Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-01/23/1986BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE {516) 765-1892 JANUARY 23, 1986 7:30 P.M. - REGULAR MEETING The Regular Meeting of the Board of Town Trustees was held on JANUARY 23, 1986 at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold. President Smith opened the meeting at 7:30 P.M. Present were: Absent: President Henry P. Smith Vice-President John Bredemeyer Trustee Ellen M. Larsen Trustee Phillip J. Goubeaud Trustee Albert Krupski Clerk Ilene Pfifferling Trustee Smith: May I have a motion to approve the minutes of the December 26, 1985 regular Trustee meeting? Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Goubeaud it was RESOLVED to APPROVE the minutes of the December 26, 1986 regular Trustee meeting. Vote of Board: Ayes: Ail This resolution was declared duly adopted. Trustee Smith: May I have a motion to approve the minutes of the Organizational Meeting held on January 2, 19867 Moved by Trustee Larsen seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer it was RESOLVED to APPROVE the minutes of the January 2, 1986 Organizational Meeting. Vote of Board: Ayes: All This resolution was declared duly adopted. Trustee Smith advised that Field Inspections will be held on February 20, 1986 and the next Regular Meeting will be held on February 27, 1986 to commence at 7:30 P.M. Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Larsen it was RESOLVED to APPROVE the March 1986 Mooring Renewals. Vote of Board: Ayes: All This resolution was declared duly adopted. Board of Trustees - January 23, 1986 - Page 2. Trustee Smith gave the monthly report for December 1985 as follows: Application Fees. $15.00, Wetland Application Fees $350.00, Wetland InspectionFees $20.00, Dock and Ramp Fees $81.00 and Mooring Renewal Fees $20.00 for a total of $486.00. The Trustee Yearly Report for 19853is as follows: January $1489.25, February $459.00, March $3772.25, April $895.00, May $971.00, June $1182.50, July $1249.00, August $912.75, September $1359.50 October $1056.00, November $565.00 and December $486.00 for a total amount collected $14,397.25. Trustee Smith dispensed wi~h the reading of the Public Notices, but advised that they are listed on the agenda and posted on the Bulletin Board if anyone wishes to review them. Trustee Smith commenced with the Communications. III. COMMUNICATIONS: 1. From Richard, Anna & Evelyn Audioun comments regarding the the application fOr the North Fork Property Development. Trustee Smith: Does anyone have any comments on that one? No comments. 2. From James H. Redman, N.Y.S.D.E.C. Marine Resources Specialist III, regarding information on marina or mooring facilities from governmental agencies involved in regulating coastal marinas or docking facilities~ Trustee Smith: Jay, do you have any comments on that one? Trustee Bredemeyer: No, I guess we should respond to that. 3. From the Greenport Fire Dept. an invitation to participate in the Washington's Day Parade on Saturday, February 15, 1986. 4 ..... From Rob.e~t ~azza. regardin~..the~matter of Gaston J. Criblez, Watersedge Way, Southold. 5. From Gertrude Reeves, Secretary_to. the Orient Association, a request for Town Board consideration to have the Hallock's Bay area declared as a Critical Environmental Area. 6. From Robert N. Thurber, DEC, regarding Richmond Creek Associates. 7. From Mr. Gaston J. Criblez a request for an extension on wetland permit no. 163. Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Goubeaud it was RESOLVED to extend permit no. 163 for a period of six months. Permit will expire on May 22, 1986. Vote of Board: Ayes: All This resolution was declared duly adopted. Board of Trustees - January 23, 1986 - Page 3. From Glenn E~ Just, Land Use Company a request for an extension on wetland permit no. 163 for Gaston J. Criblez. (see i~m~u/~ber 7) 9. From Philip R. & Jeanne P. Marriner information regarding Wetland Application No. 335 for John J. Newman. Trustee Smith: We.will review this_correspondence during the Public Hearing on this application later on this evening. 10. From the Southold Town Planning Board Chairman, Bennet~ Orlowski advising that the Planning Board rescind~d their Lead Agency Declaration on the Charles Bowman wetland application. 11. From the New York State D.E.C. regarding the Lead Agency' Coordination Request on behalf of the. Richmond Creek Association. Trustee Smith advised that the Trustees are meeting with the Planning Board on January 24th regarding this matter. 12. From Garrett A. Strang a request for a determination on the need of a wetland application of if the Board would consider a waiver to construct a new residence for Mr. Stocker on Dawn Lagoon, Greenport, seeing that the property has been previously bulkheaded. Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded .by Trustee Goubeaud it was RESOLVED to WAIVER the need of a Wetland Permit for the construction of a single family 'dwelling with garage, deck and swimming pool with the provision that the following measures are taken during construction: 1. Roof run off shall be discharged into dry wells. 2. Driveways and parking areas within 75' of the water shall be of porous construction. Blacktop shall not be used on this site. 3. Care shall be taken so as to preclude the entry of any construction material into adjacent waters. 4. Immediately following construction, all areas of exposed soil shall be properly protected with suitable erosion control devices and/or vegetated to prevent entry of eroded soil into nearby waters. 5.Care shall be taken ~so as to preclude the entry of any discharge from the pool into the adjacent waters. Vote of Board: Ayes: S~ith, Bredemeyer, Goubeau~; ~ Nay: Larsen This resolution was declared duly adopted. 13. From Mr. Troy Baydala information regarding the property adjacent to his residence on Clearview Ave., Southold. 14. From tbs Mattituck Estates Property Owner's Association regarding the map of Mattituck Estates and Wetland Application No. 312. 15. From the Southold Town Baymen's Association regarding dredging in the creeks. Trustee Smith~ Ellen will you please read this cormmunication? Trustee Larsen: Dear Sir: This letter is in reference to public Board of Trustees - January 23, 1986 - Page 4. to public notice number 12439-85-443-L2. We regret receiving this notice after the December I3, 1985, expiration date, but feel that it is important to reply. Our association unanimously rejects the dredging aspect of this application. To allow dredging of this so~t is one of the most insidious means for totally destroying all productive creek bottom in the town of Southold. Historically, our local creeks' ecological health was never more devastated than when each and every creek was dredged, to accomodate a few waterfront land owners. The net effect of this dredging, has been to allow a few people to stare out their windows at their large boats, which they typically only use a few times per year. Meanwhile, the productivity of our creeks has decreased dramatically, dating specifically to the moment of artificial channel creation. To now allow any property owner to dredge public creek bottom just because it lies adjacent to their private property, is to allow the death of our creeks. We hope that this past policy of public betrayal has ended. It is the responsibility of the Army Corps and local officials to educate and inform the usually unenlightened property owner about the ultimate destructiveness of dredging. Please start heeding these facts or instead of calling estuaries creeks, we will have to label them sewers. We would appreciate a responce to this letter. Sincerely, Peter Wenczel, President, Steve Latson, Secretary, Dated: January 2, 1986 P.S. two more creeks have been closed to shellfishing in the Town. It is crisis time--theccQurses of action are clear, but no action has been taken. Lets finally start doing what is necessary to save Southolds Environmental Heritage. Trustee Smith: Thank you Ellen. Ilene will you please send a letter to the Southold Town Baymen's Association ~nd advise them that we re~d the~r.~letter_~atcournmesting~and will take it into consideration. 16. From Theodore Zang regarding wetland application no. 324 for Arthur Bujnowski. 17. From En-Consultants, Inc. a request for a determination on the need of a wetland permit for the construction of a house on Narrow River Road, Orient for Alexander G. Kok~. Trustee Smith: Jay are you familiar with this at all? Trustee Bredemeyer: Very, as a matter of fact I was taking a walk on Sunday afternoon, and unbeknownst this was waiting in by box on Monday. I happened to walk past the parcel and s~e it all staked out with stakes and labels on the stakes. It would seem from the survey provided, and where the stakes are located as proposed it · s located more than 75 ft. from an intertidal zone. The lot has Board of Trustees - January 23, 1986 - Page 5. some Phragraites but it ~oes~not appear wetlands in keeping with the definition and what has been done out there. We could put it on for a~field survey. I would say that we do not have jurisdiction. Trustee Smith: It says here that the house will be 90 ft. from the marsh fringe. Trustee Bredemeyer: It is really not a wetland, it is marginal land, to say the least. As proposed it is not wet in that section. We do no~ have to waiver it, it is not in our jurisdiction as proposed. Trustee Goubeaud: What is the water table in that area? Trustee Bredemeyer: I would say that it is probably within 2 ft. of the surface of the ground. It is relatively shallow. Trustee Goubeaud: Will he have a problem with his septic system there? Trustee Bredemeyer: He will have to secure the usual County approval which on new construction, on a lot that size, he will probably have to meet the full standards of that Department. They would take into account"they have requirements for separation of the bottom of the pools and the ground water. He would have to raise the grade or alter the grade on the site, I think. Trustee Smith: Frank Kujawski: Trustee Smith: Frank Kujawski: Okay,. just send a letter. Can I ask a question on that? Surely. Will the cesspool system and the grading on the lot also be 90ft. from the wetlands? Trustee Smith: You can come up and take a look at the site plan..if you want to Frank. Trustee Bredemeyer: It is probably more than 100ft. away. There is nothing at all with respect to this, that is even within the 75 ft. at all. Trustee Smith: Everything that is being done on this lot is at least 90ft. back, and then towards the road. Trustee Bredemeyer: This is next to the Narrow River Marina. The house will be located the same distance from the road as the exishing house ~hat Ri~schau has. Trustee Smith: Okay, send a letter to Mr. Haje and advise him that the Trustees have no jurisdiction in regard to this matter. We will start on our resolutions until eight o'clock. Board of Trustees - January 23, 1986 - Page 6. V. RESOLUTIONS: Trustee Smith: Jay, will you take resolution number one? Trustee Bredemeyer: The Trustees, in viewing the site, had discussed a negative declaration based on if the applicant was willing to temporarily tabling or remove from the application the grozn section. Have we had any communication from the applicant? Clerk: No, we have not had a response to this request. Trustee Bredemeyer: We also have commen~s from the CAC generally opposing the application, so I don't know if additional comments from Dr. Garrell would be pertinent? I might be willing to offer a "Conditional Negative Declaration" if we can hammer some of this out, otherwise we will have to table this. Dr. Garrell: That was our primary concern, the groin, and the problem with the neighbor and~.of starving sand. We had problems with the idea of bulkheadi~g of the neighbor on the East and the neighbor on the west.just extending the bulkhead through. We couldn't see any reason for going in for the additional construction because he is pretty well screened from the North West wind and by the natural point off to the west. So the principal problem we had with was the groin. Trustee Larsen: I think we are in agreeance with that. Trustee Bredemeyer: In viewing the proposal, the bulkhead lines of the both neighbors structures do seem to be out further seaward then what he has, so that I ~would say that I would not want to rule against the construction, which really only gives him equal rights to the shore as the adjoining property owners, and since it is a hight energy beach. With those comments, and the comments from the CAC... Dr. Garrell: Can I ask, what is the feeling of the DEC about stringing bulkheads all along the beach? Trustee Bredemeyer: They have strong feelings, several houses down I think, Candelles was the name, and they in discussing that application his bulkhead is I think in place slightly seaward of the neiqhboring properties and they had convinced him to move it back_so it ~as more in line with the bulkhead line in that area. I am no~ familiar with any specific policy other than that. I move it as a "Conditional Negative Declaration" conditioned on that there will be no groin construction at this time, and that way will can move the application along in that light, if the applicant is agreeable. Board of Trustees - January 23, 1986 - Page 7. 