Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-11/17/1994 Albert J. Kmpski, President John Holzapfel, Vice President William G. Albertson Martin H. Gan'ell Peter Wenczel BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hail 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 MINUTES NOVEMBER 17, 1994 PRESENT WERE: Albert J. Krupski, President John Holzapfel, Vice-President William G. Albertson, Trustee Martin H. Garrell, Trustee Peter Wenczel, Trustee Laurel L. Macomber, Clerk PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALLED MEETING TO ORDER NEXT TRUSTEE BOARD MEETING: Thursday, December 22, 1994 p.m. WORKSESSION: 6:00 p.m. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON moved to approve, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded. ALL AYES at 7:00 NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, Dec. 14, 1994 at 12 TRUSTEE WENCZEL moved to approve, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES noon. APPROVE MINUTES: October 27, 1994 Regular Meeting TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to approve, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES I. MONTHLY REPORT: Trustees monthly report for October 1994: A check for $3,623.08 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. William D. Moore on behalf of SANFORD FRIEMANN requests an amendment to Permit ~4318 to extend the existing dock and catwalk approx. 100 feet as shown on the attached drawing. Located 1165 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk. SCTM 9117-3-8.4 Board of Trustees 2 November 17, 1994 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to table this application until the Board has time to review all the data given by Mr. Moore. TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI abstained. 2. Land Use Co. on behalf of JOSEPH DUGGAN requests a Waiver to construct a t0' X 62' deck to attach to an existing single family dwelling° Said deck will be located a minimum of 19~3'' on the north end and 51 1/2' on the south end from the existing bulkhead. Application also includes a 15' wid~ buffer planting area seward of the proposed deck as required by NYSDEC. Located 330 w/s Snug Harbor Road, approx. 203' south of Maple Lane, Greenport. SCT~I~35-5-31 TRUSTEE ALBERTSON moved to approve the Waiver, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded. ALL AYES 3. JOHN & NANCY WISSMANN requests a Waiver to construct a second story addition over present studio, 26' X 16' and storage space. Located Private Road, (Clearview Rd.) Southold. SCTM $90-4-11.I TRUSTEE W~CZEL moved to approve the Waiver, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES 5. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of SERGE ROSENBAUM requests an Amendment to Permit $4260 to reconstruct a dock from 2.5' X 76' at 3' over grade to: 3.5' X 76' at 3.5' over grade. Located 1295 Lake Drive, Southotd. SCTM ~59-5-12 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve for a 3' wide X 76' long at 3:.5' over grade as per our policy. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded. ALL AYES 6. En-Consultants on behalf of MATTITUCK FISHING STATION requests a 1-year extension to Permit ~4098 to remove and replace inkind-inplace 3.60 1.f. of timber bulkhead, dredge 10' to depth of 4~, a 6' X 20' fixed walkway removed, a t6' X 20' ramp resurfaced with concrete, (2) 2.5' X 16' & (3)~ 2.5' X 16' fingers, dry wells. Located Mattituck Creek. SCT~ ~99-4-23. Permit to expire 12/11/95. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to approve the 1-year extension, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES 7. Arthur Melosh, President of MATTITUCK SALTAIRE, INC., requests an Amendment ko Permit $4374 to realign approx. 40' of steps as per sketch, and only the necessary holes will be dug ko suit the stairs support. Located: 200' west of Saltaire Way, LILCO pole ~35 on So~ndview Ave., Mattituck. SCTM ~94-1-5 TRUSTEE GARRELL moved, to approve the Amendment, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES 4. IRWIN & AGNES FRICK requests a Waiver to construct a I4' X 14'6~' addition and a 5' X 10' storage shed onto an existing dwelling. Located 1935 Westview Drive, Mattituck. SCT~' 9107-7=5 Board of Trustees 3 November 17, 1994 TRUSTEE GARRELL moved to approve the Waiver, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON second. ALL AYES Motion to go off the regular meeting onto the Public Hearing was made by TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL, seconded by TRUSTEE' ALBERTSON. ALL AYES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM T~E SUFFOLK TIMES AND AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WAT~. PERTINE~T 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 7:15 p~m. - In the matter of NEIL MC GOLDRtCK requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge channel within Hall's Creek and approach channel, frOm Great Peconic Bay. A total of 1,040+/-' of channel will be dredged. The width of the channel will vary. The outer channel will be 50' wide (plus side slopes) and dug to a depth of 5' below mean low water, plus 1' overcut. The inner channel will vary from a minimum of 20' to a maximum of 30' (both plus side slopes) and dug to a depth of 2~, + 1' overcut. Approx. 5,000 c.y. will b~hydraulically removed and placed on owner's beach west of the creek both above and below the lines of mean high and mean low water for use as beach nourishment. Project was previously done by Suffolk County Dept. of P~Iic Worksl Multi-year maintenance permit is requested. Existing bulkhead section nearest res'idenoe (14' ~eturn, 75') will be replaced within i8". At the inlet to the creek, the 70' groin on the west side of the inlet, Will be re-piled and repaired and extended 50'. the 160' section of bulkhead immediately to the north of the groin will be removed and replaced inkind and inplace. The final northerly section of bulkhead will be left in place and a new 40' section, plus i0' return will be constructed landward of the marsh that. has grown behind the existing bulkhead. An existing 80' groin west of the inlet Will be re-piled and repaired. NOTE: Applicant wishes to amend the location of the spoil so that it will be placed between the southerly edge of the beach grass and the line of mean high water on the property of applicant. Location: Private Road off New Suffolk Ave., Mattituck. SCT~ ~116-4-16.4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anyone here who would like to speak against this application? ROBERT HERO, ANN: I don't have the actual permit that went Withthis but this was a permit from 1951 application for dredging, the private dredging, all the way up into the creek. Board of Trustees 4 November 17, 1994 And I know that had been discussed the previous two times that you did the Assessment. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because there is no public comment, I~lt take a look at this letter. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Rob, the outer part of the channel is gonna be 6'? Are there two different depths? ROB: I think it was 5'° And 2' inside. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: CAC comments. CAC resolved to recommend to the Southold Town Board the Trustees approval of the Wetland Application of Neil Mc Goldrick to maintenance dredge the channel within Hall's Creek ..... and with that same description, whiCh I won't repeat. I'm looking for conditions, which I'm told were on here. BRUCE LOUCKA: No there aren't. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well I'd just like to say to the applicant, or his agents, that the public Hearing will be held in closed tonight to public comment. The issues that we addressed at our previous meetings, which is water quality, and title to th~ property have not yet been resolved. So we won't vote on this tonight, because we want to work out conditions for a permit that will fit our requirements'. DOUGLAS SOFFEY: With respect to water shed at the request of the Board I've asked my title company to conduct a search, even though we've provided the Board with a certificate of ownership concerning the title to the property underneath the water at and including the island. They've certified that there is ownership in the land or the applicant but you were interested in knowing when the property and when it was transferred ~rc~ the Town to private ownership. They've searChed the deed back to at least 1951 at which point the property was owned by Alvin Smith, and it was transferred from Alvin Smith to Alvin Smith and his wife. Prior to that the next transfer was sometime in late 1800's. There was no grantee of Alvin Smith, so I: was informed that Mr. Smith either acquired it through a will, through a death of friend, or title foreclosure or he could have acquired it Some other ways. They, without knowing specifically how the property got into his name is difficult for them to find out exactly when it was transferred from the Town. What they proposed to do that I've requested is that they search transfers from the Town of Southold to private owners going back to 185~ hence. It's a difflicult task but at least of ~the 1951 to the present time there is the same recitation in the deed in 1951 with respect to ownership of the bottom of the creek as well as the island as the same recitation as there is in the present deed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our concern however, is we did proceed with as we promised for the environmental review, we didn't hold that off because of the question over the title. However, that will be of course one of the conditions of the permit unless it comes out before we can actually write it. If we so vote it, but the question of title is important because if...and a lot of these titles were ..... I don't know how to explain it but they weren't transferred. Somehow ownership or somehow assumed on a lot of these areas. And like you say, where no record exists before Board of Trustees 5 November 17, 1994 1951 that's where we want to see clear cut conveyance by the Board of Trustees who own ~hese titles or the owners or the .parties of these lands under the Andros Patent of 1676. In some cases in Town, it's been proven to us that in fact, previous Boardst of Trustees have made grants or sale of underwater lands that they own, or conveyances otherwise. Before We could let someone remove material from the Town bottom,, we have to have proof of ownership either way. ~IR. SOUFFEY: Can we not vote on the merits of the application regardless of ownership. Cannot we add that cabiot on the condition that wether ownership is in Town or in the applicant. I .think it's just a question of cost. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's exactly our public trust is in this case, in this area, a matter of wether it's Town spoil at 41~ a yard or wether it's Mr. Mc Goldrick's spoil. That's the q~estion. I don't think we would hold that up on it's envirQnmental merits for that. It's still a substantial q~est~°n. That still has to be resolved and after our attorney has looked at it she thought that it was not yet resolved satisfactorily. We need proof positive that had been conveyed. The property has been conveyed. ~R. SOFFE¥: Your more difficult to convince than the title company. You certified that he owns it, but I will endeavor, it's not an easy task. Records have to be checked. TRL~STEE KRUPSKI: It's a large project, but it's important. T~USTEE GARRELL: If it's just a matter of the spoils, apparently, is it something beyond that because you can proceed from an assumption on the spoil, that the spoils are Town spoils. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can assume that they are. And we can vote a. permit out that they are and then M~r. Mc Goldrick would have to prove otherwise anyway, which he has to anyway° This isn't the only thing we ' re discussing. TRUSTEE GARRELL: But you could get around that. I think if you come to an agreement on compensation and where the spoils go that could be worked out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I imagine. I 'm not sure where your ...... TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: What Mary is saying is "move it forward'~. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just wanted the applicant know that this isn't resolved. Because he's provided us with additional information and I just wanted to respond to that. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I had a question regarding the maintenance dredging in this creek. I'm not sure who to address this to, but I see that we have a .... you submitted a maintenance permit from the ..... or a dredging permit from the Army Corps. from 1951. MR. HERRMANN: That's net a permit, that was a copy of an application as public notice. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Is there a permit? MR. HERRMANN: We're gonna try to find one if there is. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: What is the last documented dredging that you have? FLR. SAMUELS: I think that Judge Sutter was kind enough to come tonight. He may be able to resolve a lot of these questions because he was a partner with A1 Smith as you know. Board of Trustees 6 November 17, 1994 TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Well we're very interested in hearing ~hout that. ~R. SASIUELS: Marty do you remember the last time the creek was dredged? I know it was DeFriest that dredged it privately the last private dredging. JUDGE SUTTER: It was, and I can testify that it was dredged in 195I because I built a dock there and I parked a boat there. So from personal knowledge I can testify it was dredged and in accordance with .... I also have a contract for the dredging that was done at that time. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Was the dredge to the specifications to this applicationS? Maybe you can come up and have a look at it. JUDGE SUTTER: I have it here. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Ok it was all the way up the creek then? JUDGE SUTTER: No not all the way up the creek. Only up to the property that H.L. Smith owned at the time. It stops where I and Mr. Smith owned the property together. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: OK. So it was dredged all the way up to that point? As is illustrated on this diagram. JUDGE SUTTER~: We dredged, not the Town. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: B~t it was dredged to that point? JLq)GE SUTTER: It was dredged to that point. Now the property was purchased from the Colby Estate. I don't know what the history of the Colby deed was. But I know they could not get title to the island tP~t was out into the creek. The title company wo~ld not grant title to the island because that was ~ues~ionabte weather that they will guarantee it. The title company doesn't grant title. They insure title and I don't know any title company today that's gonna insure title to property under water. They just won't do it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Some private owners do have clear title to marsh islands. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Some marshes conveyed by the Trustees have at various times since ...... 5IR. SOFFEY: There is a clear chain of title. Title companies don'~t want to take that chance. I don't any of them that will. Even though you own title, they won't guarantee title. They won't insure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKi: But I think our point is there's been a record o~ conveyances of lands from the Trustees in the last 35~ years in Town. And i~ you have a record of conveyance then we'll look it over. there's no question about and as I said it has come up before and'We've seen it in Town and on two occasions I can 'think of off the top of my head. So it's not like we're sayin~ ~it Could never have happened"o We just have to haVe~ where it's held as a public trust, we ~ave to have proof that it happened. ~etting past the title question, there's a question of water quality% ~Ro HERRMANN: I just wanted to respond to that and to see where you were based on the letter on Oct. 25, that we submitted to you along with the review of water quality dating Great Peconic Bay from sheltfisheries and DEC. That was some of the preliminary research I did. I spoke to biologists and shellfisheries to forward and they made this report and the Board of Trustees 7 November 17, 1994 letter that went along with it. So I'm wondering what is still left void there if anything or if you have not reviewed it yet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What we would like to see in a permit condition, and again, we haven't written up anything specific, we would like to see in a permit condition, is of course we would like to see ..... the benefit here is gonna be improved water quality, but we would like to see how much improved water q~ality. Especially in relation to harvesting shellfish. We would like to see a test or some sort of testing program for a year or so. ~R.. HERRMANN: And periodically after the d~edging. That is actually one of the things that the shellfisheries biologist suggested with it. They would be curious to see because they haven't seen a trend in improvement and his feeling was that although anytime you do a project like this you can't guarantee results, but he would assume that it would improve water quality and he's like to see that if it's documented to see if there were tests done also. Because that affects how DEC classifies the shellfish area. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That was my feeling also when we were talking about this earlier. Just informally my feeling was it would be a very positive informational bank for the Trustees to have for future dredging so that when someone comes in and says they want to take 3 more feet out that we could say yes it did have a benefit to this creek, so it would be a positive thing. We want to stick that in there as ...... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It might be a better benefit to the Town if we had the DEC work with you on those testing schedules. Because they're the ones who certify the water. MR. ~fERRMANN: They have to do that every certain period of time. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: They're testing can be every two years. That's the part where we were a little concerned that you could involve the DEC in the sampling. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Also they don't test in enclosed waters. They wouldn~t be doing any testing during the part of the year when this is closed. This is closed seasonally is that correct? MR. HERRMANN: Correct. TRUSTEE. W~CZEL: So that although they may make water_samples during winter months when it is open and they expect it to be c~rtifiedo They will not run any samples during the summer when it is closed, and that is what he Board of prevailing on Mr. Mc Goldrick to arrange, so that testing will be done to see if there is a difference in the summer time when it's presently uncertified. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And we will want to set something that is workable for ~r. ~c Goldrick and workable but is going to be valuable to the Town and the DEC. Not only for Hall's Creek but in regard to every creek as far as maintenance dredging and opening it up to flushing action. MR. SASU3ELS: The greatest part of the dredging is opening the mouth of the inlet to the Bay and that part of it could be broken out. That obviously is not the kind of dredging for which there is no charge. And I think we can break out the Board of Trustees 8 November 17, 1994 yardage from that where the bulkhead ends, you know, where the inlet ends to the boat basin. And give you those two figures. that way this burden of proving ownership which may or may not be eas¥, I have a feeling it's not gonna be that easy. You were right in saying that some things happened years ago that People find hard to define today. But I don't think the burden of opening the inlet will be $i0 a yard for $50,000 yards because most of the yardages is ...... If I were Him Hunter and I came in here from Suffolk County and said I wanted to open Hall's Creek to the Bay that's the principal part of the ~redgingo And that's where the greatest environmental benefit will come from. Interesting, if Mr. Mc Goldrick is gonna research all the quit claim deeds and grants and so on and so forth, back through the years, we might learn quite a bit. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I must say that would be a very valuable piece of information for the Town if it's done. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And he could hang it on his wall afterwards. But what you said certainly has merit as far a the fate of the spoil. Because I'm sure the Town could use that spoil and if you Could separate that out from what is could be perceived as the channel and was could be perceived as land under question. MR. SAMUELS: Let me get into diking and considerable environmental impact. The Town could certainly take it off the beach with payloaders, there's no problem with that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there access to the beach there? MR. SAMUELS: Through Mr. Mc Goldrick's property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then that would kind of delegate the question of the title then woutdn~t it. if you had two figures broken down, one of spoil coming out of the area that we perceived as being under question, and the other coming out of the channel area. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That was always my contention anlr~ay. We're only talking about a small part of the project. I just don't want to see the Town giving up its rights to a land that might be theirs. MRo SAMUELS: No one guards your rights or jealously than I do, believe me, as you know. I think when you look at the maps and you realize we're only dredging to two feet with a foot avercut at the intersection, it's very narrow, and it's the easiest. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well there is that large flat area coming in. MR~ SAMUELS: ~es, there's some of that. TRUSTEE OARRELL: I'm curious with Judge S~tter here, what the memory was of the creek in 1951 maybe even before or after dredging, was there a problem with that creek plugging then? What did the water look like in that creek? Did you notice a change of water quality when that creek opened up, or wasn't it a problem as it is today? JUDOE SUTTER: It wasn't as bad as it is right now, but after we dredged it out I was able to catch snappers at the end of the dock and blue claw crabs off the spiles. We were able to get mussels off the island, and get clams that you could eat safely at the time which we wouldn't dare do today° Board of Trustees 9 November 17, 1994 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just one more thing which I don't think I b~ought up before. We'd need something ~hout the lis_bility to the neighbors structures to the east when you dredge to the channel, that you would be responsible for any damage that occurred there. I didn't inspect those as to what condition they are'but i don't know if they're new or falling down I can't recall. The bulkhead on the other side of the channel on the east side of the channel. That would have to be included in that. MR. SAMUELS: That's why we carry $2 billion i in liability insurance. We'll send you a copy of our insurance certificate. But.whether the dredger stays 4 feet away from abulkhead under all circumstances. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: That's your compar~ies liability. I think we're also concerned what might~happen in the future after your work is done to those structures. And I don~t k~ow if anything would happen ,or not. I guess our concern was when they were constructed were they set down far enough. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're not trying to make work for you, we're just concerned that ...... MR. SAMUELS: Suffolk Colmty dredged it on a number of occasions and their rule of thumb was stay 4 feet away from any structures that you get an angle of repose of dredge spoil which is approx, a I on 3. It's probably 14 foot and will probably stand 6 foot .of depth right to the bulkhead but I wouldn't take chance as a contractor. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just one thing that I hadn't mentioned before & I just want to mention we put in there. Does anyone else have a comment? TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Before we close the hearing. I~m still troubled by the dredging that extends beyond the Present~ar. The last i0~ or something feet that extends from the sand bar to Mr. Mc Goldrick"s dock. For the record I'm opposed to that dredging. I have no problem with opening the Creek and removing the sand bar and increasing the flushing but I think that additional dredging is over above what is needed there and obviously Judge Sutter has told us that it was once dredged but I think in the ~our yeas hence it's probably reverted more or less natural bottom in that area. And I thi~k your disturbing some'thing that doesn't need to be disturbed. F~R. HERRMA~: WhiCh is? TRUSTEE WENCZEL: T~e natural bottom and the co--unity which exists in it. Wether or not it's commercially important shellfish area there is a corm~unity of animals and plants that exists there and I think that should be left alone. JUDGE SUTTER: The way it is now, your killing all the animals there by not dredging and it's been dredged quite a number of times since 1951 and they dredged it right up there so their not disturbing any bottom, and the bottom that's in there is just muck. Nothing can you live in it because the mouth of-the dredge is not open. Nobody has touched the mouth of the dredge for 6 years and now you have a good creek here and the creek is dying. I would say it's dead. I'd like to see it opened up so the creek can come back° Board of Trustees 10 November 17, 1994 TRUSTEE WENCZEL: i have no problem with opening up. Please don't misunderstand. I just feel that the last section .... if you come into the entrance, it's all shoaled over, and you come around the turn from the jetties, it's all sand bar and then you get to the end of the sand bar inside the creek, and it drops right off and it's fairly deep there. I have no problem coming right up to end where all that sand is and where it drops off. I think it will do the place some good to open it up obviously. But once you go beyond that, you're not dredging sand you're dredging creek bottom. And I think dredging beyond that is an effort to make the creek fit the boat and not the boat to fit the creek. In any creeks in the Town I feel very strongly that we have to be very careful that not to do that. That we begin to play with nature and our resources beyond what's called for by attempting to make the creek fit the boat. MR. SAMUELS: I'd like to answer for just a minute. We~ve heard this before and it comes up on every dredging project. But I would strongly suggest, and I'd be happy to provide you all the data from the Corps of Engineers research section in Vicksburg. It's been proved again, and again, and again, the recovery of all the organisms including bentic organisms and everything else, and maybe Mr. GarreI1 can speak to this. But it's been proven again and again that shellfishing improves when you get a natural waterflow. Now to ask Mr. Mc Goldrick to remove 50,000 of sand and not be able to get a reasonable boat in two feet of water .... TRUSTEE WENCZEL: We're not asking him, he's asking us to r_emove it. MR. SAMUELS: But it's to the public benefit that the creek... TRUSTEE WEN~CZEL: It's 5,000 yards. MR. SA/~UELS: Excuse me 5,000 yards. The shellfish will improve. The shellfis~ing in the whole creek will improve including that in the area that is being dredged, because you'll still ha~e shellfish if it's good bottom in the channel itself. As a matter of fact, I would suggest that if your gorma go in there and Clam, that ~ou clam the shoulders of the dredged area two years after it dr~dged because that's where you'll find all of your nets. We just have to put to sleep this idea that all dredging is bad and that natural bottom is nec'essarilygood. Natural bottom may be good and may be bad. You have upland erosion, you have siltation, you have mud and whatsoever. It's dust not true that all natural bottom is good shellfish habitat. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: That's true, but I'm no~ talking exclusively shellfish, I~m just talking about the community in general. MR. SAMUELS: I'm talking about the entire community. Maybe except for anorobic activity. It gets down to some very basic things unless we're gonna maintain our waterways and we have to maintain our waterways. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I have no problem with it. MR. SAMUELS: A Boston Whaler is not an unusual boat and that's not dredging the channel to fit the boat to the creek. