 MR. AMROD: I don't know. I don't think you can tell that from your plans. MR. JUST: It's 108 feet as shown on the plans. MR. AMROD: Who else has a dock that size in that general area? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Who was that before? firestone? MR. JUST: Yes, There's duPont, Rockefeller has one. TRUSTEE FOSTER. There's about a 6 boat boathouse right to the east of that. Well since this has turned into the justice court, lets get this out here and get it straightened out. It's not our position to rule on what if and suppose this and suppose that. We're dealing with a dock and we have to deal with it on its merits. MR. JUST: We're talking about a body of water that is greater than a mile and a half across to Connecticut. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Who submitted this plan? Who's dock is pictured in that? MR. AMROD: It's on another neighbors property which is on the left of our property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How long is that dock? MR. AMROD: This is the Calhoun property and this is our property and that's the property that has the dock shown in the picture. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have a copy of that map for us? MR. AMROD: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So Artie where are these other docks that you .... TRUSTEE FOSTER: They're not shown on here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well one of them is. Two to the west. I have a question for you, Glen. We're looking at the soundings that you submitted here. Why is it necessary to go past 4 feet. You can go out 80' and hit 4' of water here. MR. JUST: Just because of location of some rocks there. TRUSTEE FOSTER: There is a lot of rocks there. MR. JUST: It's about 40' further than 4' 18". TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's more than that. MR. JUST: So from 4.18 ..... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can bring it back 80" and be at 4.18, or 70' MR. JUST: Again. Six feet of water is a good depth to get. There are boulders in the area, there's a tidal drop in the Fishers Island Sound than there is in Peconic Bay or Eugene's Creek. Your talking about a 5 or 6 foot .... TRUSTEE KING: No. There's not that much tide. Not out east there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would think you could cut that back considerably and still get over 4 foot of water. MR. JUST: What would be the reason for cutting it back? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because it's a structure out in public property. MR. JUST: It's New York State property. We were already issued a permit for the project. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They have? MR. JUST: Yes, so has the ACE and the Dept. of State which I don't want to rub in your face but they have sent all the Board of Trustees 16 November 30, 1999 necessary permits from the DEC and ACE. It is state waters not Town waters. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One of the letters here in objection refers to the possible future of the dock. MR. JUST: I can assure you that if you need by form of covenant that the dock will never be used for anything other than private recreational uses. It's against Zoning to use it for commercial use and it's obsured to .think that somebody would use that to bring people to work. You would have to have a caravan going down the center of the Island twice a day to get back and forth. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This thing with the engineer, Stanley White asked for construction criteria that you provided as a cross section and some construction. MR. JUST: This is not a construction plan, but just a typical what we would call an Army Corps Plan. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For the record, we don't require what he's asking for. MR. JUST: Detailed structure plans, that's the reason we don't submit them because you don't require them. And let's go back and look at the first paragraph. They have reviewed the application, they haven't been to the site they only reviewed the application, they haven't looked at anything. MR. AMROD: He's been to the Island before, it's just that he didn't go over specifically look at this. He's familiar with the area. You have or 8 people here who are objecting to this and they feel this is going to reduce their property value and the aesthetics to the area. I think some consideration should be given to that. There's a total lack of sensitivity. MR. JUST: As far as the concerns during a storm, let's go on step backwards, as far as the construction details, I don't know how many of the Board is familiar with the work B & D does on the Island. It is the most outstanding work you've every seen. They don't waste a penny when they're building things, and I'm sure the dock for their own house is gonna be the best dock money can buy. As far as a storm is concerned any person in their right mind is gonna build a dock is gonna withstand a storm. Nobody wants to spend the money over and over again to have it rebuilt. If a big storm is coming your gonna pull your boat, your gonna run it to the inner harbor and put it on a hook, As far as the float is concerned, sure, you can make plans to move the float in case a storm is coming. I don't think it is necessary, but we can do so. MR. AMROD: I don't think there has been any showing of the necessity of this large a structure in that area. What's the reason for it. MR. JUST: Your showing a dock from mean low water that is less than 100 feet, about 108' 'out from mean low water not counting the float