Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-12/17/1997 MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1997 CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, January 21, 1998 at 12 noon TRUSTEE WENCZEL approved, TRUSTEE GARRELL seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday January 28, 1998 aG 7:00 p.m. WORKSESSION: 6:00 p.m. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: approved, TRUSTEE WENCZEL:: seconded. ALL AYES APPROVE MIN~T=S: Approve minutes of October 29, 1997. TRUSTEE KING: approved subject to the correction on page 3, TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Seconded. ALL AYES I. MONTHLy REPORT: The Trustee monthly report for November 1997: A check for $5,567.47 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES 1. Costello Marine on behalf of NEIL SIMON requests an Amendment to Permit ~359 to change an existing "T" dock configuration to an "L" configuration using existing 6' X 16' float and 1 new 6' X 16' float secured with 3- 2 pile dolphins. Located: 60 Harbor Lights Drive, Southold. SCTM #71-2-11.3 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to table the application due to reinspection in December, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 2. Larry Tuthill on behalf of CRESCENT BEACH CONDO'S requests an Amendment to Permit #4669 to install splash board system with 2" spacing. Located: off Maple Lane, Orient Harbor. SCTM ~38-1-1. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'll make a motion to recess the application until we do further inspection. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to table the Amendment, TRUSTEE WE~CZEL seconded. ALL AYES 3. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of FRANK A. BONSEL, JR. requests a Waiver to construct a one story addition in same footprint of recently demolished section of dwelling and construct a porch within the same footprint of existing porch. Located: "The Anchorage", Equestrian Ave., Fishers Island. SCTM 99-3-13.2 TRUSTEE KING made a motion to approve the application, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded. ALL AYES 4. DAVID RIVERS on behalf of ELSA RIVERS requests an Amendment to Permit #4548 to replace an existing piling, and add two standof~ piles. Located: off "The Gloaming", Fishers Island. SCTM #10-9-15.4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to recess due to reinspection in December, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 5. JANE & FRANK LYNN, request a Waiver for bushes planted as per landscaped plan in file. Located: 2300 Hobart Road, Southold. SCTM #64-3-5. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL made a motion to approve the waiver, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES. 6. JOHN C. NEVILLE requests a Waiver to replace ah existing 6' X 8' shed with a new 8' X 10' shed. Located: 2380 Hobart Road, Southold. SCTM #64-3-6. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL made a motion to approve the waiver to replace an existing 6' X 8 ' shed with a 8' X 10' and recommend that gasoline pesticides, herbicides and other environmentally hazardous materials be place in shed, TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. TRUSTEE KING: Nay TRUSTEE GARRELL: Aye. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Nay 7. DONALD FEILER on behalf of LARRY BLESSINGER requests a Waiver to add a new second floor and a garage to an existing house. Located: 2504 Westphalia Road, Mattituck. SCTM #114-7-10.2 TRUSTEE KING made a motion to approve the application, TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES 8. BRIGETTE GIBBONS requests a Waiver to cut and clear property of old oak trees and replace them with other shrubs and trees. Located: 720 North Oakwood Road, Mattituck. SCTM #127-8-5 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL made a motion approve the waiver to cut and clear property of all oak trees and replace them with other shrubs and trees and that haybales be placed in the interim, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Abstained TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to go off the regular meeting, TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES III, PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. IV. 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 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 LESSr IF POSSIBLE 1. En-Consultants Inc., on behalf of PHILIP & CHERYL MARINO as contract vendees, request a Wetland Permit to construct a single family dwelling, driveway, sanitary system, underground utilities, remove existing damaged fixed dock, erect a new timber dock consisting of a 4' X 14' fixed dock, (elev. min. of 3 1/2' above marsh) a 3' X 14' ramp and a 6' X 20' float with 2- 8" pilings. Located: 135 Hill Road, (Youngs Road west), Southold. SCTM 970-4-32 TRUSTEE KRUPSKi: Would anyone like to comment in favor of the application? ROB HERRM3tNN: I'm here on behalf of PHILIP & CHERYL MARINO'S, of course continuation of the public hearing we had last month. The drawings were revised after some conversation with the neighbors down there (cannot understand what is being said) as well. There are actually several corrections to the description that was just read so I want to make sure that the record is correct, in terms of the drawings that