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: But in reviewing the soundings~ it appears to me that that size boat could very easily be brought to that dock with the existing depth beyond the sand bar there. Board of Trustees i1 November 17, 1994 TRUSTEE Ki{UPSKI: But if that's the case, then there won't be any dredging, the dredge would go through there and not dredge anything. I would imagine if there's a high spot, you take it out and if it's deep water your just gonna keep sinking it down. ~R. SA~IUELS: You have to provide "as built" surveys to the DEC after the projects complete~ and We're not gonna over dredge. That's a $10,000 violation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If it's two feet of water you're gonna keep going, I would think. ~R. SAMUELS: That,s way there's a foot over cut allowed. It's very hard to keep exactly at two. TRUSTEE GARRELL: I think it's almost .... a dredging project like this that to "quin pro quo" for opening up the creek becomes completing the project. I think the thing most interesting is to take a look before dredging as-much as you can and as much time as you can doing it and going there and taking a look at that bottom now before the project and after the project is done in a period of time and maybe a few months and then a couple of years afterwards and see about organisms. I suspect and my gut feeling is, a lot of that community is gonna benefitfrom increased dissolved oxygen and if anything your gonna see an uptake that's reflected in the entirety of the area. Shoulders and everything included. The only way te tell is to take a look at it. I think that would be fascinating if you can find somebody to do ito MR. SAMUELS: I'll try to get Southampton College to look at this. TRUSTEE GARRELL: I get the feeling that this isn'tgoing to be the last one like this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'd like to make a final coalescent. It seems that the public testimony is about the positive benefits of this for the most part. It is a large project and previous Boards have never acted on it, maybe because it was never properly put in front of us. I think the question of title has been quieted without anyone or to everyones satisfaction and I think there are benefits to be gained here and one of the better benefits is we'll know what the benefits are after it's done, if in fact it is done through a testing programr so we could see the numbers of water q~ality and how much they do approve and without any further comment, I'd like to ask for a motion to close the publ. ic hearing. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: So moved. TRUSTEE C=ARRELL: Second ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We will work out a series of findings and resolution and vote on this at the next monthly meeting. 7:16 p.m. - In the matter of STEVE PAPAGIANAKIS requests a Coastal Erosion Permit to cut back weeds and scrubs and cover with top soil near the bluff for reinforcing. Located Sound Drive, opposite'Mc Cann Lane, Greenpor~. SCTM ~33-4-2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in behalf of this application? Would anyone like to speak against this application? I~lt speak in reference to it. This is the one Board of Trustees 12 November 17~ 1994 where the cutting was done with a bulldozer and cleared right to the bluff. Unfortunately it was just before a heavy rain in August but fortunatelyhe cut the material towards the bluff and he bermed it up so all that heavy rain on his property is mush but none of it ran over the bluff otherwise it would have just taken out 20 feet of the bluff and apparently he re-vegetated and he provided us with a survey contour lines and everything we asked for. Does anyone have any co~m~ents? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The buffer is built into the ...... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes~ he bermed it up so that the water cannot go over the side. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: What we want to make sure is that that vegetated buffer stays there in the permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh sure, we can put that in there otherwise it's a violation. TRUSTEE GARRELL: And the contour map is 2 foot contours. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well there was only one contour line on it but it seemed to be accurate on the survey. Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE ~AP/{ELL: So moved. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve this application with the condition that there be no activity of any sort of mechanical kind within 50' of the edge of the bluff. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES 8:15 p.m. In the matter Land Use Company on behalf of ROBERT ALCUS requests a Wetland Permit to construct asingte family dwellin~ a minimum of.75~ from the landward iimits of tidal wetlands, install a sanitary system greater than 100' from the tidal wetlands boundary and install a pervious driveway all in accordance with the attached surveys dated 5/14/91 which were previously approved by the Trustees under Permit ~3884. Furthermore, applicant will conform to the conditions set forth within the permit previously issued. Located Cedar Point Drive, East, Southold. SCTM ~92-1-2.t TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As a matter of point, the application simply expired. MR. C~UCK BO~: The reason it expired is we were still in front of the Suff. County Health Dept. planning the location for the well north to the neighbors sanitary systems. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And do you have that? MR. BOWMAN: Yes, we have approval. The DEC Permit has been extended to 1996 so there's no problem there. We had to come back before you now to get a re-approval. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of tbs application? Would anyone like to speak against the application? MR. HARMON: I'm an attorney and a resident of Southotd and I also represent Jean Harmon who's the owner of the property. I'd like to talk to you about something that is within your j~risdiction. I'd like to talk to you about a creek that is very much live and well and a creek that we would like to keep live and well, and that is Cedar Creek. Some of you may have seen the property and some of you may not have seen it. But I'd Board of Trustees 13 November 17, 1994 like to hand you a picture maybe for everybody to see which is the Cedar Creek area. This is the piece of property that we are concerned with. The peninsula that sticks out into Cedar Creek. If you can see it on the particular map you can see it's a photograph. You can see it's covered with cattails essentially. It's a peninsular that's surrounded on three sides by water. This particular piece of property has been looked at in any number of ways by the law and this is how it has been categorized. As you can see it is critical environmental area. It's a significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat~ It is wetlands and water standards set by law are classified as SA which I will explain in a couple of minutes. ~The map you see in front of you is the outline from the State of New York defining this areas as a significant h~hitat. The piece of property itself is a significant wildlife and fish habitat by state law. · t doesn't border it, it's in it. So we're talking essentially about building a house in an area that has been set aside for environmental purposes. Many different types Of purposes. This is the map of the State of New York which outlines the various wetlands in the area of Cedar Creek. This is essentially the same area that you see in the photograph. It's also the same area that's covered by the significant habitat map. As you can see and this will become very important later. The wetland boundary doesn't form the border of the piece of property. It comes somewhat inland on the Alcus piece of of property. This is significant because it's a 75' setback from the wetlands. A question that we'll raise to you is whether or not the survey that has been presented to you is accurate. And~ whether or not what this gentleman said to you is accurate~ ~our entitled~to be informed, your entitled to be fulty~informed~ your entitled to be told the truth when y~u make your judgements. You have a very tough job to do and you have not been told the truth ~bout some very significant things when it comes to this piece of property. So that's essentially what we're dealing with. ~ very sensitive piece of property. The State of New York uses a kind of rating system along with a narrative system to explain what a wildlife habitat is. This is how they rated this particular piece of property on which Mr. Alcus' wishes to build a house about 30 feet and about 61 feet long and. 24 feet wide. I can be precise about that. About 30 feet high, 34 feet wide and 61 feet long. There is no other information provided to you as to exactly what is being proposed to be constructed on this piece of property or what it's going ta look like or how it's going to physically impact upon the land. As you can see, I really don't stand up here just for Jean Harmon for the people on Cedar Creek or the people who live in Southold. This area is much more important. It's much more important to people beyond the limits of Southold. This~ people have taken a look at and this is what the State of New York has said about this particular piece of property. As we all know, Cornell has a very important resources center. It's located along cedar Creek. This is an excerp from the State of New Yorks designation of this areas as a significant wildlife and fish habitat. I took the trouble to do what the Land Use Co. has not Board of Trustees 14 November 17, 1994 done. I went over to the Corneli and asked them exactly just what they do in the creek. Among other things, they do applied research actually using the waters for the purposes of reestablishing scallops in Peconic Bay° There's nothing said about that in the application. With all do respect to anybody who went to see the property, no matter how ma~y times you went 'to see the property, there is no way that could know whether or not building on this piece of is going to have any adverse impact on what it is Cornell is trying to do, not only for people who live in the area, but for the Baymen, the people who earn their living, and the people who want to see Pec0nic Bay come alive.. Now I have personally have seen, in tha~ area, osprey, which are categorized as species under law. t have personally seen diamond back turkles. I don't know is any of you have seen those. They're about this big (indicating size), and there are 3 or 4. of them that live, at lease during the warm periods of the year, in that particular creek. There is nothing said about that~ there's no information as to how building a of property in an i~ of this habitat, every which way by law, could be possibly be affected~by this. All of this is important because the water quality