1. JOHN XIKIS Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Larsen it was RESOLVED that pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law State Environmental Quality Review and 6NYCRR Part 617, Section 617.10 and Chapter 44 of the code of the Town of Southold, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Trustees, as lead agency for the action described below, has determined that the project which is unlisted will not have a significant effect on the environment. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: To construct 200±' of timber retaining wall from corner to corner of adjacent retaining wall and approximately 10' in front of failing gab±on wall. Backfill iwht 275± cubic yards of clean sand to be trucked in from commercial upland source. Proposed wall will be above H.W. property is located on Middle Road, Southold. The project has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment for ~he following reasons: An environmental assessment form has been submitted which indicated that no significant adverse effect to the environment are likely to occur should the project be implemented as planned. Because there has been a response from the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council indicating that this project would no~ have a significant effect to the environment. Because there has been no response in the allotted time from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Southold Town Building Department, it is assumed that there are no objections nor comments from those agencies. 1. ~ote of Board: Ayes: All This resolution was declared duly adopted. 2. DIANA TENDLER - LEAD AGENCY DECLARATION Moved by Trustee Larsen seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Trustees declare itself lead agency in regard to the State Environmental Quality Review ACt in the matter of the application of Diana Tendler for a wetland permit on property located at the foot of 9th Steet, Greenport. 2. ~ote of Board: Ayes: All This resolution--was declared duly adopted. Trustee Smith: Jay will you take n~er~ three? Trustee Bredemeyer: Environmental Assessment on wetland application no.337 for Joseph Schoenstein. Property is located on the Main Road, Greenport. The Trustees made several surveys there, one initi&l~y~in~'response'~ta'~he~ placem~nt~'of~fill on the parcel to the Ea~st of the building and then subsequently for the inspection for the wetlands permit for the construction of an addition to the business, a building, which will be placed within 20' of the stream bed that goes in behind there. The CAC presented us with comments in opposition to this feeling there would be possibly alternatives to placement of the building construction so close to the stream. Maybe Dr. Garr~ll would like to adress that more specifically. I don't know what the feeling of the Board was, I did that inspection Board of Trustees - January 23, 1986 - Page 8. by myself. I would not want to answer for the Board, as I don't know what~i~theirJfoelings were. Dr. Garrelt: Thislone, we had reservations With for several reasons. First there were Town Ordinances that were already in question with the Welding Shop. We felt that it should be at least held up, with respect to the Town Board, to find out what the Variances were and what kind of arrangements ~ad~been worked out'to give Schoenstein p~rmission to use the School Building in the first place, and whether they had said anything about expanding in the first place. More importantly we felt that he had adequate property to site that shop differently, maybe it was an oversite. It just seemed that he could turn it around to at least 45~d~g~ees and not 90 degrees and keep away from the wetlands. The third thing wasT~the rip rap that was lying around which certainly didn't indicate the type of stewardship that you would give someone to go within a creek. This in fact,~I think you will remember Jay was working on this With us the other night, the~Significant Habitat~Designation this whole area is on the Significant Habitat!~Designation. Trustee'~Bredemeyer: I move that we table the application°requesting additional information. In light of what Dr. Garrell said, ~e~her he has approval for the use and for the expansion of the facilities and that possibly ~o request if a different configuration could be made to try to lessen the potential impac~ on the stream. Trustee Larsen: Dr. Garrell how many feet do you think he will gain by turning the building? Dr. Garrell: I figure he will gain ~0 Or 50 feet by turning it. Trustee Bredemeyer: I paced it off thi's morning. That is a small 20' he ends up with a 90 ft. structure~as proposed. There is some debree in the way. There may be an error in that figu~s. Trustee Smith: We will send him a letter and ask him to rearrange ~he building as Marry has so stated, and maybe we could get a vegetation buffer in back there to help the situation greatly. Trustee Bredemeyer: In tab~ing~ it I think we can come to a reasonable conclusion~ with the applicant. Trustee Goubeaud: I'll second that motion. 3~-. Mo~ed~byi~Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Goubeaud it was RESOLVED ~o TABLE the Environmental Assessment for Joseph Schoenstein and forward a letter requesting additional information regarding his project. 3. Vote ~f Board: Ayes: All This'resolution was declared duly adopted. Board of Trustees - January 23, 1986 - Page 9. 4. ALBERT BRENEISEN - NEGATIVE DETERMINATION Moved by Trustee Goubeaud seconded by Trustee. Bredemeyer it was RESOLVED to declare the following Negative Environmental Declaration: ...... S--E.~. R.A. N~GATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE OF NO SIGNIFICANt'EFFECT ON T~E ENVIRON~ENT APPLICATION NO. 338 N~iE: Albert Breneisen This notice is issued-pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law State Environmental Quality Review and 6NYCRR Part 617, Section 617.10 and Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Trustees, as lead agency for the action described below has determined that the project will not have a significant effect to the environment. TYPE OF ACTION: Unlisted DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: To construct an upper (110') and lower (75') retaining walls and a 20' x 40' .swimming pool and to excavate 150 cu. yds. for pool 50 to 70' above MHW. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Dawn Drive, East Marion, New York or more particularly known on the Suffolk County Tax Map as 1000-035-5-16. REASONS SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: 1. An environmental assessmen~ form in the short form has been submitted which indicated that there would be no adverse effect to the environment should the project be implemented as planned. 2. Because there has been no response in the allotted time from the Southotd Town Buildin~ Department and the New York State D.E.C. it is assumed that there are no obje~ions nor comments f'rom those agencies. Vote of Board: Ayes: Smith, Bredemeyer, GoUbeaud Abstained: Larsen This resolution was declared duly adopted. Board of Trustees - January 23, 1986 - Page 10. 5. DANIEL SILVERMAN - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Moved by Trustee Smith seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer it._was~ RESOLVED to declare the following Non-Significant Environmental Assessment: Date: January 23, 1986 S.E.Q.R.A.' NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE OF NO. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT Application~No: 314 NAME: DANIEL SILVERMAN This notice is issued pursuant ot the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law State Environmental Quality Review and 6NYCRR Part 617, Section 617.10 and Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Trustees, as lead agency for the action described below has determined that the project will not have a significant effect to the environment. TYPE OF ACTION: Unlisted D~SCRIPTI©N OF ACTION: To construct a 20' x 5' fixed dock, 15' x 5' ramp, 8'x21' floating dock and two 3' x 28' floating docks and to dredge approximately 150 cu. yds. and to remove to an upland site. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Wunneweta Road, Nassau Point Cutchogue. Suffolk County Tax Map No~ 1000-111-14-32. REASONS SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: 1. An environmental assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicated that there would be no adverse effect to the environment should the project be implemented as planned. 2. There has been no response in the allotted time from the New. York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation and the Southold Town Building Department, so it is assumed that thare are no objections nor comments from-those agencies. 5. Vote of Board: Ayes: Ai~ This resolution was declared duly adopted Board of Trustees - January 23, 1986 - Page 11. Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Goubeaud it was RESOLVED to recess tbs ~qular meeting in order to hold the public hearings on the wetland applications. Vote of Board: Ayes: All This resolution was declared duly adopted. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 8:00 P.M. - In the matter of the application of Ian Shand for a wetland permit. 8:02 P.M. - In the matter of the application of John J. Newman for a wetland permit. 8:04 P.M. - In the matter of the application of S. Heagen Bayles for a wetland permit. 8:06 P.M. In the matter of the application of John Lang for a wetland permit. 8:08 P.M. In the matter of the application of J. Lane Curry for a wetland permit. 8:10 P.M. In ~he matter ~f the application of Claeyes Bahrenburg for a wetland permit. 8:30 P.M. In the matter of Thomas W~ Cramer~Jin regard to the DEIS. Regular Meeting resumed at 10:20 P.M. V. RESOLUTIONS CONTINUED: 6. RESOLUTIONS TO APPROVE THE WETLAND APPLICATIONS 6A. IAN SHAND - WETLAND APPLICATION NO'. 327 - APPROVAL Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Larsen WHEREAS, the Land Use Company on behalf of Ian Shand applied to the Southotd Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the TOwn of $outhold, application dated October 2, 1985, and WHEREAS, Said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and recommendations and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Town Trustees with respect to said application on Jan~arF~23~ 1986 at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity ~o be heard, WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area; and WHEREAS, the Board considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and it is noted that there was no public opposition; and WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the project as proposed will not affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of the Town, Board of Trustees - January 23, 1986 - Page 12. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT . . RESOLVED that The Land Use Company on behalf of Ian Shand be granted permission under the provisions of the Wetland'Ordinanc~ of the Town of Southold, New York all in accordanCe with'the application submitted. The permit will expire on January 23, 1987 if work is not complete2.b¥ same. The Trustees are to be notified upon completion of the work. 6A. Vote of Board: Ayes: Ail This resolution was declared duly adopted. 6B. The Board reserved decision on the wetland application of John J. Newman. 6C. S. HEGAN BAYLES - WETLAND APPLICATION NO. 33i - APPROVAL Moved by Trustee Goubeaud seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer WHEREAS, Eh-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of ~. ~egan BaYles applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permi~ un~er the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold, application dated November 13, 1985, and WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and recommendations and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Town Trustees with respect to said application on January 23, 1986 at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area; and WHEREAS, the Board considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and it is noted that there was no public opposition; and WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the project as proposed will not affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of the Town, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf~of S. Heqan Bayles be .. granted permission under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold, New York all in'~accordance~with t~e )lication This on Janu~ not ~tion of the work. 6C. Vote of Board: Ayes: Ail This resolution was declared duly adopted. Board of Trustees - January 23, 1986 - Page 13. 