The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTR-10/24/2001Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Henry Smith Arkie Foster Ken Poliwoda Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES Wednesday, October 24, 2001 7:00 PM PRESENT WERE: Albert J, Krupski, Jr., President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster, Trustee Henry Smith, Trustee Ken Poliwoda, Trustee Lauren Standish, Senior Clerk CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 at 8:00 AM. TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 at 7:00 PM WORKSESSION: 6:00 PM TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of August 29, 2001 and September 28, 2001. TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for September 2001. A check for $2,817.70 was forwarded to the SupervisoCs Office for the General Fund. I1: PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES: DENNIS R. UDE requests an Amendment to Permit #5234 for the construction of a dock with a 10'X 4' platform, 8'X 4' steps and a 4'X 71' fixed walkway. Located: 1227 Pine Neck Rd., Southold. SCTM#70-5-36 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES Mark K. Schwartz, AIA on behalf of LEONARD & JOYCE BECKENSTEIN requests an Amendment to Permit #5307 to construct an addition to the existing dwelling, 7'X 18'3% Located: 830 Jackson's Landing, Mattituck. SCTM#113-6-4 TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES Crowley Marine Construction on behalf of WALTER E. ERICKSON ESTATE requests an Amendment to Permit #5381 to allow the installation of the Iow- profile retaining wall as conditioned by the NYDSEC. Located: 2950 Minnehaha Blvd., Southold. SCTM#87-3-42 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application with the condition that drywells and installed and gutters are put on the house, TRUSTEE SMITH seco nded. ALL AYES Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of AL STRAZZA requests an Amendment to Permit #5132 to construct a fixed open walkway dock 4'X 40'-8" with 6"X 6" piles spaced approx, every 6' extending no more than 3' above decking, with rope barriers at two levels between the piles on each side of the walkway. Located: 1255 Grathwohl Rd., New Suffolk. SCTM#117-1-16 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to DENY the application, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES ROBERT F. LANDHERR requests a Transfer of Permit #1275 for a dock, ramp, and float from Henry M. Karlin to Robert F. Landherr. Located: 245 Lighthouse Lane, Southold. SCTM#70-6-28 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application subject to a field inspection, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: THIS iS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE SUFFOLK TIMES. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. PLEASE KEEP YOU COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF. FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS IF POSSIBLE ROBERT K. SIMON requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct/rebuild the existing catwalk and dock 54"X 48' with 4'X 8' end section. Located: 379 Wood Lane, Peconic. SCTM#86-6-3.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of or against the a pplication? ROBERT SIMON: I think it's self-explanatory unless you have any questions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The CAC recommended Approval. Does anybody have any questions? I took a look at it. It's there, it's falling down, and he wants to rebuild it, repair it. Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion we Approve the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES EDWARD J. BOYD requests a Wetland Permit for the re placement of the existing bulkhead within 18", erected in 1970, and extend bulkhead approx. 10' to meet northwesterly boundary line of premises. Relocate existing floating dock from parallel to perpendicular of bulkhead line. Located: 3825 Robinson Rd., Paradise Point, Southold. SCTM#81-1-7 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of the application? EDWARD BOYD: Good evening gentlemen, Edward Boyd, Southold, New York, here for myself and I know you looked at the project and if there are any question I'd be happy to answer them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there any other comment? I think we wanted that changed a little bit, didn't we? That angle? CAC recommended Approval and they recommend that the bulkhead be replaced inkind/inplace with a 10' non- turf buffer. Wasn't there some discussion about angling that new bulkhead back? TRUSTEE FOSTER: From where it ends now back into the corner of the property line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Ok, we'll just a plan showing that. We would also like to see: a 10' non-turf buffer there when the bulkhead is done. EDWARD BOYD: No problem. Would I still be able to replace within the 187 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Were they going to take the poles off? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ok, we'll put that in the permit. Remove the poles for the sheathing and put the new poles on the outside. TRUSTEE SMITH: i'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second ed. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the condition of a 10' non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh And that's subject to a set of plans showing that new section angled. EDWARD BOYD: I should have those to you probably by the beginning of next week. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's fine. All in favor?. ALL AYES SCHEMBRI HOMES requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling and.garage. Located: 390 Shore Lane, Peconic. SCTM#86-1-4.11 POSTPONED UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE AS PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST JOHN B, HENRY requests a Wetland Permit to install a new cesspool. Located: 2360 Village Lane, Orient. SCTM#26-1-15.