we resubmitted. It should read a 4' X 14' fixed ramp which would read 10' X 17' catwalk to be in elevation of a minimum 3 1/2' above grade over marsh, 4' X 14' ramp and a 6' X 20' float to be secured by 2 8" diameter pilings. After I resubmitted the revised drawing and yet there was another revision of a minor scope which involved only the shifting of the dock and the entire structure itself a few feet to the west, this was in response to so some correspondence received from the Corp. of Engineers there were some concerns at their Inter Agency Meeting the wanted the dock reconstructed over the exact same location where that old dilapidated dock is going to be removed in order to further minimized any disturbance to the marsh so that also there's no problem and so we improvised the drawings in accordance with those recommendations and then forwarded those to the board. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: It was the Az~L~ Corp that made them? ROB HERRMANN: It wasn't actually the Corp of Engineers. I think it was Fisherman's Wild Life. TRUSTEE Ki~UPSKI: Is there anyone else who would like to col~,ent on the application? TRUSTEE EOLZAPFEL: Did the neighbors see that? ROB HERRMANN: I forwarded not the final the scope of the this final revision is the same as ........ but when the revision was made it reduced the scope of the dock I mailed it out to DAVE DEVLIN, he sent me a letter back, he confirmed it showed amongst the community, then I spoke to him briefly by phone and he thought it was basically (to much noise). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No other comment? Board comment. Do I have' a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So move. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ail in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'll make a motion to approve the application of PHILIP & CHERYL MARINO as described in the newest plan received December 8th. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE ~KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES 2. En-Consultants Inc., on behalf of DORIS DAVIS requests a Wetland Permit to replace within 18" 50+/- 1.f. of existing timber bulkhead, remove and replace inkind/inplace 12+/-' of southerly return and approx. 9' X 21' wood deck and backfill with approx. 15 c.y. of clean sand. Located: 680 Private Road #17, Southold. SCTM #81-3-27.2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? ROB HERRMANN: En-Consultants on behalf of DORIS DAVIS. My only comment would be that the deck is to removed and r6placed because of the replacement of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE Ki~UPSKI: Any other comments. Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I'll make a motion to approve the permit for DORIS DAVIS for a wetland permit to replace with 18" 50+/- 1.f. of the existing timber bulkhead remove inkind/inplace 12_/-' of southerly return approximately 9' X 21' wood deck and backfill approximately 15 c.y. of clean sand. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES 3. En-Consultants Inc., on behalf of MARGUERITE RUSSELL requests a Wetland Permit to remove 98+/-' of existing concrete retaining wall and replace inplace with 98+/-' of timber retaining wall, replace within 18" 16+' of exlstlng concrete retaining wall serving as foundation of bungalow with 16+' of timber retaining wall supported with batter piles and backfill with approx. 15 c.y of clean sand. Located: 3405 Wickham Ave., Mattituck. SCTM #107-9-11 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? En-Consultants: Represents MARGUERITE RUSSELL. Just want to briefly describe this application on this project. Initially what's there is a pretty old concrete see wall and overtimes pretty extensive entitle marsh there is grown up just about up to that wall throughout the length of it. I think it was the initial desire to try to go out and get a timber wall in front of that whole thing except that because of the marshes existing it doesn't really run itself to being able to do that, so what I proposed is to remove and replace inkind/inplace almost the entire concrete structure with timber except for the 16' on the northeast most corner in front of the bungalow where it's going to be possible to do that. Luckily when I was side of the elevation in that area kind of picks up a little bit so the title grass is not even up to that spot so it's actually kind of an area there that's more appropriate to build out to go out in front. The boards comment would likely be the ideal situation would be to tie off that gap also to the adjacent wall would be unable to obtain permission from the adjacent owner to tie into that wall even though it would be to their benefit, so that is why the ~roposal stands at where it is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment from the public or the board? SPEAKER didn't speak clearly in to the microphone. There was a lot of papers being fu~led when this speaker was trying to speak. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One of the requirements we have on a new bulkhead is that there be a non-turf buffer placed behind it because one of the problems with whole Wetland System not only Mattituck but all of them is all the nutrient's going off of peoples property into the Wetlands from their lawns so we always want a new bulkhead construction we require a non-~urf buffer if you want to plant, a lot of people just put gravel down, you backfill to whatever level you want you just put down gravel. SPEAKER: The owners of that property wouldn't even discuss it. That property has been for sale for some time, at the present time there are renters living there but I know they still want the sale. If in such time in the future that is sold and we, do we have to go through the this whole procedure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No they would. This is on their property, so they would have to go through the procedure, to tie in with your structure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So move. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I would like to make a motion that we approve the application of MARGUERITE RUSSELL to remove ~8+/-' of existing concrete retaining wall replace with inkind/inplace with 9+/-' a tir~ber retaining wall and replace within 18" 16+' of existing concrete retaining wall serving as a foundation with 16' of timber retaining wall supportive with batter piles and backfill with approximately 15 c.y. of clean sand, also there will be 10' non-turf buffer along the entire length of the retaining wall, and there is a 10' return on the west side. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ail in favor? ALL AYES 4. NANCY & JOSEPH KARDWELL request a Wetland Permit for a 15' wide passage way to beach 250' long, with possible retaining wall. Located: 1100 Back Lane & Munn Lane, Orient. SCTM #17-2-15.4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This hearing is recessed until next month. 5. WILLIAM PAPPAS requests a Wetland Permit for a split rail fence around one property, 1 7' X 10' deck, a 3' X 17' ramp, a .6' X 20' float, 7- 8" piles, a storage shed and 6" X 6" walmanized ties to border driveway on waterfront property. Located: 85 Beverly Road, Southold. SCTM #52-2-14 & 15 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? MR. PAPPAS: As we said the last time I may make two more co~ent~, for your information the ....... dock and the ramp was built 15 years ago, the split rail fence was installed approximately 7 years ago when mychildren started have grandchildren for me and that was the purpose for it. Presently I have 8 grandchildren and that was the only reason the place was fenced. I was not aware a permit was needed. I feel I need that fence desperately to protect my grandchildren. There is a drop there approximately 5 or 6 feet drop to the water from the concrete bulkhead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In the October meeting we had a public hearing and there was a question of who owns the ROW and who had rights to use the ROW and what not. It was recommended to. us by the Town Attorney that the applicant provide proof of the easement so that the application could proceed as he had.' MR. PAPPAS: (Not speaking clearly into the microphone. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to comment on this? MR. PROVEN~TrRE: I know that last time at the hearing in October, our only objection was that MR. PAPPAS was illegally blocking our access to areas that we have had access for many years. He put up the fence, he ultimately took the fence away ...... which has run across every road. Accordingly to all the papers that I have that are in my possession we have ........ and that was our objection, other than that you know it a factorial thing the man had everything down, he had the dock there without permission, he had everything without permission. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mr. Pappas it seems that these people have the right to use that road as a road. MR. PAPPAS: No body is objecting to use the roa~ Mr. Chairman neither did I stop them, it's not my intention to stop them. The only reason for putting the walmanized ties around the driveway is to stop the gravel from kicking all over the place and that is about it. They are using it now and they have been using it and they can continue to use it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But can they still use it with the ties on the driveway? MR. PAPPAS: Of course, why not. The ties are about an inch above the gravel. MR. PROVENTURE: (Speaking to low, could not hear him). MR. PAPPAS: Mr. Chairman, that would be a decision for the court to decide, if they feel that I am stopping their access, they can take me to court, that's not my nature. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Unfortunately you're right, but you know because we're work for the town we feel responsible that you know something like this couldn't be settled between neighbors without having to go through the courts. MR. PROVENTURE: (Couldn't understand him) .... but MR. PAPPAS was reluctantly to cooperate, expect to remove the split rail fence. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That section is gone. The split rail fence. MR. PROVENTURE: (Could not hear what he was saying). MR. PAPPAS: Mr. Chairman, my intention was not to stop any one from using the property, I wouldn't stop people from bring trucks, because already the gate to my cesspool and they are aware of~that I made a statement last time and I would not like to have anyone driving over with any trucks. As far as using the property, it does not say anywhere on the easement that they could not drive that there is no need if they live there within 100 yds. so there is no need for a car or a truck to come there, it's a concrete bulkhead. There is no way to put a boat in there, so there is not a ramp, but they feel my intention was to stop them and it's not and if they feel that way there's a court of law they can take me to resolved that. I don't believe a 6' X 6' of that is there now. Only about 1 inch above the gravel and all the dirt can stop (cannot understand what he is saying). MR. PROVENTURE: I have a very sensitive question, to ask MR. PAPPAS. What purpose would 6' X 6's serve? What can they serve? MR. PAPPAS: I just said the purpose of concern, another reason why I don't like people driving there is because they are aware of it. People come there is a beach across the street. Strangers gone there. They can walk across, some of them drive across, they stop to eat lunch, they stop there at night, they hang out, I'm not there to stop them, but I see the evidence when I am there sometimes, and I don't want to see that anymore, but it not to stop the neighbors. Explain that to them. I try to make it as plain as possible, but again I repeat there is a court of law that I can stop their access. I~ you think a 6' X 6' iow high tide a structure should be there by all means,I'll remove them. But the reason I have them there is to strictly to stop the grass and to have it a little organized and neat looking and that's it. MR. PROVENTURE: My question is still related to this matter that we're discussing. Why in effect did he plant grass where the road should have been and was for many, many years? That's he's responsibility putting the grass down and preserving the grass. It's not our problem. That road was there initially. He's the one that dug up the road and put the grass stuff. I don't see .... all he's doing is expanding his little kingdom. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If it's a ROW it doesn't matter if it's grass or whatever. MR. PROVENTURE: No, but it should be accessible to whoever has the right to go over that piece of property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, but if it's grass it's still accessible. MR. PROVENTURE: I'm just saying what his argument is. It's really ridiculous. MR. PAPPAS: He said there was a road there. There was a road there in 1950 when the place was built. The road that was built then, if you see it today, if you saw it then, you would laugh. But if you saw it before I ripped it up there was no road there. It was strictly grass and dirt. Nobody repaved it, nobody maintained it. If I asked anybody to share the cost, because we are all supposed to share the cost on the roadway, if you want to call it that, they would have laughed in my face. The people across the street from me tried to get the neighbors to contribute to construct the road and everybody turned it down. He did it by himself. And they found the road was deteriorated to such a degree there was no road. As a matter of fact it looks more like a road now than it did then. TRUSTEE ~.KRUPSKI: It there anyway to lower the railroad ties a little but more so if your neighbor had to get through there maybe to get a boat in there ..... MR. PAPPAS: They can go through there now. In fact, they are going through there. When I go to check my house once a month, I see railroad tires and I think they do that on purpose. Some people still drive over it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's always gonna happen. So things like that happen on people's property. No matter what you put up there some people will still ride right over it. MR. PAPPAS: I understand that, and I don't stop anybody but the railroad ties were. being 6" over all, the whol~ height of them, I buried them. It's only about an inch sho~ing to create a border and that's it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So if they're only an inch up there wouldn't be a problem. Any other comment? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I think the other side is to look at the whole application is if there was no neighborly dispute would we have an environmental problem with the application? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And are we here to settle... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, but it's our responsibility to try. MR. PAPPAS: It's a neighborly thing. They all jump on my back. But there is small dock with a staircase at the end of the so called road, that was falling apart. It was built in 1950. So last year I went ahead and rebuilt it. It's on my property. Anybody that gets hurt on it, they turn around and sue me. In addition to the Town and anybody else. I don't object to it. I could very well object to it because I,had to get a permit the same way they got me to get the grass permit. It is on my property and I have the right to rip it out and let them get their permission by your board or whoever to do that. I don't intend to do that. I want them to use it and enjoy it for 40 years or so. TRUSTEE GARRELL: What is under question here besides the 6' X 6' walmanized ties. Is there anything else here that is a problem? MR. PROVENTURE: No, because that's after the facts and all those things are in existence at the present time and we haven't objected to that. TRUSTEE GARRELL: So the only problem here is the ties? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE GARRELL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application of WILLIAM PAPPAS for a split rail fence, a 7' X 10' deck, a 3' X 17' ramp, a 6' X 20' float, 7- 8" piles, storage shed and that the 6' X 6' ties that border driveway be no higher than 1" above the gravel. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 6. Patricia Moore on behalf of RICHARD SIRIANO requests a Wetland Permit for a 35' X 35' boat basin with a retaining wall (jetty type, low sill bulkhead) with outside slip to be cut to mean high water to allow growth of inter-tidal marsh plantings, landwar~ wall to be 3' above mean high water, an 8' wood wood walkway on the landward side of retaining wall, with a 4' X 12' ramp and a 6' X 20' float, and dredging which may be necessary to reach 4' at mean low tide. Located: 600 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM #145' north of Antler Lane. SCTM #97-7-5 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This will be recessed until next month. 7. Joe Fischetti on behalf of JOSEPH LICCARDI & CATHERINE PINO requests a Wetland Permit to install a 90' block retaining wall 3 1/2' to 5' high with 2- 6' returns and backfill with approx. 30 c.y. of clean sand. Located: 50 C%eaves Point Road, East Marion. SCTM #38-2-31 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: One of the questions we had is the applicant of where probably what's gonna happen when he puts a wall up there. If he looks to the east the entire beach is gone and that's due to the structure in front of those and his beach is there probably because he hasn't had a structure. And when he puts that structure up there there's a good chance he's gonna loose the higher beach that he has in front of him. MR. FISCHETTI: We're just trying to retain that land that's there. The number of vegetation that's there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think you understand what John is saying. You can see the beach elevation has dropped so dramatically to the east. The cross section that you have here shows the footing about 8" below the sand. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's what I was concerned ~bout. If you loose that 2 feet in front that whole thing is just gonna collapse. MR. FISCHETTI: We talked about the type of material that he wanted to use and he wanted to use block. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We had met with them about 4 or 5 months ago and it seemed nice, but when we looked at the actual depth that he was going down, it seemed like it might end up being more of a problem than a solution. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He's just gonna have a lot of rubble which might make like a revetment. MR. FISCH~'i~i~I: I understand what the Board is saying and I could not go down any further with that footing. We were going down 12 inches with it. I will bring the point up to my client. Did you bring it up to him at that point? I'm not sure if you did. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: No, not at that point, because he wasn't sure what he was going to do. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When you look at the plans we've seen what happens in areas like that. MR. FISCHETTI: That's a good point. If you'd like we're not rushed to do this. So I'd like to put it off and I'll speak to my client and I'll take your recommendations to him. TRUSTEE GAR~RnL: The other thing you might do if you have the time, is to talk with a couple of other people in marine construction who tackled similar jobs like that. MR. FISCHETTI: We've talked about the regular bulkheading. He wasn't familiar with it. His family was Italian and a mason. They like to block and wanted to use it and we talked about it. You bring a good point up and we did discuss it. At this point I think I could put it off for a month and take your recommendation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sometimes it's more effective to go with the softer structure like rip rap or they have those big gabions. They might work better in a situation like that where a hard structure can take a beating and get undermined. So we'll table this for a month. U.S. Retirement Communities on behalf of PECONIC L~NDING requests a Wetland Permit for the construction of'residential life care community complex buildings consisting of 118 single family detached cottages, 132 apartment units, a 24 unit assisted living center and a 32 bed skilled care center. Located: north side of Main Road approx. 1,100' east of Sound Road, LILCO pole #47-53, Greenport. SCTM #35-1-25 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? TOM WOHLPERT: I'm the engineer of Young & Young of Riverhead. And before I get started I'd like to submit these plans. With me this evening are two members from Young & Young. Ken Abrusso & Jeff Adams. We also have Judd Seaman our environmental consultant and Mark Hendon who is an architect, Don Gesling and Ken Lewis, and Bill Thompson who is Chairman of the Board of Peconic Landing. This will answer any questions you might have regarding almost any aspect of this project. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: At last months meeting there was a fellow who had a model of this. Is that available for review. Is that at Town Hall or is it gone? MR. WOHLPERT: I believe that model is in the marketing office at Feather Hill. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now that model is that to scale and topographically correct? MR. WOHLPERT: Yes. it is. It is my understanding that that was a laser cut model which was built from a computer drawing that Young & Young prepared. So that should be to scale and accurately depict. If I may just make a comments I think what's most important to note here is that the site plan that we submitted in November is a revision of the previously approved site plan for a project known as the Breakers. That project existed of 350 condominiums units and a half dozen ponds. This project entails 250 retirement community units and a bio-filtration system for treating storm water runoff. We believe that we have a good project that has been designed to be environmentally sensitive and we hope that you agree. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know if your aware that new pond creation to treat storm runoff, we don't really consider those areas to be environmentally sensitive because if your building a sump it's a sump no matter what it grows into. So we wouldn't want to over rate areas like that. You said you had a plan similar ~o this that was previously approved. By whom? MR. WOHLPERT: I believe ten years ago the project known as the "Breakers" was approved not only by the DEC but also the Town of Southold, because ultimately it resulted in a building approval. And there are some remnants of foundations that were constructed about ten years ago. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But our permit would only be good for 2 years ' if the work wasn't completed. It might not have been jurisdictional. And looking at this a lot of this is ...... but the setback if 100 feet. Our jurisdiction is 75 feet for fresh or salt water wetlands. MR. WOHLPERT: We've maintained a minimum of 75' of wetlands. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's for any activity whether it be clearing or cutting or anything like that. Now what we d6 on any project whether it somebody's 6' X 6' shed or somebody's 250 unit retirement community, is we would require an on site inspection that has to be staked till we have an idea of where these projects are gonna be on site. MR. WOHLPERT: We have staked it. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We went out there once to look at it and when we were out there two months ago we did go through the property and got a sense of what was there. But there was no sense of 'this is the corner of this building'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The parking lot start here, the Recreational Center is gonna be here overlooking the .... there was no sense of scale when your out in the field in a project of this size. TRUSTEE GARRELL: And this is where the buffer area is. A buffer area delineated by stakes. We got a sense of what was there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What we really need for next month, if it's possible, is if we could take ...... this area is the big hole? (indicating on map). MR. WOHLPERT: there are no elevations on this plan. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Basically, if you could verify this as being a 100 foot buffer between any activity and the wetland areas, then this project is outside of our jurisdiction. MR. WOHLPERT: You want us to stake a 100 foot line and certify that our activity will be ...... let me ask a question because I don't mind doing that, but if we said all our activity would be outside our area and we put this stake ...... I don't know what that's going to accomplish six months or a year from now by you walking around and seeing what's this 100 foot shape line is. Without any buildings or anything else. It's just gonna be a stake and when construction starts here in a year or 8 months those stakes will no longer be here or around. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Presumably, the buildings will be where they're planned and everything so that activity would be be... MR. WOHLPERT: If you imposed and you said 'before any construction took place', we wouldn't want this 100 foot buffer staked before any construction started so that all that could be assured that we would stay outside that area. I think that would solve your concerns during construction and that it would be done at a time when appropriate where we wouldn't loose the stakes. _ TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Except they don't need a permit if they're outside our jurisdiction. MR. WOHLPERT: If we stake it at the time when we're ready to... TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Just to establish that your not gonna be within 100' at that point when they're gonna do the work. MR. WOHLPER: We're say that we're gonna be outside that 100 feet and before we con~mence construction we'll stake that line to insure that we are outside that 100 feet. And if we went in there we'd be in violation. Plus to stake a 100 foot line now, I don't know by you walking around saying yes, this is the 100 foot line. What that really does for you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It does verify that this is where the wetlands are. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: In other words, you might say, the wetlands line is here, we might say it's up here. MR. WOHLPERT: You want us to stake the 100 foot line or the buildings. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No the 100 foot line is fine because then you can stay outside. Somebody says, 'unit #82 should be here or here, then at least .... MR. WOHLPERT: So we'll stake that 100 foot line and anything outside that .... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you want to make any changes at all in the other areas you don't have to come to us, because it's well out of our jurisdiction. MR. WOHLPERT: I think that if we put some more stakes in this area and if we don't go crazy, we're not proposing any buildings and then jump into this area where there are buildings, there's nothing ...... There's no sense in us, as surveyors putting 15 stakes in an area that we're not proposing to build on. If we put them a little heavier in here and a little heavier where the buildings are gonna go and number them, I think that would satisfy your needs. If that's what you want, I'll do that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just one more question. It relates to our 75' jurisdiction. You have the 100 foot buffer. We only have jurisdiction of 75' of that. Is there gonna be any proposed activity within our jurisdiction? MR%. WOHLPERT. No. Except where we're building those bio-filtration ponds. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I mean the two wetlands by the Sound. MR. WOHLPERT. No. We're looking to expand those ponds. The two by the Sound. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That you would need a permit for. Is that part of this description. It wasn't clear to me. MR. WOHLPERT: If you open that plan you can see it. We have an existing pond and we've got a new pond we're looking to create. We have the other pond, the existing pond and the existing wetland we are looking to expand that a little bit and create some new wetlands. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I didn't see any existing pond in that location when I was out there. MR. WOHLPERT: Existing and new wetlands. TRUSTEE .KRUPSKI: When we go on field inspection next month maybe your representative from the company can take us there and that way any questions they can be answered right there and it's not gonna hold it up for another month. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just saw in the file that the State wants to do an inspection also. MR. WOHLPERT: Could we best set this up by your office? If you set it up we'll make ourselves available. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Just let you know we are recently changing the code so that when you do create your own ponds you don't bring upon you any regulation. So if you create your own pond you can still come within 75' and put whatever you ~ant. That wasn't in the code, we are just changing it. It's in front of the code committee two or three months ago. MR. WOHLPERT: If we were to have this staked within the next two weeks, when would you be looking to set up the meeting so we would know when to come back. TRUSTEE GARRELL: Mid January. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I'll make a motion to recess the hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE GARRELL made a motion to go back to the regular meeting, TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES V. RESOLUTIONS: 1. En-Consultants Inc., on behalf of ANNE MARUSEVICH requests a Grandfather Permit to remove and replace (inkind/inplace) 100+/-' of existing timber retaining wall and 2-.10' returns and backfill with approx. 25 c.y. of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source. Applicant wishes to place 1-3 ton stone on filter cloth placed along the eastern end of the structure to mitigate erosional scour. Located: 285 Sound View Ave., Mattituck. SCTM #94-1-1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve with condition that sand and stone come from upland source, not stone already there, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded. ALL AYES 2. William Witzke on behalf of ALBERTSON MARINA requests a Grandfather Permit for an existing 4' X 75' catwalk with a 4' X 22' ramp attached to a 6' X 250' floating dock with 8 finger floats measuring 6' X 33' and one measuring 6' X 27'. Applicant wishes to Amend this Grandfather Permit to make all finger floats 6' X 27' and replace and repair as needed, inkind/inplace. Located: Route 25 between Bay Home Road and Port of Egypt. SCTM #56-6-2.3, 3, 3.2 & 3.3 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to recess the hearing until next month when we verify correct measurements, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded. ~ALL AYES 3. Hahn Realty on behalf of LAWRENCE A. MITCHELL requests a Gran~fa-ther Permit for an existing 5' X 16' & 4' X 6' deck. LOC&~ed~'2905-~'~- Bayshore Road, Greenport. SCTM #53-6-4 TRUSTEE iHOSZAPFEL moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE GARRELL seconded. ALL AYES VI. .MOORINGS: 1. MICHAEL J. CONNOLLY requests a 10' X 8' duck blind in Arshamomoque Pond~ ACCESS: Public. TRUSTEE GARRELL moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded.- ALL AYES Meeting Adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted By: Diane J. Herbert, Clerk