Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-12/21/1995Albert J. Krupski, President John Holzapfel, Vice President Jim King__ Martin H. Garrell Peter Wenczel BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 MINUTES DECEMBER 21, 1995 CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, Jan. 17, 1996 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to approve, TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE BOARD MEETING: Wednesday, Jan. 31, 1996 at 7:00 pm TRUSTEE AL~ERTSON moved to approve, TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded° ALL AYES APPROVE MIN-~TES: Approve Minutes of November 30, 1995 Regular Meeting: No minutes, were available as yet. I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for November 1995: A check for $1,392.52 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES: 1. GLORIA SIMON requests an Amendment to Permit 92068 to change ramp and float as follows: from a 2' X 16' ramp to a 37 X 16' ramp and a 5'1" X 8'6" float to a 6' X 20' float. Located: 530 Sunset Way, Cedar Beach, Southotd. SCTM ~91-1-9 TRUSTEE WENCZEL moved to approve providing applicant submit drawings showing float perpendicular to dock, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded. ALL AYES 2. VICTOR & ELLA BECK requests an Amendment to Permit ~4504 to increase the size of float from 5' X 20' to 6' X 20' for stability. Located: 2215 Minnehahah Blvd., Southold. SCTM ~87-3-59 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to approve, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON-seconded. ALL AYES Board of Trustees 2 December 2i, 1995 3. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of ROBERT & JEANCALHOUN requests an Amendment to Permit $4325 to construct a 6' X 180' fixed dock with an 8' X 46' "L" elev. 4' above marsh, a 4' X 20' ramp and an 8' X 40' float. Located: East End Road, Fishers Island. SCTM $3-2-2 TRUSTEE WENCZEL moved to approve prcrviding the fixed dock be nc longer t~k%nmeanhigh water and no longer than 172' and the 2nd fixed dock be 6' X 46' in "L" configuration, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded. ALL AYES 4. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of DR. ISIS A, BARTRLS requests an Amendment to Permit %4487 for the installation of 43+' of revetment which shall be placed betwccn the still existing walls on either side. The revetment will consist of 1 - i 1/2 yard rock which shall be placed, on filter fabric, backfilled with 75+ c.y. of soil then planted with native grass. Located: Private Road %3, Fishers Island. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to deny the request for an Amendment and request the applicant and neighbor submit a full application, TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES 5. Land Use on behalf of JUDITH SCH~ID requests a Waiver to construct an 8' X 34' addition to an existing dwelling. Located: 2975 Wells Ave., Southold. SC~M $70-4-12 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve the request for a Waiver, TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYF.~ TRUSTEE ALREETSON moved to go off the regularmeeting and go onto Public Hearings, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL SECONDRD. AT~ AYES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: THIS IS A pLr~LIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OFT HE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERI~ITS ~Jl~D~ THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HA'FE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE SUFFOLK TIMES~ PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCEMAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COFE4~NTS FROM THE PUBLIC. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF: FIVE (5)MINUTES' OR LESS, IF POSSIBLE 7:21 p.m. In the matter of DANIEL C. MOONEY requests a Wetland Permit to move an existing house at 480 Rabbit L~ne to across the street onto new foundation. Pilings and septic system will stay in place for future ho,~e. Located: 480 Rabbit Lane, East Marion. SCTM %31-18-10 TRUSTEE KRUPSKi: Is there anyone here who would like to speak either in favor of or against the project? WILLIAM LEVELL: Again, I received a copy of a letter in the Trustees file from the NYSDEC. They have a verysignificant concern in regard to the existing septic system whichMr. Mooney plans on leaving on the property and reusing for the new house he plans on building. Obviously my ar~'~ments are made, at the last two times I was here, on the same tonight, I Board of Trustees 3 December 21, 1995 will point at that obviously he application is incomplete because the application leaves his pilings sticking out of the sand without another application proposing what he plans doing with them. Which is building another house. Under the law, once you remove a structure any peza~its or .approvals that were obtained for that structure are no longer valid. So in affect, we have to resu]mr~t an application for a septic system on the south side of Rabbit Lane. Since that last pe~uit was granted for the septic system as existing currently, the high tide line has moved northward there approx. 30'. So he got a waiver for approx. 85' and now the current distance between the septic system and the high tide line is less than 60'. I think there is a substantial and significant impact and a low probability cf the NYSDEe granting him another permit to re-install another septic system on the south side of Rabbit Lane. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: This permit has nothing to do with that. Are you linking the two? MR. LEVELL: I think it has to. He is asking to leave the existing pilings. Obviously the Trustees are not gonna let pilings sit there, aesthetically damaging the view of Peconic Bay or Marion Harbor. And that's exactly what he is doing. Obviously the application is incomplete because he plans in the near future in ibuilding a house on the pilings. So obviously those pilings have to be dealt with. And the application in no way shape or form deals with that. I think again, that this is really putting the Trustees between a hard place and a stone because he's doing this project "piece meal". His first thing was to move the house, then the Trustees said., "well, we need an application because the o~her house is next to wetlands." So he got another application. At that point he never indicated that he was leaving the Pilings. Now we know he is leaving.the pilings. So, how is planning on handling those. If they're not coming down, what's hedoing with them. He's gonna put another house on top of them. Again, he needs to submit an application. I think the letter here from Mr. Chiarella from the~PfSDEC, is very clear. Once an existing property is abandoned or not used and the structure remuYed, all pe£mits that existed for that propert~ are no longer valid. So therefore in order to remove those pilings, and.build another house there, he has to again get approval for another septic s~st~. I believe again, the application that sits before the Trustees now, is severely .... is asking the Trustees to do something half way. At some point those pilings have to be dealt with, and they're not being done with with this application, So I think that really requires him to put before the Trustees his entire plan. What hs is intending to do with these two parcels of land. Obviously the Wetlands Act and the Trustees are making decisions for the overall good for the Tow~ of Southold. So to deal with one piece of propert!rat a time does not re~lect the totality of the circumstances which is really the job of the Trustees are required to fulfills. So, I believe, in order to be forthwith, and put in front of your the entire package an application that has to remain, t) showing the removal of the house, 2) removal. of the house, and 3) the building of the new house. Based upon Board of Trustees 4 December 21, 1995 this letter here, it seems that the current development restriction requires the 100' barrier between the new septic system and the high tide line on the Bay. And the propert~ on the south side of R~hbit Lane, is only approx. 60' deep. So therefore you would know that according to ~he current standards, the septic s~stem can be encapsulated in that specific property. It's got to be placed elsewhere. MR. DEVLIN: The DEC suggested that since it can't be used, if it's less than 100', that it makes sense for it to be removed now. It makes sense to me, that part of your approval for moving that house from there, should go along with that and take out the septic system. I'm frustrated because this is all one big thing. MR. LEVELL: That's exactly what the NYSDEC reco~m~Lends, that the system be removed. Obviously when it's capped whatever solid waste material is in there, when it rains or floods, or snows and the snow melts, again causes the solid material to leach out into the surrounding area. And quite honestly, there is no indication in his application whether or not any consequences of leaving that septic system capped and not in use. Obviously it is not in use and should be taken out and the soil that is contaminated should be removed. I know the Trustees are familia~ with this. At low tide the water level is between 3 and 4 feet, All the other septic systems have to be bermed in order to .... well I would, use the word~ "to work somewhat efficiently". I think that's a significant problem before the Trustees. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments? MR. LEVELL: I would like to request that the letter from ~r. Chiaretla dated Dec. 11, 1995 be made part of the file. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's already in there. We have a response from Mr. Reynolds of the Health Dept~ regarding Health Dept,. Pglicy. (Al read the letter. See attached) TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The Health Dept. says if they pump out the cesspools, it's there and cap it, they'll be happy with that. But it's the same basic concept. MR. LEVELL: But the application doesn't indicate that he plans on using .... TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Ail they're saying is that it's abandoned, he should pump it out and then cap it. MR. ANGRLL: What's the definition of abandonment?Does it mean that when he builds a house he can claim that he has a cesspool on the property? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I don't think so. I think that's what DEC is .say, that it's a whole new ball game and that he looses all rights. MR. LEVELL: Once more than 50% of the house is removed or destroyed its as if it never existed, under the law, TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Except, if it's removed, then it's removed. If it's there then it's still there. Legally he might not have rights to it but he would certainly claim it. Any other Board comments. Board of Trustees 5 December 21, 1995 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The c~m~ent I have is the pilings too. Are we removing the house and leaving these things sticking out there? I don't know whether that's acceptable. MR. LEVRLL: In exactly that same vein, I don't know of any mechanism in place to keep a house suspended 12 feet off the. ground ~nd move it 45 feet. Normally when you move these house moving trailers are ~hout 1 - 1 1/2 feet off the ground. So I don't know what kind of special equipment is needed wkL~le his house if 12 in the air and move it to save the pilings. And that's what this application proposes. I don't think this application has any information or any explanation as how he is going to move the house. If there is heavy equipment needed to do this, it's within...including the deck even 20' of the high tide line of the Bay. I believe the application isn't complete in order for the Trustees to make a decision. TRUSTEE HOAZAPFEL: Do we really want all these pilings sticking up? It's an aesthetic question. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Except you have a house there now, which is even more obtrusive than a few pilings. That house is certainly a significant structure. As opposed to the pilings. If you move the house, all you have is a few pilings. Now you have the house. So if you want to put it in that perspective I don't think the pilings represent that great a... MR. ANGELL: Could the pilings be considered a foun8~tion? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think so. MR. ANGELL: I'm not sure, but I think Mr. Mooney said he had a foundation there that he would have rights to rebuild. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The pilings don't distress me that much, they're just pilings, a~d you already have a bulkhead and the whole beach is loaded with structure. The cesspool concerns me because there is potential for over wash. And it will wash out the whole system. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: How does that change over wash? The house is on pilings, and that's not gonna have any affect. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, you have lattice and pipes and all sorts of debris under the house and the water just comes right through. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I don't think that's gonna change it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: My concern is that we get...in a storm event, you can have an over wash. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Do I think if we have the opportunity to remove it, should we remove it. That's really the bigger question. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Remove the septic system? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Yes. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: That might pose more of a risk with coBtamination than leaving it there. TRUSTEE KiV3PSKI: Why? TRUSTEE WENCZEL: You might be better off to just cap it. There's a lot of contaminated material there. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But you pump it all out and then you just get rid of the system. MR. LEVELL: It's done the same way that they do with the gas tanks that leak. They do it at low tide and they clean ~d in fact move the dirt that's -underneath and around the s~aL~m and Board of Trustees 6 December 21, 1995 they bring it to a special facility where it's treated. As far as a house or pilings, that the house provides a place for someone to live there's a benefit from having a house. There's no benefit from having pilings taken up and ruining the aesthetic view. If your argument were to be from a theoretical point of view, then you want all the houses moved there because. they affect the aestheti~ view. But however, people need a place to live, therefore we are allowing a house to be built which somewhat affects the aesthetic value of the area, however, it does serve a function because it allows someone to live there. Once the house is removed the pilings ar~ not serving any benefit at all except the aesthetic nature of the area. I think that's a consideration. Obviously everything that this Board decides on is weighed. The benefits verses nature of certain things. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'm t~nking of it in the sense of "I'm the next door neighbor. Do i want a half completed thing there sitting there for' the rest of ..... as an aesthetic-thing." TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Put on a condition in the permit that if he ..... My thing is if something happens to the Mooneys then your left with that situation anyway. There's different scenarios. If your looking through the whole scenario. You work your way through it all .... you get another approval for a house and septic system. TRUSTEE ~OLZAPFEL: Yes, but if we leave a foundation, we're setting up the rules of the game already. I think Steve has a point, if you have a foundation .... TRUSTEE ~{CZEL: But is that true. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Again, do I know that as a fact? No. But I've always heard that, if you have a foundation there you have a certain right. ~R. LEVELL: I would point o~t that this house wh~re the foundation is is a non-conforming lot. The minimal requirements for a non-conforming lot aren't even met. I know this is not the place for it, but the zoning specifically states that a house that is moved or altered or destroyed at least 5g% cannot be rebuilt on a non-conforming lot. What's gonna happen is, your gonna approve the application~ he then will submit another application.to rebuild on those pilings, you~granted because in your opinion there was no adverse affect on the Wetlands Act, the~he goes before the Zoning Board and I appear there, and I say legal it's a non-confo~.,ing lot, the house has been moved or altered, you can't rebuild because it doesn't meet the setback requirements. Where are-you then? That's why this piece meal application process is not really cond~cive to fulfilling the goal of the wetland act. If Mr. Mooney has a plan to move a house and build a new house then he sho~tdput it before you. Deciding in one process. Because ultimately if you don't decide in one process your creating a situation ther~ and spending $t0 - $20,000 for moving a house, p~ttinga new septic system, then ultimately the piece of property which is the most economic and nicest piece of property on the water and he can't build on it again. Obviously that is not a situation that Mr. Mooney wants and a situation that my client, Fir. Devtin Board of Trustees 7 December 21, 1995 wants, and obviously it's not a situation I think the Town of Southold or the Trustees want. I believe in the totality of circumstances his entire process should be looked at in its entirety. Exactly what he plans are. Just 'cause he gets passed the Wetlands Act, doesn't mean that down the road he will get a Building Permit to rebuild now. He still has the pilings problem. Obviously if it sits there for a year it's not such a problem, but if he gets denied the application to build on those pilings again, he's not gonna want to spend that kind a money to remove those pilings. ~d you basically have already gave him the authority to move the house and lea~e the pilings there. TRUSTEE ERUPSKI: We can just condition the permit that if the pilings and septic system haYe to be removed, if within one year he doesn't receive a Health Dept. approval. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: We need to know whether or not lea~ing those pilings there makes a difference or not for future approval. MR. ANGELL: How will the Zoning Board of Appeals look upon pilings and granting a variance. They wouldn't look at that as a virgin piece of property, they would look at it as new construction. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Or just condition it that he has to remove everything. ALLEN CONNELL: Just to comment on the septic system. If the septic s~stem is pumped, this septic tank and the cesspool and it's capped, your looking at two types of pollutants. Nitrates and bacteria. If you remove that material in effect yoU've taken care of the pollution (could not hear, too m~ch noise). I don't think, it's part of the pollution problem, I don't think the s~stem has robe removed. Because if you require it to be pumped and capped then y~u have taken care of the problem. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I still think the piling thing is the question. Are we setting up a precedent? MR. LEV]ELL: It seems pretty clear that the Building Code and SoUthOld Zoning Code .... it states here that a non-conforming building contained a non-conforming use shall not be enlarged, reconstructed or structurally' altered or moved, unless the use os such building is changed to a conforming use. And being a non-conforming containing a non-conforming use, which the existing house and property is, has been damaged by fire or other causes to the extent of-more than 50% is fair market value, should not be rebuilt or repaired unless such building is changed to a conforming use. Now, in here it doesn't say may, it says shall. Which means under the law, must. So I believe that he would not be able to, according to the zoning, be able to rebuild in those pilings. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't ~Jn~erstand the zoning code because "unless it sb~ll be changed to a con£oz~ng use." So what does that mean, he can go to the ZBA and get a variance.? M~. LEVELL: Well, yes. TRUSTEE E!~JP~: Is there any other c~ma~nt? Motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE ~r~ERTSON: TRUSTEE W~CZEL: I'll make a motion we table this until we consult our Town Attorney. Board of Trustees 8 December 21, 1995 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES 7:45 p.m. - In the matter of NICOLO DI BARTOLO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 20' X 12' brid~e, a 47' retaining wall on east side and a 30' retaining wall on west side, an existing retaining wall on north side will be removed and every other stave will be removed from the existing wall on south side and approx. 10 c.y. of fill will be brought in from upland source. Located: 21.46 Main Road, Laurel. SCTM 4127-3-6.1 & 6.2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of the application? Anyone here who would liks to speak against this application? GAIL WICKHA~: I'm here on behalf Of ~olden View Estates. I understand that unless something came that I was not aware late today there is no definitive answer from the Fire Dept. on the access question. I'd like to just reiterate it to that point, that there is a court order permitting this gentleman access to his property. The lan~age in the order which provides for termination for' access is only in the event other access is available. Our position is that other access is not available, it would only be available if your Board should decide to go through, what we consider- an extraordinary length granting him the right to build the bridge across.wetlands at great intrusion, we believe, to the wetlands. Moreover, I don't believe the Trustees are require~ te grant such an intrusion. They are no required to determine if other access is adequately safe that the jurisdiction concerns the viability and preservation of the wetlands. The applicant has not entitlement to build a bridge and so he cannot compel such an act. If you consider the construction costs of building this type of bridge, together with the cost of cutting down a number of large oak trees and building a readway hundreds of feet tong over quite a steep incline, I think that money could go a very long way to improving the access he currently has legally from the other direction. Moreover, I don't believe the the width of the right of way concer~ of the applicant expressed at the last hearing should be a concern of this Board because the narrow portion of the right of way is along railroad and that railroad bed is kept open if in the event of .a dire emergency if a large vehicle had to get through there would be room to pass. We ask you to deny the permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? MR. ANGELL: CAC has an extensive comment. We're going cur'rent plan. The existing plan was to remove' this bulkhead here (indicating on map) to construct a bulkhead here and here so that the bridge would have footing correct? And put a 10' extension and to remove every other slat within this section the channel to allow access. We think that's a real problem. Because during icy conditions or during storm surges we think