Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-03/25/1998Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Henry Smith Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O~ Box 1179 South01d, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-18~2 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES MARCH 25, 1998 CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PRESENT WERE: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President James King, Vice-President Henry P. Smith, Trustee Artie Foster, Trustee Ken Poliwoda, Trustee Diane J. Herbert, Clerk NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 at 12 noon TRUSTEE KING approved, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, April 22, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. WORKSESSION: 6:00 p.m. TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES APPROVE ~INUTES: Approve Minutes of February 25, 1998 regular Meeting. TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to approve, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES ~.I~!~.~QN~HIA~,~!REPORT. The TruStees monthly report for March 1998: A check for $3,627.86 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General fund. Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin BOard for review. tII.~...i~EI~DMENTS~W~VERS~H~NGES: to install splash boards 2 inches apart. Located: off Maple Lane, Orient Harbor. SCTM #38-1-1 to 22 TRUSTEE KING moved to approve the spacing of splash boards 2 inches apart with original spacing of 1 1/2' off bottom, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES Board of TrusteesTM 2 ~March 25, 1998 2. CATHERINEHART~requests an~Amendment.toPermit ~818~to place a 4' X 20' catwalk instead of a 4' X 25', a 3' X 20' ramp instead of a 3' X 15' and add a 4' X 6' section to attach to the 6' X 20' float. Located: 70 Jackson Landing, Mattituck. SCTM #113-4-3 TRUSTEE KING moved to approve, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES 3. Bruce Anderson on behalf of BARBARA-DE~FINA~equests an Permit~4~79~ to relocate the proposed second story center of house, remove existing chimney and build a set of 6' X 10' steps towards the east elevation of house. Located: 192. Willow Terrace, orient. SCTM #26-2-7.1 TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 4. DORIS E. SPAHR~requests a .~aiver to enlarge an existing deck.~ The new deck addition will measure 27' x 15' with a 4' return around the side of house. Located: 125 North Lane, East Marion. SCTM #31-7-12 TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to approve, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES ............ 5. V~NCENTMANAGO'requests a ~aiver to erect a split rail fence around the perimeter of his property. Located: 8225 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM %118-4-10 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. AYES ALL 6. Diane Herold on behalf of HUGHi J. MURPHY requests a One 7T to raise hOuse & replace )n, , move & upgrade septic system. Located: 3105 Oaklawn Ave., Southold. SCTM %70-6-8 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 7. requests a T~ai~er~ tO Permit~ %766?&~337 · from to John F. Russell for a 3' X 40' dock, a 3' X 10' ramp and a 4' X 12' float with 2 piles. Located: 3145 Oaklawn Ave., Southold. SCTM %70-6-7 8. ~ D~NA~D i ~F~' ~equests a ~onelyear ~extensi~:if6~i~i~mi~!~ -i~ ~8~!~for a dock, ramp, and float. Located: 900 Corey Creek Lane, Southold. SCTM %78-4-13 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 9. Craig A~,,, on behalf of~~;;i~i~i!i!i~GANl requests a?!~i~;~S~' Wetland Permit to extend existing bulkhead return 10' and fill with 3-4 c.y. of fill, from Anthony Tamburrino to Martin P. Regan. Located: 85 Waters Edge Way, Southold. SCTM ~88-5-56 TRUSTEE KING moved to approve, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES 10. ~ZAM~APP~S"~requests a!~i~W~i~er~for the installation of a split rail fence. Located: South west corner of Beverly Road and Old Cove Blvd., Southold. SCTM %52-2-14 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES Board of Trustees~-~ 3 ~March 25, 1998 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to go off the Regular Meeting and go onto the Public Hearings, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE SUFFOLK TIMES. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF: FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS, IF POSSIBLE 1. ~WILDI~ & MITJ.ICENT ~TUFANO requests a wetIand Permit. to construct a house as per plans dated January 29, 1998. Located: 2582 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. SCTM #122-9-7.6 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? Anyone here who would like to speak against the application? We have a request to read a letter into the record. (Al read letter, see file) CAC ........ recommends .... it was tabled, the property was not staked and the septic system was not included on the map. I took a look at this. There's a cottage on the beach and they want to take this cottage down and build a large house basically right behind it. The lot actually extends all the way back here to some sort of paper right of way. The proposed garage that is mentioned in the neighbors letter is actually well beyond our jurisdiction. The new house will be substantially larger than what is currently existing. I would like to see the non-turf buffer maintained. They should show the septic system on the survey. Is there any comment at all? TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application With Condition that they have a non-turf buffer between the house and the bulkhead and that the septic system be put on the survey. TRUSTEE SMITH: Second. ALL AYES 2. En-Consultants Inc., on behalf of ~RiDON'!~ LETTA a to remove an existing 4' X ramp, a 4' X 16' dock, a 12' ramp and a 6' X 10' float. Replace existing dock structures with a 4' X 48' fixed pier rather than 42', a 3' X 14' ramp and a 6' X 20' float with 2- 2 pile dolphins to secure float, and add a 12' X 12' extension to existing deck on house, add a 7' section of new bulkhead with 2- 6' returns and remove and replace a section of bulkhead, add a 24' section of new bulkhead replacing old concrete block, approx. 15 c.y. of clean fill used as backfill up to 6' behind the bulkhead and approx. 6' X 101' of area will be left as a non-turf buffer zone for filtration purposes, as per revised drawings and plans dated and received March 16, 1998. Located; 2600 Takaposa Road, Southold. SCTM #87-6-4 Board of Trustees .... 4 'JMarch 25, 1998 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? ROB HERRMANN: I'm here on behalf of the applicants. This is ~f COurSe a continuation of last month. Trustee Poliwoda, I guess, met out with Mr. Kouzios on the site and came to some agreements regarding what could or should be done with the property and I have prepared plans to reflect those. Specifically the entire length of the dock has been brought in by almost 15' and it turned out if we could get about a 15 or 20' extension from what was there that we would get 18 or 24" of water that they need. The difference is if the float is now turned parallel to the shore line rather than extend perpendicular outward. Disregarding the bulkhead, it was discussed also to replace the bulkhead. They probably won't do it this year but at least they will put it as part of this permit. The bulkhead is starting to bow outward. They would -extend the bulkhead to either property line and as read in the description about a 6 ' X 101' area behind the replaced bulkhead is a non-turf buffer in accordance with what the Board typically requests. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor or against the application? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: In the application they are replacing the existing dock structure to a 4' X 48', rather than 42'. The replacement, as far as I could tell on the inspection your gonna keep the original dock as per the inspection. We didn't discuss anything about replacing a new dock. You were gonna add 3 pilings. ROB: Where it says rather than 42', that is what was originally proposed, that it be a 4' X 42' fixed pier. Rather than that we are proposing 4' X 48' fixed pier, but pull the float in parallel to the shoreline. What's to be done with the dock is just to replace the old dock with new material. In other words right now from the bulkhead to the fixed dock portion there's kind of a ramp that they want to replace just add with the fixed catwalk. In other words rather than having it be around just have it be part of the fixed catwalk and if they have to rip that out he's just gonna replace the existing wood with new wood. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: He's gonna keep the original structure as is right now. Correct? Except for the outer part. ROB: In terms of extending the outer portion of it. Now as far as the inner part, that's what has always been proposed to removed and replaced. In other words its right now, a kind of a ramp to a fixed catwalk'that goes out to a float. What we're proposing is to make that entire structure a fixed dock. It's not remaining it's being removed and replaced inkind inplace with the exception of extending the fixed walk. I don't understand your objection to replacing the old wood with new material. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's not gonna go beyond the point you put in the water, because that was my reference. I think it was 33'. ROB: We show on the plan, and you can see there's about 26' of entire structure that would go out 26' further. The plans show Board of TrusteesTM 5 ~March 25, 1998 the existing dock structure. The existing structure is a ramp to a fixed walk to a ramp to a float. He's replacing the ramp to the fixed catwalk with a new fixed catwalk and then installing a ramp and a float. All which will go out to the distance that we discussed on site, which is about 15; closer into shore than we had originally proposed. The existing catwalk extends about 26 to 27' off the bulkhead including the landward ramp. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That sounds correct. 15' from original proposal. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One of the things is as you know we routinely for single family usage we would approve a 6' X 20' float not 6' X 30'. ROB: Is it possible to have a 24' float? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The problem is then, someone says, "well, we have a 28' float and then a 36'." The 6' X 20' has been the standard size. ROB: See I had been told that there had been a couple of floats ..... see again, it goes back to the last hearing. It's a 27' boat and the draft is about 18". TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The size of the board ..... he's basically gonna be docking on our property. So it doesn't matter the size of the boat. He could get an 85' boat and put it in but we only really allow a 6' X 20'. float. Because then there's not limits. ROB: So that's the maximum length for residential is 6' X 20'? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, 6' X 20' is standard size. And something I just notices now, the bulkhead doesn't extend to the property lines. I don't think we would approve any new bulkheading. What was put in there, was put in there without a permit. The cement blocks that were there. I don't see any reason to approve new bulkheading where one single row of cement block would be. ROB: Well, he's got tremendous out planking on either side of that bulkhead. And again, this is ...... the applicant purchased this property as is, this year. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When he extends the bulkhead to the property lines all he'll do is erode the neighbors. ROB: In that 'area of the creek there is not active erosion being caused by the bulkhead. It's just that flooding that there. On either side it's all marsh. So the water is going up and is just eroding that land over time. His property, like any other, it's a bulkhead with a blank turf behind it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we don't want to move that erosion to the neighbors. That hasn't been our policy. ROB: There's no erosion of transfer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yeah, its' dug out on the corners of each side. You can see it from the pictures here. ROB: That's because it's not marsh, it's a residential lot with turf on it. The marsh on either side of this lot is no~ gonna eroding because of this bulkhead. And the area of this property is not eroding because of the bulkhead that's on it. It's eroding because it's upland turf. If that were all marsh it would be behaving naturally the same as the other two lots. Board of Trustees- ~ 6 JMarch 25, 1998 It's not like there some wave energy from Corey Creek that's scouring, it's just the natural lapping of the tides that's undermining this guy's backyard. Which will continue to happen. There's massive flooding on his property that the Board has seen there several times. There's no erosion transfer at this site. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't see how we could approve the new bulkhead application to add on to this ..... (changed tape) ROB: I don't quite get your point, Al. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's unnecessary. If there's no erosion like you said, then it's unnecessary. ROB: I don't want to play games with you, Al. I'm not saying there's no gradual recession of this guy's property from the lapping of the tide. I'm saying there's no active wave erosion that would be translated like if your talking on an ocean beach or the sound somewhere. When your talking about an area that is gradually flooding. His back yards is literally flooding because the prior owner put in all of these structures without permits, and I think we more than cooperated with you and Ken and the Board to clean up this site, and the Kouzios have been very cooperative in getting everything that the Board has asked. And what they are asking now is just to abate the flooding problem on the property. It's an application that is similar to any one that comes before the Board every month. Except that the prior owner put this in without a permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we don't allow ...... but if there is no bulkhead there to start with ...... ROB: There is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because there's prior use we usually allow the owner to rebuild it, inkind/inplace. But when the neighbor wants to put a bulkhead in, we wouldn't allow them to put one in. So why would we allow Mr. Kouzios to put in a new bulkhead. I'm being honest with you, I don't think we would do that. And re-vegetating, again, we realize Mr. Kouzios' bought this the way it is. We're not blaming the applicant for the de-vegetation in front which is his protection. The neighbors aren't eroded away because they have the marsh vegetation in front. Part of this permit is going to include re-vegetation of his property in front of the bulkhead, which would more than enough to stabilize his property. ROB: I'll pass that along. You know the flooding that occurs on this lot around that bulkhead, so what the Board's decision would essentially do is say that that lot will continue to be completely flooded on a regular basis every year. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When the tide comes up that ten foot extension will not stop it. ROB: It's not gonna stop the flooding on the property? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How can it? ROB: There's a 24' gap right now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's gonna flood up on the neighbors side and come right over. ROB: But the neighbors side is-all marsh. Your talking as if two properties that are in completely different states are the same. They're not. This is a developed property. Board of Trustees ~March 25, 1998 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't see where that bulkhead extension is gonna stop any flooding. ROB: I don't know what else to say. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: On inspection we discussed a non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know if the other Board members heard what I said, and if you agree with me. What he's got there I'm ready to approve that but I don't want to see it extended any further. It doesn't seem necessary. Then the neighbors~will say, "well you just gave him a new bulkhead, now I want a new bulkhead." That's how it starts. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You have to replace what's there, and not go any further. What's gonna happen to all those cement blocks are where it's all eroding away. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He's gonna have to re-plant that. My concern is, and Rob and I have been going back and forth with this. My concern is that some of this erosion in this corner and this corner is due to the bulkhead. If you put it here, you transfer that energy to the neighbors and you make their property 15ook like this. Which is what you usually see on a bulkhead. It doesn't seem right to do that to the neighbor. I don't mind him replacing what he's got, but that would be it. Re-plant the beach with vegetation like the neighbors .... ROB: Just as long as it's on the record that the Board recognizes the fact that the two properties are in completely different states. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Correct. No question about, it. ROB: So, number 1 there is no energy to be transferred, and number 2 the flooding on this property that causes the erosion of soil and turf is not gonna have the same effect on a property that is a full inter-tidal and high marsh. Which will always remain that way. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I can't agree on that. I do hope, looking at the pictures here in the file, you can't look at it and say that wall didn't cause that gouge on either side. And at one point it was inter-tidal marsh, the same as what the neighbors had. ROB: I'm not sure how you think that that bulkhead is causing the gradual recession of that lawn. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We see that in every bulkhead application. That's why people come in to have the returns .... ROB: Well sure, you see it on high wave energy environments, where it occurs by active erosion. You don't get that on a tidal creek. Your talking about wave refraction and reflection where there are no waves. Your talking about a sound principle that occurs all over the place, but your talking it out of contexts. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yet, it's right here in color. The pictures you provided us with. I can't see any justification for approving a new bulkhead. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application of the Kouzios' for a 4' X 48' fixed pier, a 3' X 14' ramp and a 6' X 20' float with 2- 2 pile dolphins, a 12' X 12' extension to the existing deck onto the house, approval to remove and Board of Trustees~ ~ '~March 25, 1998 replace the existing bulkhead inkind/inplace leaving a 6' non-turf buffer behind it, and the beach in front that has been previously be de-vegetated should be vegetated with spartina alternaflora on 18" centers. TRUSTEE SMITH: Second. ALL. AYES 3. En-Sonsultants Inc., on behalf of RICK AND BO~TE i? SuTER~requests a Wetland Permit~to construct a fixed timber dock consisting of a 4' X 30' fixed catwalk, a 3' X 14' ramp and a 6' X 16' float and resheath an existing 102' retaining wall. Located: 3575 Wells Ave., Southold. SCTM %70-4-5 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? CAC recommends approval and they want a non-turf buffer maintained. ROB: The buffer would go landward of the wall? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There is already a non-turf buffer there and we would just like to see that maintained. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 4. En- Inc., on behalf of LiNDA DAMBASSIS.~requests t~to construct a new 55' timber bulkhead return within applicants property lines. Located: ROW off Oregon Road, Cutchogue. SCTM ~83-2-7.2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? ROB: The Board will recall we discussed this a couple of months ago and we were having a problem getting permission or cooperation frOm the neighbor to the east to extend the return. As that does not appear to be forthcoming at any point. So we have revised the proposal as one of the alternatives proposed by the Board a couple of months ago which was to construct a return within.the applicants property lines and that's what has been proposed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is showing there is existing already? If there a bulkhead and a return? ROB: The entire bulkkead and easterly return was constructed onto the property to the east and I submitted a copy of a letter to the Board originally with permission of then owner Pete Calamaris. When we had applied to extend that return landward, we ran into a problem with the current owner refusing to allow the work on that because it was in fact on their property. What is proposed on the plan is where the lines are attached. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So what's there, is that gonna remain there? ROB: It will have to remain, but for all intensive purposes be abandoned by Ms. Dambassis. But that's the choice the adjacent owner has left us with. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What started out as a pretty straight forward application, but as you know it is complicated by the straight property line. Has the neighbor seen this plan? ROB: No. Board of Trustees<~J 9 ~JMarch 25, 1998 TOM SAMUELS: We built the original bulkhead with Mr. Calamaris' permission. The property has since been sold and the property has been offered to Ms. Dambassis to purchase. In any event, it is directly exposed northeast as you see and over the years since it was originally built, which is now 8 or 9 years, the bluff is eroded and the return has to be extended. The attorney's got involved etc. etc., and is going no where. So the idea was if you want to stay within Ms. Dambassis' property line and she can't afford to have the balance of her bulkhead, and if you've been there, you can see entire rods are washed out and eroded behind the bulkhead. It's a considerable investment just in the delay in the this delima of intransigence on behalf of the neighbor. I really don't understand because the return would actually would protect her property as well as Ms. Dambassis. But be that as it may, it seems one of those insoluble problems with Solomon who would be welcome to join in, but he isn't around. So we came up with this alternative which would serve Ms. Dambassis well. That part of the structure that remains on the adjacent property, will remain there. Ms. Dambassis has no right to take it down apparently to remove it. I imagine if she removed it she would probably be served with trespassing. I won't remove it of course without permission. Another question is lawyers battle with this of the right of domain that has been there over 7 years with the agreement of the previous owner. So probably it could be won in court and so on and so forth, but there's no point in going in there. So we're gonna do this which is called 'cutting off your nose to spite your face.' TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you planning on armoring this at all? MR. SAMUELS: If we do that than we have to move it back further on the Dambassis property in order to make room for the armor because I wouldn't dare put a stone on the neighbors property I don't want Ty Cochran to come down and put me in handcuffs. ROB: Also the return is going essentially into the bluff and going back, so it's ..... MR. SAMUELS: We're gonna try to preclude for some time. We're planning in advance. We don't want to go to this exercise in futility more than once in a ten year period. So we're gonna actually invade the bluff and then re-build the bluff, plant, etc., etc. Ms. Dambassis has been an excellent keeper of her property as far as bluff vegetation and protecting her property. I've known them for a long time and every suggestion that we've ever made they have followed and have been very successful. Until this return got flanked and this impasse occurred. It is relatively a small project and doesn't deserve the scrutiny given by the lawyers, but that's the way it is these days. I wouldn't object to armoring it. You know my thought s about armoring returns, but she's already invading her property. She'd be cutting it back even further. It would change the angle which I don't like. It may not be necessary now and it's certainly an option be viewed in the future. The problem here is if it was a new application the new bulkhead we'd build a return we won't be armoring within the neighbors property. We don't have that situation here. Board of Trustees .... 10 March 25, 1998 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Rob, could you just amend this to include the planting? ROB: Yes. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion we close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion we approve the application that we approve the new plans as submitted dated and received 3/25. TRUSTEE SMITH: Second. ALL AYES 5. En-consultants Inc., on behalf of NEISMCGOSDRtCK~ requests ai~eti~nd permit to hydraulically dredge an irregular area 55+/-' (max. width) through the inlet of Hall's Creek to a max. depth of 5' at MLW, at a 1.3 slope. Approx. 2,000 c.y. of 100% sand spoil to be pumped 1) up drift of existing 80' groin on subject property, and 2) down drift of groin at end of Dean Drive to east. Extend existing 70' groin on west side of inlet by 80' to minimize future shoaling of creek mouth and inlet. Located: Private Road off New Suffolk Ave., Mattituck. SCTM 9116-4-16.4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak ....... in favor of the application? ROB: I don't have anything new to add to the record from the last meeting. The Board had asked for some information and asked for soundings, which I submitted this afternoon. That's just a rough aerial sketch of the approx, locations and then for the groin fields I have attached 3 more aerial photos the Board can hold onto which shows the entire groin field and that's fresh. Other than the same issues that were discussed on record of the last meetings I have nothing new to add to that. Tom Samuels may have something on the situation of the water samples on the east end. We got together with GNS to set up the stations. I'll let Tom take over at this point. TOM SAMUELS: I went and met the mayor of Dean Drive on Sunday, a Mr. Taylor, who some of you may know. We went over the possibility of filling the groin field in front of Dean Drive. I took photos of the groins. I also came up with, actually inadvertently, in the coastal geodesic survey. The last time the Federal Government was in Peconic mapping and doing soundings, was in 1979 and low and behold, what do I see but a channel dredged into Hall's Creek crossing the Deep Hole Creek. Undoubtedly at that time it was done by the County. Because the County had those two big dredges. You can see where they actually cross (indicating on map to Trustees). They dredge well out into the Bay in those days, 12' deep X 100' wide. They no longer dredge any deeper than 6' because of DEC's jurisdiction stops at 6' It's outside their jurisdiction. So if they were to give you a permit to dip to 12' today you wouldn't get a DEC permit. The problem is you've got to get through the first 6' to'get to the 12' So you have another incident where you need Solomon or Pandora's Box or something else to get beyond the regulatory mechanism. The only other comment I'd like make is, is when you look at this whole situation, if your gonna build groins you can't build isolated Board of Trustees~ 11 - - March 25, 1998 groins. You have to build groin fields. Because if you dQn't build a groin field then you have effects on neighboring property. Theoretically groin fields are the way to go. I might point out that some of the more successful ones on the beach at Paradise Point is probably the best one that I can think of. Their all iow profile groins. The intention of this one is it's gonna be a iow profile groin. So that we'll have wave wash over it and the intent is not to build the beach on Mc Goldrick's side but merely to maintain the channel for some length of time. You can't give any guarantees as to what length of time that channel will stay open. But, again, we looked at it with the idea that the groin protects two and half times its length. That's the Corps of Engineers doctrine. In other