6D. JOHN LANG - WETLAND APPLICATION NO. 328 - APPROVAl, Moved by Trustee Smith seconded by Trustee Bredeme~--- ~EREAS, the North Fork Marine Construction, Inc. on behalf of John Lang applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold, application dated November 14, 1985, and WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and recommendations and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Town Trustees with respect to said application on January 23, 1986 at which time..all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area; and WHEREAS, the Board considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and it is noted that there was no public opposition; and WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the p~oject as proposed will not affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of the town, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the North Fork Marine Construction, Inc. on behalf of John Lang be granted permission under.the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold, New York'all in accordance with the application submitted~~ This permit will expire on January 23, 1987 if Work.is not complete.by same. The Trustees are to be notified ~pon completion~ of the/work.' ' It is~recom~ended that ~ou reestablish the marsh fringe by replanting grasses. 6D. Vote of Board: Ayes: All This resolution was declared duly adopted. 6E. J. LANE CURRY - WETLAND APPLICATION NO. 325 - APPROVAL Moved by Trustee Smith seconded by Trustee~red~mey~r .... WHEREAS, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of J. Lane Curry applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Townof Southold, application dated October 25, 1985, and WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and recommendations and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Town Trustees with respect to said application on January 23, 1986 at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area; and WHEREAS, the Board considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and it is noted for the record that there has been no public opposition; and WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the project as proposed will not affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of the Town, Board of Trustees - January 23, 1986 - Page 14. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Costello Marine Construction Corp. on behalf of J. Lane~Curry be granted permission under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold, New York all in accordance with the application submitted. This permit witl expire on January 23, 1987 if work is not complete by same. Trustees are to be notified upon completion of the work. The 6E. Vote of Board: Ayes: smith, Bredemeyer, Goubeaud-Abstained:Larsen This resolution was declared duly adopted. 6F. CLAEYES BAHRENBURG - WETLAND APPLICATION NO. 329 - APPROVAL Moved by Trustee Smith seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer WHEREAS, North Pork Marine Construction, Inc. on behalf of Claeyes Bahrenburt applied to the Southold Town TruStees for a permit under the provisions of the WetlandOrdinance of the Town of Southold, application dated No~ember 14, 1985, and WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and recommendations, ~ and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Town Trustees with respect to said application on January 23, 1986 at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, and WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area; and WHEREAS, the Board considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and it is noted for the record that there has been no public opposition; and WHEREAS the Board has determined that the project as proposed will not affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of the Town, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that North Fork Marine ConstrUctiOn, Inc. on behalf of Claeyes Bahrenburg be granted permission Under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Sou~hoI~, New YOrk ali 'in/acc0rdance with the !es are to be: 6F. Vote of Board: Ayes: ~ This resolution was declared duly adopted. Board of Trustees - January 23, 1986 - Page 15. 7. Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Smith it was RESOLVED that the Clerk be and hereby is authorized to advertise for the Public Hearings on the Wetland Applications. 7. Vote of Board: Ayes: All This resolution was declared duly adopted. SCOTT L. HARRIS - WAIVER OF THE WETLAND ORDINANCE Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Smith WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area; and WHEREAS, the Board has considered all the documentation submitted concerning this request; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: !. By this request, appellant requests a waiver of Chapter 97 from the Code of the Town of Southold to regrade a 10~x155' section of property upland of an existing berm separating his property from Town regulated wetlands. 2. The property in question is on the Map of Property at Orient, Town of Southold or more particularly known on the Suffolk County Tax Map Designation: Dist. 1000, Section 020, Block 3, part of Lot 9. In considering ~his request, the Board finds and determines: 1. The project as proposed-will not adversely, affect the wetlands of the Town. 2. The project as proposed will not adversely affect the healtk~ safety and~general welfare of'the people of the Town. e Vote of Board: Ayes: Ail This resolution was declared duly adopted. ANTOINETTE TISBO - MOORING TRANSFER Moved by Trustee Smith seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer it was RESOLVED that the Town Trustees APPROVE the transfer of mooring permit no. 1931 mooring no. 634 issued to Ilse Scheible, to the new owner of the property, Antoinette Tisbo residing at 2965 Minnehaha Blvdl, Southold all in accordance with the app!icationsubmitted. Vote of Board: Ayes: All This resolution was declared duly adopted. 10. WINDS WAY BUILDING CORP. PLANNING BOARD REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION The Trustees personally visited the site and reviewed the information submitted and it was determined that as submitted the proposal would not require a wetland permit, but advised the Winds Way Building Corp. that if the plan is amended the applicant will be required to resubmit a new site plan for review and determination for jurisdiction. Board of Trustees - January 23, 1986 - Page 16. 11. FRANK ZALESKI - REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION The Trustees reviewed the site plan for the subdivision and conducted an inspection of the subject premises on January 16, 1986 and it was determined that a new site plan of the proposed dwellings will be necessary before a final site inspection is made to ascertain whether the Trustees have jurisdiction in regard to this matter. The Trustees advised that a letter is to be sent to Mr. Zaleski advising him of this request. 12. NORTH FORK PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT - WETLAND APPLICATION NO. 315 Moved by Trustee Smith seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer it was RESOLVED that the Wetland Application NO. 315 for the North Fork Property Development be and hereby is WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 12. Uote of Board: Ayes: All This resolution was declared duly adopted. 13. DR. BERNARD KIRSCH - LEAD AGENCY DECLARATION Moved by Trustee Smith seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer if was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Trustees Declare lead agency in regard to the State Environmental Quality Review Act in the matter of the application of Dr. Bernard Kirsch for a wetland permit on certain property located on 9th Street, Greenport. 13. Vote of Board: Ayes: All This resolution was declared duly adopted. 14. MARTIN AND FLORENCE GELLMAN - LEAD AGENCY DECLARATION Moved by Trustee Smith seconded by Trustee Goubeaud it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Trustees Declare itself lead agency in regard to the State Environmental Quality Review Act in the matter of the application of Martin and Florence Gellman for a Wetland Permit on certain property located on Meday Avenue, Mattituck. 14. Vote of Board: Ayes: All This resolution was declared duly adopted. 15. ARNOLD BLAIR - LEAD AGENCY DECLARATION Moved by Trustee Smith seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Trustees Declare itself lead agency in regard to the State Environmental Quality Review Act in the matter of the application of Arnold Blair for ~ wetland permit on certain property located on Midway Road, Southold. 15. Vote of Board: Ayes: All This resolution was declared duly adopted. 16. CYNTHIA KAMINSKY Moved by Trustee Smith seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer it wa RESOLVED that Cynthia Kaminsky is authorized to repair an existing dock with the provision that no additional dock surface is added to the structure. 16. Vote of Board: Ayes: All This~solution was declared duly adopted. Board of Trustees - January 23, 1986 - Page 17. 17. ARTHUR BUJNOWSKI - WETLAN~ APPLICATION NO. 324 - APPROVAL Moved by Trustee Smith seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer WHEREAS, The Land Use Company on behalf of Arthur J. Bujnowski applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold, ~pplication dated October 10~ 1985~nd, WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and recommendations and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Town Trustees with respect to said application on December 26, 1985 at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area; and WHEREAS, the Board considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and it is noted for the record that there were comments during the hearing, which are under separate cover in the file; and WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the project as proposed will not affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of the Town, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that The Land Use Company on behalf of Arthur J. Bujnowski be granted permission under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold, New York with the orovision that a low profile groin, not to exceed one ft. above MHW, is constructed. This oermit will expire on January 23, 1987 if.work is not complete by same. The Trustees shall be notified upon commletiOn of the work. 17. Vote of Board: Ayes: Ail This resolution was declared duly adopted. 18. MATTITUCK YOUTH ACTIVITY - RUSSELL NINE Moved by Trustee Smith seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer it wa RESOLVED to WAIVER the need of a wetland permit for the placement of brush over the band on the sound side to fill in the wind tunnels to rebuild the bank to the grass area on property located at Bailey Beach Road, Mattituck. 18. Vote of Board: Ayes: All This resolution was declared duly adopted. Moved by Trustee Smith seconded by Trustee Goubeaud it was RESOLVED that this trustee meeting be and hereby is adjourned at 10:48 P.M. Uote of Board: Ayes: All This resolution was declared duly adopted. Ilene p fif fer~[n~q~Clerk ~ Board of Town TrUstees ~ PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF JOHN J, NEWMAN JANUARY 23j 1986 8:14 P~Mz PRESENT WERE: Trustee President Henry P. Smith Trustee John Bredemeyer Trustee Ellen Larsen Trustee Phillip Goubeaud Clerk Ilene Pfifferling Bay Constable Kent McCarthy Frank Kujawski Jeanne P. Marriner Martin Garrellj CAC PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF JOHN J. NEWMAN 8:14 P.M. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE TOWN TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF 'SOUTHOLD, kT THE SOUTHOLD TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 23, 1986 ON THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION FOR PERMITS UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE WETLAND ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD; IN THE MATTER OF JOHN J. NEWMAN TO DRIVE 12 PILINGS LANDSIDE TO SECURE EXISTING GARAGE. PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON SAILORS NEEDLE ROAD, MATTITUCK, NEW YORK. TRUSTEE SMITH: That was the official reading of the notice for Mr. John J. Newman. Does anyone have anything to say pro or con to this application? Please come up and state your name. MRS. JEANNE P. MARRINER: I live next to Mr. Newman. I would like this opportunity to reiterate some of our concerns we expressed in our letter to you. In the letter we called attention to not only our concerns regarding the proposed piling p~oject, but we also asked that you review the application in relation to the other recently completed construction and alteration on the Newman property. Our permanent ~residence abutS the Newman property and we have been affected by bulkhead construction during 1984 and 1985 and we fear future cumutative~.affects.and we are gravely concerned about the proposal to construct second story living quarters on top of the existing garage by placing the garage on twelve pilings. Our reasons for our concerns are as follows: The garage is right at the waters edge and We fear the project will have a potentially large impact on groundwater quality from salt water intrusion. As our well is about 90' from the Newman garage. The project wa kD_ow, will cause objectionable ground vibration because we have experienced this When the bulkheading was done during the 1984 and 1985 construction. The composition of the land that our houses are on, sand and topsoil placed on bog is very fragile. The land is surrounded on three sides by James Creek. We fear undermineing of the lateral support could lead to the cracking of our concrete foundations. The project could have an impact on both the public health and safety of ourselves and other Salt Lake Village residents and on James Creek due toexcessive water pumping and additional sewage resulting from proposed facilities added to an already overloaded parcel of property of less than one acre. We are concerned with the overload even without the new proposal because of the proximity~of the Newman cesspool to the creek and to his and our wells. The cesspool was placed closer to our wells and the swimming pool took the place of the original cesspooll. Public Hearing In the Matter of John J. Newman Page 2. The system already services the following: The main house facilities which is all on one acre, the Lighthouse, guest bathroom and kitchen facilities, and the Lighthouse is surrounded by water. The Cabana/ guesthouse facilities situated on the waters edge.next to the pool. The washing machine, shower and other facilities located in the existing garage which is also situated on the waters edge. As we mentioned in our letter, we are extremely concerned about short water supply~and~sal~water intrusion r~sulting from excessive water pumping of the newly installed iDground sprinkter~ system of both Mr. Newman and his abutter to the North, Mr. Fahey. We ask that you consider how much water and waste disposal this property could handle without contaminating our wells and the creek. We ask that you please consider the total situation when you are deliberating on application number 335. While we recognize that Mr. Newman's garage needs repair due to termite damage, further compounded by the recent construction which made it slip off of its'foundation, we do not understand the request for twelve pilings to repair the garage. The pilings are only a means for Mr. Newman to accommodate a second story to add additional living space. Tonight I am speaking primarily to application no. 335, as it is my understanding that Mr. Newman withdrew his request for bulkheading in application no. 330. and will replace the spartina he removed last Fall from his property directly abutting ours on James Creek. If there is any change to application 330, we request the opportunity to comment because the safety of our wetlands and property could be affected. Because we are deeply concerned about what could happen to our home if the project described in No. 335 is permitted we ask you to please look at the entire picture before making your decision. We realize that with current mandates, may not include responsibility for~-some.of our concerns, we hope you will never the less recognize that there could be a potentially serious problem if further expansion is permitted on this sensitive creek front. Thank you for letting me comment. TRUSTEE SMITH: Does anyone else have anything to say? MARTIN GARRELL: Question for you Henry? What is the sequence of determination on that? Who gives approval on the second story building? Is it the ZBA? Or is it Planning? TRUSTEE SMITH: That would be the Zoning Board. MARTIN GARRELL: That .was our hopes that somehow we would'get a decision on that before we would have to decide on the pilings. TRUSTEE SMITH: It was my understanding that our part of this matter was to put the pilings in to stop the garage from sinking or slipping into the creek. As far as putting a second story on, Where he is Public Hearing In the Matter of John J. Newman Page 3. within 75' of High water. He would have to come back to us for an application to do that. As far as the cesspools and ground- water and things like that, it is out of our jurisdiction. MARTIN GARRELL: The thing of it is, sooner or later we are going to get clobbered with one of thise things. If we do not look at the whole picture. TRUSTEE SMITH: I agree, but right now the mans~problem is that the garage is at a tilt. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I reviewed a letter that was sent to us by the Marriners. The swimming pool and that particular item, I believe started prior to the April 1st date of the Wetland Ordinance, because we were out on this last fall. Apparently that change went beyond our jurisdiction. The discussion on the inground sprindler system has got to make you wonder an awful lot. That is such a fragile area to be drawing on water resources and there has been probably no comment from any other agency at all on that installation. It is one that deserves discussion here as a principal. In ground sprinkler systems can draw a tremendous amount of water to put it on such a fragile location as that', it deserves mention. TRUSTEE SMITH: Now well drillers are required by law before they put a well in, as such, they have to get a permit from New York State and the use of the well has to be so stated. I think they should be looking more closely where these wells will be going and what use it is going to be used for. If you get dry years, you get salt water intrusion. A few years ago, the people on Nassau Point has salt water intrusion. They had to move their wells back close to the road. It went back after the rains came back, but it was due to lawn irrigation. FRANK KUJAWSKI: I have agreed to represent Mr. Newman. I have a letter I will give to the Clerk shortly. The reason I have agreed to represent him is, in the past couple of years in dealing with him, I think the way he has conducted construction on that property has been in a sensitive manner. A couple of compromises he has made with this Board and the withdrawal of applications in the past. Before I agreed to represent him, I have also talked to several people in the construction business. It is their opinion that this was rot, which was the basic part of the problem hera. I acknowledge there ts concern here, on saltwater, intrusion, but I am looking back at my own personal experience in this area. The greatest danger occured during the excavation or removal of hydrostatic pressure. I would of thought that for instance, during the pool construction period or any of the bulkheading, where it would be going on, that would have been the time to see any evidence. In the driving of pilings, the pressure is maintained even though the interface between fresh and salt may be provoked Public Hearing In the Matter of John J. Newman Page 4. or actually interspersed, the pressures still remain. You are not removing earth. I personally can't see any other way to save the garage other than the pilings. As far as the other couple of things, I did: 1. To note, and,I think Mrs. Marriner correctly noted, discharges of waste prior in this garage as it is presently constructed right now. There has been an improvement already, because on buying this property that discharge of waste was a direct discharge into the creek. Ithink we all know what that means, since then this has been hooked up to the cesspool system. There is a gain right there. 2. The other point_I would like to mention is that Mr. Newman has a very large family. He is not going to rent this out or increase the population of this piece of property. The personal wastes that are generated, and the amount of water used by the population is not going to be increased. In other words, the amount of water pumped there and the waste generated right now would be the same whether or not the Zoning Board of Appeals choose to allow him to make living quarters in the garage. Is this Board in receipt of a letter from Mr. Newmans other adjacent neighbor? If not, I have a copy of a letter from Mr. Fahey.~wh±ch I would like to read. "Dear Jack, After reviewing the information that you sent me concerning th~_ raising of the garage and the adding of the two bedrooms plus a bath, as well as your proposed extension to the back of the main house, please be advised that I have no objection to these improvements. You should feel free to use this letter in connection with your appeal to the Town. Sincerely, Philip Fahey, Dated January 13, 1986". I think that should be part of the record that as the other adjacent neighbor here, and that he is more than sensitive to any concerns this Board has. I will convey them to Mr. Newman, thank you. TRUSTEE SMITH: Does anyone have any other comments on this application: Do any of the Trustees have any other comments? (No comments) Then I will close this hearing in the matter of John J. Newman. Hearing Closed at 8:26 P,M. ECEIVED AND FILED BY fHE SOUII-iO D TOWN Town Cle~k, Town o~ PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THOMAS W. CRAMER JANUARY 23~ 1986 8:35 PiM. PRESENT. Trustee President Henry P, Smith Trustee John Bredemeyer Trustee Ellen M, Larsen Trustee Phillip Goubeaud Clerk Ilene Pfifferling Martin Garrell, Southold Conservation Advisory Council' Thomas W, Cramer Ben Herswig Robert Costanzo Ralph Costanzo Robert Bennett John J, Dabrowski ~azel A, Hirc~e Chester Boherg Thomas Reilly Kent McCarthy~ Bay Constable David Emilita, S,T, Planning Consultant (approximately 30 to 35 people in the audience) Chuck Voorhis PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THOMAS W. CRAMER 8:35 P.M. THIS NOTICE IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 8 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW AND 6NYCRR PART 617, SECTION 617.10 and CHAPTER 44 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND ACCEPTED IN WRITING PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD ON JANUARY 23, 1986 at 8:30 P.M., AT THE TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK. THE DRAFT MAY BE REVIEWED IN THE TRUSTEE OFFICE PRIOR TO JANUARY 23, 1986. LEAD AGENCY: Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 APPLICANT: THOMAS W. CRAMER 63 Clifton Place Port Jefferson Station, New York 11776 PERMIT APPLIED FOR: Wetlands Permit PROJECT DESCRIPTION: To construct a 1545 sq. ft. two story frame single family residence with attached garage, deck, well and sanitary system. PROJECT LOCATION: Meadow Lane, Mattituck, New York 11952. More particularly known as Lot no. 42 of Mattituck Estates, Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-115-5-7, east of LILCO Pole No. 5; 322.95' north of New Suffolk Avenue, tributary north of Deep Hole Creek, Mattituck. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: A. The intertidal marsh is extremely close to the property. B. Within the marsh there are a variety of species of nesting fowl. C. Controversy over the development of this lot within the neighborhood itself. Public Hearing in the matter of Thomas W. Cramer Page 2. Trustee Smith: The Trustees have made a Significant Environmental Determination on this application, a Draft has been submitted and this hearing is to obtain additional comments from the public regarding this application. Pleas~ sign in so that we have a record of your name for the file. Thomas Reilly: I live on Azalea R~ad, Mattituck. I represent the Mattituck Estates Property Owners Association, and we are against the granting of a permit for lot 42 on Meadow Lane for two reasons: 1. The lot has not be~n used by the buitde~s~of Mattituck Estates because of the swampy nature, now known as wetlands and 2. There is not enough room there to build a house. To build there would cause erosion~ contaminate the pond, and pollute the creek with run off water. It would have an affect on the wildlife,~which is found in the area, it would drive, them away from the area, robbing them of one more sanctuary. We have a lovely community here The land is well ~maintained and more than forty homes fall in conformity with the ~ovenants and Restrictions that were drawn up in 1965 andare still in effect. We urge you to enforce the 75' Wetlands Law. Thank you. Trustee Smith: Is there any one else who Wishes to .be heard? Chester Boberg: I live on Meadow Lane, Mattituck. One of the criteria used to determine the significant effect on the environment is the creation of the community's existing plans. Our Com twenty years ago in the form of Coy rules were filed in Suffolk County Norman E. Klipp, Clerk of Suffolk C run with the land for a period of t extende~ for successive ten year pe covenants, does not permit any dwel then fifty feet from the front lot ~aterial conflict with the munity plans were set some ~nants and Rsstrictions. These in 1965 and recorded by Mr. Dunty. These Covenants are to ~enty-five years and automatically ~iod~. Article 4 of these king to be placed any closer .ine. All residents were advised of these covenants and restrictions before purchase, and abided by them. This is one of the reasons M~ttituck Estates is a highly regarded community. Although this ~etland application 'has several alternative plans, they have one th~ng in common. They are all in clear violation of the 50' setback. The Covenants and Restriction herein are both legal and binding and we will do whatever is necessary to uphold them. Thank