debris can get in here and really compromise this bulkhead structure as it is now. So what we would suggest is to rebuild this bulkhead inkind/inplace lea~ing out this 2~' section and continuing this over as the applicant has his original permit to build a bulkhead from here to the. wing Walls on both sides and Board of Trustees 9 December 21~ 1995 continue those wing walls down to be a little less intrusive than the currently plan would have them be. We think that it comes into the marsh too much. To bring in fill to raise the road bed to the top of this bulkhead and have the bridge be even with top of that bulkhead. There's another concern that the bridge as it stands now in the application is much too close to the water line during the storms and we think that would be under water. It's actually below the level of this bulkhead here. We think that during times of storm this bridge would be compromised. Which would deny the applicant access egress to his property. And it could in effect cause major problems with its stability. We're also concerned that fuel oil trucks and delivery trucks that come in here could actually end up in the marsh and that could be a real damaging event if it should happen. It's unlikely, but it's possible. So we really think this should be beefed up more than it is now. That's why we would like this to be rebuilt. This bulkhead here. We don't think that this bulkhead that is currently there is gonna be adequate.to hold the load on that bridge. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Rebuild this section and this section? ~R. AN~ELL: The southern bulkhead. ~R. CONNELL: The northern bulkhead should be removed totally. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You want to raise the elevation of the entire structure? MR. ANGELL: No, we think that the top of the bulkhead now is OK, but this structure should be raised. As the current plan exists, this is much lower. TRUSTEE!KRUPSKI: On both sides? ~R. CONNELL: The existing elevation of the south bulkhead is adequateand everything else should be brought to that elevation. TRUSTEE KRU~SKI: Now what about this one here? MR. ANGELL: That should be removed. TRUSTEE, KRUPSKi: Completely? MR. ANGELL: Yes, and that's the applicants current plan. MR. CONNS~.L: What we're really concerned about is getting open flow through that channel so that there is no way that it could be restricted. TRUSTEE KRLrPSKI: When we went out into the field originally, that was our big concern. That these structures were causing a tremendous amount of erosion-as they stand. MR. ~GELL: We think that the plan to remove every other board within the existing bulkhead here on th~ south, is really asking for trouble down the road. Especially in a si~tion like we have tonight. When you get a storm surge come in and there's ice. I don't think it's a well t~hought out situation. For the environment it could be a disaster. TRUSTEE KRU~SKI: Mr. Di Bartolo, 1 agree with that, that this should be removed. There is no flow restriction. Would you have a major problem amending that? MR. DI BARTOLO: No, I think I can understand that problem enough to consider it. TRUSTEE KRUP~SKI: The suggestions they're making are common sense suggestions. Board of Trustees 10 December 21, 1995 MR. DI BARTOLO: It makes sense to me only because you have a one foot area there that if a big tree comes down in s sto£m it won't go through. I think if that's the only objection I can live with that. I think what your saying is only for the 20' section of the bridge. MR. ANGELL: Correct. Actually the bulkhead that you would be building to rest a bridge structure on would actually tie into the existing bulkhead there and would shore that up. Unless your engineer says he could repair what's there. MR. DI BARTOLO: The only concern that I have is the higher you make it the more you loose in stability from an engineers standpoint. But the longer any pilings are above the water the more stability problems your gonna have. So probably what I have to do is make them bigger. MS. WICF3tAM: Regardless of the engineezing, I can't believe that this Board which has shown incredible concern for the wetlands is considering letting this man, who came in on a false premise, put in a bridge over the wetlY. I just think it will create a horrible precedent. I know ~u~ are always concerned with restrictions, and how the wetlands are affected, and I just think it's appalling to even be allowed to come in and say I need this, when he doesn't. I think it's the wrong thing to do. TRUSTEE KRLrPSKI: To address that, we spoke to the Town Attorney about that. The key word here is "roadway". And the meaning is not clear. You could decide that roadway means the public road that goes to the border of the parcel. In which case the easement of the main road would terminate. Alternately, you could decide that roadway means driveway access in Which the easement of the main road would not teEminateuntil and unless you grant an approval for the driveway. So it's up to us to decide. MS. WICEI{AM: The order specifically states to plaintiffs land tax map 6.1 & 6.2 That roadway from Golden View Estates is not from 6.2. And whether he merged it or not, it was clearly intended by this order that access to the house be affected, That was the whole point of the litigation~ Was the access to the house. Right now, there is a body of water blocking access to 6.2. A/Id whether ~t is merged or not from the zoning point of view, the house on 6.1 does not have access without your granting him the right to build the bridge. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don~t think it's that clear. Does the Board think it's clear? (All said yes.) MS. WICKHA~: He doesn't have access without a bridge. MR. AGNELL: He's not required to get another access. That the agreement or order will cease upon getting ao~other access. MR. CONNELL: When the CAC looked at this~ we looked at it as far as an environmental impact and if there were no structure there right now, we would probably have different opinions but the current structures that are there are causing just as much damage with all kinds of erosion that's occurring there and the existing structures cause more damage than aaything. And that's the way we looked at this. How could this be improved? If Board of Trustees it December 21, 1995 everything is taken out of there that weuld be one way, another way would be the concept of ..... (could not hear him) MR. DI BARTOLO: I think it's obvious from the court order that there's some doubt in there. However, it does say, there is one deed. We don~t have two deeds. So the fact that we're talking about different parcels I think is irrelevant. It is on one deed and that's been verified by yourselves. Secondly, about 3 months ago I discussed this matter regarding the driveway when it came up in conversation with Mr. Cusam~no. MR. CUSAMANO: No, never. Don't say that, we never discussed that. I'm the owner of Golden View Estates. MR. DI BARTOLO: What I meant to say is not a negative factor, but a fact that did exist that when Mr. Cusamano out that I was going to build a driveway, he thought that part of that land at ~he Cul de Sac, when I ~'d the discussion, and I said, "Gee I didn't realize that, but if it is that, there's no way I'm gonna do anything without your permission. It's obvious. Later when I checked with the Town, we found out that in fact it was a public street, which abuts on my land. I did not create this problem. The public street is there. I didn't do that. But, to get down to the point, now, and to ensure Mr. Cusamano and the other' ~wners, it is not my intention to do anything to damage the lots. Because he had expressed some concern about people dumping garbage in the back. And this happens everywhere. He had to clean it up and I've cleaned some of it up myself. I think it's a problem we've both had. I think his feeling was that if there's a driveway there, because my house is so fat back, that there might be some possibilities of people dumping thLugs. F~t feeling is that if I'm there and I'm using it, it's not likely to happen simply because someone is always going in and out. Other than that I don't intend to do anything to damage his property or my property. Frankly I'm not sure the Town will move this or not, but I am concerned and dismayed that the situation is not being presented as a environmental problemwhen in fact it may have to proceed as an economic problem. I want to rei~e him and everyone else who may own this land because I'm not sure who all the owners are, that in no way is it my' intention to any damage. If anything I will try to .make it better if nothing else. TRUSTEE' KRUPSKI: One thing I'd like to say to the Bo~rd is that you have a situation here, forgetting about the right of way, what you have is an application of a structure ove.r the wetlands. If you look at it from an environmental standpoint it's an i~provement over the existing situation which is causing a problem. To put it in. prospectiVe, how m~ny structures do we. grant over wetlands.? A lot. Catwalks. This is over private property. TRUSTEE HOLZAPPEL: To turn it around the other way, how many bridges have we allowed over wetlands? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Privately owned? TRUSTEE GARRELL: Mr. Simon's garage is one~ TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's it. One. Simon's was sia~ly .... to question that as a wetland, that was a highly questionable Board of Trustees 12 December 21, I995 wetland. It was a wetland simply because the Town runs off, the road run off. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, because of vegetation ..... So I~m trying to get away from the access issue which is very contentious. TRUSTEE ~OLZAPFEL: So, if somebody came in to build a bridge over wetlands for no reason at all, we'd say no. We did that to the guy up at Arshamomoque, who wanted to build a bridge across to their property on the other side. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Yes, but that was Trustee land. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was Trustee land .and he could also go three feet to the side and walk around. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: This is Trustee land. TRUSTEE F~qUPSKI: No. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: No, it's privately owned. MR. ANGELL: Your bottom ends about 20' to the south of there. MS. WICKHA~: Whether it's privately owned or not, you have jurisdiction. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, and I don't think it's up to this Board to say whether he has some sort of legal need for this bridge or not. the question is, he's applied for it. TRUSTEE GARRELL: The benefit to the creek of opening up what's now seems to be a blockage. Does that turn out better fer the wetland, the marsh, and the creek than the risk of say run off from any roads that would be constructed onthe other side? If If you look the benefit and damage to the creek itself you've got another issue there too. TRUSTEE KI~UPSKI: That's the issue that we should be focusing on. MS. WICKPIk~: TT~ere's already a road there, and he put a road on side he wants ..... I have a map here I'd like to submit that shows an incredibly steep contou~o TRUST~ GARRELL: We're pretty familiar' with the contours. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: My point, and still in response to that is in order to improve the flow there, you don't need a bridge. Thebridge doesn't make the water go. I mean the whole thing could be abandoned. MS. WICKHAM: Eventually that structure will deteriorate. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Right. It practically is now. It's questionable whether it's still functional. In reality it's no longer functioning. MR. ANGELL: I would debate that it's no longer f~,~ctio~l. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would too. MR. ANGELL: He could come in and say I want to rebuild this bulkhead inkind~inptace for flood protection. And then you have a worse case than YoU have now. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: B~t, I'm not s%ure it's functional. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is. It's caEsing' all the sediments to be eroded around it on eithe~ side. If it wasn't functienin~ you wouldn't have the erosion on either side. MR. DI BARTO~O: You gentlemen have the DEC approval in the file. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: If you read their permit the~ say a lot of things in there that ..... They say there's no fill of wetlands. I don't understand that. That's what their permit says, that Board of Trustees 13 December 21, 1995 you may not fill the wetlands. And yet your doing it. So there's some inconsistency with their permit. M~. DI BARTOLO: It's indication that a small amount of fill as indicated on the plan and they approved the plan. T~USTRR KRUPSKI: You mean there should be no disturbance of vegetated tidal wetlands? T~USTEE HOLZAPFEL: Right, and also here ..... T~USTEE KRUPSKI: But, there won't be. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Sure there will. They're gonna bury it. They'll burY the wetlands. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, that's not re-vegetate wetlands. That's what's being scoured out. It's not vegetate~wettand. It's only become creek because it's being scoured out constantly. And eventually, this whole thing will go. It will just cut through eventually. And all you do is fill the creek in with that. T~USTEE HOLFLAPFEL: They're not gonnaput in any equipment below high water? TRUSTEE KRU~SKI: For what? No they can't. Why would they have to? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Also on this side (indicating on map). This land is wetlands and LoC said this particular part he said you're gonna have to .fill in wetlands and we're not gonna allow that. That was the first meeting. T~USTEE KRU~SK/: Because the original proposal was to put the culvert in and fill and that's what we wouldn't allow. And that'show this plan grew out of where the applicant wanting to put culverts in and fill that completely and our Board said no and DEC said no if you want access you have to bridge that in order to gain access because you don't want to disturbed the tidal flow. After ~hout'3 meetings on the site and one at Town Hall then this plan dame about. And the CAC is att~upting to modify it e~en further to provide greater protection to the marsh~and provide a safer structure. MR. DI BARTOLO: I've incorporated everY change that has been suggested to do since the verY first meeting-. I've trie~ to confo~-mto everytP~tng you have all suggested to try to make this an improvement rather then anything else. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE HOL~A~FEL: So moved. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTF. R KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion we approve the application with condition that the bridge be constructed to the specifications of the suggestion~ of the CAC and that the bridge and drivewaY be limited to a single family dwelling an~ that pezmit conditions confozm tc conditions of DEC, haybales be put in on up slope and all disturbed ar'e~m be vegetated even the driveway itself. So you could seed over the gravel driveway-so that it will help stabilize it. Also a new drawing reflecting the new plan suGgested hythe CAC~ TRUSTR~ WENCXRL: Second. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Abstain TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Nay. Board of Trustees 14 December 21, 1995 8:16 p.m. - In the matter of BERNARD PEPER requests a Wetland Permit for an existing house with attached deck, sanitar~ system, and existing stone wall and concrete block walk along property as per s~rve~ dated Oct. 7, t995. Applicant wishes to sell house and is trying to get all permits. Located: 955 Lupton Point, Mattituck. SCTM 9115-11-6 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak either in favor or against this application? CAC rec~m~ends approval. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Move to close. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve with condition that he s~,h~it a planting plan in front of house with spartina alternaflora and that that be planted on north side of stone. wall between mean high water and mean iow water at 18" centers. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES 8:25 p.m. - In the matter of Hepler Associates on behalf of ERNEST GAEBEL requests a Wetland Permit to construct 18' of bulkhead with a 6' return and place rock revetment and planting plan across approx. 75' of property. Located: 1765 Westview Drive, ~ttituck. SCTM ~107-7-7 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who wishes to speak either in favor or against this application? MR. ANGELL: C~C recommended approval now that he provided erosion control. T~USTEE KRUPSKI: Any Board comments? TRUSTEE WENCZEL: 18~ of bulkhead, is that necessary? TRUSTEE HOL~FEL: That's up to that tree. It's protecting the return on the other side really. TRUSTEE GARRELL: Move to close. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTER HOLZAPFEL: Motion to approve for a wetland permit according to plans s~bmitted. TRUSTEE GARRELL: Second.. ALL AYES 8:35 p.m. In the matter of Costetlo Marine on behalf of ROBERT SCHISSEL requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct 90' of timber bulkhead-within 18", replace 30' inkind/inplace, remove upper concrete retaining wall to land~itl, backfill with approx. 40 c.y. of clean san~, remove atld~ainag~pipes, place dr!