words 100' groin protects 250' of property. That's the way they decide how long the groin should be on the Atlantic Ocean or where ever they build. A groin 80' in length will protect back to the middle groin on the Mc Goldrick property which is presently buried. It was buried in the last dredging and the reason for that is at that time, and you know, Al, you've been around a long time now, this application originally was before the Board when Jay Bredemeyer was here, and so on and .so forth. In any event, the 80' will have a shadow, get back to the middle groin on Mc Goldrick property, hopefully we won't have to do this again and again and again. The middle groin on the Mc Gotdrick's property was not repaired because the DEC insisted that the dredge spoil go to the up pit side. Which is the wrong side. That's not unique. Wickham is another one where they put it on the wrong side for 40 years. In any event, I think we're finally getting to the position where everybody is so sick of it the rationality of what we're tying to do seems to be pretty consistent with the Coastal Management Plan that was proposed by the Town and the State, and so on and so forth. I think its a good project. I spoke to my grandchildren about it because they went last summer to the Cedar Point program at Cedar Point about the value of wetlands. It's amazing how much they have learned up there. And here we have a Town Creek, although there is some question of part of ownership, and I really don't want to get into that, because it doesn't make any difference to God, of a creek which is putrefying, as high bacterial and fecal and coli counts, the soundings have started again. We can't around in there because we can't get a boat in there. But we're not taking soundings with bottles off the bridge and around the edges, which is not the best place to take them because the water is too shallow. We're using wadders and stuff to get out a little bit. But you will readings before dredging is done and readings after it's done. If we can get this creek flushed twice a day, the baymen should be really happy and should be oPened up again. I'm sure the DEC will open it up again. And I have hopes in the future that the County and the State will do water quality testing in the creek. They can't do it now because they can't get a boat in there to do it. I spoke to Jay Bredemeyer some time ago and he thinks that they can be included in the program because they are doing water quality testing all the time for the State. They claim they Board of Trustees-~- 12 ~ March 25, 1998 don't have enough money to do it themselves. In any event I think it's a very good project and I think it's environmentally sound and it's in the best interest of the Town and the environment. The immediate property owners on either side of it (changed tape) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you tell us which is the down drift there. There doesn't seem to be any down drift. TOM: Well look at the other jetties, look at the pictures I gave you tonight. What side is it building on? That's shoal. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But why is that there? TOM: Because the channel's been closed. There's no interchange. As Ken pointed out at the last meeting, that the outer channel remain viable. Where we started. I would have liked to start it further out into the Bay into that. When I went down and did the soundings at your request, the outer channel is still viable. That's all we're trying to recreate. It's not a major dredging project. But it's definitely down drift west to east. I could have asked Mr. Taylor to come tonight, because he complained to me that various people from the DEC would come around and claim the literal drift was in the other direction. But if you look at the groins, it's as obvious as the nose on your face. I think. I'm not disparaging anybody that disagrees, but that's the case. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think, from what you submitted, it looks like the shadow would be on Mr. Mc Goldrick's property. It wou~ld create via a new groin. TOM: It will build out to the end of that groin in a scallop fashion back to the center groin. Some of it will bypass in t~ime. This is not a one time thing. It's gonna have to done again, just like all the creeks. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Extended again, or dredged again? TOM: Mo, dredged. TRUSTE~E KRUPSKI: I think our big concern here is it's effect on neighboring properties, not only on Mr. Mc Goldrick's but to the east and west. Would it be unreasonable to grant a permit with a condition that if it causes severe erosion on the neighbors property then it has to be removed. TOM: You can always do that. That seems to be the way things are going in Southampton, where the same ........ the big problem is with stipulations on removal, you can make all the stipulations you want, and then when the time comes it is so difficult to prove and then the homeowners get litiginous and there you go again. The problem is as I see it is that this Board or any other Board has to face making a decision. The decision here is not ...... the beach front properties. The decision here is that tidal wetlands for Halls's Creek worth saving. That's the decision. I say it is. I say take a chance that it is gonna have to be dredged again. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that's why ...... and I don't if we're convinced that that's much more of a cure than What's there already. It's not just gonna fill it again in a month and then your gonna be back again. TOM: It won't fill in a month. And it won't fill in in a year. And it won't fill in in two years. But I have to have Board of Trustees -' 13 March 25, 1998 something to work with. Last time, I didn't have anything to work with. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That would be my concern is that it's damaging to neighbors properties. TOM: Which neighboring property? Down drift, or up drift? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any neighboring property. TOM: Well if it's down drift it's gonna help them. Because we're in a pre-filled groins that exist. For the first twenty years that I have been in this business, when you apply for a jetty like in Paradise Point, that groin field, that low profile groin field, which has actually saved their beach with no down drift affects at Cedar Point, the Corps of Engineers always require that the jetty be pre-filled. By that I mean you build a jetty you fill it ...... your not stealing sand from somebody else. The Dept. of State comes along and says, 'Oh no, your killing bentic organisms because your putting sand in the for-shore. So they stopped that. Despite the fact that the Corps of Engineers have studied and studied in Vicksburg, recovering of bentic organisms in this situation. Ken probably knows what the answers are. A year and a half total recovery. Nature abhors a vacuum. If your gonna put a beach underwater, your gonna have bentic organisms growing on them. We're not covering eel grass. So give it a shot and save one of Southold's wetlands. I personally think the wetlands along New Suffolk Ave are the prettiest in the Town with the exception of possibly some in Orient which you can't see because the phragmites is as high as an elephants eye. ROB: What we're trying to accomplish here is just to minimize or mitigate t~e amount and the pace at which the sand is gonna come down as it travels from west to east into that creek. Obviously we have to dredge it to clear it out. What we're trying to do with the groin is to minimize the frequency of times that that has to be dredged. We're not suggesting that that very healthy system is.suddenly gonna loose sand and the creek will never have to be dredged again. But what the groin will do, it will trap more of that sand. That's the very reason why this Board and most of the other agencies always denied groins because they say it will keep sand from getting down drift. In this case that's exactly what we want to do. In every case that's exactly what the applicant wants to do. In most cases there is not enough sand down drift so it ends up scouring those beaches down drift. So the only time you can really establish that you can extend a new groin or build a new groin without damaging the down drift beach is to establish that there is enough sand in the system that it will avoid that. I think that you now have close to two dozen aerial photographs that I just handed Mr. Foster, there's a shoal that extends almost 200 feet out to sea down drift. There's a ton of Sand, literally in that system. There is no way .... you would have to work very hard to convince someone to look at those photos and say that that's a starved down drift beach or that that beach can become starved by extending this one groin. That's all we're trying to do. We're trying to minimize the number of times it has to be dredged as long as it doesn't do any damage. Board of Trustees<j 14 -- March 25, 1998 I think that without saying anything here, those aerial photographs substantiate the fact that there's enough sand in that system that there will be no damage to the down drift beach. Obviously groins don't and can't damage beaches because those are the beach that replenish it. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: How and wide is this 80' How did you come to the 80' figure? ROB: I came to the 80' because I looked ...... it was a subjected decision based on examining all those photographs and looking at that system and just the experience of looking at other groin systems. If you extend the groin too short it's not gonna make a substantial enough difference and it's not gonna mitigate the situation enough. If you make it too long, then it's gonna reach the point where if it was extending out say 200' instead of 125' then you get to the point where your gonna be increasing that up drift shoal way too far out and your gonna be changing the whole system substantially. I came up with somewhere in a range between 70 and 90' that would be able to function accordingly. And that's where the 80' came in. If the Board feels that 5' or 10' shorter or longer would be better we would be willing to consider it. It's an attempt without harm. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I want ask Tom what do you think about the 80' in your experience, in 30 seconds or less. TOM: Yes, this is not rocket science. It's not terribly difficult. You have to make some educated calculated guess. And that's what everybody does. Your dealing with silly putty. Your dealing with the shifting sand bottom. It changes every day. The soundings I took two weeks ago are different now. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well this is your field Tom. You should know if any body does, that's why I asked you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: My suggestion would be to get a survey of beach elevations before the project. Your not talking about pre-filling are you? ROB: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Get a beach elevation before and after. At that groin. Also at the one to the east. Just east of Suter's house~ And give it two years or 5 years and see how the beach elevation has changed and if it dramatically changed I'd ask you to remove that 80' TOM: On the deliverance of those elevations, as you know summer is approaching and piping plover season is approaching. We'll give you those elevations. I'm interested myself. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well actually we should have it on both groins of Mr. Mc Goldrick's and then the one to the east. We really need them. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Since the range is 70 to 90' why don't we go to 70'? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well they did their homework, and it won't make that mush difference. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think if scours Mr. Mc Goldrick's property that's gotta be his call. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES Board of Trustees ~ 15 March 25, 1998 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Neil Mc Goldrick to dredge in an irregular area 55' in width in the inlet of Hall's Creek to a max. depth of 5' MLW at a 1.5 slope, approx. 2,000 c.y. of 100% sand spoil to be pumped up drift of existing 80' groin on subject property, and down drift of groin at end of Dean Drive to the east, extend existing 70' groin on west side of inlet by 80', and survey elevations to be taken on two existing groins on Mr. Mc Goldrick's property and one existing groin to east that extends out into the Bay before the project is started. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 6. J.MO. Consulting on behalf a to reconstruct within of timber with 75+/- c.y. of clean sand from upland source. Located: Bay Ave., Mattituck. SCTM #122-3-15.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? TRUSTEE KING: Are they gonna straighten that out where it is really bellied out? GLENN JUST: Yes. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll move to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion we approve the application. TRUSTEE SMITH: Second. ALL AYES 7. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of WILLIAM D.-REED requests a W~d P~t~ to construct a single family dwelling, sanitary system, water line, driveway, patio and garage. Located: ROW of Peninsula Road, Fishers Island. SCTM ~10-3-12 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? I'd just like to point out a few items that aren't clear on the plan. There will be a 35' natural buffer area between the tidal wetlands line in which this particular case is MHW mark. The second is that they maxed out the distance for the sanitary system. It's well in excess of the required 100' by the Health Dept. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion we close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE SMITH: Second. ALL AYES 8. J.M,O. Consulting on behalf aii!~~i?~/!~i to construct a 4' X 100' fixed dock to be 3 1/2' above marsh, a 4' X 20' ramp and an 8' X 20' float, cut a 4' X 50' path and construct a 4' X 15' set of stairs to access dock. Located: Clay Point Road, Fishers Island. SCTM #3-1-6 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This application will be postponed until the April meeting. 9. Proper-T Services on behalf of'H~WARD EILENBERG~requests a ~e~h~-i~' to construct a deck attached to house and a 12' X Board of Trustees -~ 16 ~ March 25, 1998 24' swimming pool with surrounding deck, and fence around pool. Located: 800 Goose Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM %78-8-1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor.of the applicati?n? JIMiFiTZGERAL~: I don t have anything to add that isn't already ~n~the file. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was our concern, on the original permit for the house you have a 35' non-turf buffer and non-disturbance zone. The lawn comes right to it and this pool almost comes almost to it. Our concern is that that should not be disturbed. JIM: Fine. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion we approve the application with condition that a 35' buffer be maintained. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 10. Proper-T Services on behalf o~ETER !ZZ0 requests a ~ to construct a fixed walkway 4' X 107' a hinged ramp , a floating dock 6' X 20' and install 2- 2 pile dolphins. Located: 805 Meadow Beach Road, Cutchogue. SCTM #111-10-1.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? JIM: Nothing to add but available for questioning. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's long because they have to cross quite a bit of wetlands. TRUSTEE KING: Move to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE SMITH: Second. ALL AYES 11. Bruce Anderson on behalf of'iGE'6RGE MAYER. requests a wetland ~to construct a single family dwelling, driveway, septic, raise first floor elevation to eight feet using 387.2 c.y. of fill. Located: 1800 Park Way, Southold. SCTM #70-10-61.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in the application? I'm here to represent the applicant. If you'll notice that it lies in a flood and it requires a first floor elevation a min. of 8' that refers to the bottom of the Slab. It's a BUilding Dept. thing, and the reason why the grade has been brought up to the elevation 8. The driveway will be gravel. These are all the setbacks for the purposes of this proceeding. The only one we are talking about I would think is the fill because the house actually lies at 75' which is the jurisdictional boundary. You should look at it from the entire project. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we measured it and it's only 74.9' Why wouldn't you put the house on piles and eliminate all that fill? BRUCE: You could but you'd wind up with is something that is very different than what you see in the area. Most of time when Board of Trustees ~- 17 ~-' March 25, 1998 you put something on piles you usually talking about things down on the ocean. I think the community would best by building it this way by nicer homes and grounds. President of the $outhold Property Owners We have some questions. Its a lot of fill and am I correct that that fill will only be used to bring the level of the property to the level of the adjoining properties? BRUCE: I was there clearing a path 'and on my way out a Mrs. Hilbig who lives to the north adjacent to the north, and what I suggested we do is survey the contour elevations of both the adjoining parcels. Not maybe the whole parcels, but maybe half the parcels. Because what I'm trying to accomplish here is serving even grade among what will be all three parcels. Mrs. Hilbig expressed to me her concern that with the fill we might direct storm water onto her property. I think that is a legitimate concern. I talked to Mr. Mayer and suggested he do that and prevailed upon him to do it and pay for it and he agreed to do so. I think what we should probably consider doing is allowing me to have that work done. If it has to be higher because flood plane reasons I think we have to make some accommodations to help mitigate the problem. I think that is completely reasonable. MS. SMALL: So in answer the question, it will not be higher. BRUCE: I don't know that, but it is not intended to be higher. MS. SMALL: That's interesting. I have a question on the first floor elevation. You have a copy of our covenants which I presented to you this evening. The foundation of this house according to the Southold Covenants cannot be more than 2 1/2 concrete blocks or 20" of poured foundation shall be showing after the grade. No foundation will be constructed higher than existing adjoining foundation. How high is this first floor going to be? Because if it's going to be a raised ranch ..... BRUCE: No, it is not. The grade is at 8' above sea level. Everything on the survey references means sea level. That's the surveyor bench mark. The grade of the house is 10', and that includes the bare floor, the grade that is established by fill is 8. MS. SMALL: You were talking about putting the