you. Trustee Smith: Any one else? Hazel A. Hirche: Good evenl, ng! I beg the Board's indulgence to be here, while I try to substantiate our position on the proposed d~velopment of a wetland lot near my home. During the 18 years of Public Hearing in the matter of Thomas W. Cramer Page 3. residence here, we have enjoyed the .ambience of the area. We have shared the property with ducks, who lay eggs under our bushes, a family of Canadian Geese, Snapping Turtles, Box Turtles and even a Red Fox. If the±r habitat is disturbed, or possibly damaged, we will lose the joy of living with them forever. To build in the proximity of a wetland, I feel will be detrimental to the area. Dr. Martin Garrell: Henry do want me to step up and talk about the DEIS? It will take about 15 minutes? Robert Bennett: Good evening ladies and gentlemen, my name is Bob Bennett and I speak on behalf of the four Bennetts that reside at 55 Azalia Road, Mattituck. Unlike my gentile neighbors, I have always ascribed in my adult life, once fired upon, fire back. I am very disturbed with this DEIS, and I call your attention to very specific areas: 1. That the Wetlands will not be disturbed. An inspection of that property, as I understand, some of you have already made, would clearly indicate_that this is nothing more than a gratuitous and self serving statement. The applicant lists several problems, and I_.ask for your careful scrutiny to each one of them. Number one: It's proximity to the tidal marsh. Number two: The clear evidence to the nesting water fowl. Number three: The viable neighborhood controversy. I3m. sure that isT~obvious to you, with the presence of all the people from Mattituck Estates here tonight, and number four: The disposal of sanitary waste. Although the applicant raises these problems, he makes little or no attempt to provide solutions other than to indicate to both the wetlands and the steep slope there will be no disturbance. As to the soil itself he promises low fertilization with absolutely no indication as to how that would be binding to the first occupant of that house, or to_..the subsequent occupant of that house. The design itself calls for a thirty-five foot setback (that is on page 4 of the DEIS) that is a clear violation of the covenants and restrictions which the applicant acknowledges in his presentation. about "Minimal disturbance of forested area and gives some very specific figures .23 acres will be deminished to .14 acres." You do not have to be a math wizard to figure out-_he is going to cut the timber in half. He acknowledges that there is spring breeding, but then indicates that there is no evidenCe of nesting water fowl. He goes on to say-~This particular site is not as attractive as other~sites". Now how does one come to that conclusion? Did he talk to the birds? Or does he propose to put up some signs one_the propert~and~direct~the~ to'a more~suitabte .lo~a~ion2~ ~This statement is absurd We talk in the DEIS about an endange~red species or possible elimination of endangered species. Although the comment is clearly made regarding vegetation, there is no clear statement~hat there is no threat to endangered species°of wildlife. If it is not there it isn't there and you can draw a logical inference. On page 35 of the statement, the applicant refers to permission of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. This is a deliberate ~ublic Hearing in the matter of Thomas W. Cramer Page 4. attempt to mislead the Board. Unfortunately in this particular case the D.E.C. copped out. They indicated that they had no jurisdiction, and they sent a letter to that effect to the applicant. That is absolutely not permission to do a~ything. It is like me standing up here and saying "I have not killed anyone yet"~ As to the Covenants and Restrictions, the applicant here adds insult to injury. He indicates that he has deemed two of the Covenants impractical and invalid. I ask you under what kind of regard dhes~th~seindividu~lkdetermine~th~ C~ehants and Restrictions, by which we are bound are impractica~ or invalid. He goes even further to indicate to you, and "He assumes the desire, the intent of the declarent", how is it, under what color of the governmental authority does this individual applicant assume the desired intent of an attorney who drew these, Covenants and Restrictions some twenty-five years ago. I would clearly indicate to you, that the Bennetts readily acknowledge that this Board has the authority to grant the application before it. We would ask you most emphatically not to grant it. This DEIS was not prepa~ed~by Bob Bennett or some other neophyte who sat down with pencil and paper and attempted to decipher the complexity of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. What~ I would suggest to you, as dramatically as I can present it, is that we have an interlop~ here, we have someone who has come into the Town, attempting to make a quick buck, and I would ask you to send him packing. Thank you. Trustee Smith: Is there anyone else who would like to speak? It is noted for the record that Mr. Robert Costanzo gave a presentation using a VCR with Television Set to give a clear and accurate account of the area in question. Mr. Robert Costanzo: My name is Robert Costanzo. My wife and I own a piece of property adjacent to the property in question. This is my son Ralph who has rode at more times on that pond, then any- one in this room and I would like him to tell you of some of the wildlife that he has seen and witnessed. Not to go on and repete what you have seen and heard tonight. All I can say, before showing this film, if that we live on the large pond. On our side of the pond there is no wildlife nesting, no wildlife~,p~a~ing at all, while we are outside.[~Wek~ill see on the tape that they are on lot no. 42. ~I would like mF son to tell you what he has witnessed. Ralph Costanzo: We have Blue Heron, Egret, Kingfisher, Muskrat (there are alot of these on lot 42.)~to~s of duck, Snapping Turtles and fish. T~U~tSS Smith: Do you personally take a g~eat 3o~ in seeing this wildlife and observing them. Ralph Costanzo: Yes I do. Robert Costanzo: Take note that there is a heron right there. You will see it eat fish.from that pond. I'll make note that the was short environmental assessment form was filled out there were no Public Hearing in the matter of Thomas W. Cramer Page 5. fish in that pond. Trustee Smith: What time of the year was that taken? Robert Costanzo: You'll see a date there. January 21, 1986.~ There is about twenty minutes of film there and it is taken a~ all different times of the year starting last October, 1985. Trustee Smith: Have you observed any waterfowl in the Spring? Did you see any young? Robert Costanzo: have their young. of it. Yes, I have seen ducks every spring and they Also swans in that area, I can show you films Trustse J. Goubeaud: Are there any Red Fox in the area? Mr. Robert Costanzo: I can~,~t honestly say. Someone from the audience: I have seen them in my backyard. Trustee Smith: Did he get it?(referring toga Breat~iue Heron ge~ting, a fish to eat.) It is quite a unique pond. _He got the fish and is eating it. Mr. Robert Costanzo: I have had my son tell you what he has seen. I recall, I have spoken to ma~y people, I did live back west, I've lived in Huntington and Mt. Sinai. I am a sailor, I've been on the water all my life. I was able to witness these things back west. It is not there now. I was able to swim. Now you can'%t. At least certain times you can{t. Mt. Sinai maybe there were three or four boats, now it the filled with boats, t~wonderi~ha~m~ son will be able to witness when he reaches my age. I~ hope there will be some- thing for him to see. Please take that into consideration. Frank~.Kujawski: I just want to add, because of m~ familiarity with the project and having looked at the DEIS, I'm not a ~esident of Mattituck Estates, 'but a neighbor nearby as a user of Deep Hale Creek, that the tidal action and flushing action in the~pohd~is.~cc~ accomplished~.~on!y!by a.~sump~under the road. This is a mor.~ critical . aspect here in that nutrient loading is going to occur even if some one makes a minimal point of it, it is still going to.occur. Another point is that this is going to set a precedent. There are several lots along that area that have never been developed, because they all have the same problem there. If the first one is allowed to be developed upon you can expect all the rest to come in. I said to this Board before. I think all of these marginal properties that are less than ideal waterfront lots are going to start coming before this board as property prices escalate and you are going to find these applications before you from now on. I don't believe this Board has experienced a DEIS to a Final Impact Statement? I think that it is very important for this Board to make a statement now to avoid the avalanche. Public Hearing in the matter of Thomas W. Cramer Page 6. Trustee Smith: Frank to your knowledge is this pond spring fed? Frank_Kujawski: I believe that it is brackish water in there. I don't believe it is spring fed. The audience loudly responded that this pond is spring fed. Trustee Smith: This is the he~d of Deep Hole Creek. Frank Kujawski: Yes it is. Trustee Smith: What happens here will affect the whole of Deep Hole Creek. Frank Kujawski: Yes it will. Trustee Smith: Thank you. Mr. Robert Costanzo: You can see in cold weather when the pond freezes, on my side of the pond the water does not freeze, and that is where the underwater spring comes in, it is brackish water. Dr. Martin Garrell: I don't think I have to introduce myself tonight I just want to proceed on this under the assumption that the DEIS will be replied to formally, in a series of points, with a view toward the applicant preparing a Final Impact Statement. Which we will then review and make a recommendation on. The feeling that we had on this, was that this DEIS that had to be criticized in many points, so that the applicant would have a chance to rewrite it, and we would review it again. That is basically the way I set up testimony in the letter. The C.A.C. felt despite the length of the DEIS we find the document to be substantially flawed and feel that a number of issues will have to be addressed in greater detail in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). A summary of our comments appears below and will be followed by page-by page criticism of the DEIS. SUMMARY: 1.. The addition of 14.4 lbs. of nitrogen per year to the groundwater by the project will have a significant effect because it will increase the nitrogen concentration substantially beyond the current levels which may already be 15 ppm. by your own assertation on page 38. The effects of nitrogen loading are additive and the effects of all houses is cumulative! 2. Besides effects on groundwater the effects of nitrogen and phosphorous loading on the small pond must be calculated as well. the pond water in the wetlands must be sampled four or six times per year for nutrients to predict the impact of another dwelling. 3. The deleterious effects on wildlife, particularly nesting waterfowl, will be obvious, not merely during construction, but during the entire period of occupancy of the structure. It will be necessary to know exactly what fauna is in the marsh during the year through a detailed periodic wildlife survey; a mere listing from a naturalist's handbook does not suffice here! 4. Alternatives to the proposal are given short shrift. For example, we would like to know.the answers to the following questions. Using the Composting Toilet (Clivis Multrum) Public Hearing in the matter of Thomas W. Cramer Page 7. and Organic Kitchen System of Appendix 6-2 plus a cesspool for gray water (already permitted in Southold Town), what does the new number for nitrogen poundage from sanitary disposal look like? If the turfed area were eliminated completely with fertilizer only applied to shrubs what is the new estimated poundage of applied nitrogen? 