in this area has been designated this . This is the standard to which this water should be held and maintained. This water should be maintained for ~g, for market purposes. The water shall be Suitable f fish propagation and for survival. There is nothing in any information that was provided that has said this number I and that has explained whether. ~nis particular project built in this extremely is going to impact on s~mething much more .important than the ~ediate entrance that live in the area. From a purely legal point particular piece of property, because it is. a critical environmental area, any action must be treated as a ~ I .on under law. It means that there is a presumption done to that is likely to have a significant effect on the that's layers talk. ~tl that means is that when there's presumption, that means that the scales are this way (indicating). That means that the applicant comes in with the scales weigh like this (indicating). My argument to you is that the information provided to you cannot possibly satisfy that Par~iCUlar burden. As I said, you are entitled to know the truth, this is a Plow-up of the statement that has been repeated to you tonight. It's an excerp from the environmental assessment form submitted to you in connection to the application. And I draw your attention to items ~ 10 & 11. It has been said to you tonight and it was said to you (could not understand this word). I'certify that the information provided above is the truth to the best of my knowledge. The truth is that the Suffolk County Health Department has not issued a permit for this particular piece of property. It's a fair question to ask whether the Land Use Co. knows that or whether the Land Use Co. knew that before they stood up here tonight. Or whether is was done deliberate or not may be for you to decide. The fact is that the Land Use Co. Board of Trustees 15 November 17, 1994 represented the previous owner for the Suff. County Health Dept. The Land Use Co. must h~ve known that the statement made to You tonight that there was a Dept. Of Health permit issue wa~ untrue. ~ TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: This last Sheet' that you handed is what now? MR. HARMON: It is a request for a variance submitted on behalf of the p~evious owner of the property to the Suff. County Health ~ept..prepared by the LEd Use Co. The only point is the Land Use CO. has been instrumental in activities with the Suff. County Health Dept. and they knew that there wasn't a Health DePt. permit issued by Suff. County. The reason I know that is that I s~poke to Charles Brigham of the Suff. County Health Dept. a couple of days ago and he confirmed that for me. We're talking about whether or not you were given accurate~information or not. In the application form there's an ind~cation as to whether or not there's going to be any fill deposited or removed. And the answer NA. Presumably there is oing to be no fill and no deposit on this particular piece of r°Perty. I have only recently had access to theDEC permit file with respect to this piec~ of property. It is very clear from rea~ing the DEC file that there is an intention to do some sort of excavation. There is an intention to do some sort of filling on this property and this is something that the Trustees should be aware of. Because iF could affect run-off into the creek, it could affect .... ~have some sort of environmental which I'm certain~y not in a position to verify. I wish I could give you a complete answer on the ~ill. I really dOn~t k~ow the answer to that. This is just another Dept. of Environmental Conservation form talking about the p~ospect of doing fitting on this Particular piece of property. The second of information that was given to you that I submit, this wasn't true. We're also talking about con~uitting a very significant resource to somebody. And the questionis can we trust them. Can we really count on them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Count on who? MR. HARMON: The property owner. This is something very important. It goes beyond them, it goes beyond me. It ~oes way beyond me. Can we really trust them TRUSTEE ~KRUPSKZ: If we could trust everyone we wouldn't have 3 Bay Constables. MR. HARMON: Well, I guess I'm getting to that. ~ you know, there is a history to this particular piece of property. The h~story ~s there was a dock off the szde of that property. As I understand it, there is a code of the Town of Southold, there is a requ~irement that a permit be displayed. Well this is the permit that-was displayed when that dock was being built. It happens to be an expired permit for the dock. So it seems to me whoever was responsible here for that particular piece of property doesn't really care what the Trustees say. The reason ..... TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Can we just back up for a second, I'm not sure I understand you. This is a permit for a dock that-they built. Board of Trustees 16 November i7, 1994 ~R. HARMON: That's an expired permit. From the previous owner, this passed summer, August. There was no permit paid for the permit the Trustees did issue a pe~Ltit, did not issue a permit, the Trustees have approved a permit. There was no fee paid in order to get the permit issued. Rather than paying a fee to construct a dock, they simply posted an expired pe~-mit in its place. MR. BOWMANN: That's not true. MR. HARMON: In addition to that the permit which was not issued° This is a picture of a path going to the dock through the vegetation and there was no authorization cut that vegetation and to cut that path. Finally a couple of details here. Each of these .... this is a blow-up of the purple map. This is the wetlands boundary (indicating map). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What year was that. MR. HARMON: This looks like 1978. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think it would be more effective in your presentation if you could point out your own house location which we could use as a reference point to the proposed project. MR. F~A~ON: This is an earlier map before the house was constructed, but right here is essentially the Alcus property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just as a matter of land mark reference. F/R. HARMON: This is the entire piece of property right he~e, which is undeueloped and we plan to keep it that way. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have a current map? MR. HARMON: If you compare, and take the scale on each one these things, take the Scale on the survey, take the scale off the blue map, what you'll find is that the distance h~re is greater than what has been given here. I believe by about 25 feet. In Other words the house should be 25 feet further over in this direction. And I believe this is the diagram to work off, not this. Finalty, the survey that's been given to you is not current. ~y understand that the survey has to be given to you within one year. This is a survey that goes back 3 years and it doesn't show the proposed filling and p~posed excavation. Bottom line, as a technical matter, the application is simply inaccurate and in addition to that they simPl~ have not provided Yo~with enough information upon which t~ grant a wetlands permit and I'll ask you to do a number of thin~s. I~l~ ask you to consider this, I'll ask you to deny the aPPlication for a wetlands permit and ask you to consider your Negative Declaration and to issue a Positive Declaration with respect to this piece of property so that you can be fully informed and you order a cc~plete environmental impact statement considering the delicacy and sensitivity of this particular piece of property. I'm confident that if you do that and I'm confident that if you protect this area in a way that the law has already protected it, that nobody can quarrel with what you as a matter of good document, as a matter of law., as a matter of what's right, you'd be doing the right thing, so confident, that if you do that and anybody challenges you in doing that I'd be entirely be prepared to represent you at no fee to the Trustees in any challenge to your action. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have and leave these with you. Board of Trustees I7 November 17, 1994 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, your very organized and it's a very gsnerous offer. One question I'd like to answer you, and I'm not answering for Mr. Bowman. The wetlands line in question, when we review an application, we don't refer to a map or even an aerial photograph line in general. We go out on a field survey, the applicant has to stake the house or the activity and we will measure that activity based on wetland line, based on the site. We're not gonna refez to the map and just look at the drawing. When we do it in the field, we do it more accurately because the maps get distorted every time you blow them up. So we don't rely on that map. MR. HARi~ON: Well, I think you already have a determination here · as to where the wetland line is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's a gray area because our wetland line tends to be more protective than someone elses, some other agents wetland line. Because we're a local body of Government we tend to be more protective and tend to look at it a little more conservatively, that's why we do a field survey. TRUSTEE GARRELL: In the documents that you have handed to us, there's one form that's got an estimated amount of wetlands on the property. I couldn't figure out by looking at that whether that was 3 ~er cent or .03 per cent. I assume the wetlands areas forms a rather small part of the property or the wetlands are a much larger per cent of that property. .~MR. BOWMAN: It's a fringe marsh that extends around the whole peninsular. TRUSTEE GARRELL: And the fringe marsh is a small per centage of the dock. MR. HARMON: This is the entire habitat designation from the Dept. of State. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mr. Bowman would you like to make an comment? F~. BOWMAN: I'm sure the.Board, and I'm not gonna stand here and try to , your ail aware of the meaning of personal and habitat. The that I want to point out to Mr. Harmon is, maybe he's aware of, is that I, in conjunction with the building corporation did the sub division andgot the approvals for his ho~se that he lives in right now, which was also in that critical ~nvironmental area, and also part of that significant habitat a~e~. In fact his lot provided a better habitat than ~s lot. It had much more mature cedars in it and those maps are used as a guide ..... and I'm not gonna give he Board a lesson in Why their prepared and why their utilized. But it still comes down to this is still private property, it has not been set aside for habitat. We try to minimize the development on the lot and as you can see bY the plan we have tried to do that. We have undisturbed areas. Most of the lot is gonna be undisturbed. We've met all criteria for development. All the setbacks. I haven't asked for one variance except the Health Dept~ And that is to move the well., Mr. Alcus's own well closest to his own sanitary system. The Health Dept. has granted us a variance to move the well, his well, cIose to the sanitary system~ I don~t know wether you are Mrs. Sullivan or not [directing question to person is audience). We had to make it as part of that approval Board of Trustees 18 November 17, 1994 of that waiver, we have to, and offer that is open that would pay for the relocation of her wells as well. MRS. SULLIVAN: Could you describe that offer? MR. BOWFLAN: Could I describe it? Whatever it takes to move your well .... MRS~ SULLIVAN: Off our property into an easement. MR. BOWMAN: Absolutely not. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Wait, excuse me, there will be plenty of time for this discussion, but Mrs. Sullivan, your free to speak but for the record we have to stay in turn and keep it orderly. ~R~ BOWI~AN: I have the Health Dept. approval right here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'd like to see that. MR. BOWF~UN: It's based on the information granted the request for variance with provisions indicated in the determination dated 1993. The cognizant points of this are that the applicant is proposing to install a sanitary system less than 150 feet from a private well. The determination, which was a 3 to 1 determination by the Board to grant the request provided that the following conditions are met: 1) that the applicant shall covenant in a language acceptable to the County Attorney, that the on site well does not meet the Dept.'s standards for depth and separation distances for potential sources of contamination, his own sanitary system~ 2) will hold open an offer to relocate the Sullivan well if requested. The offer shall be in effect until the Dept. issues a final approval for the project when he builds his house. We have to go in for an actual approval to construct to do that and in that point of time Mrs. Sullivan will be able to ask that~here well be relocated. The well is to be relocated, and again I have a map here. These are all Health Dept. concerns. On her property and the very edge of her p~operty and not within the easement area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But here's the thing that concerns the septic system and well. Our jurisdiction lies within 75 feet of the wetlands. If the well and the septic system is not included in that 75' area, what we determine the wetlands to be, then it's outside of our jurisdiction, and it's strictly Suffolk County. I'm not trying to pass the buck, but every agency can't carry every other agencies burden. I just wanted to make that clear. That's their burden, now if Mr. Alcus is forced to move something back into our jurisdiction, either the well or the septic system, then again it becomes our concern. MR. HARMON: Which is not the case. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It doesn't seem to be the case. That's between you and Mr. Alcus, and it's a valid concern, obviously, and he's gonna be your neighbor. But outside of that 75' jurisdiction, that's our limit. MRs BOWMAN: The Dept. did issue a waiver with those conditions on the Health Dept. I would be more than happy to meet with Mrs. Sullivan later and explain to her and give her the map and show her where it is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That seams to be more appropriate discussion for a Health Dept. hearing though. MR. BOWMAN: I'm not going to go into the water quality or critical habitat. We have met the Health Dept.'s set backs Board of Trustees 19 November 17~ 1994 and exceeded them 100~ from the~surface waters just so we will not have an effect on the creek and the water quality of the creek. Mr. ~armon's center system on that particular lot is probably closer that this one. I don't think we're gonna be asking him to move his sanitary system for the sake of that water quality either. Other that that I think I've state previouSlY, that the whole reason we're back here is that we had to solve the well question with the Health Dept. otherwise the hQuse w~uld have been constructed already. Again, to reiterate Mr. Harmon's lot and this lot went hand in hand in the s~hdiviSion process and were looked at and approved as legal building lots at the same time, and I wish he would respect that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One point I would like to make, that Mr. Harmon did make, is the fill. When we approved the application originally, I think 1991, one of the concerns was run-off. One of the permit conditions where they have no turfed area on a proper~y, which means there is no sprinkler irrigation systems which minimizes water use or basically you~d have to have a real natural setting, no lawn at all, no lawn chemicals, fertilizes, anything to contaminate the water. Because we realize it is a very sensitive area. ~owever, the house is planned 75' back from th~ wetland line which is the extent of our jurisdiction. The reason this Board has jurisdiction is because there is activity associated with building a house. And unless that houSe were put on pilings with no fill, and if they could place out 76' it would be completely out of our jurisdiction. So 'the queStiQn is the fill. I didn't get a chance to look at what Mr. Harmon gave me, I just wanted to review that° I wanted to see the date. The date of the concern of the fill from the DEC was dated i990. When was the DEC issued? MR. BOWMAN: I don't recall. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is it identical to what this Board had issued preViously. MR. BOWMAN: 1991. February 12, i991 as the date of protection from the Marine Habitat Protection Bureau. TRUSTEE ~ARRELL: Was this a Type I action then? MR~ BOWMAN: No it was not. It should have been, but it was not. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: tt might not have been a Critical Environmental Area at that point. I don't know when the Town designated that creek a critical environmental ar~a~ MR. BOWF~AN: But it was a Type I action because it is ta6t on a significant habitat. MR. HARMON: The extent to which he is trying to ride the coat tails of what was done previously~ what was done previously, With all dO respect to the lack of information provided previously, simply was incorrect. It was a Type I action and it should have been handled as a Type I action, but it was handled as an unlisted action. MR. BOWMAN: tt was not, and neither was the s~hdivision which proceeded even the application to build houses on it. MR. HARMON: At the time of the subdivision the area had not been declared a significant habitat. That occurred in' 1987 after a house was built. And I'd like to stand on my statement, there is no Health Permit from the Dept. of Health~ and that Board of Trustees 20 November 17, 1994 is clear from what Mr. Bowman has. They're saying that their not necessarily gonna approve the application even though they granted a waiver. It's very much an open question. He should show it to you if he has it. MR. BOWMAN: I'll give you a copy of it Mr. Harmon, it's right here. I read from it, they granted a waiver, the only thing we have to do build a ..... MR. HARMON: He has not said they have granted a permit, he Should say they granted a permit. MR. BOWMAN: I think Mr. Harmon better go back and study what the Suff. County Health Dept. procedures regulations are. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let's look at what's relevant here. Again, I don't think a sanitary system is relevant in this~area, because it seems to be outside o~r jurisdiction. And I realize you can't build a house without it, but that's Why there's a separate entity of the surf. County Health Dept. MR. HARMON: The only reason I'm getting into this...I understand that completely, and I'm not asking that you do anything about the septic system, but you've got to count on the information that's given to you. And you've got to believe in it, and we've all to act upon it because we accept it as true. TSere are a few things presented here which I've shown are inaccurate, near for the balance for what's been sul~nittedto. You should look at with some question. It's not enough to tip the scales. That's my basic point. TRUSTEE GARRELL: Could I ask Chuck Bowman? How many lots are in that sUbdivision? MR. BOWMAN: I believe there is three. It's comprised mainly of phragmites intermixed with doodle vegetation with some cedars. As you go further towards the Harmon's house it became more of a forested property dominated by cedars'and' oaks. That's why I'm not quite sure wether there's another lot there next to theirs as part of the subdivision. Those lots required a significant clearing for the homes to be constructed. TRUSTEE GARRELL: The Harmon property had no wetland on it, MR. BOW~6AN: Fringed~ TRUSTEE GARRELL: It had a fringe to it? MR. BOWMAN: Absolutely, the fringe goes right along that whole area. There are no bulkheads on that creek, appropriately, its a beautiful