house on stilts. Not allowed in Southold Community. It's in the covenants, which dates back in 1953. You've answered the question about the cess pools which is too near Mrs. Hilbig's property. But we have a question about the well. You've got that well right down on the creek practically. Do you really expect to get fresh water sitting next to a salt water creek? Because you would have to go awfully far. BRUCE: What's gonna happen is what is missing from the, and we're gonna have to ask the neighbors to help us with this, is the location of the adjacent wells. MS. SMALL: Also the adjacent cess pools. BRUCE: Yes. Your right. You don't want to bring it down to that extent. I don't like that at all. MS. SMALL: Well we don't have Suffolk water. I don't believe we want it. Board of Trustees <~/ 18 March 25, 1998 BRUCE: The point is you are correct when you say the well is down by the water and we intend to maximize that separation. That's what we've achieved here. Upon determining where the 'adjacent wells and septic system is, that may change. That's not really what we're here to talk about tonight. MS. SMALL: How high will the house be above the crown of the road? BRUCE: We don't have elevations at this point, but we ...... MS. SMALL: Do you have a house plan yet? BRUCE: No I do not. MS. SMALL: But your applying for a permit for the house. BRUCE: I am applying for a permit for a house, as this Board doesn't require full building plans in order to make applications back. Many applications I have applied for start with this Board with every other wetlands Board that request that that be made. MS. SMALL: If your property level is raised, we may have trouble .with flooding. Our fresh water pond we have across the road on the Ludwig property is a fresh water pond and we really would not like it flooded. It's below grade. Actually the road is below grade and it would be very nice if the Town would raise _the level of the edge of the road to prevent this from happening. BRUCE: If you look at the survey very closely, you will see that the crown of the road, there are two spot elevations. The one up towards the north is at 7.2', the one on the south adjacent to the southern property is approx. 6.9 and you'll see that the fill, the most frequent fill line is at 7. The point being that from the house to the street it is essentially flat. MS. SMALL: I am not comfortable with this application at this point in time. I would really like a lot more thorough information. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What specifically in regard to our jurisdiction? MS. SMALL: Well he's being very vague about the fill. We have no house plan, we don't know whether a 1,300 foot house will be within the required 15' of the property line, because we don't know really where the house will be placed. This is all very casual. I'm not comfortable with this. I would like to see a little more information. I don't object to Mr. Mayer wanting to build a house on this property, that is his prerogative. But I would like to see a little more information on this. BRUCE: My response would be that I looked at Schedule A which was given to me. I believe I have complied to everything on it. TRUSTEE SMITH: We don't look at house plans as per se on this Board. We go with a foot print of a house. We have nothing to say whether it is one story or two stories or what. We just go with what we have is a building envelop where a house can be built. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our concerns is towards the wetlands, they've left a 50' buffer there where it won't be any disturbance. That buffers the house activities from the wetlands. If every house in Southold Town on the water had a 50' buffer the wetlands would be a lot healthier. This shows that. That's our big concern. Is run off and affect of the house on the wetlands. Board of Trustees~ 19 ~ March 25, 1998 TRUSTEE FOSTER: This gonna be full basement? BRUCE: You won't even have that. MS. SMALL: You have to be on a slab. You can get water one foot down. BRUCE: It's not a question of hitting water, it's a question that the flood plan regulation that is really a Building Dept. matter. It simply cannot have (cannot hear him) TRUSTEE FOSTER: The flood plane is 10'. The finished floor has to be 10' above mean high water. BRUCE: Well, it has to be 8 but the 8 refers to the lowest structural member. And what you see here is 10' because that's the bottom of the slab verses the first floor and even in this instance your gonna have all your mechanical on the ground floor, without even efficient room to do that without bringing the house up and causing other problems that the neighbors might concerned about. MS. SMALL: Mr. Gallagher wishes to know if phragmites breeds within 50' of the water line are going to be disturbed. BRUCE: Phragmites. No. We have a flood now in the road, in a minor rain storm. What's gonna happen if you have a house 8' off the ground, never mind what's gonna happen to the other property. In a serious storm that whole property has been known to flood. I've lived down there for 22 years, and I walk every day, and I can tell you that is a very wet piece of property. It floods now. It floods to the point where traffic can't come around that bend and that's at a moderate rain storm. BRUCE: We're not putting a house 8 feet in the air. The grade underlying the house is at approx. 5. The finished grade as it touches the surround of the house is at 8. That's a 3 foot difference. It tapers back to the road which is at 7. And the grade of the property adjacent to that road will also be 7. There's nothing about this application that'should contribute to any flooding in the road in any specific way. I thought flooding to the side and mostly I though flooding perhaps to the property of Gallagher and Hilbig might be an issue if the slopes surrounding on the sides might carry storm water run off that was running in that direction. I'm confident your not gonna see, based on these elevations, flooding towards the road as a result of this building. MS. SMALL: We already have flooding towards the road. This may sound very simplistic, but frankly, I would like a sketch of what is gonna be done to see how you are going to do it. Draw me a house, Mr. Anderson. BRUCE: The point is, if I draw you a house that would not add anything more to the question of flooding. For example, when we employ engineers to evaluate these things, we don't do houses, we do surveys just as in front of you. MR. GALLAGHER: Talking about this flooding in that corner. I addressed the Town Highway Dept. just the other day, on the curb of the road where Parkway does meet Beachwood, there is flooding. There is a pond on one side, and an empty lot on the other. And the water has to go somewhere. The Town has never elected to put in drains, or a drain near the fresh water pond, Board of Trustees 20 March 25, 1998 or out towards the salt water. If this dwelling is built and is graded to that grade that this gentleman is speaking of, it will stop any of the water that doesn't naturally flood onto that land and go down hill now, and keep it on the road and push it over on my property which now gets flooded and I have moss on my so called grass, and it will also go across the street into that pond. I think there is an issue there even if he stays at street level, as the street level is called now. It will stop ....... and dissipate somewhat in that direction. I don't think the Town will alleviate because there is no where to put a drain anywhere. On the other side .... and just this past week you were there on Friday. I wish you Could have been there on Saturday, because it was totally underwater where the proposed well will be. The whole foot land area was underwater. I just cannot believe no matter how I'm told by several people that according to your survey is gonna be graded that I'm not gonna have a problem. I don't believe it because I have a problem now. So if it's filled in even more why would I have not have more of a problem? BRUCE: Maybe if I were to address this in a slightly different way. The property owners responsibility is to maintain their drainage on site. You can't build something that runs out onto other people's property. If a Town road drains onto my property, or to adjacent, the property owners are higher and they drain onto my property. I'm not held responsible to control runoff that doesn't come from my property. I don't have a responsibility. Mr. Merrit does not have a responsibility to not build on his property so that it can be effectively used as a neighborhood sump if you will. All's I can say is to the extent that this property or development causes flooding from runoff, it generates onto other properties. I have to be held responsible for that and that is why I'm offering to serve on the adjacent parcel so that they are even. But I don't have that responsibility to maintain a sump as a receptacle for other runoff. That's the best way I could put it. MS. SMALL: Could we ask the Trustees possibly to hold off on making a final decision on this until Mr. Anderson does a little more work and finds out where the wells and cess pools are on the other properties in relationship to the property in question? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're not concerned because the septic system is out of our jurisdiction. We only have jurisdiction within 75'. MS. SMALL: But if that septic system floods on somebody else's property and you have given permission you are responsible. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're not because it's not within our jurisdiction. It's a Health Dept.'s responsibility to place the septic system and well. And it's out of our jurisdiction. Now as far as the flooding on the road there's a septic system detail here on the survey. It shows the finished elevation 6 1/2'. Now if the crown of the road is 7.2 and 6.9' I don't see how that property could flood across the road. Board of Trustees 21 March 25, 1998 MS. SMALL: Perhaps the level of the road has fallen. Because why does it flood then every time it rains? If the road were flat, it wouldn't flood. It were even with that property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you saying it floods across the road? MR. GALLAGHER: To put it a little more specifically. The Road Parkway itself .... that road going south flows to the corner of Beachwood. That particular corner is a little lower than the rest of the Parkway. That is where the main water comes from. I do agree with Mr. Anderson that this case he is pleading with you has nothing to do with where the water goes on the property, however, I think the entire environmental picture of that area should be considered. My own property, the pond, Mrs. Hilgig property and possibly the other people across the street too. No allowing this to be a sump. I'd hate to hear it being used that way, as a sump, but in reality it is. If it's not going to be used as that, where is the water going to go? You say it's not your responsibility, possibly as a Trustee your concern is with the tidal lands, but you are in part in the part of Southold and somewhere somehow you would have to get together with other departments where it is a concern and iron it out. I think maybe postponing this until such a time that that could be ........... done would be advantageous to all concerned. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Does anyone have an original sub division map? MS. SMALL: Yes. No, I don't have it with me, but I have it back at the house. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Because that will help. Obviously that was deemed a buildable lot when the sub division was formed. MS. SMALL: It was a buildable lot at the time because the builder William Kellyak of New York retained Mr. Gallaghers property and Mr. Mayer's property were the two smallest lots in the sub division. They were basically little squares. Mr. Kellyak retained all of the waterfront property at that time in that area. It has since been deeded over. We can't find a record of when it was deeded over. We've been looking, but have been unable to find the record of when it was deeded so that it became part of the current Gallagher property and the current Mayer property. When the sub division was approved, there was no water front on those two lots. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That would tell a lot because the original fined map would indicate which lots are buildable, where the low ..... you know there's a good possibility and it slips through the cracks many times. And I'm not saying this for any other reason other than it does happen because I'm involved in this kind of construction business, and I run into this occasionally where permits are put in to build on a lot on an old sub division where the original filed map will show an area like that, that doesn't indicate that it is buildable. Or that will not be a lot or have a designated lot number or that's a natural recharge area. MS. SMALL: We have no idea whether Mr. Kellyak property was deeded. We were going through the Town records to see if we could find it and help us along in this. But those two lots were very tiny, and he had a big swap that went all the way around on the creek. They were not water front lots at the time. Board of Trustees 22 March 25, 1998 TRUSTEE FOSTER: So the map was amended. MS. SMALL: And we haven't been able to find out when. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You would have to go to the Bureau of Records in the County Center. TRUSTEE SMITH: Well the water that comes down this road, where does the water come from? Does it come from Beachwood? MS. SMALL: No, it doesn't come from Beachwood. It comes probably from Parkway and sometimes it comes off that lot. It depends on how bad the storm is. TRUSTEE SMITH: When it comes down Parkway and it forms this puddle here, does the water run down this lot? MS. SMALL: It goes in both directions. TRUSTEE SMITH: What do you mean, both directions? MS. SMALL: Both sides of the road. TRUSTEE FOSTER: So you've got a road elevation of 7.5 and an elevation of 4 at the 50' set back line. That's 3 1/2' lower. BRUCE: If you look at the test hole your ground water is about at 0. You have grades here at about 7 and a shoulder of approx. 10 or 15' here. It is Town property. I think Mr. Foster is in the drainage business, but this is an ideal situation where the Town can probably go in and put in leaching pools. But that's not something that we are really here to talk about in the context of this application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Interesting the way the survey shows the property not extending into Beachwood or Parkway Lane but it looks like it extends into it. BRUCE: The road shoulder is owned by the Town. So that's the map. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But when we were on the site it seemed to be that there was an elevation rise at the beginning of the property by the road. TRUSTEE FOSTER: The only reason I asked is the elevation of the road is 7.5 and out at the 50' line it's 4 and I just couldn't imagine the water would have to build up pretty high to run from 4' to 7 1/2'. MS. SMALL: When I walk, I'm a puddle person, I go through puddles not around them. In fact, you can't go around them actually. When I walk after a bad storm it covers the tops of my sneakers. TRUSTEE FOSTER: As far as the environmental issues about the septic system and so forth, that will all be addressed by the Health Dept. because they won't issue .... you can't get a Building Permit until it clears the Health Dept. and they'll run you through the hoops. So that's something that will be addressed at .... we really don't have to be concerned with as long as their not down in the wetlands. The Health Dept. will take care of all the setbacks and the neighboring wells, cesspools and everything. They make sure that that's perfect before they issue any papers that will get you into the Building Dept. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We require that the house is gonna have drywells and gutters because the house runoff is contained on the site. It looks to me that the elevation will be brought up to grade and every property will be maintaining it's own water Board of Trustees 23 · March 25, 1998 and not running back and forth. Does this look accurate to you Artie? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well it shows elevation 7 just over the Gallagher line, and elevation 5 on Hilbig's and it will come up 8 ...... well it's gonna slope away from the house, especially on the water side, and you'll have to contain the water. MS. SMALL: How is that measured? TRUSTEE FOSTER: This elevation 4 is 4 feet above sea level. And if you go up to the front corner marker it's 6.7, the other side 7.4 and they show 7.5 towards the middle of the road where the lamp post is. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: This is for the adjacent property owners. When your house was built, was your house raised up? MRS. HILBRIG: No, (could not understand her). TRUSTEE FOSTER: Do you get water during the storms, up on your lawn? MRS. HILBRIG: On the lawn. (could not hear her). MR. GALLAGHER: I also have a full basement, and I'm two and a half blocks above the ground. I do not have any water problems like Mrs. Hilbrig does. It does come up over my lawn but that's life. Water does come up in that whole area and I could not walk from my back yard to Nancy's backyard in a nor' easter. It couldn't be done. BRUCE: My client is willing to survey the grading on the other side. I would think I could work it out with .... I recognize that a responsibility. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's too bad Mr. Mayer couldn't build on piles, it would eliminate a lot of problems. BRUCE: You wouldn't want to anyway. It's not a good way to do it. MR. GALLAGHER: Someone tried it 25 years ago. Someone wanted build a house on piles across the street next to 320 Beachwood Lane. The Board here 25 years ago turned it down. Absolutely not, it's non conforming. That brings up the question about the cella. The gentleman says that they're gonna put the house on a concrete slab. There are 52 homes in Southwood and everyone of them has a basement. This house would be non-conforming. If your gonna put it in a wetland area I don't see the advantage of that. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'm sure if they could put a cella in here they would, but they can't, it's against the law. MS. SMALL: How far from the creek is the pool gonna be, the septic pool. BRUCE: (could not hear him) The fill extends 12' seaward of the.house. The fill line is 80' from the shoreline. MS. SMALL: What is the angle of the pitch of the fill as you go toward the creek and the wetlands? BRUCE: About 20% over the 12' TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's about a one on four slate. For every 4' you go out, it goes down 1. And according to the plan it only goes out 12' It's about the same all around. Board of Trustees ~ 24 - March 25, 1998 MS. SMALL: The creek could be polluted. Also if he has a lawn back there and he feeds that lawn and puts crab grass stuff on it, all that stuff will flow into the creek. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's why he has a 50' buffer area. Like I said, if every house on the creek had a 50' non-turf area on the creek we would have a lot cleaner creeks. I recommend that everyone who has water front. Put a non-turf buffer area. We let the applicant hand clear for a view. Don't forget the finished elevation is not gonna be what your gonna see standing on the property, it's gonna be quite a bit higher. So they are allowed to clear for a view but their not allowed to to clear the underbrush which filters everything that comes off the property before it gets to the creek. MS. SMALL: We thank the Trustees for their patience. TRUSTEE SMITH: Motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 12. Arm on behalf ofrCLI~FORD~& ~UTH CORNELL;requests a construct a s~ngle family dwelling 2 stories with deck and garage. Located: Private ROW off N. Bayview Ave., Southold. SCTM #79-5-20.9 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone like to speak in favor of the application? I'm here to speak for the Cornell's. TRUSTEE KING: Move to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application with condition that all the conditions of the buffer be adhered to and that the disturbance to the existing wetlands on the site be minimized. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 13. Catherine Mesiano on behalf of ~iRuSSELL &'ROBERT MC CALL' requests to construct a single family dwelling with car garage, well and septic system. Located: 10543 New Suffolk Ave., New Suffolk. SCTM #116-1-6 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of the Mc Call's? ~· ~ ' ~'~~ ~: I'm here to represent the Mc Call's. I have Bob Mc Call here who is contract vendee. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We went on field inspection last month and we couldn't find the stakes. I went out again. It's a fairly straight forward application. Again, we couldn't find the house stakes and I saw what looked like property line stakes, but I couldn't find any house stakes or septic system stakes. GAIL: My understanding is that it was staked by the surveyor but when I was there they hadn't been put down yet. TRUSTEE FOSTER: There were stakes in there but we were trying to figure out what they were. I think we found or what we thought were rear corners and then one down towards the creek and that was it. I think there were only 3 stakes on the whole place. Board of Trustees ~- 25 March 25, 1998 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Again, it's a pretty straight forward application but it should be staked. GAIL: I'll make sure that gets done. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What we're gonna require, like we did with the last one, is require 30 or 40 or 50' buffer area where there will be no disturbance and be able to clear for a view and it will be a non-turf buffer. That will be about it. GAIL: I think the property lends itself to that kind of natural setting. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion that we recess this until April. 14. Samuels & Steelman on behalf of~ALTE!R & MILDRED S!~RNAGEL~requests a Wetland Permit to do renovations to existing house and garage, well & septic system. Located: 10543 New Suffolk Ave. New Suffolk. SCTM 9118-1-4.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of the application? CAC recommends disapproval because project can cause further encroachment into a buffer zone. Their building out onto the lawn. There's really no buffer zone there. I guess our members reasoning was there were two already there within the 75' buffer and just allowing for another structure that seemed like it was kind of a lot for that system. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The way I looked at it it's not gonna have a ..... OK. Any other comment? TRUSTEE SMITH: Motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application provided we have a staked row of haybales at the edge of wetlands during construction. TRUSTEE SMITH: Second. ALL AYES 15. i~i~$i~i~ ELIZ-~BETH BRiTT/~AN requests a?Wet!and'P~rmit to construct a 4' X 30' dock. Located: 80 Glenn road, Southold. SCTM 978-3-10 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: CAC recommended a non-turf buffer, put plantings along the edge of the creek instead of having a lawn go right to it, about 6 or 8 feet. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to approve the dock. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 16. Wi~I~!.CHR~ST~NE'!E~SENREICH requestsa~W~tla~dPez,~t ........... to construct a single family dwelling with sanitary system, and driveway. Located: 805 Bayshore Road, Greenport. SCTM 953-3-10 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor or against the application? Board of Trustees-~ 26 J March 25, 1998 MR.'i~Si~O~SKI: I'm here to voice my opinion against this. I just want to express my views with relation to the septic system in proximity to my well in the front. And there's only a 100' separation. It needs 150' So he has to get a variance from the Board of Health. So it's only 2/3 of what it should be. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually on this it shows the septic system. Our jurisdiction is only from the wetlands. MR. MYSILBORSKI: I realize that, I just ~want you to know my feelings. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: CAC recommended approval with a non-turf buffer. I think we said 30' from the top of bank. 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 condition that haybales be placed at 30' upland from upland from the top of Bay and it be a non-turf non-disturbed buffer at top of bank where haybales are. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH moved to go back to regular meeting, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES V. RESOLUTIQNS . 1. Docko Inc. on behalf of~ilFisHERSISLAND F~RRy iDISTR~CT requests a to stabilize the existing 400' steel , reconstruct inkind inplace 350' of timber wharf, ramp, counter weight towers & 2 dolphins. NOTE: Also to rescind resolution made at the February 25th meeting denying without prejudice the request to waiver the $100 Grandfather Permit Fee, due to the fact that the Ferry District is a tax exempt agency. Located: west end of Trumbull Drive, Fishers Island. SCTM ~12-1-10 TRUSTEE KING moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES 2. requests a-i~G~andf~he~ P~r~/it for a 58' in 1971. Located: 21o Knoll Circle, East Marion. SCTM #37-5-16 TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 3. for an existing bulkhead, to be repaired and re inplace as needed. Located: Knoll Circle, East Marion. SCTM ~37-5-12 TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 4. for an existing 165' bulkhead and dock. , East Marion. SCTM #37-4-3 TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES Board of Trustees 27 March 25, 1998 5. William Goggins on behalf of~!ipETE~ WA~Ns requests a Grahdfather~per~it for approx. 96' of bulkhead. Located: 8740 Peconic Bay Blvd., Mattituck. SCTM %126-5-2 VI. [MOORINGS. 1. F~Nk & J~E LYNN. requests an oh~ShoreiQff:-Shore'm°oring in Town Creek for a 17' outboard. ACCESS: Private. TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 2. .~E~0~f~' ULLMAN_. requests an for a 7 1/2' dinghy on Corey C 2CESS: Association Beach. TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL'AYES 3. S~.EvE: BELLAMIA requests a mao~ing inDeepH0le, creek for a 26.5' inboard with a 150 lb. mushroom. ACCESS: private dock TRUSTEE KING moved to approve, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES 4. R0~ERT~H~E requests a m0ori~g for a 23' inboard/outboard with a 150 lb. mushroom. ACCESS: Public TRUSTEE KING moved to approve, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES 5. THO~IAs~:M~RRAY requests an76h~sh0~e/6ff"sh'o'~e:Stake for a 12' outboard boat in Narrow River. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES Meeting Adjourned At: 10:20 p.m. Respectfully Submitted By: D~i~ H/e~b~ DATE MAR 2~ '98 12:24 FR NETRISK 2B3 618 1255 TO 15i6765182~ P.E~2/l~2 Richard A. Curcio 526 East 20~ Street, #1E New York, New York 10009 March 25, 1998 To: Board of Trustees, Town of Southold Subject: WS~I Tul~o SCTM #10004 22-9-7.6 To lhe Board: UYVJ'~I U/ Ot~U i ~ ~j~ I am most concerned about the proposal of my neighbor, W&M Tufano to build a house and garage - rcfcrencc #1000-I22-9-7.6. MY main concern has to do with the size-and' uso of thc building labeled "proposed garage." Past experience with W&M Tufano indicates to me that their "proposmi' usc and thc actual usc will probably be quite different. My specific conc=.,s are: ' 1. What is the height of tliis .~'lXOposed" garage? Does it coi~?ain- a "s~colld ~tOIy?" If it. does- then how will the town ensure that this. second story will not be used. as a residence? 2. Since this is a "proposed'" garagc w how can the town prevcnt thc entire structure fiom being used as a residence? 3. 'vVhat rocourse exists if th© structure is buil~ as a garag~ ' and later is modified to be a residence? 4. Thc size of this :~rol~osed" §a!a§o is eno~a,ous! One thousand square feet ~(I000) ii' one story and two th;usand _,quar¢. feet (2000) if two:stones-:this is larger,than, the= entire Current residence! This leads me to believe their intended use is well, beyond that of ~ garage. Please let me know in wrjiin~ what safeguards, are in place` to prevent this "proposed garage from becoming another, residence on this property. Thank yoll, Richard A. C~¢io