5. It would be helpful to see yet another alternative siting plan which would put a smaller home on the property and move it next to the road (Meadow Lane). The environmental impacts could be greatly reduced by leaving a much larger buffer between dwelling and wetland. Page-by-page comments: Page 6. Where are the catch basins for subsurface recharge? How will wildfowl breeding periods be handled once the dwelling is occupied? Page 14. What does a typical flow plume look like for groundwater in the area? Flow will take place not only along the hydraulic gradient but also perpendicular to it. See various models as discussed in texts like GROUNDWATER~bylFreeze and Cherry (Prentice Hall, 1979). Page 15. Where were these samples taken? At what time of year? Are they averages? Units appear scrambled for PH and for ions in Table 4 and were left out altogether for conductance. Are the readings of ammonia, and nitrate for the ions or for ammonia-N and nitrate-N? Your say that no organics have been detected in the vicinity, yet Table 3 lists clear contamination levels. Page 24. What is "Practical difficulty"? Could you scale down the structure or go to the ZBA or Planning Board for modifications? Page 25. No mrnyion here is made of the Town Wetland Act. No thought is given to attempts to change covenants, should they actually be in force. Page 31. The statement that "No Significant Impact is anticipated from sanitary disposal or lawn fertilization" hardly appears justified from the discussion of the preceding paragraph because 7.3ppm is rather close to 10ppm and because you will be adding to the current levels (already 15ppm). Besides you should address the impact on the pond area, not just groundwater. Page 32. see page 14 comment. You are not taking perpendicular movement into account here. We cannot agree with the conclusion that "No surface water impact will occur" on that basis. Page 37. What would such a~covenant look like? Page 38. Again see comment for page 31! Page 47. Septic systems areaindeed required in addition to the systems discussed, but there is no reason why such a hybrid cannot be used here. You should detail the nitrogen reduction which would be possible by using composting toilets and by eliminating turf areas altogether. We hope that these questions will be adequately addressed in a rewritten FEIS so that the Cac may proceed in our deliberations for a recommendation for a Wetlands Permit. Thank you. Trustee Smith: Mr. David Emilita reviewed the DEIS for the Trustees, perhaps you would like to comment~Mr. Emilita? Mr. David Emilita: At the Boards request we reviewed the DEIS and ~pon ravlew of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Public Hearing in the matter of Thomas W. Cramer ~age 8. "Meadow Lane Residence" by Cramer & Voorhis Associates, the following questions have been raised. In general we find the DEIS to be a thorough and sensitive examination of the site but several areas need amplification. 1. Lots $,6,7,8,9, and 12 directly surrounding the intertidal marsh in question, are undeueloped. What would the cumulative · mpact be if all these lots were to be developed? The DEIS does not address tje subject of cumulative impacts were the adjacent lots capable 6f being developed. 2. Directly relating to the above cumulative impact, what then would be the impacts on the fresh groundwater resources (Salt water intrusion) and sanitary waste disposal? 3, If the proposed well and septic system is allowed where shown, what negative or positive effects would they cause adjacent lots -- 6 & 8 (10.0' setback of well from sanitary system). We note there has been no approval obtained fro the on-site well. 4. On-site groundwater elevations and gradients are not shown. The use of soil-borings would have provided this information and verified groundwater elevations. It would have been possible to provide this information by limited clearing in the proposed disturbance areas. 5. The floor of excavation is not shown for the structure or the septic system? Coupled with the lack of groundwater elevation data, it cannot be determined whether excavation'will or will not penetrate groundwater. This has implications for environmental LL impacts that cannot be precisely determined until such data are included in the EIS. 6. It has not been specified how stockpiled material will be contained so as not to prevent erosion, or where erosion control measure will be placed on the site. 7. It has been stated that no disturbance would take place below the 10' contour, yet the plan approved by the Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services (p.54.) Clear shows that there will be such a disturbance. This conflict needs to be addressed. Further discussion of these concerns needs to be addressed in the impact statement so that a complete overview of the proposed action may be seen. Should the applicant be able to successfully address the above points and a finding or no significant environmental ~mpact be made, the f611owing measures would have to be taken at a minimum: 1. Condition all permits on the granting of a well permit from the SCDHS. 2. Specify containment of stockpiled material. 3. Place tow interlocking and staked rows of haybales at the ten foot contour and erect a snow fence uphill to protect them from dislodging during construction. 4. Ribbon trees to be maintained in the area of minimal disturbance and the areas of no disturbance prior to submission of the FEIS. 5. Approval of the building permit site plan showing the mitigation measures to be incorporated into the project shall be granted by the Board of Trustees prior to submission to the Building Inspector. Interior water saving fixtures also to be shown. Public Hearing in the matter of Thomas W. Cramer Page 9. 6. Approval should stipulate that no building permit be issued prior to the first of June 1986. In conclusion, we find that this lot is probably the only buildable lot remaining on the east side of Meadow Lane. The physical limitation of lots 5,6,8, and~9 probably render them unbuildable without significant adverse impacts. We cannot comment on wildlife impacts since only two field visits were made earlier in January. We have no ot.her familiarity with the species alleged to inhabit the site or surroundings. Trustee Smith: Does anyone else have anything to say? Any of the Trustees? Trustee Goubeaud: I would like to add that in reading through the DEIS, I did not find any site specific soil testing done on this site. I called the Suffolk County Health Department today, and I asked how they approved the sanitary system without site specific tests. They advised me that it was due to the County Health approved map that was made in 1965 when the development was laid out. Because it was already approved by the County Health Dept. no-~site specific testing was required or no boarings. I would like to see some site spacific testing~done and boarings to see what the water level is where the system is to be installed. I would like to see what the seasonal rise and fall of the freshwater supply is. I would like them to find out what the percolation rate,is in that area. Trustee Smith: Jay~ did you have anything to add to this application? Trustee Bredemeyer: Yes, I think alot of the comments here are good. I had trouble reconciling th~ ~seCming conflict within tbs DEtS,between one hand the sentiment expressed that the C ~& R's (the existing ones) were~somehow not binding or important. On the other hand there is an offering there to apply C & R's as a tool of which to limit fertilizing on the land use development. The C & R's remain a tool for Boards, like ours, to try to effect change for the future where we also try through means of education. Sometimes you may have to entertain the C & R's and so although it may not,be a subject for us but it may be for the courts. I would hope that the final impact statement could somehow come to terms with the issue and~.maybe reconcile.~it so I can Und'~'~S~and~how, if there is a way, that this project is going to be compatible with the environment that the C & R's will be respected in the future. Trustee Goubeaud: I would like to add that t~s nitrites showing human waste ~n ~he ~soil'has not been addressed. ~lso~.the movement of viruses in the soil, which I would like to see addresses. Trustee Larsen: Ail I would like to say is that I will be taking into consideration the effects of the approval of this lot on the subsequent request fo~ development on the remaining lots in the area. Public Hearing in the matter of Thomas W. Cramer Page 10. Trustee Smith: Ilene (referring to the Clerk of the Board) do you know of any applications applied for that were approved or denied, for this property? Ilene Pfifferling: Not to the Trustees, but there has been an application before the Zoning Board, for a varience on the setback for the house. I guess that there was alot of controversy regarding the application~ as the applicant, Mrs. Renate Riedel withdrew the application which was before~the Zoning Board of Appeals. At that time, she did not need Trustee approval for the'~construction, as the Wetland Ordinance was not amended to include the 75' distance from the water. Mr. Ben Hertzwig: I'm not an environmental consultant and I'm not a carpetbagger as one of the speakers suggested. I'm one of the owners of the property and I'm also a lawyer. I'm lust here to address some of the legal arguments that have been raised. The United States is a democracy. There is always contradiction to the laws, so here I am tonight. There was a statement made regarding setting a precedent. When considering land use applications, every application is considered unique. The general rule is that just because one application has been approved does not mean that another will be approved, each one is unique.. In as far as these covenants are concerned, these covenants were created in 1964 or 1965 and restrictive covenants do serve a purpose but are subject to policy of the State of New York. In 1965 covenants were placed on the property there were no Environmental Conservation Law no SEQRA, no Environmental Assessment Forms, no ~DEIS, no 45 hearing period, no 60 day period from the date the DEIS was submitted, no Chuck Hamilton. Since that time, we are concerned with the impact on the environment. If we were required to build at the 50' set back line, we would be in violation of the DEC requirements and the DEC would probably not give us a permit, because we would be below the 10' contour line. If we complied with the covenants and restrictions the property is useless. Since we have a State law that manifests the Public Policy those restrictions are useless. Now I never like to invite litigation, and I hear threats of litigation. I read one of the letters to this board. I was not planning to come tonight. But I was impressed with the stridency of. this letter. It is my feeling no. 1. If they'.had to test the Covenants and Restrictions in court, the court would rule them invalid because they must be secondary in Public Policy in the State of New York. 2. In these kinds of applications, Zoning Board, Board of Trustees, the Covenants are private Covenants and they are really not your concern. The gentlemen from the CAC made point directly ~ concerns basically environmentally. The covenants are extensively for a judge. Ultimately we cannot go before the Zoning Board of Appeals and I'm sure we can be raised in saying the question of the rule of law is private covenants and restrictions don't enter into the deliberation before a public body. I'm saying that in somewhat anger. I want to set the record straight, and I don't want to be boxed into a corner. Report from your consultant says that this lot is basically the only buildable lot in-the area. Public Hearing in the matter of Thomas W. Cramer Page 11. Those other lots would never be built on, because of the physical limitations. We don't plan on building on the marsh. We plan on building a small little house. As a matter of fact~.~I' would like to propose to build about 30' from the front lot line that would reduce any environmental impact. I think the DEIS addressed many issues that had to be addressed. Chick Voorhis: I was involved in the preparation of the DEIS. I'm an~environmental consultant. I didn't bring any films here tonight. I wish I had. I would like to begin by pointing out some of the features of the project.which we feel had been incorporated into to minimize the environmental impact. You know the purpose of the DEIS is to study the potential significant environmental impacts of the project-which has been required and rightly so as it is a tight piece of property. Some mitigation measures were incorporated into the project. But you must decide whether or not the mitigation measures'~wsre sufficient to minimize the maxlmun extent of the environmental impacts. If various potentially significant impact remain, then it is certainly_ a difficult decision to make. We will attempt to address all of the concerns. We would like the opportunity to response to the concerns addressed here tonight. We will prepare a final impact statement. The project as stated is above the 10' contour line. What we attempted to do is maximize the setback from the road, place the house on the property so that it would not affect the environment, and would somewhat conform to the character setting of the community. The property is nearly 1/2 wetlands, there is approximately 3600 sq. ft. of surface water on the property. Only the upland portion of the property will be utilized. The 10' contour and everything below that will remain natural. The house was designed and selected, plans are available. That house was selected because of the configuration and the way it would sit on the property~ The front of the house is actually set into the bank which is approximately a 7% slope. The back of the house will have a raised foundation and in that way-we can conform to the existing natural topography without causing any unnecessary disturbance. As many trees as possible will remain. The area will have to be cleared for the house. The sanitary system will be in the driveway. A crane will be used to dig the foundation for the house and the sanitary system. That will minimize the