Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-07/22/1998Albert 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) 765-1892 Fax (516] 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES JULY 22, 1998 PRESENT WERE: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster, Trustee Henry Smith, Trustee Ken Poliwoda, Trustee ................... DianeHerbert~,~Clerk CALLED MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, August 19, 1998 at 12 noon TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve, TRUSTEE KING 'seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, August 26, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. TRUSTEE KING moved to approve, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of June 24, 1998 regular Meeting. TRUSTEE FOSTER Moved to approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for June 1998" A check for $3,391.14 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 FISHERS ISLAND COUNTRY CLUB requests an amendment to Permit #4556 to install erosion protection at the 8th tee itself. The proposal is to remove the existing wooden timber ties located adjacent to the tee, install the "boulder barrier" which will consist of deep layer of rock chips on the fabric and then placing 2-4 ton boulders on top of the chips on a 2:1 to 1.5:1 slope using no grout. This revetment will be 116+' long and shall vary in width from 20' - Board of Trustees '~July 22, 1998 30' shall be located 10+' above the AHW line. Located: East End Road, Fishers Island. SCTM %1-1-3.13 TRUSTEE KING moved to approve the application with condition that vegetation be planted in any voids in the boulders, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES 2. First Coastal on behalf of RICHARD THATCHER requests an Amendment to Permit %4835 for the construction of the pile supported wave breakwater. Located: Private Road, off East End Road, Fishers Island. SCTM %3-3-7 TRUSTEE KING moved to approve the application with condition that there be no decking between the boathouse and breakwater and the 'cribs' underneath the walkway be added to this Amendment description, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES 3. Costello Marine on behalf of FRANK C. GILBERT, JR. requests an Amendment to Permit ~4830 to replace an 8' X 8' deteriorated timber landing and benches with an 8' octagon shaped gazebo. Located: 1095 North Parish Drive, Southold. SCTM %71-1-11 TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES 4. ALAN A. CARDINALE JR. requests an Amendment to Permit %4787 to include planting of 10,000 plugs of American Cape Beach Grass along with fill (approx. 150 - 200 c.y. of sand) required to establish the necessary elevations to assure proper rooting and erosion control. Located: 4025 Nassau Point road, Cutchogue. SCTM #111-9-6.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES 5. BERNARD FISHER requests a one year extension to Permit %4598 to construct a 2 1/2' X 327' catwalk with a 4' X 4' platform at the end inclusive of the 327' catwalk elevated 2 1/2' above marsh. Located: 520 New Suffolk Ave., Mattituck. SCTM #114-12-4 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve the request for a one year extension, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES 6. Jennifer Gould on behalf of MARY ANN DURKIN & KATHLEEN TOLE requests a Transfer of ~dock Permit #2175 from Emmogene Kamaiko to Mary Ann Durkin & Kathleen Tole, and to repair the dock inkind/inplace. Located: 750 Pipes Neck Road, Greenport. SCTM ~53-1-16 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve the request for a transfer, TRUSTEE SMITH 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. Board of Trustees ' ~ 3 JJuly 22, 1998 PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF: (FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS~ IF POSSIBLE 1. First Coastal on behalf of W. LEE HANLEY requests a Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permit to repair and reset both the existing north and south shore stone revetments. Project proposes to reset the existing boulders to their original angle of 1:1.5 to 1:2 by adding a max. of 1,500 tons of 1 to 3 ton stones along the base of the 395 foot north shore stone revetment and 1,000 tons of 1 to 3 ton stones along the base of the 260 foot south shore stone revetment. The proposed stones will be placed above AHW and the elevation will not exceed the elevation of the existing concrete and stone seawall. No additional fill is required for this project, as per new description and site plan dated and received July 9, 1998. Located: East End Road, Fishers Island. SCTM #1-2-4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak either in favor or against the application? Does the Board have any comment? TRUSTEE KING: I was out there with the DEC and they changed it suhstant/ally. .They'r.e_.not gonna do_anything on the one side. Because there's nothing wrong with it, it's perfectly stable. There's absolutely no reason for doing anything over there (indicating the south side. On this north shore piece they are not to go beyond the base of the wall, seaward. They're restricted to not go beyond 10 feet seaward, no higher than 16' of elevation along the wall except for the eastern part because the wall is lower there, they can taper that to the height to the wall. The top of the new stone work will be about 4 feet below that existing wall. It's really been down sized from what they wanted. We met with Mr. Hanley and' went over everything with him and he's happy with what we decided on. I would make it consistent with what the DEC recommendations. TRUSTEE SMITH: Motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve this application with a new revised description which is to work only on the nortk shore. TRUSTEE SMITH: Second. ALL AYES 2. Patricia Moore on behalf of PREM C. CHATPAR requests a Wetland Permit for the rebuilding of a 1 1/2' story garage/family room/library. Located: 680 Midway Road, Cedar Beach Park, Southold. SCTM #90-2-9.