and the ramp which could be seasonal. The fixed portion would normally stay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How long is the fixed portion. Let me read what we just received tonight. (Al read the petition from numerous people, see attached). Board of Trustee~~ 17 November 30, 1999 MR. JUST: It will be an eye sore? Did all these people who signed have residences on the Cove? I've talked to numerous real estate appraisers and they say it will have a plus impact on the property of the adjoining properties. And obstruction of navigation, the waterways is more than a mile and a half across, the buoy channel is more than 5 or 6 hundred feet off the beach here. If you'd like we could have a light placed at the end of the fixed portion of the dock. I've already talked to the the applicant and we've done this numerous times in the Peconic Bay. there's people who run pots and fish on the beach so we could put lights on the dock. In the case of debris in a 100 year storm, a house is a debris hazard in the case of the 100 year storm. Do we look at houses as closely as we look at docks? I don't think so. TRUSTEE FOSTER: What's the water depth at the end of the dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's over 7 feet. My question is why was it proposed in that location as opposed further east where it could have been shorter? MR. JUST: They just wanted it that way because the property does dip a little bit and it's actually the Cove part of the property just set in the center of the property line. If it was put out on either the east or west property line yes, the dock would be shorter, but that's only for waters below mean low water. Again the ramp and float can be removed seasonally. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What date do you propose? MR. JUST: The DEC requires Dec. 1st. to Mar. 1st. I really don't think the Calhoun's will be using the dock during the winter. TRUSTEE SMITH: Would there be an objection of cutting it back about 25 or 35 feet? MR. JUST: How far? TRUSTEE SMITH: Take 20 feet off it. MR. JUST: I see no problem with that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And have the float and lines and ramp be removed. MR. JUST" We could do that and we'll be more than happy to put lights on the end as well. they want the dock to last and not fall down or anyone to run into the dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And this is a dock that they can use in the summer. Any other comment? TRUSTEE SMITH: Motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion we approve the application that the dock be 130 feet long and the float be removed in the winter and the seaward end be lighted as a precaution for navigation. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. ALL AYES 7. En-Consultants Inc., on behalf of ..........~,; ~,~ ....... requests a Wetland Permit to construct approx. 91 1.f. of vinyl low sill bulkhead and create approx. 930 s.f. of inter-tidal marsh landward by placing approx. 75 c.y. of clean sand fill to be trucked in from an upland source and planted with spartina alternaflora, remove existing 10' X 35' timber dock and Board of Trustees~ 18 Nove%~ber 30, 1999 associated pilings and construct a 4' X 28' catwalk, elevated 4' above marsh with a 3' X 14' ramp and a 6' X 20' float with 2- 8" in diameter pilings. Located: 535 Arshamomoque Ave., Southold. SCTM #66-3-1 ROB: I have spoken to the Board briefly about this project in the past. There's two aspects of the plan. One is the low sill bulkhead and the re-establishment of the inter-tidal marsh which should be a fairly straight forward part of it. In terms the design of the dock this is yet again we were stuck between a rock and a hard place in trying to keep the dock a minimal size to conform to the Board's usual policies and the rule of 1/3 the width of the waterway which shows on the survey on the north side is about 8'. That's pretty consistent with the location of the dock. We were trying to get as much water depth as possible in order to get a permit from the DEC. However, as the DEC's policy seems to be defined now is that 2 1/2 feet of water get's your seasonal dock. We could cut this dock back probably about 12 feet. It's about 38 feet from the shoreline now so if we cut it back 12 feet we'd come back to 26 which would keep the dock within 1/3 of the width, i don't know what size boat Mr. Baylis has but I know he has been using the fixed dock that's there. Any dock here is gonna be an improvement to the situation. We haven't gotten a technical response from the DEC. I would hope they would like this because we're actually creating a marsh where there is none and we're eliminating a lot of the shading of the fixed dock. Assuming the Board will not have any objection to the concept of the dock here I think if we cut it back by 12 feet it would probably relieve the navigational concern. It is on the end of the waterway so I would imagine the only real concern from any neighboring property owners would possibly be from across the creek. There is obviously no through traffic here because the channel ends. so if that would satisfy the Boards concern the applicant would be willing to do that. We can't come in too close to the shore because we run into the problem of the DEC approving the dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So your sayin~ is it will be 10 feet closer? ROB: 12 feet. So you'd have a 4' X 16'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That would fit well within our "1/3 across the creek". JOHN NICHOLS JR.: This is news to me as far as the shortening of the dock. I