amount of disturbance-~n that area. The topsoil will be taken off of the site with the exception of the backfill for the foundation. And the topsoil for the landscape that will be placed in the area of the driveway. It will incorporate the mitigation measures requested by the environmental consultant. Erosion was one of the first concerns that came up. That will be controlled by the use of hay bails. We did see to minimize nitrogen loading as much as possible. The~ wildlife question had been addressed to some detail in'~the DEIS. Numerous site inspections, consultations with ornithologists and review of relevant publications so not support statements that the area is a~p~ime location for nesting birds and water fowl. We can provide documentation to that effect. Some of the concerns of the Public Hearing in the matter of Thomas W. Cramar Page 12. Town Consultant on this issue, the buildability of these lots and the cumulative impacts on the environment if all the~lots were to be developed? We did provide in figure 6 of the DEIS a Topographic Map of the surrounding area. I think it would be worth while to note that 10 ft. contour does move away from the road in the vicinity of this subject site. It does allow for the positioning of a house above the 10 ft. con~our and it conforms with the 35 ft. setback. That is very significant considering that the two lots to the North .that we referred to and the two lots to the South does not have this ability. I feel this application is unique ..... Trustee Smith: I keep hearing this 10 ft. contour. You make it sound like if it is above the 10 ft. contour line it is okay. That is just for the D.E.C. that has nothing to do with this Board. That is strictly with New York State. That does not change this Boards thinking. Martin Garrell: Is there an application for development on an adjacent lot? Ilene Pfifferling: Yes for a Mr. Paul Canalizo. The Trustees did a Significant Environmental Assessment on that application and requested a DEIS, which has not been_submitted as yet. Chick Voorhis: Also, the address of the cumulative impacts, in this states, is really an inappropriate type of feasibility of those lots being developed are very slim. Trustee Larsen: But, years ago we would have thought the feasibility of those lots being developed were very slim. Chuch Voorhis: The fact that the permit for the well had not been obtained, application was submitted to the Suffolk County Health Dept. who. has jurisdiction over wells and sanitary system under Article 6 of the Sanitary Code, and at that time it was reviewed for sanitary system and well placement. You may wish to note on page 51 of the DEIS of~-~the building survey that well placement has been put on the map on the original which we have, and I will provide you.with a copy of it, it was actually sketched in by the County as well as the location and depth of the well. As far as the disturbance below the 10' contour for the sanitary system, that as I said they can take the plan and show where the sanitary system should go in there. I believe that what we can do to fit this in, I see Mr. Bredemeyer referring to the survey, is to simply reverse the configuration of the pool and put the two pools on the North and one pool on the South and it will still meet the setback that was designed into the plan. All the activity will be above the 10' contour line. Trustee Smith: The only thinq the 10' contour will do is that iX relieves you from DEC jurisdiction. Public Hearing in the matter of Thomas W. Cramer Page 13. Chuck Voorhis: I also like to note that the time of the preparation of the DEIS, we did not do on site monitoring for ground water. I was able, however, to come up with a report which was prepared by the Suffolk County Health Dept. on the Aldicarb situation, but more important it did include some water table maping. There is a well about ½ mile north of the site, which had an elevation of three ft. and it is further south so that cuts down the gradient. So we can estimate the ground water to be 2½ above sea level. This is fairly accurate and it is based on a one foot interval contour line prepared by the Health Dept. in 1981. Again referring to that, and with that knowledge, and Topographic Map, as well as the proposed project it is possible to estimate with pretty good accuracy whether or not the foundation will intercept groundwater, tn response to the Planning Consultants comments the front of the house is elevated at approximately 13 ft. the cut for the foundation at that tocation is 8ft. that leaves 5' above sea level ground water is 2 to 2½ft. so you have approximately 3ft. between the front of the house and groundwater based on these estimates. The rear of the house is at llft. contour with a 4 ft. cut necessary, that would place the bottom of that cut and the back of the foundation at 7' which is approximately 5' above ground water by this estimate. The County requires 2 ft. between the lower part of the cesspool and the top of the groundwater table. I don't feel that there will be any problem and I would like you to know that when the sanitary system is installed the County Health Dept. will be there for inspection to be sure that it is condusive %o a properly functioning system. Backfill material will be of a suitable quality. There will be haybailes staked into the ground around the perimeter of the stockpiled material. In addition to the 10' contour area, which we feel very important to the DEIS. We would like the opportunity to respond in writing. Trustee Goubeaud: What is the seasonal fluctuation of perched water? You are telling us that the ground water level is about 2 to 2½ ft. above sea water, which puts it somewhere between 0 and 8 ft. in that area? Chuck Voorhis: I can probably come up with estimates of the seasonal fluctuation. It does tend to be less near the shoreline and greater near the center, of the groundwater divide of an a, quifer system. In this case I would estimate 6" to a ft. - Trustee Goubeaud: Doesn't that depend on the soil? what are you basing your findings on? What type of testing for that type of soil? Chuck Voorhis: I heard your concerns before, as far as perk tests and on site determination of suitability of soil and testing for moulting. Trustee Goubeaud: Testing for moulting to see how~high the water will rise up. Public Hearing - Thomas W. Cramer - Page 14. Chuck Voorhis: The best time to monitor is in the spring as you can see from some of the reports taken in 1981. I don't feel that it would fluctuate more than 6" to a foot. Again, near the shore line it fluctuates in response to the sedimentation, it creates a hydrolic head, an elevation above sea level. Near the shoreline there is less then the elevation of sea level, because of the hydroulercontour of the aquifer. If you can picture the angles, as it rises and falls in the middle, the actual angle near the shoreline changes much less. Trustee Goubeaud: Now you don!t know if there are any clay barriers there at all? Chuck Voorhis: Again we do not have the on site information. Trustee Goubeaud: Don't you think that this should be done, prior to any work on the property? Chuck Voorhis: If it becomes necessary. Trustee Goubeaud: What I'm trying to address here, the gentlemen who spoke previously here, said that the C & R's would probably, if addressed in court, would not stand up. Alot has happened since 1965~ The same thing can be said of when the County accepted and approved the site map that was done in 1965. Alot of laws have come up since then. Maybe testing should be done to find out what the soil is like prior to any construction. Trustee Bredemeyer: I am very concerned about the nitrogen study that you did. It seemed very clear and concise, but some how I am still having trouble understanding, as you developed it, the annual rainfall contribution to the soil with the nitrate loading was going to yeild 7 milograms per leiter? That is based on the entire area of the parcel? Chuck Voorhis: That was the contributing area. We did not include the area with the tidal wetlands. Trustee Bredemeyer: Essentially, if the house and everything is so limited and the planting are limited around the foundation, in essence although the area of concern is very valid in determining nitrate loading for nitrate loading for drinking water supplies and areas distant. ~f the loading is occuring from a sanitary system and occuring around the foundatio~ principally there is going to be a pulse of nutrients which is going to be moving somewhere in the ground. My concern would be that part of this on-site study would determine using the maps that may be available, exactally where it would be going. I still have a problem understanding that while it may be_7 parts for that given year that there woun't be a cumulative onsite effect that might be having it going ~r.°m~7~%o. ~10 to 15~' Th~er~ may be a trend in the ground water that is coming there at 13, 15, parts per million. Now, maybe the trend is going down because of changing land use. Maybe the use of fertilizer is changing in the area Public Hearing - Thomas W. Cramer - Page 15. There may not be information on it. I am concerned with that. The anylsis seems good, but it seems to stop and leave you hanging. Chuck Voorhis: THe numbers are not carved in stone. The method behind it,~the Cornell university method is developed to computer modeling, where they actually fed in parameter and tried to simulate what that effect on the ground water system. Then they can back out and determine what those parameters actually mean. How much nitrogen is being absorbed in the soil, gas, what gets through that soil horizon. It is an estimate, and the best estimate that I am aware of, has been applied. The Southold Demonstration Site, the South Shore had a study. I would like to look for other means of monitoring, but this is the best I am aware of. It is not carved in stone. It may be less, it may be more, This is an estimate. The important thing to note, I think this was included in the DEIS, that to have nitrogen moving in the surface of the groundwater toward the surface water system at the point of discharge the bottom of streambeds there is a layer of clay, silt and material which does have the character to promote a bionic exchange in the soil. We just finished a study at Southampton where we did do some on site monitoring and found the water level of concentration of nutrient in the stream that were being fed by the ground water on the site. Trustee Bredemeyer: Another concern I had along these lines, was that once the water moves through the soil to the point that intercepts Trustee Land, our jurisdiction, essentially the project as proposed~_is the last user of the water before the Trustees and as such I am not sure that applying the 10 milograms per liter Standard which is devised for human health, is necessarily the appropriate standard for Trustee land in a creek. That is something that I would want considered. Chuck Voorhis: Will I get a copy of the record? Trustee Smith: Yes, you will get the questions we want answered. Your name please. Will you comp up please. John J. Dabrowski: I look at theis and I see a group of people that represent 95% of an area. We represent atmcst exclusively, Mattituck Estates. We the prople of Mattituck Estates did not come to you, disturb you or the County or any other agency. We could adhere the size of the land we purchased, through the rules and regulations that we were_bound to. The set backs, the displacement of the well 100' from the cesspool etc., whatever it is 25 ft. away from the house to the cesspool, oh, Mr. Voohres did mention that he had 11 ft. to deal with and I think you were talking about the area where the pools will be placed. I guess you need a 900 sq. ft. pool? You talked about the 11 ft. depth of water table. Public Hearing - Thomas W. Cramer - Page ~ . What bothers me, we represent a majority of people from the area. We abide by the rules, now twenty-five years later two people buy a piece of property that is under contention, knowing it is under contention. They come to you, and disturb you and all of us residents because that is illegal. We are at the helm to justify or contend any individual that comes along. I'm sure if we dig hard enough, and we know perhaps we don't have to dig hard that the law can be written sometimes, okay, for a choice few and I think we see sometimes in our everyday life. I think it is a rather poor example for children, we send them to school, rear them and say we want a society that abides by rules. In fact, there has to be other wise if we do not abide by rules we expose ourselves to a chaotic situation. What I feel is wrong in this case, we have people abiding by the law, not hiding behind the law. I look at you and say you blatantly_disregard your fellow man. I don't think we have to tolerate this in this town. I think we have to look in the past, in the future, there will be mercenaries out there who will come in and say, "Hey" the rest of your dombo's have lived here for years and neverseen the dollar sign staring you in the face and the piece of gold sitting out