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? PAT MOORE: I'm here this evening with a whole group. Just to give you a little bit of background with this project, Dr. Chatpar bought the property about three years ago and from that time they had made proposals to renovate the entire house and to restore the garage. Through that process they started with the DEC. The DEC took a good long time with them and gave they a permit but enclosed certain conditions, cut back the project and Board of Trustees <~July 22, 1998 you can see see from the site plan there is a landscaped buffer and you can see closer from the notations of the surveyor up at the top the date of the survey and the amendments, it shows that the proposed landscaped buffer is gonna be rosa rugosa and bayberry. I know there was some questions about what the landscaped buffer consisted of. It's natural wetland vegetation and that's something that the DEC has required. And we're certainly gonna comply with. They got the DEC permit, obtained Health Dept. approval. The Health Dept. obviously because of setbacks to wetlands, relocated the new sanitary system to the location that is shown on survey which is between the main house and the garage. All in compliance with sanitary code. There after we went to the Zoning Board of Appeals. At the Zoning Board hearing we made our presentation and I obtained a great deal of information which I will submit to you tonight as well. Coming primarily from your files with regard to neighboring property owners with setbacks and obtained other wetland permits that were obtained in the area and after, an extensive hearing and neighbors got up and made their opinions known, we compromised and said, "fine, we heard you, we're gonna try to have you support our application". So they moved the garage further.~to the~west by3-feet ...... And that is what the application before you tonight consists of. The survey at the time, from Midway Inlet was at 66 feet and has been increased to 75 feet. And by moving the garage back over, it increased the setback to the Midway Inlet, the wetland area to 64 feet. So we are significantly far back from the wetlands. We are protecting the wetlands with a natural vegetation and this property is a developed parcel. From your inspection you can see it's all grass. It has existing house and an existing garage and a somewhat dilapidated condition. The house is certainly in need of repairs but to get anything done it takes 2 to 3 years to get through the process. So we are finally before you as the final Board and we certainly hOpe we will bet the permit from you the way we requested. I have the Zoning Board decision, the Zoning Board granted the variance as it was amended so we set the garage somewhat. The accessory building is gonna be used only for the purposes of incidental use of the dwelling. There will be under no circumstances to be used for habitation, rental or unauthorized purposes and in accordance with owner/applicants for an affidavit. We swore up and down. This is not gonna be an apartment. This is for their use and their use alone. Dr~ Chatpar has intentions of the garage is gonna be library and a nice secluded spot away from family and friends and his little haven. We tried to preserve that and the Zoning Board granted that approval. But again, we have been cut back. The accessory building will contain one and three quarter bathroom. So it's only gonna be a toilet, sink and shower. Located on the ground floor. And that's it. We originally proposed a bathroom up stairs and a bathroom downstairs. That garage, if you saw the design .... and I have the architect here and he can go into much greater detail than I can. But the garage is converted and the area for it a bay for a car. It has an area which is a lounge area/library so you can put your computer and the bathroom. It Board of Trustees 5 July 22, 1998 has a little loft area and it also has a changing room. Obviously if your right there at the beach and want to change and shower, your guests will be able to change and shower there so they don't trample through the house with sand and dirt. The design is lovely. We have the entire plans here if you want to see them we'll be happy to share them with you. The house is gonna be significantly improved. It is gonna be a beautiful two story Victorian style. Certainly the house will be the house of their dreams with a gorgeous view there of the water. And finally the final condition of the Zoning Board is that the accessory building shall not exceed 18 feet in height. That was not a problem because this is essentially a 1 1/2 story, the pitch of the roof we made that loft area. We had no problem with the condition and we agreed to abide by them. We're here with the amended application reflecting the Zoning Board's conditions and the setbacks are being compromised with them and we go from there. With regard to your standards, certain things that you have to look at. The first issue is that you look at the wetlands ordinance of 97-28 whether the garage will have an adverse affect on the wetlands. The DEC took a great deal of care to review this application and made their conditions and incorporated their conditions and there will be no affect on the wetlands. As I pointed out before the setbacks to the Inlet has been increased to 64 feet and the Inlet being the only non-bulkheaded are. The rest of the property ..... both to the east and south, Little Peconic Bay and the Midway Inlet is somewhat filled in and I think someday in the future will be some efforts to open that up so there will be good flushing in the area, but in the meantime it's all bulkheaded. The existing setbacks of the house and the garage are well within the limits of all the other applications that have come before you or under the same standards of the wetlands apply in the wetlands ordinance. In my review of your files, I went and listed all the property owners, I organized it for your purposes so you have every neighbor that is along the Bay and it shows that Moy is at 30 feet.from the bulkhead, Harrington is 35 feet. This is all that I have submitted to the Zoning Board to describe the setbacks that exist in the area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: These are for the 1st houses or the garages? MS. MOORE: The houses and garage. In some cases you have the house. I'm looking at the closest structure to the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because I don't think we're looking at the house, I think we're looking at the second house. MS. MOORE: The existing house is bulkheaded, so we went to the Zoning Board. The modifications to the house has gotten their approval from the Zoning Board. The only thing we're here on to you is the wetback to Midway Inlet. The only bulkheaded area there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The house is in our jurisdiction also. MS. MOORE: I don't think it's within 75' TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It shows it on the survey. It shows 46 feet. MS. MOORE: No, it can't be. That's bulkheaded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It says "Mean High Water" and then it says 46 feet. Board of Trustees July 22, 1998 MS. MOORE: Yes, but that's a bulkhead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's fine, that's a bulkhead. But it's within our jurisdiction. MS. MOORE: It's not within your jurisdiction. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Of course it is. We have jurisdiction 75 feet up. MS. MOORE: Not from a bulkheaded property line. Then why did the Zoning Board review this application? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because your putting a second house there I guess. I don't know. But it's still within our jurisdiction. MS. MOORE: I disagree because the Zoning Board has jurisdiction of setbacks to bulkheads. Your jurisdiction is 75' from wetlands and the wetlands is ..... the only unbulkheaded wetlands is ..... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It doesn't matter if it is bulkheaded or not. MS. MOORE: I disagree, but it doesn't matter because we're here before you so you can include that ..... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It might matter though. If you haven't included the plans to the house and renovations to that then we should review that also. MS. MOORE: I think you should talk to the Town Attorney because I disagreezwith~you ............................ TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, you should look at the code. It's pretty straight forward. 75' from tidal wetlands. MS. MOORE: The section dealing with the Zoning Board, says, 'that if the Zoning Board has jurisdiction, the Trustees do not have jurisdiction'. That's the reason we were before the Zoning Board. We have an existing structure that is there and the only modification to the house is that of a probable building. I would disagree on what your jurisdiction involves. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I've never heard of that one. That's a new one to me and I've been on the Board for a long time. MS. MOORE: If you'd like to discuss it I'd be happy to discuss it with you further. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'd discuss it with the Town Attorney. You obviously are representing your client so your gonna take their view. I'm gonna take the Town's view which is whether it's bulkheaded or not, our jurisdiction is 75'. And on your survey submitted by the applicant it shows mean high water. So our jurisdiction starts at that bulkhead and goes upland 75'. MS. MOORE: I don't know what to tell you. The Building Inspector and the Zoning Board has always interpreted your jurisdiction to be something other than ..... if you have a bulkheaded setback it's 75' in the Zoning Board jurisdiction, if it's non-bulkhead setback than the wetlands ordinance ...... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, that's incorrect. That's not the way we have ever done business. MS. MOORE: I'd be happy to show it to you in the code. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, we have it, so you can show it to us. MS. MOORE: Give me a second and I could show it to you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because it's not making any sense otherwise. MS. MOORE: It wouldn't make any sense tO have ...... at one point in time I'll concede that at one point in time in the '80's you both had jurisdiction. An applicant would have to go to both Board of Trustees 7 July 22, 1998 the Trustees and to the Zoning Board over the same jurisdictional setback and it was recognized that that was a cumbersome process that you each review for different purposes. The Zoning Board looks for a setback for 75' for a bulkhead and you look at it at 75' from wetlands. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Which Chapter are you referring to? If we have to review it, we should review everythin'g and not just part of it. MS. MOORE: The whole application has been before you. 100-239 4B is why the Zoning Board takes ....... here it is. "All buildings located on lots upon which a bulkhead, concrete wall, rip-rap, similar structure exists in which are adjacent to tidal water bodies other than Sound shall be setback not less than 75' from the bulkhead". And that's 100-239-4. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But their not, they're applying for something 46' MS. MOORE: But you have a bulkhead there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, but what you just read us, you could have fallen through the ground there. Your not standing on anything there. You have nothing to stand on. What you just said, has to be set back 75' MS. MOORE:v~ I'll find.you the.section then. Here we go. "Lands which are not bulkheaded and are subject to determination of the Board of Town Trustees under Chapter 97 in the code of Southold. All buildings located on lots adjacent to any fresh water body shall be setback not less than 75' from the edge of the water body or not less than 75' from the landward edge of the fresh water wetlands whichever is greater. The following exceptions will apply: lands which are not bulkheaded, that's why we're here regarding Midway Inlet, and are subject to the determination of the Board of Town Trustees under Chapter 97. That's why we're here before you because we are within 75' of the unbulkheaded Midway Inlet. The bulkheaded area goes under the jurisdiction of the Zoning Board of Appeals. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. TRUSTEE KING: If the house is gonna be here your talking about fresh water. If the house is only 75' from t'he bulkhead, it's within our jurisdiction. If you read that first section it says the house must be 75' beyond the bulkhead. Any work that was done on this house, any renovations should have had a permit from us. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before you mentioned the setback from all the neighbors in the area, any work done on those other house, they were required to get permits from us. MS. MOORE: Lands which are not bulkheaded are subject to the determination of the Board of Town Trustees. It's 97. It within 75' from the bulkhead. This is the whole section. This is the section that applies. At one point in time both of you had jurisdiction. I thing the change was in 1993. TRUSTEE KING: This is what gets me right here, "all buildings located upon lots which a bulkhead, wall, rip-rap or similar structure exists shall set back not less than 75'. If it's less than 75' then we have jurisdiction. It's saying you have to be 75' from the bulkhead. Board of Trustees 8 July 22, 1998 MS. MOORE: True, but that '239' is regulated by the Zoning Board of Appeals. That's why we were there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The fact that your to the ZBA, that doesn't mean you had to come before us though. MS. MOORE: I professionally disagree. That was the whole intention of changing the ordinance to separate the jurisdictions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think anyone agrees with you though. MS. MOORE: you guys have disagreed with me before. DR. CHATPAR: What has that got to do with the garage apartment? TRUSTEE KING: Nothing really. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's also part of the other proposal is to renovate the house which is 46' from the bulkhead. But like I said all those other lots adjacent, you mentioned some of those neighbors, and some of those names are familiar because they did renovations on their house and they were required to get Trustee permit for work on their house. Say they wanted to put a deck on, and they were within 30' they put the deck on, they needed a permit. MS. MOORE: If it was before that 85 date, you had jurisdiction for that. TRUSTEE._KRUPSKI: Not. on~he..Ba¥.. MS. MOORE: Take a look at the wetlands applications. They all deal with the reconstruction of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, incorrect. We only received jurisdiction in 1991. And yet for any renovation on the houses we have to act. MS. MOORE: I disagree. Otherwise we would be at the Zoning Board with you over the same issues. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would you have to go to the Zoning Board to put a deck on your house? MS. MOORE: Yes, if your within 75' of bulkhead. That's 239. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then why don't people apply to us also? MS. MOORE: Is there another wetland? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, they apply to us. Almost the whole Bay is armored with bulkhead. Whether it's concrete or timber construction and anything behind that bulkhead ........ I shouldn't say that. A lot of times the beach is out from the bulkhead in which case we regulate 75' from mean high water. I a lot of cases it's like this, where mean high water is adjacent to the bulkhead, then we regulate 75' from mean high water which is, in this case, the bulkhead line. MS. MOORE: My understanding from both the Building Dept. and my own involvement in legislation when it is going through the process, the intention was to get bulkhead at Zoning Board and if it's wetlands it's this board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, that's incorrect. We just acted on one on Nassau Point. Just tonight that is behind two bulkheads. And yet we have jurisdiction there. MS. MOORE: All I know is that 239 in the Zoning Board should not have jurisdiction. Let's assume, so we can proceed .... TRUSTEE KING: I have one question. It says new wood bulkhead. How new is that? Everything else has wood bulkhead, this is new wood bulkhead. Board of Trustees July 22, 1998 MS. MOORE: It was about two years ago. Yes, they have a permit for that. This was the second bulkhead behind the beach. Can I continue? Because the presentation on whether or not you have jurisdiction closer with the house versus the garage, the same standard I still have all of the other property owners that are within approx. 30' ...... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The issues are the same for the house and garage. It's not like we're saying, "Oh, well, the house, forget it". It's just that we have jurisdiction there. We're not saying it's impossible, we're just saying we have jurisdiction there. MS. MOORE: I think you and I can talk at a latter day or I will talk with the Town Attorney on this. I also have Mr. Weiderman which is 40' from the bulkhead and Danczinik approx. 40' from the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to cleat you up on all those distances from the bulkhead. Say it was a vacant lot there. Our rule of thumb, behind bulkheads in which we just issued one a couple of months ago in Orient, behind a bulkhead we issued a house permit, believe it or not, we made them, where there is an elevated lot, the only wetlands is mean high water. Our rule of thumb is the house has to be in line with the neighbors. You can't have on house jutting out to block the other neighbors view. That's a standard policy as far upland houses behind bulkheads. New and additions. MS. MOORE: In this particular case it will be consistent with the only house to the west. There won't be any damage to erosion tribidity or siltation. Again these are issues that the DEC reviewed. The sanitary system which was close to Little Peconic Bay has now been relocated to the center of construction. There won't be any affect on salt water intrusion. There won't be any affect on fish, shellfish or aquatic life. It deals primarily with structures in the water. Again that issue was addressed and mitigated by rosa rugosa and bayberry. That's gonna be the landscaped buffer. There is not gonna be an increase in flood and storm tide due to this proposal~ No affect on navigation and no change to channel and natural waters and no affect on lateral supports of other lands in the vicinity and certainly no adverse affect on the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the Town. I have all of the surveys that come from the other property owners with regards to the setbacks. I have an elevation of the garage. If you have questions I will answer them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The DEC authorized a new guest cottage. MS. MOORE: That's the garage. It's called a guest cottage. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The other question is do you have a plan for the landscaped buffer? MS. MOORE: Actually no. First they have to build the house and then they will worry about the landscaping. The site plan actually has the shrubs and where they will be located. This was submitted to the DEC as part of the permit. This was efficient for the DEC as far as the landscaped plans. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This seems a little vague. Board of Trustees 10 July 22, 1998 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I have one question about the cedar trees. How tall do they get? MS. MOORE: It depends on how many years they last. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I was just considering the area. You have neighbors in shore of this lot and if you put a row of cedar trees you might block their view of the Bay. MS. MOORE: There's a lot of natural cedar trees already growing on the property, some older ones. TRUSTEE SMITH: That whole area has cedar trees, 20 25' high. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was one of our biggest concerns. A lot of it that you mentioned was ZBA concerns, what the house looks like. We're happy that the septic system has been moved away from the water area. But the landscaped buffer was something we wanted a little more detail on. It shows on the survey, cedar trees. If that all that is gonna happed? The area won't be disturbed otherwise? MS. MOORE: The DEC specifically asked for those cedar trees and beyond that the rosa rugosa and bayberry I would imagine be in between. I'm not a landscaper or anything, but I think there has to be some degree of ...... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What our concern is ....... we don't want it ultra-lans~aped.