Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-03/24/1999Albert J. Krupski, 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 CALLED MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: MARCH 24, 1999 Wednesday, April 14, 1999 at 12 noon TRUSTEE KING moved to approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Approved Minutes of February 24, 1999 at Regular Meeting. TRUSTEE KING moved to approve, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for February 1999: A check for $3,575.24 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 VILLAGE MARINE requests an amendment to Permit %4882 to reconstruct, inkind/inplace, 340+' of timber bulkhead and dredge a 10' X 268' area adjacent to bulkhead to a depth of -4' at ALW, and 200 c.y. of resultant spoil to be utilized as backfill. Located: Bay Ave., Mattituck. SCTM %122-3-15.1 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve the application and to charge for 400 c.y. of spoil not 200, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 2. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of LOUIS SIRCUSANO requests an Amendment to Permit %4957 to construct 100+' of timber bulkhead with no return and backfill structure with 10+ c.y. of clean sand trucked in from upland source. Located: 895 North Parish Drive, Southold. SCTM %71-1-9 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve the application and if a return is needed to contact the Trustee office, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 3. Diane Herold on behalf of HUGH J. MURPHY requests a one year extension to Permit ~4577 to raise the house and replace foundation, construct additions, and move and upgrade septic system. Located: 3105 Oaklawn Ave., Southold. SCTM #70-6-8 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve the application for a second and final one year extension, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 4. Dick Ward on behalf of ROBERT KAPLAN requests a Waiver to construct an addition to an existing house. Located: 1700 Inlet Way, Southold. SCTM 992-1-7 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to announce that this project was considered a non-jurisdiction determination. 5. Tony Diaz on behalf of BARRY SHAPIRO requests a waiver to construct approx. 21' X 26' deck onto an existing house. Located" 625 Wood Lane, Southold. SCTM #86-6-7 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 6. CAROL MAGGIO requests a Waiver for the construction of an existing 8' X 16' deck. Located: 1350 Bailey Beach Road, Mattituck. SCTM 999-3-11.9 TRUSTEE KING moved to approve the application with stipulation that no clearing is to be done across the road in the wetland area, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES 7. DONALD ALFANO requests a second and last one year extension to Permit #4384 for a dock, ramp and float. Located: 900 Corey Creek Lane, Southold. SCTM 78-4-13 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH moved to go off the Regular Meeting and onto the Public Hearings, 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. Pat Moore on behalf of BERNICE LETTIERI, ANDREW LETTIERI AND JOE GAZZA request a Wetland Permit to improve an existing access road to 4 parcels. Located: 22-3-19, 20, 21 & 22 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak either in favor or against the application? PAT MOORE: We did some things since the last meeting. Joe Ingegno the surveyor, gave a detail of the area and I gave that to you and I had Joe Fischetti a professional engineer provide the road specs. I believe that it was on the plan at one point in time, but I wasn't the one who contacted the individuals to do it, so this was fine. I prefer to have Joe Fischetti, who I work with on a regular basis. He gave me the detail with regard to the road. We had the property staked and I just got there today, I noticed that the staking was for the 50' portion of the road. Joe Ingengno marked the furthest point of the 50' road, when in fact the 15' is all we are asking for with regard to 280A access. The minimum Town requirements are 15' The applicants don't believe they need anything more. They just want a nice driveway going up to a 5 acre parcel. The most that you are going to have is the 4 lots that are each 5 acres using that shared access. And certainly you have some knowledge on the Board as to the material. Our preference are to limit the amount of material and make it pervious and the improvements show the swale for purposes of protecting the wetlands. The proposal that we have before you we think is reasonable and one that will satisfy the Town's concerns as well as the applicants need to get legal access to the parcels. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else? GWEYN SHROEDER: I'm from the North Fork Environmental Council. I just want to know if the hearing will be held open? I understand you have not done a field inspection yet? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct. Because of the snow it was impossible to get access to the site. GWEYN: So this will be held open? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. One thing that I noticed on the survey it actually shows a 19' wide road base. MS. MOORE: I have to ask Joe about that because the actual entered roadway he marks to be 15' You have board members that have built roads, so I think maybe they can explain better than I can why the detail shows a 2' base on either side. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, that's the applicant, that's not the board .... MS. MOORE: No, I'm just saying we have asked for a reset and we were willing to have a 15' road. Now when you build out a 15' road, aren't there additional needs? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes, Town specs require normally a 3' drivable shoulder on either side of the 15'. Just in case vehicles have to pass and you have to go off, in this particular case, down in the marsh. MS. MOORE: I didn't catch that from Joe and I know he did it to the Town specs. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What we need then, and just as well we didn't get out there, we need it to be staked at the 19' not the 50' You said he has it staked at the 50' Well that wouldn't help US. MS. MOORE: Actually it does because the markings are so big you can take a tape measure from the 50' and mark back to what ever measurement you want. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But so can the applicant. MS. MOORE: No. I will contest that the surveyor will go out there and does it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's the applicants responsibility. MS. MOORE: You see the 50' and you can take half of that point and it's actually on the road and ....... when I called Mr. Ingegno's office it's still very clear. He did what the other instruction was, he made sure he placed the staking straight on where the road ...... the existing road curves over towards and around the bend ...... the stake actually shows where the road is cut. So that's real clear. My only concern is that I don't come back in April and because you haven't gone out there you have something else that you want. It certainly cost Mr. Lettieri every time someone goes out there and that's not fair~ to him. If I can coordinate I will ask the surveyor to be out there when your out there so he can meet with you if he has any questions. If questions come up and we are on site they can be answered on site rather than back and forth and another month goes by. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But this is what we asked for. We asked for the cross section, but the cross section shows something different that what is applied for. It shows a 19' wide road base where you told us 15' wide. But the road itself is going to be 19' So we would like to see that in the field. I'll make a motion that we recess the hearing until April 21. TRUSTEE POLIWODA. ALL AYES 2. Costello Marine on behalf of CLEAVES POINT CONDOMINIU~4S request a Wetland Permit to install four 4' X 30' fingers, four 4' X 25' fingers and an 8' X 66' "T" float. Located: Shipyard Lane, East Marion. SCTM ~38-7-4.2, 4.8 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak either for or against the application? JOHN COSTELLO: I'm the agent for the condominiums. I can assure you from my experience in the marine business I could design and discuss the condominiums for a reasonable and safe expansion and modification of existing permitted arena. I'd like to say right now what's permitted there is no more boats than what is permitted going in this marina. The request for the bigger dock, and I'm sure that your baymen who have worked on the water, it's safer to have the finger piers, and they can afford them, and lives with the southwest wind are being broad sided by the Wind. That southwest wind at that location. I know that there are many concerns. And one of the concerns is the Baymen have. Mr. Poliwoda has expressed that this is a viable scalloping area. I assure you nobody respects the baymen or anyone who works on the water more than I. I worked my entire life on the water and I respect everyone of them. I would just like to say that I am very cautious. I would also like to state that congregating an existing marina and having these finger piers to make it safer, that's the area. You certainly wouldn't want 32 applicants or 32 slips around this marina to be spread around Southold. It's like a clustering of zoning in one area. By putting them in one area certainly assists in keeping other areas open to it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? MARK SOLOMON: I'm a resident of Cleaves Point. I've been before your Board before. A few years ago you were kind enough to grant us an application for correcting the east marina that we have as part of our community. And having been a tremendous success is probably why we are here today. We have the east marina holding 16 docks. It is completely occupied and our west marina as of last year had one or two boats in it with many more applicant who want to be there providing you can give them safe haven. As far as the community goes we have always been conservation and environmentally aware and considerate. We never asked for more than we need at the time and we ask that now for a safe boating place for us and protect our boats and property. We designed our dock in a quality manner by Mr. Costello who has helped us in the past. The west dock was permitted in 1984 or 85 and prior to being here last month we thought it would be just an application to modify the existing marina. I think for some reason, you asked for complete new application, which I'm not really clear on. We're not expanding the geometry of the existing permit at all. It's the same dimension out into the water. Instead of having a floating wave curtain, we would appreciate the opportunity of having a floating "T" section made of steel tool construction in order to knock down the wave action. That would be give us considerably more fla~ water gravels. By not having fingers it seems not in our best interest with our home owners to board and disembark from their small crafts. We have 1,600' of frontage we collected in the marina in the extreme western portion of our property in order to get around this small piece of land in Cleaves Point. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? HOWARD WEISLER: I'm a second home resident of Southold. I'm a boater. I have a boat presently in Cleaves Point Marina. I confess that I do not aware of the technical ramifications of how this would be constructed, except that I want to comment to you as a boater to tell you that the existing situation now is not safe. Unfortunately the way the docks are constructed, wakes, wind makes it very impenetrable for people to use the dock. So in affect what we are asking you to allow us to do is to improve our west dock in the same way that you allowed us to improve the east dock. As Mr. Solomon has said and Mr. Costello, we have been good neighbors and are well aware of the environmental impact and I think we have followed precisely all the instructions and restrictions for our east dock, and you can be relatively assured from our track record that we would do similarly if you would grant us our permit for our west dock. Although there are environmental areas that have to be addreSsed, we are addressing them and also the areas of allowing people to have the safe and pleasurable use of the waterfront. So I respectively request that you grant us our application so we can finish the west part of our marina. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? JIM TONSMEYER: I talk to you as a relatively new owner of Cleaves Point. I've been spending summers on the north fork for over 50 years now. And for the last 20 years I have been hoping for a place to settle down out here. I looked at Cleaves Point from the first day they started building it and I would not bus there until the east marina had been approved. I felt to keep a boat there it would be safe for the boat or boater. Since you allowed us to build the east marina there's been a tremendous improvement. Our occupancy has gone up and our real estate value has gone up. The east marina is now full and the people using the west marina are left in the position where due to the swift currents that we have out around Cleaves Point due to the wave action and wind we just don't have a safe condition to either store the boats or get on and off the boats. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? DAVID MAMINA: I have been summering with my family for the last 14 years since my now oldest daughter was a year or two. Last year my family and I decided to make a commitment to the Town of Southold and I'm now proud to say I am a tax payer. We purchased the last unit that was available at the Cleaves Point Condo's. We request your consideration in granting us that last group of docks. I recently purchased a boat and would be one of the people benefiting from that. I heard my neighbors comment about the fact that we are good neighbors. We tried to abide by all the rules and regulations and understand how important it is to the baymen to have the docks removed. When they were supposed to be removed we have been abiding. We continue to do so. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone else like to speak? JOE GORDON: I'm the Southold Town Baymen's Association President. We have no problem with fixing up the docks so that the waves .... but we're against any additional docks or this floating dock being put on to. As you know the first time when you were on the Board when they were put in there. We are loosing our property. The Town property. As was spoken, this is a very .... as a far as shellfish and scalloping goes it is a very productive area. we're loosing more and more all the time. So we are not against putting a dock that is fixed, but no additional docks. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm looking for the original permit that was granted for this dock. MR. COSTELLO: The original permit was granted for straight out. I believe it was 1983. It was the same distance out as this one. It was also allowed off shore off this. 25' off shore for a proposed dock. It was allowed a wave curtain that was permitted by this Board. To break down the waves so that the boats (could not hear him). The wave curtain I believe did not last and they removed it and it was secured by a couple of pilings off shore. It was bigger than the proposed "T" that we are~ proposing now. I do not know the exact size, I did not construct it. But it was larger and 25' off shore and secured by pilings. It's easier and safer to board a boat along side of a finger rather than over a bow or stern of a boat. That safety is one of the concerns. There is no additional boats for this marina. As far a the scalloping goes, I did scallop, I know what scalloping is and I know what working on the water is. I also know how long it would take to grow out scallops in an area like this. This is the marina. These additional docks and the amount of scallops under there, let me tell you, the wave curtain under the existing dock, and on the shore, by breaking some of the waves down there, is quite an accumulation of scallops just off shore. I can also tell you, when people the Village of Greenport they hit the breakwater, and I can tell you, I doubt if anybody has anything but full throttle. You will also know that the direction of the winds, the prevailing winds in the summer, southwest, everyone permitted boats in this marina now are broadside to the wind. I think it's a reasonable request. I think we can make it safer for this community. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This dock was originally built in 1983 and in 1991 the Town adopted the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area which is Chapter 37 of the Town Code. It reads all development is prohibited on near shore area and the near shore area is defined as those lands underwater beginning at the near low water line extending waterward in a direction perpendicular to the shorelines to a point where mean low water depth is 15' or to a horizontal distance of 1,000' which ever is greater. Now that would prohibit any further development in that area. That doesn't answer the safety of this dock. A lot of people have gotten up tonight and said this dock is very unsafe. If it's unsafe it shouldn't be used. If it's an area that's hard to dock at, that's just common sense. I think that addresses the safety issue. If something is unsafe, you don't just keep using it. MR. COSTELLO: It doesn't address the safety issue, for the simple reason, you know that Ken Poliwoda, or someone who has years and years of experience on the water, in the summer time, I'm sure Mr. Smith who has boats and been there, and has been out in rough weather, nobody should go out in rough weather, but they do. It's a fact. I'm just saying, they use it, they have a boat in there, it is calm, it's more generally calm, but when a wave comes it's unsafe. MR. SOLOMON: I think your taking out of context the safety matter. The safety of getting on and off a boat just some wave action can be corrected by proper design. And proper design remedied our east dock completely. So all we're asking to do is consider the same remedy your additional design solution by Mr. Costello to allow us to have safe boating during normal conditions. It's normal conditions of wave activity more so than the prevailing wind. But wave activity and to some degree, being able to get out onto a dock to secure them in a wind situation or prior to or during a storm that deserves safe considerations. So I think your over compensating for the lack of safety .... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, that's just what I heard. MR. SOLOMON: I think it's important for you to understand, it's a very nice area and we deserve the right and opportunity to go and enjoy it as owners and taxpayers. You were able to grant that to us in 1996 I think, and that has solved the problem completely. We're only asking for you to consider a normal solution by design that would correct an uncomfortable situation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But Chapter 37 prohibits that. MR. SOLOMON: What you read to me that would affect the 1996 application also. But it wasn't brought up at that time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But if mistakes were made by the Board, we would rather not repeat them. MR. SOLOMON: I don't think that was a mistake. In reading that I think you said from 15' to 1,0007 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. From 15' of Water depth. It goes out to 15' of depth of water or 1,000' whichever is greater. MR. SOLOMON: Our marina depth is only about 6 or 7 feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So that would include that area. That would be included in the definition of the near shore area. MR. SOLOMON: So your telling me today that there is no consideration of future docks to be built in Town waters? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In the Coastal Erosion Area. As defined by the code. MR. SOLOMON: That's miles. That's from Mattituck to East Hampton almost. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct. MR. SOLOMON: So your not going to permit where dock will be built in that 50, 60 or 70 mile radius? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, it extends from Mattituck line on the Sound to Orient Point and from Orient to Gull Pond. MR. SOLOMON: So that's 35 miles waterfront that your not gonna consider applications anymore. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For development in the near shore area. MR. SOLOMON: But we already have a permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You have a permit for what you have. MR. SOLOMON: So that means we can build it out and put a wave curtain baCk in, instead of doing what's better by design. People correct things based on learning from the past. we've learned from the past that the wave curtain does not hold up during winds and storms. It broke apart and we removed it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Doesn't that tell you anything? That the wave curtain didn't hold up. MR. SOLOMON: It was poorly designed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But that's the way the code reads. We didn't make that up, that's the way it reads. MR. SOLOMON: So what is your finding here? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well would include what exactly what is in the code, definition of the near shore area, and any other development in that area is prohibited. That's Chapter 37. MR. SOLOMON: So what is our recourse. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You could remove the structure if it's unsafe. MR. SOLOMON: I'm not telling you it's unsafe, I'm telling you we'd like to improve safety. Every dock is unsafe if it's poorly designed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: From what's proposed proves what is safe. That doesn't affect Chapter 37 anyway. Everyone so far is in favor of this in how safe it is. MR. SOLOMON: I think your misinterpreting that. I think we would like to improve the safety in order to have it properly used by all. We corrected the situation on the our east dock and it's an absolute paradise for us now. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Can I ask you, what would you do if you didn't have that marina? MR. SOLOMON: I'd probably would sell my property and not live there if I couldn't enjoy waterfront community. That's why I came here. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If you wanted to stay on that property and you wanted to utilize the Bay, people up the east from you all have moorings. They just wade out to their boat. MR. SOLOMON: I don't think mooring in our position would be adequate. We've been there for 18 years now. That was part of the context in which this community got planned long ago. TRUSTEE SMITH: How many boat owners do you have now? MR. SOLOMON: 20 or 21. We couldn't possibly have it around that point, we're in open water. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's just a question of safe access. Those people to the east were not complaining about safe access by wading out to the boats. I get the impression your community is asking for the Town Trustees to build a fortress over public bottom. MR. SOLOMON: No, sir, I don't believe a floating dock is a floating fortress. A floating dock is a floating dock. And if properly designed it will handle wave action. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm still not convinced on the safety issue. I think the code is clear and this came up on a number of application this year and last year. We consulted the Town Attorney and we're gonna follow his advise on this. MR. SOLOMON: So I am to assume that from Mattituck to Gull Pond there will be no new docks. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For on the Sound. MR. SOLOMON: We're not on the Sound, we're on the Bay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: From Orient Point to Gull Pond. MR. SOLOMON: So I'm saying that in that area you will not permit any more new docks. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct. MR. SOLOMON: And if you do we should come back to you? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. MR. SOLOMON: And in the mean time we can restore what we had under the original permit? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What you had is what you have. MR. SOLOMON: So we can build our wave curtain again and try to make the best of it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you have a permit for an existing wave curtain ......... I can't find this permit for this wave curtain. MR. COSTELLO: I have a copy of it because I got it out of your files. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is the wave curtain that is tiered plywood ..... Do you remember this Henry? TRUSTEE FOSTER: John I have one question. To the east there's a wave barrier? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. It's splash board. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Diagonal boards? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE FOSTER: And that works? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, it does. TRUSTEE FOSTER: And you have a permit to put that to the west as well? MR. COSTELLO: We have a different permit, earlier permit ..... TRUSTEE FOSTER: But it was a wave curtain? MR. COSTELLO: For a wave curtain. TRUSTEE FOSTER: A totally different thing? MR. COSTELLO: It did not last. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So it was not effective. MR. COSTELLO: I could design a wave curtain that is effective~ TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Was this Mr. Green that designed that. MR. COSTELLO: I don't know who designed it. Let me address one other thing. You mentioned the Chapter 37 ...... I don't know if the attorney is here, he was here earlier ..... Chapter 37 as I read it, there is a criteria in Chapter 37, and your code is taken from the New York Regulations 505. That's where it is taken from. Some of the criteria in State Regulations 505 is supposed to use a Litnus Test of questions to ask whether it should be there or not. And one of the questions is, "the purpose and whether there are alternate sites to locate such structures". To pick the best.site and place the structures and minimize the length requirement and the size requirement is a Litnus Test of 5 items and there's a whole code. Your code is drafted from the New York State Regulations. I faxed over that information to your office and gave you the telephone number of the man that helped draft that code for the Town of Southold and his mailing address. Because my discussions with him is logical and there is only one spot for docks. And again, the Coastal Hazard Area encompasses Plum Island, Gull Island, Great Gull and the entire shoreline of Fishers Island. I don't believe it was the intention of the Town Board adopting that code, not the State regulators on the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area to not have docks. And you can confirm that with New York State, with your own attorney. I know the Appeal Process for the information of the condominium people is to appeal to the Town Board. I wish you had told me this earlier because we could have been in front of them probably by now. This is the first meeting that Chapter 37 has been brought up on this application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On this application. But this is the first Public Hearing on this application. But we brought it up on others. I was only on the Board since 1985. I wasn't on in 1983. Henry was on in 1983. Did we have jurisdiction on the Sound and Bay in 1'9837 TRUSTEE SMITH: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I didn't think we did. I don't see how we could have issued a permit in 1983 for this. I'm just trying to make some logical guess on this wave curtain. The file we have here doesn't go back that far. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can we recess this public hearing until we check into that wave curtain thing? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I have a question. If the wave curtain is permitted on the western dock, why couldn't it be re-installed in the same design as the one to the east? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because it is completely different. If I'm right its some sort of a ...... someone named Sreen was trying to pioneer this for use out in the Bay in areas like this and it was a series of plywood sheets separated by about two feet and you would have a series of sheets and the wave action would hit between them and it wouldn't be able to work. TRUSTEE FOSTER: They were mounted laterally? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. They would be anchored near the top. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion that we recess the public hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. ALL AYES 3. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of VINCENT FREDA requests a Wetland Permit for a set of 4' X 30' stairs leading to a 4' X 311' catwalk to be constructed a min. of 3.5' above grade and a set of 4' X 40' stairs to gain access to beach. Located: 7715 Indian Neck Lane, Southold. SCTM #86-6-26.2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak either in favor or against the application? The CAC recommends disapproval just for the length. Just a few questions. This is to let the applicant to gain access to the beach on Peconic Bay, correct? GLENN JUST: Yes. Actually it would be right behind the high ride bush and there's some ground swell up there and some cedars. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well a lot of it shows the ..... what I don't understand is first of all, on the Sound when we permit a bulkhead or some structure, if part of the structure is gonna be on the neighbors property, that neighbor has to get their own separate structure. GLENN: There was an easement agreement we sUbmitted. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But a separate permit. That's been our policy and it's pretty standard. The second thing is there is already a paved access to Peconic Bay from the applicants property. Paved! GLENN: From the applicants property? Where? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's called Indian Neck Lane. GLENN: The road that goes down to the beach? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. GLENN: That's not off of their property, that's ..... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's from their property to the Bay. That's what it shows on the map here. That's public access. GLENN: Where. Show me. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: (Showing Glenn on the survey) So there's already access there. GLENN: They have a structure or stairs that goes down the bank. Here's the high marsh, instead of trampling over the high marsh, it ends here and what he asks to do is to run this above the high marsh where they can go across without having to span the marsh. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I understand that but they don't even have to go to that big of a deal with it. They can simply go on the road that exists and reach the beach. There is already access there. Without having to go through the marsh with a structure at all. GLENN: I don't think he can physically handle that at all. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On the road? GLENN: There's letters in file from a number of physicians about the petition that exists. They do have riparian rights. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're not denying anyone access, we're not suggesting that. Because if they have permission from the neighbor across the property that's ...... GLENN: They're both seeking access across the marsh at the narrowest part of the marsh. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We inspected it in the field. It's just that there is Indian Neck Lane, it's convenient and it's existing as access from his property to the Bay. GLENN: I've never looked at it in that light to be honest with you. VINCENT FREDA JR.: The issues that you mentioned (could not hear him, shuffling of papers) it involves walking to where the steps are now to the beach and walking back out to the road and down the road, and I would say is at least twice at long in terms of walking (could not hear him) This is not in my fathers' capability. I understand your a public entity and that might not be too sympathetic but you might have responsibility that would inhibit you from doing something outside the confines of your authority. Also when you mentioned access since they built that house there, I think it was in 1990 or 91, the number of times when you could actually get from the end of the road down to the beach there particularly after a storm. Now recently they just filled in with sand when they dredged the mouth of the creek and they made it more level, but if you go down there now you can see that even someone in my condition or younger you have to jump down. Someone in my parents age bracket, in their 70's, would definitely not have access there. There are no steps there. At one point after the nor'easter in 1992 we had to jump down to 6 or 7 feet to get to the level of the beach. They bring earth moving equipment in and build it back up and then it erodes away. I think it's just a matter of getting away so my parents can have access to the beach. They worked all their lives so that they could have a house by the shore. I don't know if that's necessarily a consideration or not. We tried to draw the diagrams in the least intrusive way possible. Everyone has mentioned the length of the catwalk. We could have done in in such a way as to make a straight shot, from where the steps come down across the marsh to the beach, but we thought that would be very intrusive. That would be going over an area where water flowed regularly and portions of it would be over water all the time. You'd probably have to sink pilings to do that. Because there was a well work path that followed the contour of the bottom of that slope we thought that would be the easiest place. The only problem is the last 15 or 20 feet at the end where the tides flow regularly and its very muddy. If you walk down there after the tide has gone out you will sink at least up to your calves. We also didn't want to go with the construction of the straight dock the beach. It would have been at least 100 feet shorter because it would have involved pilings and things like that. I believe the way it's in your application it just 4 X 4's and earth moving equipment to get in there to construct it with post hole diggers. It is not nearly intrusive a structure as if you tried to make it a quarter long. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: CAC recommended disapproval. MR. FREDA JR:. One other person recommends that the stairs be moved over closer to the property line in order to make it short. We can do that but I think you would only save about 30 or 35 feet. I paced it off once from the existing stairs now. They're not nearly as large. This shows stairs 4 X 50' They're not nearly that long. They're only about 15. They go from where this soffiting is to the floor. It certainly is not 40' We could move those stairs over but I don't think you would really save that much and the damage that would be done to the embankment and causing a serious erosion problem. The footings have been in there where the posts are in probably longer than of us have lived. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? MR. FREDA JR. If the Board would entertain, in order to grant an approval, some kind of amendment to the application. I have the authority to do that but I don't think it's unreasonable. If you go back and try to walk the distances you would see it's not comparable. You say it's reasonable access, I can jog the distance. The distance is if you walk from the front steps of the house out the driveway in the other direction away from the beach and all the way the full length of the road and then go down. It's not the same thing at all. It's actually a much greater distance. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I can't speak of your parents health or physical condition but ...... well lets see what the rest of the Board has to say. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I believe we spoke to Chuck Hamilton of the DEC last week and extensive catwalks and just from their viewpoint it is better off to let the public walk through the marsh and create a path rather than building extensive catwalks. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's not even necessary in this case. MR. FREDA: Would you consider a modification of the application? At least to deal with the areas that are underwater whenever the tide arises. There are areas when you get close to where the beach is there's a dip that's always under water at all times of year. I'd say half way between the mean & high water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We could look at that. We could recess that. TRUSTEE SMITH: Personally I don't have a problem with this. If the man owns the property and he wants to get to the beach ..... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The man doesn't own it. MR. FREDA: I believe at the time Mr. Just was engaged to make the application, and Mrs. Day ..... I don't know if she lives on Peconic Lane, she gave us power of attorney to Mr. Just to let the application be made jointly. This is something when my parents bought that particular piece of property she granted an easement in exchange for the promise that if a walkway was built that it would also service her property. Obviously that is not your responsibility. But my parents feel that they have fallen short of that obligation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We weren't part of that arrangement though. As far as what Mrs. Day gave to your parents ....... like as far as structure on someone else's property, we'll go out and look at it and decide that a small catwalk over the wet section would be reasonable. If that is on Mrs. Day's property, she would have to get a permit, not your parents. MR. FREDA: It's my understanding that the application would have been joined and that she is part of this application. We really need it to be joint because what you have here is really for both. I don't know if you have to be a title holder to make an application or make an application or can we make an application before the Board for the easement. TRUSTEE SMITH: You have to be a title holder. MR. FREDA: So the power of attorney that she granted is not sufficient. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Her name is not even on it. GLENN: We've given you letters of authorization from the Day's, we've given Van Tuyl's easement that was prepared, we've given you the metes and bounds of this easement, and let me point out that the area of this proposed catwalk we can shorten up by putting it closer to the property line and at the interface of the uplands and high marsh. It is not in inter-tidal marsh. If we re-design to go across inter-tidal marsh the impact on inter-tidal marsh is a much (could not hear him) We're trying to minimize the impact by relocating the structure and allowing the applicant access to the beach. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you'd like we could recess this and re-inspect it. My point is that there is access on Indian Lane to the beach. MR. FREDA: Did you actually go and see the two means of access and compare them yourself? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, I didn't walk from your patents house to the end of the road, but I'm familiar with that road, and we did walk from your parents house in the proposed catwalk area. MR. FREDA: Rather than face a denial, I get the feeling this application is not proceeding favorably with the Board, I would ask that you to recess this and I would like to be there at the next field inspection. It is a considerably greater distance and it may not be in your authority or your discretion to grant an application for this, I think to say that the other way, the long way is reasonable access is gonna mean no access at all. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to recess this until next month. TRUSTEE SMITH: Second. ALL AYES 4. Proper-T Services on behalf of JAMES ECKERT as contract vendee requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single family dwelling with septic system. Located: 1635 Meadow Beach Lane, Mattituck. SCTM #116-7-8 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any here who would like to speak either in favor or against the application? JIM FITZGERALD: I'm here to represent the owners. If the Board has any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As with the other house applications in this area, we would impose a no disturbance zone between the dirt road and the wetlands. It would be consistent with the neighboring houses. CAC recommends approval. Their stipulation that no clearing be done within 75' Our experience has shown that it would be impossible to put the house there unless you had some disturbance and that would allow for normal building practices. TRUSTEE SMITH: Moved to close'the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion we approve the application with condition that no disturbance take place landward of the landward edge of the dirt road. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. ALL AYES 5. En-Consultants Inc., on behalf of JOANNE BLUM & WILLIAM SCHAEDEL request a Wetland Permit to replace 52+' of existing. bulkhead (within 18") remove and replace, inkind/inplace 157' of existing timber bulkhead and dredge up to a 10' off boat slip to max. depth of -3' at ALW and use approx. 63 c.y. of spoil for backfill. Located: 3820 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM #122-4-25 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? ROB HERRMANN: I don't have much to add to the application except I do need to make a couple of corrections on the project description. One of the bulkhead sections was actually double counted, which was our error. It should read, inkind/inplace replacement of 130' of bulkhead. The 52' is within 18" is correct. And also the project description here omits the timber deck that leads to the small floating dock but obviously will have to be removed and replaced to do the work, which is shown on the project plan but not listed on your description. It's fairly straight forward, bulkhead replacement, dredging within the boat slip and to scoop out a lot the upland material that has filled into the boat slip area about 10' out. We don't need to do the entire slip. Just to recover the depth right against the bulkhead where the fill has leaked out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone else who would like to speak either against or in favor of the application. We did get a letter in the file abou~ the replacement in front of ..... because it is Town property, and also the concern about docking boats on the outside of the bulkhead that would ...... the letter says the channel is adjacent to that property. The natural channel in that little gutter. If a boat is tied up on the outside of that it would impede navigation. ROB: The applicants didn't discuss with me anything about boat dockage on the outside. The only imprints I can draw is they were concerned about the fact that they were loosing depth within the slip. So if at some point ...... in other words I'm not sure if this concern is retroactive or moving forward. If it's retroactive it may be because they had the dock on the outside because it was too shoaled against the float and against the bulkhead. If it's for the future, I don't know whether the Board can wish to make that a condition of the permit or ..... and it wasn't an issue, it was a bulkhead replacement. I understand the boats were serviced by the float and inside the slip. Obviously in terms of going !8" QUt in front ..... it's the usual ROB: This is a similar application. It's a bulkhead replacement. However on this one I would ask to allow the 18" replacement. In this case it is a fairly high elevation at the top of the bulkhead to the bottom now, right over the Bay. I had discussed this with the contractor and it would be a very difficult project to do this as removed and replace inkind/inplace, especially with a lot of fill lost into the Bay and going out 18" with the new bulkhead will keep this wall recessed landward of the adjacent bulkhead both to the east and to the west. The adjacent property goes out about 6 of 7 feet as it is now and if you go down the other direction to the bulkhead on the other side it goes out as well. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's the lower bulkhead? ROB: There's no proposal with the retaining wall that holds the land. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Artie you looked at this? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes. It's in quite a bit from the adjacent bulkhead. And it's in pretty bad shape too. But I didn't see any beach there. Maybe at extremely low tide there might be a little bit of beach. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll move to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I!ll make a motion we approve the application within 18" and a 16' westerly return and a non-turf buffer Of 10' between the 2 bulkhead be maintained. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. ALL AYES 7. DAL Construction on behalf of SEBASTIAN'S COVE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland Permit to install 11 pilings to create (11) 10' wide boat slips and dredge along existing bulkhead to a width of 10' to a depth of 4' for a total of 50 c.y. of spoil removed. Located: Sebastian'a Cove Road, n/o Mill road, Mattituck. SCTM ~100-3-11.11 & 11.12 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor or against this application? RAY HULSE: I'm here to represent the Property Owners Association. SUZANNE: I'm here representing the 11 home owners who would like to see this project built. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How are you doing with the DEC approval? RAY: We recently some more information regarding that it was originally dredged and we have that here. It was dredged back in 1956. So that was the criteria in getting a DEC permit. We had to prove that it was previously dredged. In this case it had been. What we're really asking for though is not a sense the maintenance or rather the full scale dredging project. Having been there and looking at it at low tide is quite a bit of debris in the water and the pilings are probably from the bulkhead and concrete and things that have gotten in the water and seaming that up a bit and creating some mooring. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually when we inspected it last week there was no water there at all. TRUSTEE KING: I take it what you want to do is take piles out ...... where along the bulkhead are they gonna be. RAY: The pilings will be about 15' off the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: If you need 11 10' wide slips, it's a lot longer than the bulkhead. Your gonna go over to the south more? RAY: No, we're gonna stop it right there. There probably will be less than 10. One will be off set actually on the north side. TRUSTEE KING: I'm very familiar with this because I lived there in the 1060's. Believe it or not I kept a 40' lobster boat there. RAY: Yo~ know then that there was water there. TRUSTEE KING: There was navigable water. When I first went in there, it wasn't so good, but the more I used it the more it opened up. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The only concern I have is the dredging is proposed right to the property line and that could pose a problem. RAY: That drawing is a little small. We can keep it 10' off the property line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? TRUSTEE KING: I'll move to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SMITH: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll move to approve the application with the condition that the dredging project start 10' from property line and hay bales be placed around dredged spoil. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 8. Land Use on behalf of CHARLES RODIN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' X 196' fixed timber dock, (elev. a min. of 4' above grade) a 3' X 20' ramp and a 6' X 20' float. Located: 70 Strohson Road, Cutchogue. SCTM ~103-10~16 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This application will be postponed until April. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 9. MARIE JONES & KEVIN R. MIDDLETON request a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' X 24' fixed dock, elev. a min. of 4' above marsh, a 2 1/2' X 16' walk-ramp and a 6' X 20' float secured to two 2-pile dolphins. Applicant also wishes to Amend Permit #4955 to construct a 16' X 32' pool. Located: 8516 Main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM ~87-5-23.10 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak either in favor or against the application? Jim and I took a look at this one. The pool application ...... there's a staked row of hay bales at 75' and the pool~would go behind there. There is a discrepancy with the drawings and survey. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion we approve the application concerning the pool at 77' as shown on survey and I will reference the right survey by initialing and dating the survey, and approve the pool with the condition that it include a dry well for draining the pool, and dock application as plans submitted on page 5 of application and my initialS and "approved plan" in the dotted location in the "T" shape configuration. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 10. JON KERBS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single family dwelling with septic system. Located: 400 Rene's Drive, Southold. SCTM ~54-6-4.4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? I will read your letters, however this lot needs to re-inspected on our monthly field inspection. This is one of the properties we could not inspect because of the snow cover. We'll open the hearing and hear your comments but we won't act on it this until next month. JON KERBS: Hopefully it's a fairly simple thing. I kind of went from the DEC recommendation and speaking to the Board who was out there a few times. I did it the best I could to minimize any effect on the wetlands. If anybody has any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. MS. GOOD: It's just our concern of the quality of life. Just to paraphrase, we have 3 sump pumps in place and dry wells put in and a 100' retaining wall. My neighbor who is just on the other side with a vacant lot, her cess pool caved in. The pressure and poor percolation is atrocious. It cost so much more and friends have asked. "if you had known the problems, would you have bought the house and invested so much of your time and effort?" We've put so much into so we have to stay now. We don't want anything else to damage the drainage there or make it worse. EDWIN THURLBIE: I live on the lot south of the property we're talking about. I'm a General Contractor by profession and I certainly respect Mr. Kerbs business and his right to do it. But I don't oppose building in Southold per se. But good development doesn't threaten precious parts of environmental by creating control of both health hazards or the value of neighbors property. I'm concerned that this property will have an affect. This new construction can change the run off of the rain water in the area. The lot sits on ground which elevated considerably above my property and that of my neighbors on the north side of Soundview. The clay-like spoil in the area already creates difficult drainage problems. The culvert that runs at the base of Rene's Drive and Soundview Ave. and discharges onto my lot. When Rene's Drive was built in January of 1998 there was an immediate and substantial increase of quantity of run off. There a marsh that begins at the northwest corner of my lot and the water level there higher since Rene's Drive was built. Several times during the Spring and Fall 1998 my backyard was flooded. On one occasion the water was more than 2 feet deep and it took several weeks to be normal. This had never happened in the first 13 years that I have been on the property. I had several discussions with the Town Engineer and he is aware of the p~oblem and knows it needs to be corrected. It certainly would be exacerbated by any more construction up on the hill. In addition to the run off problem I'm concerned about the related problem of contamination of my fresh water well. The construction of the new cesspools are less than 50' from ponds in an area of poor soil percolation and run off problems and can create a health hazard for my family and my neighbors. Lastly I'm concerned about the impact this new house and the other homos proposed by Mr. Kerbs on fresh water wetlands there. There are two large ponds on the property. The site plan provided by Mr. Kerbs shows 30' setbacks from the pond. I spoke to Mr. Kevin Kispert at the DEC today and he informed me that setbacks from fresh water wetlands should be 100' for houses with septic systems. So this doesn't appear to comply. It seems to me that building 30' from a pond on fresh water wetlands would destroy a substantial portion of wetland. So I've got three concerns here. Significant changes in run off patterns, possible health hazard and (could not hear him). I'd like to reiterate that as a builder I'm not opposed to development but we all need to insist that it doesn't destroy or encroach our environment. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could you tell me where your located again? MR. THURLBIE: I'm on $oundview Ave, directly across from where Rene Drive meets Soundview. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well in 1998 .... I have part of my property that's surface water, an irrigation pond and that was tho highest it has ever been. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It was the wettest year in about 100 years, and the water table was about 5 feet above normal. MR. THURLBIE: Even yesterday with the light rains that we had there was a puddle at the bottom of my yard. I can tell you that the affect of that road going in last year was quite dramatic. Everything runs down. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Did you get any water before that road went in. MR. THURLBIE: Yes, that drainage was there and the culvert existed. In general the ditch was usually dry and then there was a lot of rain and snow. TRUSTEE SMITH: Jon, do you own the property or are you contract vendee? JON: I own the real. I'm a contract vendee on the other one. And with that we own along tho road up there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's three lot there. The one lot on the west side of the road, where our jurisdiction is 75' from the wetland so that west lot is outside of our jUrisdiction. Ho has to receive other permits but not from this Board. JON: I'd just like to say I can appreciate what you are saying~ And just to give the history on this, in 1978 that road was put in there. When I got involved in it a couple of years ago, the Town Engineer then answered to what we have to do in order to start building. He said you have to do something with the road and something with the drainage. I had considered the amount of water there. He said, this is the way it is, this is the way it has to be. The drains that were there were just clogged up. You have to do whatever you have to do to get that water out of there. We talked about resurfaCing the road. I spoke to the Trustees and they felt that it should (cannot hear him, shuffling of papers) We're going do anything that would minimize any effect on this. I went to the Town Engineer again and he said to make the road 16' wide. We put new drains in and actually dug out the drains that collapsed and put in new drains. That causes it to run down now. I'm going to have to go to the Health Dept. and they will have to decide whether it's OK. If it's not OK the Health Dept. will not let me do it. SPEAKER: Are you talking about both lots or just the upper lot? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, only the one lot. RON: The one on top, I don't see any problem at all. But the one in the middle is the one we're talking about. We're going to have to look at it and decide how to minimize this and do the best we can. I have no intention of going in there and flattening it out. I'm talking about a house just built right into the woods. Would the cess pools that are built now, Artie, handle things better than they were designed in the 1960's? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yeah, they're bigger in size. JON: Will they make us dig down through ..... TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes, you will have to go down through clay. JON: Which they probably didn'.t do then. HERBERT JOHNSON: (changed tape, lost some of the speakers statement) which happens to be Mrs. Ferguson. We looked in the deck and looked at the test boring they're doing there ..... and at 15' you've got water and ground clay. Where is your septic going to go? Where is the thing going to spread out to? I'll just echo the same thing the lady said, on any of these days if you wa~t to go over there now you've got water going down Hickory Road. There had been an embankment put on the west side, on the Sound side of Soundview Ave., to control the flow of water which is dumping it down on the adjacent neighbors property. We've been yelling about a lot of road run off, pollution of the Bays and so forth .... well this is dumping it right down on him. If we're gonna have the same sort of thing coming down, it is running down Hickory Road now. When I see that the well proposed and the septic systems ..... those things are like 10' from the property line. I' would question the feasibility here'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Normally on a house application that we receive within our jurisdiction, which is 75' from the wetland, the septic system is outside of our jurisdiction and the Health Dept. has jurisdiction over the septic system and the well. I think there is a minimum setback between the surface water and the septic system. I don't know what that is. They have their own standards. So that's why we're gonna go look at it next month, because we want the septic system staked and we can look further. TRUSTEE FOSTER: To put a septic system in there might relieve a lot of your problems because what happens is you have a lot of trapped water there and there is layers of Clay and little stratums of sand and gravel that run laterally through that that allow trapped water to travel laterally. Of course it will travel down hill whenever it can. But the Health Dept. requires when you put in a septic system is you have to dig down through the layer of clay. You have to permeate that layer of clay down into good sand or the actual static water table which ever comes first. You have to backfill with good sand and gravel. That allows percolation of the septic system so it will go down instead of traveling into the neighbors yard. In many cases it winds up draining the entire area. When you puncture through that impervious area of clay it actually allows that water to drain down from all around where ever it's coming from back into the water table and dries the area out. I had a lot similar to that and I had to go 65' to hit good sand with a crane. My lot was wet and I didn't think I was going to get a foundation in there. One of the requirements by the Health Dept. was to have the septic system put in first, I had to get an approved septic system before I could even get a building permit. Even though it was a buildable lot. Once they put in the septic system in the lot dried up. All the water from the whole lot drained in through this hole and back down where it was supposed to be. I actually have the only foundation in the whole area. So this could do you more good than harm. The Health Dept. regulation is 5 feet from property and 100 feet from standing water. Depending on the size of the lot and when it was subdivided. Now if you have a substandard lot or a 1/4 acre lot that was subdivided in 1938 they really can't deny you building on it. What they do is make you abide by the standards at that time, 60' from the well, or whatever the case may be. And of course with the public water coming through in some of these areas, it's making a lot of these smaller substandard lots more buildable now than they were before. Simply because of the restraints they have on the neighbors and the restrictions. It wouldn't be the worse thing in the world to put that septic system in. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're gonna recess the hearing on this lot and reinspect it. So I make a motion to recess this public hearing. TRUSTEE SMITH: Second. ALL AYES 11. JON C. KERBS requests a Wetland Permit to clear property. Located: 550 Rene's Drive, Southold. SCTM 954-6-4.5 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This will be referred to as the back lot. Would any one like to make a comment? This lot here .... the proposal is for the house at 80', the septic system is outside of the Trustees jurisdiction, it's at the south end of the property, and the well also. The house itself is at 80' from the wetland. So technically the house itself is outside our jurisdiction, however you can't just put the house there, you have to have activity around it to build a house. Because of that we required a permit. Mr. Kerbs put on the survey the clearing line at 60' When we act on an application for a tidal wetlands we usually require a 50' non-disturbance buffer. So this is a 60' non-disturbance buffer. TRUSTEE SMITH: Are you gonna clear cut this, or just the underbrush. JON: The house is in contract now. My suggestion would be, and I can't imagine anyone clearing that area or spending (could not hear him) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Something like this we could put on 'a no turf' and in our jurisdiction at 75' we can put on 'non-turf 75' If they want a yard, they can have it upland. The clearing is restricted at 60' SPEAKER: In order to get to that house, do you intend to put a road in there? JON: The road is pretty well done as far as I know. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We wouldn't want to see a hard road there, we would rather see gravel. SPEAKER: That's what is there today. It is very hard to get out of there. Two cars passing each other, forget about it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's really not our jurisdiction. That's the Highway Dept. specs and the Town Engineer. That has nothing to do with us. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is gonna be a driveway. In our experience they're not gonna spend a lot of money if they don't have too. And it's gonna be for one house in the back. SPEAKER: In order to get to that house, the only access they have is Soundview Ave., right? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. SPEAKER: So that's quite a distance. And right now that road is ..... I wouldn't want to ride that road. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm on a farm road longer than that and it doesn't have gravel on it and wish it was that good. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to approve the application with a 60' non-turf, non-clearing restriction to remain natural and to place haybales around construction line on the downward side to prevent run off. TRUSTEE SMITH: Second. ALL AYES 12. JOHN & MARILYN DEVEAU request a Wetland Permit to construct a single family dwelling. Located 1240 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM ~78-2-30 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? Against the application? The only concern I had was the nearest proposed structure was about 60' not 75' TRUSTEE SMITH: Motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve ~the application with condition that the house be moved back to 75' as it states in description and that there be a 50' non-turf buffer from the wetland upland, and haybales be placed at the 50' line. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 13. MICHAEL COLAVITO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' X 4' platform, a 3' X 15' ramp and three 4' X 8' floats parallel to bank with 3 piles. Located: 6150 Main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM #78-4-44.2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak either in favor or against the application? There's a letter in here. (Al read the letter, see in file) What he's asking for is to keep what he has. So there's a problem there. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Move to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SMITH: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application subject to receiving a new drawing showing two 4' X 16' floats with 2 piles. TRUSTEE SMITH: Second. ALL AYES 14. KENNETH ZAHLER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single family dwelling with garage, deck & pool. Located: 115'95 New Suffolk Ave., & Linden Ave., Cutchogue. SCTM #116-1-9 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This application is postponed because the applicant did not have a survey. I'll make a motion to table this hearing. TRUSTEE SMITH: Second. ALL AYES 15. CHARLES KLEIN requests a Wetland Permit to repair a wooden bulkhead and boat slip inkind/inplace, put a 16' extension on north side, perpendicular to the shoreline,,and dredge area to 3' below MLW. Located: 2980 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM #122-4-17 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application. CHARLES KLEIN: I want to replace the bulkhead that was there that was hooked to my neighbors on the corner. There's no water in that creek so I figure I want to box it in so I don't touch the grass on the other side. It was filled in on my land goinq in because he brought me dirt. (Indicating Artie Foster) I filled it because I filled it in because I was 2 foot below the neighbors grade. The creek is narrow and there are bigger boats down further. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our problem is ..... and I know your gonna have the same problem with the DEC ...... is digging out or filling in the inter tidal area. It's a very sensitive area and it's just not done anymore. However, this worked very well at Strong's Marina and then it worked very well on Glenn'Road in Southold. On a scale of about this size. A low profile bulkhead ...... I guess even with the neighbors ...... would be below high water but above low water. In back of that you plant spartina. The grasses which protect the property from erosion. That will grow in. Put a little walkway out to that. And then you can dig out in front of it and put your boat right in front. That way your not gonna stick out into the creek but you can preserve the wetland. MR. KLEIN: But how are we gonna ..... your talking about ..... my boat is 20' long. What am I gonna have? A gang plank over the grass? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well you'd have to have a little float in front there. MR. KLEIN? How wide? That's what I'm talking about. The channel is not that wide. My boat is 8' and then I'm 2' grassland out into the creek after the other dock. You can see the picture there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you can come up here I will draw this for you. It worked very well in other places. (Trustee Krupski; drew the plans on his drawing) This is something that we would approve and something the DEC would approve. What we would need then is a plan to show the wall here below high water but above low water, and plant spartina right there, and then you would have to show us soundings and dig out just enough to get the float in and then you need a pole for the boat. This worked well in Southold where there was a tremendous amount on the bank and they did that and planted it filled in nicely. MR. KLEIN: So the other plan is a no-go? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. I'll make a motion we table this until we get new plans. TRUSTEE SMITH: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH moved to go back to the regular meeting, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES V. RESOLUTIONS: 1. Resolution to allow for the dune enhancement project to begin on or about the second week in April, at New Suffolk Beach on 1st Street, New Suffolk based on planting plan received in our office on March 15, 1999. TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve the project, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 2. DANIEL JENNINGS requests a Grandfather Permit to repair wood dock with float (inkind/inplace). Located: 3340 Oaklawn Ave., Southold. SCTM #70-5-54.1 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 3. Paul Caminiti on behalf of JOHN & JEAN WEBER requests a Grandfather Permit for a wood deck, float and bulkhead built in 1966. Located: 590 Budd's Pond Southold. SCTM #56-5-17 TRUSTEE KING moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES VII. MOORINGS: 1. BRUCE THURSTON requests a mooring in Broadwaters Cove for a 24' outboard with a 150 lb. mushroom. ACCESS: Public TRUSTEE KING moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES 2. SCOTT LEONARD requests a mooring in Corey Creek for a 25' outboard with a 250 lb. mushroom. ACCESS: Public TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to approve, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES 3. SUSAN BRAVER requests a mooring in Little Creek for a 25' sail/outboard. ACCESS: Public. (Ail moorings approved must be taken out in October and replace in April) Meeting Adjourned at: 10:30 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY: Diane J Herbert, Clerk