creek. In that instance too, we're more than willing on this., in fact, we have told the owner time and time again going back years, that it is a very sensitive site that any .... even landscaping should be of native plant material, beach grass, and that there should be no ornamental plantings. The Harmon's have ornamental plantings, TRUSTEE GARRELL: Well let's suppose that Mr. Alcus were to build something similar to what the Harmon's have now. WOuld there be any significant environmental impact in that area? MR. BOWMAN" My myself, have certainly observed the amount of wildlife that utilizes that area, and truly if we wanted to preserve the lot as habitat that would be wonderful. But any wildlife that would be displaced by this house, we have all the park and open space available right across the creek. I don't know if that's the right answer, there has to be an impact when Board of Trustees 21 November 17, 1994 you build a house. Certainly we're not going to deny that. What I can say is there is certainly sufficient open space or that wildlife couldn't be displaced to. TRUSTEE GARRELL: How many acres is this lot? MR..'BOWS~%N: It's about 1.3 acres. I'd say 85% of it if not even more is going to remain undeveloped. T~RUSTEE GARRELL: The pity of it is that I suppose the hind site is always better~ but the pity of it is that it couldn't have been picked up in the parcel with the Harmon house or some adjacent house or simply set aside. Purchased as a lot. MR. BOWMAN: I don't think at that time that the subdivision was large enough that the~ could have clustered it or kept that much open space ...... just say "gee there are just two or three lots in there"° Again, at that time, it still does, it fits all the setback requirements. I'm sure right now if you did the SUbdivision, and the Harmon~s house wasn't there and you still have the three lots, you'd have a lot more restrictions as far as the size of the houses and maybe a reduced area of lots so that some could be open space. TRUSTEE ~ARRELL: When was your house built, Mr. Harmon? MR. F~%P~MON: b~out eight years ago. TRUSTF~E GARRELL: A~d the size? ~Ro RARMON: It's one level and built up on a concrete foundation that cuts back into the bank. TRUSTEE ~ARRELL: Then it's single level, MR. H/kRMON: It's si~gle level and its got about 90' long. TRUSTEE SARRELL: Width? MR. F~ON: Maybe 30 feet. Maybe 25. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The old permit that the Trustees granted in December 1990. Is that identical to what the DEC issued? ~R. BOWMAN: Yes, it was. Coming back to the fill question, I think the Trustees had put a requirement that he have the specific building plans as to how the house was gonna be configured. That the fill would be limited to what would be necessary for the sanitary system, and if not, I am suggesting it to you, if your gonna be re-approve it this time. Because that is all that is necessary and also to go further if the restriCtion wasn't in the old permit, put one in that all disturbed areas be replanted with natural plantings. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Another condition that would be appropriate would be the hay bales be left in place. Any other questions,~ or comments? Does any Board member have any comments or questions? TRUS~ HOLZAPFEL: I'll'make a comment that I think is in general. It's that the house is beyond 75' and just on the very edge of our jurisdiction and that every effort has been made to get out of the wetland permit area and has been moved as far away as it can be from the wetlands. My feeling is that it doesn't impact the wetlands at all. It's a house~ it's a private piece of property that he has a right to build on and it's not entering into the wetland. TRUSTE~KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: I'll move to close the hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES Board of Trustees 22 November 17, 1994 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: A motion on that? TRUSTEE HOLEAPFEL: I'll make a motion that we approve the application with the following stipulations: Hay bales be left in place and not be removed after landscaping be done. TRUSTEE GARRELL: Can you make a stipulation on vegetation? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh sure. TRUSTEE HOLEAPFEL: Let me finish, no conventional turf lawns. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: CAC comments were in favor. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Once again, I am making a motion that we approve the application with the conditions that were on the previous permit. TRUSTEE GARRELL: Reluctantly I'll second. ALL AYES 9:01 p.m. - In the matter of EDWIN BERNH~dDT requests a Wetland Permit to replace 83' of existing bulk~head within lg". Located 500 Koke Drive, LILCO Pole $6, 500' from Main Bayview Road~ Southold. SCTM $87-5-4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone here tike to speak either in favor or against this application? MR. BERNHARIYF: I have no further information for this request. TRUSTEEiKRUPSKI: There's a picture here. The CAC recommended that you use all caution and not destroy the spartina patents. Of course the spartina patents are i~ortant in front of your property and is for protectingyeur property when the wave action hits that and the beach doesn't get washed out in front of it. Zt hOlds your property and protects it. So they want to make sure you maintain and use ail caution in protecting tke grasses there. They also recommend that a buffer of spartina patents which is the lower marsh grass planted in accordance with the Town Cede. And I'm gonna ask the Chairman Qf the CAC if he could clarify that. MR. LOUCKA: It was our understanding that there is a code either ~hrough the Building Dept~ not the Trustees though, ..... TRusTEE HOLZAPFEL: There'S no high marsh there, it's a bulkhead with alternaflora in front of it and not much space for patents. Patents has to be higher up and there's nothing there. MR. LOUCKA: O.K. TRUSTEE KttUPSKI: Judging from the picture that Bill took on this field survey I can't quite see where they could plant spartina patents. It's standard procedure when someone replaces a bulkhead like this there's a good deal of disturbance inthat area~. What we recommend or condition the permit On is that you not put in a turf area, and in this case, I think your limited. A certain area of no turf between the bulkhead and your house. So you wouldn't have any lawn there. You'd have to p~t in a natural vegetation or stones. MR. Bernhardt: you mean from the bulkhead to the house? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, not the whole distance, but based on every property, we go on something ITke this~ we go on 10 feet or something, you put in stones~ or beach grass or low growing shrubs. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Just 'so there's no fertilized lawn next to the bulkhead. MR. BER/eHARDT: Now we're talking in front of the bulkhead? Board of Trustees 23 November 17, 1994 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No in back of it. I think that would be the only condition or consideration here. TRUSTEE GARRELL: Move to close the hearing. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'll make a motion to approve the application with a 10' non-turf buffer TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES 9:07 p.m. - In the matter of En-Consultants on behalf of THOMAS BOYLE requests a Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct 170+/- 1.f. of stone revetment and backfill with 2500+/- c.y. of clean sand to be trucked in from upland source. Purpose of structure is to prevent further erosion to property and concrete wall which is collapsing. Pro~ect is an emergency. Also would like to construct a one-family dwelling, sanitary s~stem, & driveway, ail as shown on site plan. All in accordance with the Trustees .condition that the owner will restore the bluff above MHW. NOTE: Applicant would like to amend this application,- as per recommendations of the DEC in their letter dated March 15. Located 600 Leeton Drive~ Southol~. SCTM $59-1-7 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone here like to speak in favor of this appliCation? ROB HERRMANN: I~m here for En-Consultants for Thomas Boyle, and if there are any concerns I'm here to help. TRUSTEE GARRELL: It's not an ememgency to construct a single family dwelling with a sanitary system is it? TRUSTEE ~KRUPSKI: Our big concern ~ere ..... and we've been to the site. In fact, Bill and I saw it from the water, we did a water tour outthere and we understand that there is a problem out there. I can't see how else you can solve this problem, and we saw the DEC comments. The CAC ~eCommended apDrovat with conditions ~hat property owner maintain 50' east of his revetment(equal to the 50' currently eroded on east side of owner's property) This will protect his property from northeast storms and will avoid damage tothe SouthoId Town Beach~ which is what we said. The applicant understandably has a problem but that he has to be responsible for damaged caused. It's my ~eeling that the structure that will be built won't erode the beach as readily or as' severely as is currently there. It seems like that revetment is gonna cushion the blows a little bit instead of just pounding it out. MR. SAMUELS: The revetment, theoreticalty, an achor reduces, absorbs up to 35 to 40% wave ener~ rather that a concrete seawall which reflects I00% of wave energy. That's why they gained so much favor with the environmental regulators. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On thing that we talked about with Roy, which he agreed to and its in here, last month is that they be responsible, after a major storm event to refilling in the Town Beach. But we want to make it so that it's fair to Mr. Boyle and fair to the Town. Obviously if Kenny's Beach looses 20 feet on the whole length of the beach we're not gonna hold Mr. Boyle responsible for that. What we'd like to do is get a measurement of that pocket inside off that corner, that's eroded, above MHW. The pocket that's eroded into his property Board of Trustees 24 November 17, I994 and come up with a figure of yards that would fill that pocket. Not up to grade of his property, but to match the grade coming down towards the beach. You would fill it ~olid. Granted it's not gonna be as severe because of the revetment, however, it will occur in a severe event. I'm talking about above ~. TRUSTEE ~OLZAPFEL: The revetment's running right to the Town property line, and we're concerned that the Town then begins to loose the land. and we want to guarantee that that will be replaced. ~R. S~UELS: So the willingness to match this quantity or the necessary quantity? TRUSTEE KRUPSKt: The necessary quantity. MR. ~A~3ELS: You want to put this quantity in the permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what we want to dOo We want to make it so it's fair to him alsoo We don't want-to say "Oh, you also lost all the beach back here". Well they're not gonna restore the whole beach, but there is an obvious pocket because of this, ~e want to match that pocket. We need the calculations, we need he numbers. He spoke to the Town Attorney and we'i1 have to run them by our Engineer so that we can all agree. We're not gonna agree exactly~ but as long as we get ball park estimate af What has to be replaced and then it'll have to filed with the County Clerk to go with the deed. MR. SAMUELS: There's another way to go. With a maintenance bond. You take the permit, as you draw it, with the condition and you send it to an assuredly company who will then bond the maintenance that agreement to do this work. tn the event that it isn't done then the Town just goes to the bonding company and they will give you the money to do it. LtwilI have to be renewed periodically. TRUSTEE H~LZAPFEL.: The homeowner then after a~ year, like a lot of insurance, people just throw it away and say, "Oh we don't need that anymore because we got our .... "~ you know what I'm saying? Can they do that to this? ~R. SAMUELS: In the event that there is a super storm here and the place is wiped again, Kenny's Beach is gonna be like it was in i938, bungalows floating in the lake. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No ones gonna care. I'm talking about a storm event. MR~ SAMUELS: If the covenant is better for you, it's easier to go to the bonding company then to go to civil court. TRUSTEE KRU~SKI: But I have a feeling that on a Town Beach, where this is a sensitive area, it's gonna be built in suspenders. MR. SAMUELS: So you want a covenant? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. MR. SAMUELS: That's attached to the deed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we will need that before the can issue a permit. MR~ SAMUELS: Suppose the amount needed is more than the pocket? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's why we want to cover him. We don't want to be unreasonable. Do I have a motion-to close the hea~ing? TRUSTEE WENCZEL: So moved. TRUSTEE' HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES Board of Trustees 25 November 17, 1994 TRUSTEE TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application and a permit will not be issued subject to covenance and restrictions filed with the County Clerk, and Mr. Boyle restoring Public Beaoh to east in event of erosion due t~ storm aggravated by Mr. Boyles structure. The specified amount of Mr. Boyles responsibility will be measured in cubic yards of sand and will agreed upon by the applicant and the Trustees before the permit is issued. There should no turfed areas between the revetment and the house. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we should put a 2-year limit for those conditions to be met. 9:20 p.m. - In the matter of Peconic Associates on behalf of ROBERT HOLLEY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 20.5' X 16' single story addition, 54' from the upland edge of tidal wetlands, landward of an existing dwelling, and relocate an existing shed (approx. 10' X 10'). Located 1085 Bayshore Road, Greenport~ SCT~ ~53-3-13 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone here like to co~,~ent on this? TRUSTEE GARRELL: I'd like to comment into the record from ~erle Wiggin. He had to leave to make a presentation to the Greenport Village Board at 8:00 p.m. The requests for the addition is actually further away from the wetlands. The DEC is under review and you contact him tomorrow is there are any questions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: W~lat a pleasure a few pictures make, and the CAC comment was for an approval. Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE GARRELL: So moved. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Bill, you want to make a motion? TRUSTEE ALBERT$ON: I'II make a motion we approve with hay bales being in place while construction is going on. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKt: Now I need a motion to go back to the regular meeting. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: So moved. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES V. ASSESSMENTS/ENVIRON55~VfAL DECLARATIONS: 1. En-Consultants on behalf of EDGAR DEBANY requests a Wetland Permit to construct 100 1.f. of timber retaining wall in line with and attac~ed to adjacent wall to west. A 12' return will be constructed on east side. Eroded bank up to 12' landward of proposed wall location will be regraded and 75 c.¥. of additional sand fill will be trucked in from upland source via owners property. ~n existing 3' X 15' stairway down bluff will be removed and replaced with a 3' X 10' stairway from wall to beach. Proposed wall will be well landward of AHW and will correct erosion of bluff. Located 27 Watersedge Way, Southold. SCTS~88-5-58 Board of Trustees 26 November 17, i994 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to give a Negative Declaration. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES 2. En-Consultants on behalf of AQUA FOOD PROPERTIES LTD. PARTNERSHIP requests a Wetland Permit to replace (within 18") 1,505+ I.f. of existing timber bulkhead. ~aintenance dredge 228'+/- (max.~ X 245~'+/- (max.) basin and 50~+/- X 179'+/- channel to a max. depth of 10' below ALW. Approx. 3~800 c.y. of resultant spoil will be used both for backfill and temporarily deposited in open field to east Of channel previously used as spoil site. Spoil deposited in stated location will be reimoved and deposited at approved upland source° Basin and channel-previously maintenance dredged to -10' ALW pursuant to NYSDEC Permit ~15278-0156SP and 1-4738-00728. MUlti-year maintenance permit requested. Located 2835 Shipyard Lane, East Marion. SCTM ~38-7-7ol TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to table this application. TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES 3. Eh-Consultants on behalf of PATRICK COL~GIURI requests a Wetland Permit to replace (within 18") 12S+/- 1. f. of existing timberbulkhead. Easterly 16' return will be removed and replaced and extended by 14' to 30' inside of existing concrete return. Westerly 11~ return will. be removed, replaced and extended by 25' to 36~ overall. Approx. 65 c.¥. of clean fill will be trucked in from upland source for backfill. Located 2950 Park Ave., Mattituck. SCTM~ ~123-3-24.i TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to give a Negative Declaration. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES 4. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of LISA REALE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a sidle family dwelling, sanitary system~ decking, install a 12" CUlvert under %xisting drive, install crushed stone drive, install and maintain a continuous line of staked hay bales between areas of wetlands and The shall be construction and to create .a f~eshwater pond. pond created by excavating the areas of the proposed pond (approx. 6,000 s.f.) to -10'. This will allow the pond to fill from groundwater (see test hole) and the excavated material, if suitabte~ shall be utilized for regrading around proposed residence. Test hole also shows that there is no clay present, therefore, this is not perched water. Any disturbed areas shall be seeded with Wild Duck Millet (Japanese), Echinoloa crusgalli. This plant is idea for such an area and serves as an excellent fo~d source for waterfowl. Located Crescent Ave., Fishers Island. SCTM ~6-6-20o5 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to give a Negative Declaration° TRUSTEE ~ARRELL seconded. ALL AYES' IV. RESOLUTIONS: i. Board to set public hearings for the December 22, 1994 regular' meeting for those apPlications that have received a Negative Declaration. Board of Trustees 27 November 17, 1994 2. -DONALD ALF~O requests a Grandfather Permit to repair inkind/inplace (2) 8' sections of existing catwalk (8' X 2 1/2' and 8' X 2'). Entire catwalk will be removed upon DEC approval of permit which has already been approved by the Southold Town Trustees. Located 900 Corey Creek Lane, LILCO pole ~14, 1,300' off Main Bayview Road, $outhold. SCTM ~78-4-13 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve the Grandfather Permit. TRUSTEE ~ARRELL seconded. ALL AYES VII. MOORINGS: i. JOSEPE FP~ZZITTA requests two stakes approx, at high tide mark in Fair Haven Inlet for an 18' inboard/outboard, see map. TRUSTEE WENCZEL moved to deny this application because of width of creek and at low tide the boat would be sitting on bottom of marsh and would infringe on marsh area,, also access to the creek is questionable. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI seconded. ALL AYES 2. RICHARD C. HILARY requests a duck blind for a 10' X 10' duck blink in Corey Creek. TRUSTEE TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded. TRUSTEE GARRELL: Abstained. Meeting adjourned at: 10:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted By: Board of Trustees RECEIVED AND FILED BY TIIE SOUTHOLD TOWN Town Oerk, Town of Southold