there. Not that we did not see it but we were willing to abide by the rules. I think this should be taken into consideration. I think fQr once and for all perhaps when you make your decision you may perhaps alleviate us further coming down here and expending our energy also. I think we agree there are more numbers out here and more man power that is being wasted right now. I feel it is being wasted because we have lived by the rules and regulations. I feel you should rule in the majority. We talk about buildable lots, when I bought property from Ed Abbot we were the first, perhaps to buy and one of the last to build. We were told that area was going to be dedicated to wildlife and a park area, play- ground area for the area. Then the next thing that transpired because some how the land transformed into someone elses hands. I think all of us had an opportunity to buy. I don't think we lacked sensibility. Perhaps it was because we had sensibility! Those lots can not be built on, this particular lot .51 acres. In the literature you see .28. We are all protected by covenants you pointed that out. I woun't belabor you any longer. Trustee Smith: We will not approve or disapprove this application this evening. This is an opportunity for the public to give information to the Board on this application. Robert Bennett: The property owner suggested to us tonight a term that I did not use "Carpetbagger" perhaps that is the more appropriate than the legal term interloper that I used. I would ask you to examine in your deliberation, the price paid for the property and the fair market value of forested property in the hamlet of Mattituck. Council attempts to enlighten us as to the case law. I am sure that my neighbors in Mattituck would join me Public Hearing - Thomas W. Cramer - Page 15. in a judicial determination based on the real test of the creditable evidence of our Covenants and Restrictions verses this clouded application. I would also ask you to examine in your deliberation the record of the Zoning Board of Appeals as well as the Town Board. I refer you specifically to the matter of Peter Scoutelas who is my neighbor across the street. At that time he was preparing to build, he was not aware of the Covenants and Restrictions and the fifty foot setback. When the Mattituck Estates Property Owners Association brought it to the attention of Mr. Scoutelas and the Town Board he was directed to move the foundation from where it was originally proposed to 50' beyond the front lot marker. No matter which way you look at this application, whether it puts the house 12' in the middle of Meadow Lane by adhering to the 75' from the wetland, or if he puts the house in the middle of the pond because they adhered to the 50' setback. The bottom line is inexcapeable, this site is not suitable for a house. Thomas W. Cramer: I am the applicant for the piece of property and also the owner. I am familiar with the previous application. I feel that case~there was a community sensitivity to the site. Whether the people like it here or not, I am a neighbor now. There has been references_made ~.~as~far. as '~Carpe~bagger", "Interloper" I have family in~this~own~ .I am~ out here all~the~ time. ~I~would like to spend more time out here. They imply that we would like to break the law. We are in here abiding by the law. We are offering a solution to the development of this property that we feel is something that will help to protect it in the future. True the property was bought, the area they think was for a park, but the fact remains that I am the property owner now. I have certain rights that go with that. I am voluntarily offering to give up some of those rights to restrict myself in the development that ~takes place~It is~beyond me, no I understand where they are coming from. This is something that has existed there for years. They want it to remain that way. I was offered to buy the adjacent lot next to me. I didn,t want anything to do with it because I knew it could not be developed upon. This piece of property, is the only piece of property as your Planning Consultant referred to that "This lot~is probably..the~on!y'buil~ab~_~ot ~emaining on the East side of Meadow Lane". There are things ~n the DEIS that we are proposing to abide by to reduce the impacts that take place. Granted any type Of development there are/impaCts. We are not looking for.the Health Department to the fullest extent. The question is, what is the land good for? If you do not put houses there, the property is zoned for rasidential development? The only atternati~ei~l~ft.is acquisition of this piece of property. I don%t wan~ to threaten anything, but, I am the property owner. I spent money for this property, it makes no difference how much I spent. I am looking to develop this property. Public Hearing - Thomas W. Cramer - Page 18~. Trustee Goubeaud: Mr. Cramer, when you bought the property according to the DEIS, you were then full aware of the C & R's that were bounded by the property. Thomas W. Cramer: Yes, when we made application to the N.Y.S.D.E.C. because of the set back, what they told us to do was to move it back. I believe I supplied the Board with a copy of that letter. If you don'~ have it I will forward one to you. Trustee Goubeaud: You also were awareof the problems that~the previous tand-.~ow~er~ had ~in attempting to acquire permits to build on the property due to the sensitive~nature of the environment in that area. Is that correct? Thomas W. Cramer: I was told that the reason why that wasn'.t pursued, or that why she didn't remain the contract vendee was because she was belabored and her contract finally expired. The property owner at that time was finally fed up with it and she put it back on the market. When I saw what ~he had proposed, ..... it was ~nsensitive to the site. We held the plan and we feel it is extremely sensitive to the site and the community. There will remain natural back by the water, we will leave most of the trees in their natural state. Trustee Goubeaud: From your profession, you do work in the Environmental Profession, is that correct? Thomas W. Cramer: Yes, Licensed Landscape Architect ~in New York State. Trustee Goubeaud: When you first noticed the property you could see that there might be some difficulty in getting permits to build. Thomas W. Cramer: I recognized that we would probably have to go to an Impact Statement. We felt that this could be justified that we. do not have a significant impact on the property. If we can respond to all of the questions asked here today, in writing. Trustee Goubeaud: Then you agree with council that precedents are based on a site by site method. Thomas W. Cramer: Almost definitely. Every site has to be judged individually. As I said the lot next~ store was offered to me for sale and I did not want anything to do with it. If you look at the DEIS, this is the only site that has a potential for development. Trustee Goubeaud: If a no build declaration is given to you, because the Board feels that there may be problems that you are not addressing as far as the environment, and your septic system, then you have alternatives as indicated on page 48, "It would be considered as confiscation and appropriate compensation would be sought". Another words you are threatening ~retribution for the Board making a declaration for a significant impact. Public Hearing - Thomas W. Cramer - Page 1~. Thomas W. Cramer: I am not threatening anything. We feel that through the due process and DEIS process that we can adequately demonstrate that the project will not have a Significant Impact on the environment. As such we hope to get the necessary approvals for the project. Martin Garrell: There was a remark about your living out here, and being a neighbor. I am a little confused about that because as I understood as a head of a Brookhaven CAC when you attended our Long Island Sound CAC work last spring, that you gave your address as Rockey Point, no Port Jefferson and that you actually lived in Por~ Jeff. ~I would assume, or we made the assumption that feeling that application for building the house for speculation to sell. Thomas W. Cramer: Conditionally we bought the property with the hope of being able to live out here. I had the opportunity to buy my family homestead. I see where it makes no difference. Since we bought a place in Port Jefferson. But, now I intend to sell it to get my initial investment. I see where this makes little or no.. Trustee Smith: Please give him the courtesy. Thomas W. Cramer: I intend to sell it, I can't afford to hold on to it now. Robert Costanzo: Mr. Cramer, I am happy to have you as my neighbor. I have one question, I know you have your attorney, and I don't expect an answer tonight. I will consult my legal advice to. You see I own a great deal of property, almost 4 acres of land, right there. Two acres of that land is unuseable land. It is beautiful, it is alot of marsh, as well as water. I know you are taking all kinds of necessary steps to prevent erosion from chemicals comingl onto the'~_water. I appreciate that. There is always an ,If". Being that small pond and the erosion of that beautiful 10' slope that you have if flushed down, if it does, 10 years, 20 years. If it rushes down and starts to pollute the water, you see the ma]or pond is completely on my property. This stream that feeds from across the road, is completely on my property. You can not get on that major pond without walking on my property. I am going to ask my legal advice, my legal council, and the Town if in 20 years the water is polluted, When I can't~stand the smell any longer, who do I go after? Who is responsible? I don't expect an answer right now. Thomas W. Cramer: The covenants that we suggested to be put on this property, what we are looking for is if the Town required us to_place them on the property, so that the Town can inforce them. So that we do not get into a situation'where there are priVate covenants placed on this property. Where private individuals Public Hearing - Thomas W. Cramer - Page 20 . have to seek the conformance to those covenants. If the Town imposes these covenants it gives you the opportunity to be able to inforce that, and to insure that the area remains in the state that we are looking for. The piece of property would not be what it is now, if it was not in a healthy state. That is what we are looking to keep. This property could be developed in an insensitive manner, I feel that we try to address it in an extreme sensitive manner and propose development that would protect the pond. Trustee Smith: Thank you. John J. Dabrowski: Actually in reference to the impact statement and Mr. Cramers frequent accounts up here, you do put~t~he burden of responsibility, of protecting, we would like to in fact put it on him. Now I would like to point out, we are the taxpayers, we do not have to take responsibility. I don't know how they expect the Town to possibly police, and work out the legalistics, with the budgets we have, to safeguard this piece of property and do it properly. To me logically t do not see how this could be done. Thomas W. Cramer: The use of covena-nts is a mechanism that has been proven in the past as probably only one of the means, the property owners surrounding the property, there are asking them something where, they are hoping that nothing will ever happen there. Nobody can ever guarantee that, you can, I c~n and I don't believe they can. What I am trying to say, at least provide the mechanism so that if something_happens, right, I don't believe the Town will go out and inspect every site. They will have the ability, if they get a call from the neighbor that someone is dumping at stream side, they can go in there and .stop them. This is the mechanism, the enforcement power. If someone is going to do something, someone is going to do something! Trustee Bredemeyer: Henry, Could I just move that if there is no major problem with it, to limit the discussion to three minutes for the remainder of the hearing? Trustee Smith: Yes. From the audience: The town doesn't need any more laws, we have enough laws. John J. Dabrowski: The very reason we are all here~tonight, is to protect our property. Public Hearing - Thomas W. Cramer - Page -21. Hazel A. Hirche: I am opposed to this project. Nineteen years ago when we selected our site because it was going to be looking into a 4 acre lake. At tlime Mr. Abbot's promised us this. Now the whole thing is turning right around. Someone from the audience asked: I would like to know how much land will he have for a front yard if we have to have, water by the Town brought in, cesspools put in, how much land will he have for a front yard? How much land will the Town take from the road into his property to build sewers and water? Trustee Smith: The road is usually 50 ft. wide. If they do put in a City water or sewer system they will do it in the roadway. Does anyone else have anything to say? No response. Then I will close this hearing on the DEIS for Thomas W. Cramer. Hearing Closed at 10:20 P.M. Ilene Pfiffe~ling ~/ Clerk to Board of Trustees Rw, WU ED AND FILED BY t T~HE SOUTHOLD TOWN CL~