~ells upland and replace disturbed area. Located: 710 West Shore Road, Reydon Shores, Southold. SCTM $80-I-46 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: CAC recommends approval with condition applicant plant the flat ar~a behind the bulkhead with beach grass. Board comment? Motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: So moved. TRUSTEE GAR~RL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I'll make a motion we approve the permit. TRUSTEE HOLZA~FEL~ Second. AIJ. AYES TRUSTEE ALBERTSON moved to go back to regular meeting, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded. ALL AYES Board of Trustees 15 December 21, 1995 V. ASSESSMENTS: 1. Eh-Consultants Inc., on behalf of JOHN DE GENNARO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a timber deck consisting of a 3' X 21' fixed Walk, a 3' X 5i' fixed walk, (min. 4' above grade) a 3' X 16' hinged ramp and a 6' X 20' float sec%ured by (2) sets of 8" diameter X 25' dolphins.. Located: 2213 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM 986-5-10 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to grant a Negative Declaration, TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES 2. J.M.O, Consulting on behalf of FREDERICK C. HAFIILTON requests a Wetland Permit to construct walks, terraces and gardens. A staked line of hay bales with silt fencing shall be installed prior to and maintained during all periods of construction. Located: Private Road, Fishers Island. SCTM 95-2-4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to grant a Negative Declaration, TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES{ 3. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND GOLF COURSE requests a Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permit to restore an eroded shoreline by installing a bounder slope and reconstruct/repair existing dune. Boulder slope will have 2- 4 ton stones along eroded shoreline beginning at an existing rip-rap wall and continuing an additional 200' to the east and ptaced on filter f~hric with a 1' rock ship base, with no grout. Approx. 150 c.y. of boulders shall be used for wall which will vary in width from 6' 18' Any areas disturbed will be re-vegetatedwith American Beach Grass planted 12" on center, and 410' of eroded dune shall be restored byplacing approx. 750 c.y. of clean sand trucked from upland source along eroded shoreline. Located.: East End Road, Fishers Island. SCT~ 91-1-3.13 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to grant a Negative Declaration, TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES VI. RESOLUTIONS: 1. WILLIAM PARROTT requests a Grandfather Pezmit for a 4' X 5' dock, a 3' X 10' ramp and a 6' X 20' float, a 60' bulkhead and a 60' concrete wall with 45' on south side and 15' on north side as per s~rvey dated 8/6/91. Located: 2435 Cedar' Lane, East ~rion. SCTM 937-4-9 TRUSTEE ALBERTSONmoved to approve the. Grandfather Permit, TRUSTEE WENCZEL seCOnded. ALL AYES 2. Costello ~arine oR behalf of JOSEPH EEVITS requests a Grandfather Permit to replace 48' of existing bulkhead inkind/inplace and backfill with 28 c.y. of clean fill. Located: 1300 West Lane, Southold. SCTM 988-6-18.1 TRUSTEE WF/{CZEL moved to approve the Grandfather Pez~it with condition they Grandfather the whole bulkhead, re-vegetate and maintain vegetated buffer, and an updated survey showing Board of Trustees 16 December 21, 1995 bulkhead and vegetated buffer, TRUSTEE ALBERT$ON seconded. AT.T, AYES 3. ELSA RIVERS requests a Grandfather Permit for a 15'9" X 14' dock, a 7'9" X 25' ramp and 2 new piles added to 2 sister piles and a 7' X i7' float. Located: The Gloaming, Fishers Island. SCTM %10-9-15.4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to grant the Grandfather Permit, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded. ALL AYES 4. SANFORD FREIMAN requests a Wetland Permit to extmnd existing dock by t00' making total structure 195' from bulkhead. Located: 1165 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk. SCTM %117-3-8.4 TRUSTEE HOLZA~FEL moved to approve the Amendment to the Grandfather Permit with idea that he be no further out than neighboring docks (Old Cove Yacht Club) from MHW. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON SECONDED. TRUSTEE WENCZEL nay. 5. DANIEL MOO}~Y requests a Wetland Permit to construct a foundation, septic system and move house frJm across the street onto foundation. Located: Rabbit L~ne, off Bay Ave., East Marion. SCTM ~31-17-11 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to table the application until Board talks with Town Attorney, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded. ALL AYES 6. Board to rescind Waiver for FRANK SCAVONE to. replace five concrete piers as well as complete the block skirt aro~nd the perimeter of structure of house with all fill outside the Trustees 75' jurisdiction, issued on October 26, 1995 and request a full application. Located: 1615 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue. SCT~ %137-4-35 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved not to rescind the Waiver but to ask for full application if he plans on using boulders, without boulders he can have Waiver providing he contact Soil Conservation Service, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded. VII. Creek for a 24' outboard boat. ACCESS: Public TRUSTEE Kt~DqPSKI moved to approve only if boat is up to 19' or less on length, TRUSTRF HOLZAPFEL seconded. TRUSTR~WENCZEL abstained. MOORINGS: JOE ANGEVINE requests an on-shore/off-shore stake in Mill 2. AARON AVENT requests to move duck blind from Haywaters Cove to Broadwat~rs Cove. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve, ~RUSTEEGARRELL seconded. AYES ALL Meeting Adjourned at: 9:15 p.m. Board of Trustees 17 December 2t, 1995 Resp_ectf~ll¥ Sula~,itted By: Diane J. ~-~rbert Clerk, Boarct of Trustees