represent the property to the north as well as all of the property to the east. The original plan would have created a problem for the eel grass and ingress for that last property. I have to look at it again and I have an objection to that. If they're gonna bring it back 12 feet ..... TRUSTEE SMITH: The rule is when it's a narrow channel such as that, we don't allow an applicant to go out, including his boat one third the distance. So there's two thirds of the channel for navigation unless someone builds on the other side then .there's a third left for navigation. JOHN: The other objection is the creek may be 8 feet wide on the north end of the property ...... this is a site plan from 1946 done by Van Tuyl. It's the whole subdivision and I don't think it has changed much. From the north end of the property it's Board of Trustees'~j 19 Nove~er 30, 1999 definitely wider than at the south end of the property which I think is estimated to me is 65. TRUSTEE SMITH: Motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion we approve the application with condition that structure be moved 12 feet back. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. ALL AYES 9. En-Consultants Inc., on behalf of G~%LD G~LD~-:A~ requests a Wetland Permit to attach a 3' X 12' ramp and a 6' X 20 float secured by 2- 8" in diameter piles to an existing timber dock. Located: 1090 Haywaters Road, Cutchogue. SCTM ~111-1-23.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? ROB: I'm here on behalf of the applicant. The project itself is a simple one, with a ramp off the bulkhead to it. For more convenient navigation in terms of docking a boat to a float Mr. Gelbwaks is proposing to extend the float off the dock. The dock is not gonna approach any farther into Haywaters Cove. There is more than adequate dockage there at low tide. The DEC has issued a permit for float addition and we also received an approval from the Dept. of State and awaiting the ACE permission. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On field inspection every neighbor has roughly what Mr. Gelbwaks has. Now Mr. Gelbwaks is proposing to double the size of his dock which we found to be unnecessary since he already has access to navigable water. That would basically give him two docks. Now if he wants a float he should take out the fixed dock and put in a float that size and then he would have his float. Normally that's like giving him two docks, and we never give people two docks on one property. ROB: I relayed that position to Mr. Gelbwaks after the last hearing and I believe the question was other than your conceptual objection to the addition to the float or it's difference from the opposing property owners, did you have any technical reason why you thought this float would ...... normally the Board discusses the extension into the waterway if it's over public property ...... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know if we consider this claim of the underwater land to be accurate. I don't think we're gonna accept that tonight. ROB: I don't think it's his claim. The survey based on the metes and bounds of the deed. That deed is reflected at the County Assessors Office as reflected on the County Tax Map. So why would the Board in this case question the validity of that ownership. All of the underwater land shown on the filed map and adjacent to these bulkheads is privately owned. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's an unusual claim, so we wouldn't accept it because we saw it here tonight. We would have to let the Town Attorney review it. TOM SAMUELS: There's a tie line which in the past the Board has always recognized as the metes and bounds of the north side of the beach there. I theoretically own the land from the boat basin of the Town. The practical application of the Gelbwaks Board of Trustees~i 2O November 30, 1999 float is not a matter great concern to me, but if you go down to the site and stand on a "T" dock from the ramp you'll see that the float will actually be farther away from the channel than a boat tied to the outside of a fixed dock. One of the problems with the area is that the channel is one boat width wide. It's very, very narrow and shallow. At low water it is difficult to get a 3 foot draft tow boat in there. So the problem with the Gelbwaks tying to the fixed dock is that the boat is actually or practically in the channel and it's hard to get around that boat at low water. It's a problem. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's because the Gelbwaks dock was probably built without a permit and proper Trustee review. TOM: Well, it was built around 1959. And then John O'Neill fixed it up and built a bulkhead. So it's been there a long, long time. Whether a Trustee permit existed or not, I have no way of knowing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our point is that he has a dock and if he wants a float take that out and put in a float. He shouldn't have two docks. ROB: It sounds like if I relay to the applicant like an arbitrary decision of the Board' to say, "this isn't what the neighbors have, so you can't have it". I would at least ask you if your gonna deny this to establish some sort of meritorious opinion on it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's two docks on one piece of property. ROB: How can we adjust the fixed dock so it wouldn't be two docks. You approve catwalks that go out to a ramp and a float, you don't say that's two docks. What if the width of the fixed dock were reduced. TRUSTEE KRUPSKi: To 4 feet. Then it's only one dock. ROB: So if he takes the 7' wide platform and makes it a 4' wide platform then you would ..... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, no. Take the 7' X 20' platform and make it 4' X '7' ROB: O.K. I'll have to bring this back to Mr. Gelbwaks and eitker have to adjust it according to your statement or ask you to issue the denial. The only thing I would ask is that if you could come back also with some sort of determination from the Town Attorney regarding ownership. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Even if he does own it we still don't issue two docks for one property. Because then there's no limit. That's tied into Chapter 97 standards Section 28. ROB: This one will actually be convenient to table. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to table the application; TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. ALL AYES 10. En-Consultants Inc., on behalf of GEERT MARTENS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single family dwelling with pool, deck and cabana. Located: 5028 New Suffolk Ave., Mattituck. SCTM %115-10-2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? Board of Trustees~ ~' 21 November 30, 1999 CHRISTINE ANDERSON: I am the attorney for the purchasers. I am here to respond to your questions and request for certain setbacks. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As opposed to what? MS. ANDERSON: You had asked for 15 and 20 feet setbacks. I would also like to ask for a letter of non-jurisdiction for the septic system, garage and driveway because they are well in access of 75 feet of wetlands. ROB: I was contacted just recently with regard to this application. There's a couple of 'holes' of information we are working with that I was asked to help out with. In my review of the site plan the survey actually prepared by Peconic Surveyors that was given to the Board, I noticed there were a couple of problems and they may or may not relate specifically to what I am to understand that the Board had requested after an on site inspection. If the Board could look at the survey, where the house and pool are located, Peconic shows a 75 foot setback from the outmost corner of the house to the shore line. There's a few problems with that. In that location it's taking the closest point of the house but not the closest point of the deck. While it says 75' it actually scales to 80' So if we assume an actual reflection of what should be staked in the field, there's actually an 80 foot setback from the house to the shoreline. The second problem is of course that setback is drawn to the shoreline as opposed to the tidal wetland boundary. So what I had explained to the applicants is I went out this afternoon to locate the tidal wetlands boundary, and just to show you on this little television, you'll see my blue flag and the toe of the embankment. What I saying is the tidal wetlands boundary is actually in the location where the wetback is shown only about 6 feet seaward of the bottom of the bank. The setback should be drawn to a point 8 feet farther landward than what it is shown to. If you take the 7§ foot setback and correct the 5 foot for the mistake in the survey it would make it 80' and then take it back 8 more feet because the wetlands are actually 8 feet closer you now have a 72 foot setback to the house. That problem becomes exacerbated as we move farther to the south where the pool is currently propoSed, same thing happens there. That 68 foot setback that is shown there actually becomes reduced as well. Now in that location I'm not gonna guess but it varied a little bit more with maybe about 10 feet from the bottom of the bank but without having it on the survey I don't want to guess because the bottom of the bank becomes a little bit more ambiguous and I don' want to guess what Peconic located at the bottom of the bank. In any event, the pool will have to be moved back and I understand that the Board had asked them to move it 15 or 20 feet. Regardless of this Board's position, I had explained to the applicant that that whole pool and deck has to come back anyway because there is a 1994 letter of non-jurisdiction issued by the DEC. and the premise of that letter was not based on the 10 foot contour line as is often the case, but it's based on the topographical crest of the bank. The reason for that is if you have a 10 foot contour which occurs on the slope of the bank the DEC extends Board of TrusteesTM 22 November 30, 1999 their jurisdiction landward and now their jurisdiction ends at the top of the slope. So as this site plan is shown now would actually null and void that letter of non-jurisdiction and cause the applicant to go to the DEC for tidal wetlands permit which I had advised them against doing. It would be easier for one to do it on the strength of the N.J. but also the DEC since they have the room to meet a better setback over there, would probably object to the pool being farther than the crest of the bluff. So with that information laid out I understand Bill Bilosky the architect has come up with a couple of plans that in a sense shift all of these things around in such a way that would better meet the DEC's requirement for the n.j. and number two the Board's request in terms of improving the setbacks. The last thing I would say is as far as the house itself is concerned all the way on the north side you would actually need to move that house about 5 feet back in order to meet your wetland setback. I know you can't go completely by a picture from a digital camera but the wetlands boundary is pretty distinct as that location and it is pretty obvious that it's about 5 or 6 feet from the bottom of that bank. Everything else would have to be shifted in such a way on the south side to better meet your setbacks. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You said the survey is incorrect as far as the 75 foot mark is. ROB: Well it scales to 80 feet from the shoreline but it's written as 75 feet. I don't know why that is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that the only inconsistency or error. ROB: I understand that there is a question about the survey on one of the property lines but I am not involved in that because it would have nothing to do with the house meeting your wetlands setbacks. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was just a question because we found it to be inaccurate as far as the measuring for our jurisdiction. In terms of being a very glaring error measuring from the wetland line. I don't know we consider the wetland line to be more less the bottom of the bank. ROB: Yes. that's what I was gonna say. You could in the most conservative fashion consider the wetlands to be the bottom of the bank. In fact it is not. It is about 5 or 6 feet seaward of that and I think if the Board looked at it with a measuring tape .... I don't think that unlike the site for example the Gunn one that we looked where it was kind of a miasma of different vegetation. Here it's pretty distinctive where it is. The bacharis grows up to a certain point and stops and from there you start to get into some other upland vegetation that would definitely considered by any jurisdiction as part of the tidal wetland. Even if that's the case, your talking bout 5 feet. if the 5 feet differential between what I flagged and what you were using, so just for argument sake you could use the bottom of the bank as a reasonably reference point, because that is on the survey where the flag I placed is not. MR. BIOLOSKY: I have drawings that I can lay them out. Just as a quick reminder as to where the site is we're talking at the end of Deep Hole Creek. This is the plan that was staked out Board of Trustees ~ 23 Nov~r~ber 30, 1999 and is represented of the survey. This is the plan where I understand after you went and reviewed where the bottom of the bank is in relation to the house, you came back and said, "let's move the house 15 feet and the pool 20 feet". Which in the spirit of things we want to comply with. The purchasers of this property and the builders of the home, objective is to build a house that will provide privacy for them. Their very concerned about building a house that would be considerably outside of the tree line so it's sitting in the field. They don't want to be in a position where the house is tucked hard to the lot line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But our concern is the protection of the waterway and if that lot doesn't provide them with the privacy that they require, then they should not be building here, because the wetland comes before where they have to have the house. MR. BIOLOSKY: Yes, and that is why the client is going through this exercise at great expense in advance of the purchase of the property in terms of their goals and the Town's goals. This is a plan that accommodates to my understanding your comments. Move the house 15 feet the pool 20. Within the spirit of that I have generated (could not hear him, shuffling of papers) well out of the tree line. I have think we can achieve both sets of goals which is to set the house so that the closest point of the house is 75 feet from the line that Robert is talking about. To seek consideration from the Board for the deck and the pool to be within the 75 foot line but landward of the top of the slope so it's in compliance with the letter of non-jurisdiction from the DEC. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think what this doesn't show though is the extent of disturbance for the project. MR. BIOLOSKY: You mean on this side. We have stayed .... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, any disturbance as far as construction or any future activity. Your not gonna just slide the house up there. Your gonna have construction equipment come around it and grading and filling. MR. BIOLOSKY: Yes, it is possible to build this house with 5 feet of movement along the outside of that. In the spirit of that we are there by staying so far from the top of the bank and placing the house on the 75 foot line. The consideration is really for the deck and the pool. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is then part of the farm field. MR, BIOLOSKI: In this drawing here shows where the field has been plowed to date. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And there was a stake out there. MR. BIOLOSKY: Yes. I tried to show in this drawing how the field has been plowed to date. ROB: They would establish some sort of buffer adjacent to the wetlands as per usual. In this case it almost becomes a rhetorical buffer because they obviously are never gonna be able to build down that slope and behind it. I think part of the applicants goal is maintain the natural atmosphere of this property. I don't think they have plans to go in and start clear cutting. Board of Trustees<~ 24 Nov61~er 30, 1999 MR. BIOLOSKY: This line here (indicating on drawing) is the edge of brush and densely covered. I have identified the major trees. We are trying to save more of the trees either what you've proposed or what I'm proposing we will be able to do now. We will have to take a. little larger trees out between us and the building in order to build it. But this is all that wooded area that you walked through. I've only been marking the largest of trees. This is the lawn, the lighter green. WILLIAM RULAND: I represent Elmer Ruland the adjacent property owner. After hearing the discussion it's obvious that you understand that there is a possible discrepancy in the survey and most of all the parties involved understand the discrepancy with the survey and we want the record to show that the westerly boundary is in dispute. There seems to be a discrepancy in the westerly boundary. Whether that will impact your proceedings or not I don't really know. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were unhappy with the survey because of the way it marked the tidal wetlands which was completely inadequate. MR. RULAND: We don't have an objection to anyone building a house on that property but given the scope of the survey as it stands today from what I've seen the northwesterly boundary ended up out in the farm field after 35 years it was someplace else. When the lot was set off it was very clear to all the parties involved approx, where the boundary was and now it appears o be 24 to 25 to the west. ATTORNEY FOR THE ADVENTS, OWNERS OF PROPERTY: I'd like to clarify something. We have a deed from Mr. Ruland's Grandfather for this property. In 1994 there was an application before this Board on the basis of this survey. The board granted the permit, the permit expired. There was no objection at that time for the survey or regard to the application. We had discussions in regard to this. The only discrepancy between our deed and this survey happens to be the southerly line. Our description says as far as the distance goes, "139 more or less to the waters of Deep Hole Creek". The actual survey shows 132.51' But you'll notice that's to a tie line. If you'll also notice that Mr. Ruland is talking about the northwest corner of the property. That's a defined point, regardless of where it's located on the property. You have a monument located on New Suffolk. At the intersection of the road here you have a course and distance to the line, the division line of the property. YOu have a course and a distance of 500 feet coming into that point. It's not a question of where it's defined but a question of where the point is. This survey reflects our deed regardless of where that stake is in the field. The stake may be located wrong but the survey is not wrong and our deed is not wrong. So the only question they're bringing up is actually where that point is in the field. So there's no discrepancy between the maps, our survey or our deed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I could see what was approved in 1994. That was a much smaller building located further away from the wetland. Board of Trustees~- 25 Nove~.~er 30, 1999 ATTORNEY: Correct. I'm just talking about description. I can't tell as far as the dimensions of the proposed structure because it's a completely different configuration if you notice. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This survey is ..... there's only a problem on the east side, west side and the south side. ATTORNEY: It's the setback. It's not the survey itself. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's the survey itself. Because you said the south side is different. ATTORNEY: No, the south side says in the deed 139 more or less to the water. The survey shows it to a tie line of 132.51 feet. ROB: What Mr. Bertwhistle is saying is anytime you see a difference in the depth of a property on a creek one might imagine that if it were 139 when that deed were written and it's 132 now to the shoreline, it's probably 7 feet of erosion. At some point in the future that's gonna be 130. ATTORNEY: That's part of it, the other part shows the tie line. TRUSTEE SMITH: Who placed the stakes? MR. BIOLOSKY: Our surveyor did. John Metzger, Peconic Surveyors. And he may have put the stake in the wrong place which to some degree is irrelevant as far as what's in front of this Board. As I understand this Board's concern is the 75' zone. We are now talking about something that is almost 200 feet away, but I'm happy to address it. I think there's a simple solution here. If the deed and the survey is correct it's possible the stake is not correct. The simple solution is for the Ruland's to have their surveyor come out and follow the dimensions from the monument back and set where that stake is. And if the stakes disagree then we'll go get a third surveyor and work hand and hand to the point has a known home. Is it possible that because this stake is in the wrong place that the house that you guys looked at was staked in the wrong place? I also think that is irrelevant because we have to work from the other way. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's relevant where it was staked in relation to where our jurisdiction is. It is relevant. MR. BIOLOSKY: What we're trying to do is we're working from a 75' line from the line that Robert is establishing, not from the west. We're gonna put the house 75'. ..... we're not seeking a consideration. We want the building to be in compliance with what you ask. We're seeking consideration for the deck and the pool to be within the 75' but landward of the top of the slope. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The fact that it's a field there doesn't affect our judgement. MR. BIOLOSKY: .I understand. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Most people we have found want to push the house further to the creek. They think there's some advantage there. In this case the property drops off so steeply, if your back those 15 or 20 feet your never gonna see that difference because it's really a visual thing. What I'd like to see something with one foot contours. MR. BIOLOSKY: What he's done is he's gone to the top, what he calls the top of the bank which is identified I believe is a 21' above mean sea level. Board of Trustees-~ 26 Nove~)er 30, 1999 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about final grade? MR. BIOLOSKY: He's given us the corners of the lot and we have set the house based on this specific spot. We are blending. We are trying to touch the landscape as lightly as possible. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It doesn't show one foot contours and it was sort of uncertain as to finished grade and it doesn't show area of disturbance. ROB: Yes, the survey is lacking. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 11. Land Use on behalf of WILLI~ A. :.~AIJ.I~ requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single family dwelling with a garage and an asphalt driveway, sanitary system, a 4' X 40' fixed dock, a 3' X 20' ramp and a 6' X 20' float. Proposed dock will use 12- 8" in diameter piles, 10 for fixed dock and 2 to support float. Fixed dock elevated a min. of 4' above the existing wetlands vegetation and a 4+/-' natural chip mulch path is proposed. Located: 70 Jackson Landing, Mattituck. SCTM ~113-4-3 & 4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll move to table the application until next month because it was not staked. TRUiSTEE SMITH: Second. ALL AYES 12. Land Use on behalf of JOI~ iU~TADO, JR. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single family dwelling, sanitary system and access driveway. Driveway consists of grading between 2 sma!ll freshwater areas not regulated by DEC. (see construction description in file). Located: 10995 Bayview Ave., Southold. SCTM ~79-5-20.7 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE SMITH: Second ALL AYES 13.~ MICI~L CG~ASCI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single family dwelling as per survey. Located: 435 Private Road, Southold. SCTM #59-9-4.2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak either in favor or against the application? We just wanted a non-disturbance setback around this. MR. CORDASCI: I believe on the previous survey they had a building envelop that was 30 feet from here and 15 from here and 50 from here. (indicating on survey) I used the same surveyor the previous owners did. So when he placed the house he placed it within those boundaries. The only big thing was the septic system which we had an engineer design and make sure it made all the other requirements. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: OK it's 30 feet. The last one was 30 feet. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application with condition that there be a 30' setback from freshwater wetland line (solid line). TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. ALL AYES 27 Nove~Der 30, 1999 Board of Trustees~' 5. En-Consultants Inc., on behalf of PHYLLIS GUNN requests a Wetland Permit to clear an upland area up to 50' landward of the tidal wetlands boundary, establish a 50' wide non-fertilized non-disturbance buffer adjacent to the wetlands and install a drinking water well. Located: 2145 Little Peconic Bay Lane, Southold. SCTM ~90-1-15 ROB: What I would like to do is just read into the records the revised project description. If you look at my letter dated November 23, which I submitted after I met wi~h the Board, basically the tidal wetlands were moved back about 30 or 32' from where they were originally shown and are now showing a 40' buffer we discussed in the field from where Ken and I measured out. Also what I found out from Mrs. Gunn was that there was an existing test well on the property by the road. We're gonna pursue that with the Dept. of Health. We're actually gonna pursue a hardship application with the Water Authority to get public water. If that doesn't happen we're moving the well up. Because right now the well is down current from the other adjacent septic systems, between that and the location of the well now and where there is actually an existing test well we moved the well out of your jurisdiction, so the project description should actually read now, because the house is now just in your jurisdiction, "construct a two story one family dwelling and attached deck and pervious driveway~ Clear an upland area of 40' landward of tidal wetland boundary and establish and maintain a 40' wide non-disturbance, non-fertilized buffer adjacent to the tidal wetland boundary all depicted on the site plan by Joseph Ingegno dated November 23, 1999 and a letter of non-jurisdiction is requested for the sanitary system to be located more than 130' landward of the tidal wetland boundary and the placement of the drinking water well also outside of your jurisdiction" And you will note on your revised survey you are now shows the approx, location of the landward tidal wetland boundary determined by En-Consultants Inc., and Southold Town Trustees on Nov. 17, 1999. So those surveys were submitted in accordance with what we discussed in the field and the stakes that show the clearing have been moved back. This should all jive what we discussed in the field. TRUSTEE SMITH: Motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion we approve the application based on the new plans. TRUSTEE SMITH: Second. ALL AYES 1. L- . -- as executor of the estate of Eleanor Bruce requests a Grandfather Permit for as follows: a 4' X 47' deck with s~p~aT~'~'~i~ 12' X 32' dock with steps. Locate~:~!50.~unne~eta-R.o~d~ Cutchogue. SCTM %111-14-24 Meeting Adjourned at: 10:30 p.m.