~ On .a new house lot, in fact we just defined what is a buffer area, it's a totally undisturbed area, where nothing is removed, dead or alive, where no activity takes place,there is no storage of any material, sheds, boats, cars, etc. That's a buffer area. That's a pristine area. MS. MOORE: This is what the DEC required. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let's forget the DEC for the moment. Our permit is gonna be more restricted than the DEC's permit. So it's not going to ..... MS. MOORE: No because your gonna disturbe when you plant a cedar tree. That's what I saying, when you describe to me as undisturbed, (changed tape) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For a really undisturbed buffer area ..... see this says, "landscaped buffer". That means it could be very heavily landscaped and a lot of nutrients added to it that could wash into the Inlet. Any kind of chemicals could be a part of it. MS. MOORE: What if we say no fertilizer. The DEC has already posed that condition. The intention here is to use natural materials and natural .... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: After the field inspection we asked for a more of a specific landscaping plan because we never grant something called a landscaped buffer. What we grant is a non-disturbed buffer that buffers the human activity from the marine activity of the inlet, and in the case, Midway Inlet. It's an area that is not being used or touched. Whereas this is a landscaped area that could be intensively used and there is nothing to stop you from, at this point, from going in and clearing the whole area and plating cedar trees. There's nothing to stop that here. MS. PRENDERGAST: Our intention basically is to put in a few trees, several rose bushes and perhaps a few bayberry. The intention is to leave the area basically as it is now which is an undisturbed portion of the property. That you basically just Board of Trustees 11 July 22, 1998 look at. We don't have intention of building any sort of gardens or using any sort of elaborate fertilizers. If any kind of fertilizer is laid down it will be purely organic nature which will not damage the water table or surrounding wetlands in any way. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think this is something than what we usually see in a buffer area. MS. MOORE: It's a misnomer in that it is called a landscaped buffer and that's purely the surveyors description and the DEC's use of that language. It was our application of what the DEC called it and what the surveyor called it. The record will reflect what we are planning to do and ...... you can't call it an undisturbed area because now the DEC has required ....... if you want to say undisturbed in accordance with the DEC permit that's fine. That will be something that will allow us to do the work that the DEC has mandated. Otherwise it will be disturbed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The DEC has only required you to plant those cedar trees, is that correct? MS. MOORE: And the bayberry and rosa rugosa. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it doesn't even show locations for those. MS. MOORE: The intention of not to clear. It's to actually preserve and create .a.natural filtration system. You can label it anything you want as long as we ...... if the DEC says you have to plant 10 cedar trees ...... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't care how many cedar trees you have, our concern is that you get into a landscaped area adjacent to tidal waters. On new house we're going with 40 and 50' non-disturbed buffer areas and here your talking about a possible intensive use right to tidal waters. So this contrary to what we are used to. MS. MOORE: Instead of calling it an landscaped buffer, call it a buffer area. And describe in as much detail as you want. I think that the understanding is there. It's what you call it. I think everybody knows that you don't want clearing and landscaping ....... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's no reflection at all on your applicant. It's just that this has happened to us in the past where you get an application and we assume that everyone is on the same page and then it becomes a problem. MS. MOORE: Well, call it a natural buffer and we can have .... we have to redo the surveys anyway before the final submission to the Building Dept. We'll take out landscaping. So there is no laymans understanding of what a landscaped buffer and call it a 15' natural buffer. I was under the impression that you just didn't understand what the markings were. I didn't realize that you wanted much more like a landscaping plan, because we didn't have a landscaping plan. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's why we asked for it.' Since it said "landscaped buffer" we assumed landscaped plan. On most applications you get a "non-disturbed" buffer and then we make sure it is clearly defined what non-disturbed is. but this one says "landscaped buffer" which opens the door to anything. DR. CHATPAR: When we first got the place it was actually in a state of shambles. That was about 4 years ago. There was some Board of Trustees 12 July 22, 1998 blight and pine disease and we found in that natural buffer that your referring to lots of dead trees and cedar trees and deer are very prevalent there. These cedar trees do not necessarily grow 40' but stay by the shoreline at a max. of 20' or so. We can assure you that all we are trying to do is maintain that natural buffer. We don't want to mow any more lawns. Since there are only two of us we don't intend to have a ball playing field there. We don't need. it. The idea is try to clean up the area in a sense that we have some dead trees, and it helped us out. All we want to do is restore the natural habitat, plant the few cedar trees that the DEC says will maintain the natural buffer. All I can say is what we will do is stay within the norm of the area, keep the deer where they are supposed to be and hopefully not disturb any of the area. We don't have any elaborate landscaping plans. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But you see where we are coming from. Just up the road over this buffer area and we just want to take 10 minutes to repeat this. We don't want to go back to your place again, believe me. MR. PROVENTURE: I'm a neighbor of Dr. Chatpar just to the west of his property. It seems to me that with all the things we have been hearing, we have digressed from the actually problem in that is the building of a habitable structure. In my way of thinking and I'm not an architect or a lawyer, but I feel that to allow another structure that Dr. Chatpar and his architect are proposing would be contrary. It would not fit in with the community. At the present time, you have been to the property I'm sure you've observed on the southwest corner Dr. Chatpar has placed very high trees which already obstructed our view. These trees continue to grow. There was a natural barrier there of some kind of bramble bush that were removed and replaced with these cedar trees. Now they have taken away our view. He has trees there that are in deteriorating condition, I'm sure he is gonna do something about it. He has been very conscientious. However, my main objection is they are gonna .create another habitat. If your gonna have a bathroom, a water closet, a wet bar, or what have you, that's a place for people to lounge in and eventually whether they hope to make' this a caretakers cottage or what have you. I find that it is inappropriate in our community. We have a very tight community and we don't bother anybody. If they want privacy believe me they will have privacy. And that seems to be their intent. I wouldn't even be standing here if Dr. Chatpar had suggested rebuilding their garage. I wouldn't have any right to object to that. But in fact of what they are proposing I feel very vehemently opposed to it because of what the rules are in this Town. You had better say no somewhere along the line. you can't keep trying to please people. It's not gonna work. Thanks. SPEAKER: I am a professional landscape gardener and it's interesting that that whole conversation took me in, but I don't have too much to say about that. Since the last Board meeting I have had to think about what it is that is bothering me and I think being a designer I don't find building codes negotiable generally. And I generally, when I respond to a design problem Board of Trustees 13 July 22, 1998 I try to come up with a solution that works within code. That works for the clients and I don't think that perhaps they always assume they will get their variance instead of trying to make it all work within the law in the first place. I feel that after all the building codes and designs to protect us all and everybody should kind of learn to live within the laws. BETTY PROVENTURE: I feel strongly for this. I object to the study/library/wet bar attachment being added to the garage because I believe it to be a utranism for the building of a second dwelling on a singly zoned property. When I see a 1 1/2 story structure being proposed, I find it hard to believe this is for the sole purpose of studying, reading and having an occaSional drink. I just can't picture people leaving the main house, which at present has 5 bedrooms and will have a turret that has a view from 4 sides to go out of this lovely home to go to the garage to study and read. Just does not make sense to me. I truly feel ultimately that the garage/study will be used as a guest cottage with sinks, water closets, shower and cooking facilities and that is in direct violation of the code and regulations for this area. Incidentally I have no objection to the re-building of the garage at its present location. We bought in this private community_with the one dwelling status for this reason and now I believe that the code is being circumvented. I know these are harsh words but I feel it is time for a reality check. Thank you. As far as the trees are concerned when I saw the plans for the changes to be made, there were trees on the outer perimeter all along the edge of the property along the pond and along that filled in area as well as the side of the property that my husband was speaking of and does directly affect our neighbor next door and she no longer sees the water because of these trees. Now on my property I think three cedar trees which are at least 35 or 40' high. And they were there when I moved in. So they do grow. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to clear something up, when we asked for the buffer, and that's that's why we are concerned on what's called a landscaped buffer, the idea is to buffer human activity from the water. Midway Inlet is owned by the Trustees of the Town of Southold. We want as much buffer from the applicant as possible. So when you talk about the trees growing up high, that's kind of, not that we want the trees to grow up high, but we want an undisturbed area. We don't want a naturalized area, not something that is manicured. We also dealt with the issue of views-being blocked. In most cases the people up there on the property, have the right to plant trees there or any kind that they want. It's a matter of living in a community, absolutely. And a balance of with the matter of property rights. SPEAKER: Cedar trees are not indigenous truly to the area. They naturalized over time. There are indigenous plants like the bayberry is. That would give you all the buffer in the world and wouldn't get taller than 10' There are a lot of other things that don't get 35' tall. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have no problem if the applicant wants to put in bayberry and sumac or something like rosa rugosa. The reason we push the native plantings is because then there is no Board of Trustees 14 July 22, 1998 or little maintenance on them. We don't want something that is gonna be impossible and require a lot of maintenance. That's where we steer the applicant in the general direction. Any other comments? TRUSTEE SMITH: How many bathrooms are they gonna have? MS. MOORE: One. TRUSTEE SMITH: Is this up or down? MS. MOORE: Down. The Zoning Board said only one and one half, I mean half bath which is a shower. TRUSTEE SMITH: A half bath is a basin, a sink and a toilet. MS. MOORE: Well with a shower than. TRUSTEE SMITH: That's a full bath. MS. MOORE: well, they labeled as a toilet and basin. But they specified they said, shower, sink and toilet. We have affidavits from the Building Dept. and permission from the Zoning Board and permission with the condition of not having as a second dwelling. Your not allowed to have two dwellings on one property under the Zoning Code. So if they were to do it at any time you would end up with a violation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that's in the file somewhere. MS. MOORE: The DEC had given us approval early on with a much grander proposal and_then the Zoning Board cut us back. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does this have cooking facilities in it also. MS. MOORE: No. Just the wet bar for drink. No stove. We've done everything along the way and just to get an understanding about what the neighborhood consists of, Amend has a second dwelling on his property. So this neighborhood does have second dwellings on the property. This is not what they intend to do. We have been saying that all along. Nothing prohibits you from having your own little quite ..... some people have a garage with tools. He is going to have a garage with s computer. If he was a handy man or tinker, he'd have tools. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't really feel that we're up here to determine what kind of buildings or dwellings or non-dwellings should be put on that property. That's really not the Trustees job. The applicant has already been to the ZBA and they approved it for whatever it is written for and unless I'm wrong I don't think it's my position to try to change their decision. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Only if you think that it is environmentally, if you could move it you could benefit the Town. If you saw some glaring defect here and you said, "why did they put that here and why don't they put it on the other side", then you'd ..... TRUSTEE FOSTER: The only question I had was to the septic system. Before we vote on this I don't want anybody shooting me because there are certain things that I feel you have to go along with and somethings you shouldn't. I don't feel we should override the ZBA ruling on this. Other than that I don't have anything else to say. TRUSTEE SMITH: I just feel uncomfortable that they're gonna have a full bath. I could see if it's a half bath and if they want to put in an outside shower that's one thing. Board of Trustees 15 July 22, 1998 MS. MOORE: I don't think that the difference between an outdoor shower and a bathroom that has an internal shower makes much difference. TRUSTEE SMITH: It does if you say they're just gonna use it when they come off the beach. MS. MOORE: You can make your condition that we not have a habitat dwelling just as well as everyone else has. I think to bastardize their architectural plans because of unsubstantiated fears that this is gonna become a second dwelling, is really unfair to the applicant particularly when the we are at the final stages of this project. We have said all along that this is not gonna be a separate dwelling. That's really not what this Board is about. So this plan is an environmentally better plan that what is there today. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The house renovation, is that consisting of putting on that one small addition on the southeast corner? MS. MOORE: The new structure? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. MS. MOORE: Yes, otherwise it's just renovating the existing structure. ARCHITECT: That addition on the southeast corner consists solely..of a~breakfast room off, the.kitchen which is existing. And above the expansion of the master bedroom literally reducing the number of bedrooms on the second floor from 5 to 4. So we're actually seeing a reduction in the number of bedrooms in the overall house. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That doesn't concern us. If you make 10 bedrooms it honestly it wouldn't concern us. If there any provision for drywells to contain roof runoff? ARCHITECT: At the moment, no. DR. CHATPAR: They're already there. They have been for the last 30 years. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Once again, that's one of our standards. The CAC recommends approval. Is there any other comment? Do I have amotion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve, but I'd like to see that buffer 25' wide and specified that it should be non-landscaped, non-turf and more of a natural vegetated buffer .... MS. MOORE: What about the DEC's recommendation? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, we're not gonna reference the DEC. We could grant you permission to plant the cedar trees in there is you want but we don't want to reference the DEC buffer because it doesn't really make sense. We've never seen anything like that. MS. MOORE: Just as long as you allow the cedar trees to be there and don't you want the bayberry or additional plantings. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're just gonna say 'native plantings' including bayberry, rosa rugosa, etc. If you want to put in ...... again it's a community and you have to work with your neighbors as far as tree species and height and all that .... we're gonna urge you to do that. Board of Trustees 16 July 22, 1998 TRUSTEE KING: I would also condition it so that it is not to be used as a habitation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So the 25' buffer will be for mean high water. It will be a non-turf buffer. It can include the DEC cedar trees. MS. MOORE: By non-turf you just want natural vegetation. Non-turf being grass. TRUSTEE KING: Right. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And we'll specify again gutters and drywells with construction. He said they were existing on the existing house so just specify on the new construction. MR. PROVENTURE: I know you would like to bring this to a conclusion, but you've been over the premises. Have you noticed that there is a chain across the road. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. MR. PROVENTURE: Barring access to that property? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. MR. PROVENTURE: I haven't objected personally, but it is my belief that they are barring access to a community road. If you look at the map you can see the road extends somewhat beyond where they have that chain. What's happening sir, is people are coming onto my property~after the chain stops them and ruining my grass. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For what purpose? Access to the water? MR. PROVENTURE: No, you have a lot of people just for curiosity I guess just coming down there and they see the chain, they go onto my land. So I have had to put 6 X 6's at the end of the road to bring this to a halt. MS. MOORE: That really has nothing to do with this Board and it might be a different issue. MR. PROVENTURE: What do you mean it doesn't have anything to do with this? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you show us on the survey where the chain is? MS. MOORE: Right here. (indicating on survey) It's preventing trespassing. In fact it locks people from crossing over ..... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But who owns the road? MS. MOORE: It's a private road. This area has been blocked off for some time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But who owns the road? MS. MOORE: Private property owners. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Everyone owns the road. MS. MOORE: I don't know, I've never done a title search. MR. PROVENTURE: Who owns the road, we do. We own half and the neighbor across the way owns the other half. MS. MOORE: That's Chatpar and that's Chatpar. MR. PROVENTURE: I'm going from north to south, Counselor. MS. MOORE: No, if it's up to the halfway point of the road then Chatpar owns half and Chatpar who owns this owns half. MR. PROVENTURE: Your missing the point. Because he has the chain beyond his property actually. Because the road continues into his property. This is our road, this is community road. MS. MOORE: We are not dealing with the road issues right now but it's blocking access. In fact it makes sense because rather Board of Trustees 17 July 22, 1998 than having people tress through the property since they do own both sides and having them go over the wetlands as a way of getting access to Midway Inlet. MR. PROVENTURE: What your saying is fine, but it still concerns me. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does the Board feel that Midway Road ends at Midway Inlet? MS. MOORE: Actually it doesn't. The only point that it connects is right here. But this is private property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it does connect. MS. MOORE: I don't think you can walk over that point. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But who owns the road and who has use of it? I don't think we're gonna settle that tonight. DR. CHATPAR: We had some kids on the mountain bikes making 'wheelies' on my property and as it well shows on the map that 3 sides of properties of that little road section is owned by us so it seems prudent that rather than make ..... tear down those trees and see what those kids were doing this is just to read the sign there and chain there saying this is private property. I can see Mr. Proventure being concerned about people making U-turns on his property by the similar notion I'm concerned about kids-makingU~turns on.my property too. So I think it's reasonable to say that the access is ...... yes for the benefit for everybody as long as there is no damage being done. It was not my intention to have somebody over his lawn. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think it's just a matter of who has access to the road. DR. CHATPAR: Realize the fact that all three sides are owned by us. The road doesn't lead to anything but into property owned by us. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Again, it goes back to private property rights. Who has title to the road and who doesn't. MRS. PROVENTURE: i just wanted to make a comment that last week we got a water main placed on our street because we are gonna get Suffolk County Water. They did not go up to the chain. They went beyond it because they said that was the end of the road. They brought the pipes further down and then they put the cement and cap down. So as far as Suffolk County Water is concerned that's still public property at the end of that road. And the chain is before that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what it looks like. Like it's part of the road. That's private property issue. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. ALL AYES 3. Garrett A. Strang on behalf of JOSEPH BAJADA & LORRAINE WOLFF request a Wetland Permit to elevate existing dwelling and excavate below for new basement and foundation, a new one story addition on northeast and northwest side of existing dwelling and for the existing 100' retaining wall and 100' existing bulkhead. Located: 7972 Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel. SCTM #126-11-16 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak either for or against the application? Board of Trustees 18 July 22, 1998 GARRETT STRANGE: I'd like to submit so they have for their records a copy of a letter of non-jurisdiction given to us from the DEC. Briefly I think the application is pretty straight forward. The existing dwelling there, the applicant wants to put a foundation underneath it to make alterations to the house, etc. TRUSTEE KING: I looked at it and it's an older home and there is an existing bulkhead and another existing retaining wall above that maybe 15 or 18' sand buffer between the two. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Move to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to approve the application with condition that haybales be placed during construction. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 4. Henry Raynor on behalf of RALPH & ALBA RAGUCCI request a Wetland Permit to construct a 6' X 20' floating dock, a 4' X 12' ramp and a 4' X 50' walkway. Located: 4326 Westphalia Road, Mattituck. SCTM 9113-9-10.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? HENRY RAYNOR: I believe all the elements of the application before the Board is similar in nature to many that have been granted in the Mattituck area. Everything has been posted and the application is in order. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I reviewed this application but I have a question for you. The 150' walkway that exists, I don't think there's a permit for it the way it's built. I don't think it will be needed once you get your 50' dock. HENRY: I wouldn't think so. If you want to make that a stipulation you can. TRUSTEE SMITH: Move to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the application with stipulation that the 150' catwalk be removed. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH moved to go back to regular meeting, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES V. MOORINGS: 1. GEORGE ANASTASIADIS requests a mooring in Mattituck Creek for a 20' inboard/outboard with a 150 lb. mushroom. ACCESS: Public ROW TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve with condition that boat be removed by first of November and can be put back in water by April first, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES 2. JAMES BITSES requests a mooring in Corey Creek for a 27' sailboat with a 100 lb. mushroom. ACCESS: Private TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to approve with condit'ion that boat be removed by November 1st and may be put back in water by April 1st, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES Board of Trustees 19 July 22, 1998 3. LILIANA NEALON requests a mooring in Arshamomoque Creek (Long Creek) for a 14' sailboat with a 100 lb. mushroom. ACCESS: Public TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to approve with condition that boat be removed by November 1st and may be put back in water by April 1st, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES 4. FRANK POLISTENA requests a mooring in Mattituck Creek for a 21' outboard with a 100 lb. mushroom. ACCESS.: Public TRUSTEE KING moved to approve with condition that boat be removed by November 1st and may be put back in water by April 1st, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES 5. JOEL KEARNS requests a mooring in Town Creek for a 17' outboard with a 100 lb. mushroom. ACCESS: Either Town Park or Terry Lane. TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve with condition that boat be removed from water by November 1st and may be put back in water by April 1st, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES Meeting Adjourned At: 8:45 p.m. Respectfu~ Submitted By: Clerk, Board of Trustees RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE sOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK DATE 9~ ~{OUR~'~ Town Clerk, Town o~