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to comment on the application? DOUGLAS MORRIS: My name is Douglas Morris, Morris Cesspool Service. Mr. Henry asked me to come in and answer any questions you might have. TRUSTEE I~RUPSKI: Is there any other comment? Does the Board have any questions? DOUGLAS MOORIS: Since we are putting in an application, I was wondering if I should maybe put two and then we won't have to worry about it in the future because they are only 2' deep. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The CAC recommends Disapproval because of the concerns of the existing leaching problem. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Just keep them as far landward as you can, Doug. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll Approve it but you have to just come in and change the paperwork. DOUGLAS MORRIS: Alright. Thank you. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application for up to two new cess pools. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES PETER & ROSEMARY ENNERS request a Wetland Permit to construct a 5'X 20' deck (CCA wood) on noah side of the house and a 6' sliding door on the noah side of the house. Located: 15 East Mill Rd., Mattituck. SCTM#106-4-2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of the application, or against the application? Any comments by Board members? TRUSTEE KING: I looked at it. It's behind a bulkhead. This whole area here is all bluestone. I'll make a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES JOHN W. & MARYANN S. SEWELL request a Wetland Permit to construct a 15'X 27'7" deck with 4"X 4" wood, onto the existing single-family dwelling. Located: 2255 Mill Creek Dr., Southold. SCTM#51-6-38.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of or against the application? JOHN SEWELL: I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there any other comment? Any Board comment? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I inspected this today and I didn't see any problems with it. The applicant and myself agreed that any rain run-off should be contained in the future and I don't see a reason to disapprove. TRUSTEE SMITH: I makea motion we close the public hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the condition that the rain-water runoff is contained at the site. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES SHAWN & DAWN WILLIAMS request a Wetland Permit to install an 18'X 36' in-ground swimming pool with fencing, a structure to house pool filtration system, and a patio around the pool. Located: 405 South Dr., Mattituck. SCTM#106-11-20 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? SHAWN WILLIAMS: Good evening, am Shawn Williams. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else who would like to comment on the application? The CAC recommended Disapproval because the project was not staked. They are concerned about the cleared area within 100'. So they did n't know that there was a house there? TRUSTEE KING: Probably not. I don't know. SHAWN WILLIAMS: met with somebody that came up there and he said that he was there before you guys and he thought that we should put in drywells for baCk-flushing the pool. That's not a problem. TRUSTEE KING: I went up there and looked around. Is there any way that you could move it a little closer to the house and move it further north to get away from that top of the bluff. It's really crowding it. The top of the bluff is right about here and 1 think there used to be like a little old wooden retaining wall. This is all bermed-u p now. I'd like to see that berm left there because it's working. My only concern is by the time you get all your decking and fence, it's going to be really crowding that bluff. It's about where the old house was. SHAWN WILLIAMS: Right. TRUSTEE KING: It would be nice if it could be jogged over that way a little bit. TRUSTEE KRLJPSKh Is there a reason why it was right in that location? You can come take a look. Can you pull that back closer to the house? Another 107 SHAWN WILLIAMS: No because this is a walkout from the basement so there is actually an elevation change right there. This'is a walk right there. TRUSTEE KING: I'd like to see this moved in this direction. SHAWN WILLIAMS: It would be able to be moved this way. The only way it could be moved is this way because the basement here is open and there's a walk. TRUSTEE I~ING: We'll it would be better than nothing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You would have to get that all on a new plan, aren't you? SHAWN WILLIAMS: guess when we get the C.O. and get the final survey. The only reason I did this is because you guys required it. TRUSTEE KING: Where is the fence going to be? SHAWN WILLIAMS: There's a fence here that stops here and it's going to connect. TRUSTEE KING: This isn't going to the edge of the bluff is it? SHAWN WILLIAMS: It stops... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It doesn't really show. TRUSTEE KING: I'd ike to see, just maintain the top of that bluff the way it is with that berm. No clearing or anything on this slope. SHAWN WILLIAMS: No, don't want to touch any of that. TRUSTEE KING: If you go touching that, you're going to have problems. Even if you could move this 5' to the west it would help. SHAWN WILLIAMS: I don't know who it was from the CAC but he had recommended to put a drywell in. That's not a problem at all. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And show the top of the bluff. TRUSTEE KING: It has a nice berm that's about this high. But like I said, it's really crowding the edge. SHAWN WILLIAMS: From the pool, did you see the stakes there? It's probably from here, about 20', 25'. TRUSTEE KING: Then you have your deck and your fence, and you're out there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can we Approve this? TRUSTEE KING: I think so. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we can Approve it tonight but you have to show... TRUSTEE KING: New plans with this 5' further. SHAWN WILLIAMS: Is that something I can sketch in? TRUSTEE KING: Draw it to scale. Draw the deck on there. SHAWN WILLIAMS: I have a permit for the deck. It's on the house. This is three years old. It's taken me a while to build the house. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Show the fence also. SHAWN WILLIAM: Ok, it's a chain-link, about 4' high. This is the Affidavit of Posting. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ok, we'll put that in the file. Any other comment on this application? TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. · TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application based on new plans showing the pool moved 5' closer to the house, drywell for backwash o~ the west side of the pool and show where the fence is going and on that new survey, draw the deck on it, and that the berm is maintained to control the run- off. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES JOSEPH. & CATHERINE BARBATO request a Wetland Permit for the existing bulkhead. Located: 200 West Lake Dr. Southold. SCTM#90-1-20 Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the TRUSTEE KRUPSKh application? (changed tape) JOSEPH BARBATO: TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Any Board comment? I can answer any questions you have. Thank you. Any other comment on this application? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this and I can't see any reason why to Disapprove it. I'll make a recommendation to Approve. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The CAC recommends Disapproval because there is no survey submitted making the request unclear. The CAC recommends a survey be submitted showing the existing bulkhead for the record. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: To address that, I was going to recommend that you go from the east property corner to the west property corner because the sketch is sketchy. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think at the minimum, we're going to need a new survey for the record, which we make pretty much standard in the Wetland Code. don't think anybody has a problem with the bulkhead but it should be located on the survey. JOSEPH BARBATO: If you recall at your last field inspection, you had mentioned that this was grandfathered and then it was changed .to, you don't haVe any more grandfathers, you asked for a Wetland so I submitted this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, ] don't think the project has any problem but it's just that we need for the record, we need a survey. I don't know how anyone else feels. TRUSTEE SMITH: We need a survey. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We need a survey showing the dimensions and the location of the bulkhead so that in a storm event or something, we can refer to it if it gets washed away, then we can say oh yeah, you have it all in the file, go ahead and rebuild it, no pro blem. So we can actually Approve it with the condition that you get us a survey and when you get us the survey, you can get the permit. We can Approve it tonight and then you get us the survey showing the location and dimensions of the bulkhead. JOSEPH BARBATO: Alright you need the location and dimensions and I can get that from a bona fide surveyor. Just bring it into the office? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Right. JOSEPH BARBATO: AIdght, that's good enough. TRUSTEE KRUPSK: Any other comment? TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion we close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 10. 11. 12. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'1 make a motion to Approve the wetland permit with the stipulation that a survey must be submitted. TRUSTEE SMITH: SeConded. ALL AYES Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of MAUREEN BENIC requests a Wetland Permit for the installation of a 6'X 20' polyethylene float secured with 4 - 25 lb. mushroom anchors. Located: 395 North Parish Dr., Southold. SCTM#71-1-4 Catherine Mesiano requested that the Board hold the application until the attorney for Mr. & Mrs. Benic arrives. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of MILTON FORMAN requests a Wetland Permit to clear property within 100' of the bluff and maintain a 35' natural buffer. Located: 58105 Sound Ave., Greenport. SCTM#44-2-9 POSTPONED UNTIL NOVEMBER AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST Samuels & Steelman Amhitects on behalf of RONALD CASSARA requests a Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit to renovate the existing frame residence and add new additions, resulting in a new one and one-half story residence. Located: 30185 Cabot Wood Rd., Peconic. SCTM#73-4-1 POSTPONED UNTIL NOVEMBER AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of ALFRED & MARIANN SUESSER requests a Wetland Permit to construct 8 linear ft. +/- of 10' wide +/- rock revetment (w/5' wide splash guard above) starting from the southeastern corner of the property to the existing wood deck/stairs and to construct 185 linear ft. of 8' wide +/- rock revetment beginning from said existing wood deck/stairs, along the bottom of the bluff which runs contiguous to the southeastern edge of subject property, and terminate at the northeastern corner of subject property. Located: 5055 New Suffolk Rd., New Suffolk. SCTM#110- 8-32.8 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? BRUCE ANDERSON: Good 'evening. When we were out at the site, most of our conversation dealt with really the bulkhead at Suesser's and I don't we have a problem with this. I don't think we were in conflict with this project unless I'm hearing something new that I didn't hear then. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You mean the bulkhead at Gleason's? BRUCE ANDERSON: Yes, this is Suesser. This is next door. The idea here ~s we're integrating them both into one. I think Suesser is finished TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There was some discussion in the field about the...wel let's handle this first. Ken, what about this application? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I believe in the field we recommended just a rock revetment. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well this is the rock revetment. TRUSTEE SMITH: What's the 5' splash guard? BRUCE ANDERSON: The idea is that in a storm, when it is attacked with storm, the waves will hit the angled surface of the revetment and it will be directed upward and fall behind the revetment. The purpose of the splash pad is the general area behind... TRUSTEE SMITH: What's this made out of? BRUCE ANDERSON: It's stone, cobble. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think-he has a cross-section here. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Another comment during inspection was, why put anything. There is a possibility that it is the last nourishment to the beach. The sand coming off of that bluff might be the last nourishment. BRUCE ANDERSON: Well we're talking about Suesser. You might be confusing that with the one to the south. To answer your question, the reason why you would do that is because you have the right to protect your property and the other technical reason behind both applications is requiring the sand to come off the bluff, is not a significant source to the beach. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where is the splash-guard in the plans? BRUCE ANDERSON: If you refer to the survey... TRUSTEE I~RUPSKI: I'm referring to the cross-section. BRUCE' ANDERSON: The cross-section shows the revetment. TRUSTEE KRUF~SKI: The CAC recommends Disapproval because the proposed hardening of the shoreline seems to be excessive in this area for erosion control. Where is the splash-guard on the plan? BRUCE ANDERSON: It shows it on the cross-section. See the revetment? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where did you find that? BRUCE ANDEF~SON: It was submitted with the application. TRUSTEE KRUPsKI: We have a blank one. Ours is blank. BRUCE ANDEF~SON: I don't understand that. But, this is the plan. TRUSTEE I~RUPSKI: So where is the splash-pad go? BRUCE ANDE ,R, SON: Well where it goes is from top of the rocks straight down. TRUS~F:E KRUPSKI: I don't see where you're going to put a splash-pad at Suessers. T~here is just that little scour, which basically you could build with this rock and then it gees up, I think a lot steeper, and that would be the end of it. I don't know where you would put that splash-pad. It's pretty steep. There's a little scour and then it goes, and it's vegetated. BRUCE ANDERSON: Well what we have said, is that we're going to take down, we're going to minimize, realty not take down any trees here so it doesn't necessarily have to be a linear structure. To the extent that there's objection to this, I don't think.it's that big a deal myself. TRUS'FEE KRUPSKI: I don't see where you would ever put it in. At Suessers, dght when you come down the stairs, it seems like you need to fill that little concave area in with stone and then that would be the end of it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: What's the elevation between here and here. BRUCE ANDERSON: This is about 4'. TRUSTEE FOSTER: So this would be about 8' above high-water. BRUCE ANDERSON: Exactly. Al is right about that. l0 TRUSTEE FOSTER: What kind of storm-tide could you realize here if this is 8' above high? BRUCE ANDERSO.N: You would be looking for a nor-easter. TRUSTEE FOSTER: 4' higher than normal? BRUCE ANDERSON: This would cover the storm surge. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But there's no place to put it. You just tuck the rock in and that's it. You're up to the bank. I can't see where you would actually find a spot. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't think if it ever got back there, this wouldn't do it anyway. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No, not in that kind of water, no. BRUCE ANDERSON: Well part of the problem is that you do have trees in there. TOM SAMUELS: Maybe I can help a little bit. Cap stones in a revetment are 3- 4 ton stones. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh He said they were cobbles. TOM SAMUELS: There are two different types of stone. There is blanket stone which is essentially cobble, 50-100 lbs. underneath the big rocks. Now where that last cap stone goes on the blanket stone, it leaves an area behind the leaning edge of that cap stone, which you can fill with sand or you can fill it with small stone. If you fill it with sand, the first over-topping stone you're going to have is going to wash the sand out and you will undermine the revetment and the filter cloth and since it's a weight born structure, the structure will just settle. This is standard operating design of the Corp. of Engineers on all of their structures. It's the right way to build a revetment with a splash-pad, unless you're going to go to super elevation, which you don't want to do on this site because you don't want a big footprint on that beach. You want to retain as much beach as possible. BRUCE ANDERSON: Having said all of that, it's not the intention to clear. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well that's why this doesn't make it clear because it Shows beach grass on the top of the bluff. BRUCE ANDERSON: We want to keep the trees to the extent where we can fit in the cap stone behind the space. TOM SAMUELS: It takes place of this little backfill and it will be un-uniform because the bluff is not uniform. We're not going to cut the bluff in order to put the splash-guard in. The sole purpose ~s so you don't lose the backfill. The weakness of rock revetments, if there are any, and this isn't a weakness really, is that because you're on an angled slope, you get wave run-up on a revetment where it's reflected with a bulkhead. So, you want to retain something by tying that top stone. If you don't then it's going to settle back into the bluff and ruin your slope. It's not a uniform 4' wide walkway. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ok, because that's what it shows and that's why I was asking. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That prevents any washout behind the stone. TOM SAMUELS: Well in a super~torm, that's over-topped. The super-storm ~s the storm we haven't seen yet where everything is over-topped. 1992, east side of Nassau Point, no bulkheads visible, 7' surge in the bay. That's a super- storm. Under those conditions, it would impact the bluff above the revetment. But the question always is, how high do you build these structures. You want to minimize the footprint on the beach because it's a one on two slope. This can be a little misleading. It looks a little steeper than what it actually is. It has to be relatively flat so that the wave energy is absorbed by the spaces. That's the whole purpose of it. That's why it's better is some ways than a vertical face wall. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No you've got 8' here and we've got 10' on this one. Which is it? TOM SAMUELS: I think the toe stone goes out at least another 2' over. We'll that's misleading. It's just going to fill that void between the top cap stone. BRUCE ANDERSON: Well I suggest you rely on the survey as far as the location. TRUSTEE FOSTER: But it's misleading. Is it going to be 8' and 5' or 10' and 5' or 10' and 6? Well it just isn't consistent. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: How about possibly planting and check it out in a year. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The problem I can see with that is, are you getting too much shading from the trees to allow, you see he's got American Beach Grass down here, is that going to survive under those trees? BRUCE ANDERSON: It's our intention to fully vegetate. You shouldn't get the 5'...splash pads, you should use that as a maximum because there are examples where we have trees that are going to be up against this so we're not going to cut down a tree to create a splash pad. What you have in the cross- sections are typical drawings. When the project is done, it's not like I have like a stone sidewalk on top of this thing running from one end of the property. It's a problem in showing it. If you know what I'm saying. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But this structure gradually gets more and more minimal as you go down and we don't want to affect the property to the east. That's our concern too. TRUSTEE FOSTER: But where the trees are, is representative of the top of the bluff, all the way to the end. BRUCE ANDERSON: Suesser has trees, physically on the bluff. What we're trying to express here is that Mr. Suesser does not want us to cut down the trees. But, there are gaps between them. There are some areas that are disturbed that we can plant. The splash-pad will be constructed in ways not to take down the trees. That's what I'm trying to explain. You show a 5' but don't be overly impressed with that because it won't be 5' in most places. It's designed to fit into the area that you see. TRUSTEE SMITH: Why is he doing this erosion control? TOM SAMUELS: Did you see his stairs? TRUSTEE SMITH: Yes, but that beach has been there for hundreds of years. TOM SAMUELS: Of course it has, but when the upland regresses, it does not regenerate. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But if you look at this... 12 TOM SAMUELS: It's like a fire extinguisher. That's all these structures are. People don't build them because they are inexpensive. Believe me, they are expensive. You need them when there's an event. That's the whole problem. There's not going to be any access to the Suesser project once the Gleason project is done. They are going to be done from the same road from the top of the bluff. The problem with this beach is not the structures that are on it. It's the fact that when' they dredged the Boatman's Harbor Creek, .they don't nourish the beach. They bypass the beach. They either stack it in the upland and that's the Problem there. TRUSTEE KRUPSK: This jetty here, that's another thing that kind of ties in and we were discussing that. BRUCE ANDERSON: I think what we decided to do was take some spot elevations so we get an idea wh ere the actual elevation is, the idea was to do the s pot elevation at 20' or 30' on one side vs. 20' or 30' on the other. Then we would come back at a future date and see to the extent that these changed. What I've told you is that you have two property owners working together here. There is no conflict between them and both have the same interest in this and that we really couldn't marry this to the project. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No we don't want to disrupt that rapport. I thought that we had also left it that you were going to look into addressing this jetty that we're talking about. BRUCE AN E)ERSON: I intend to do that but I'm doing that outside of the permit process. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I thought you were doing that last week. You can see the elevation difference and you can see that's where the scour is right by his stairs right behind the jetty. TRUSTEE FOSTER: As minimal as it is, it's effective. TOM SAMUELS: The rocks can be used for armor. BRUCE ANDERSON: I suggest you stick with this. If you want to make it a condition of the Permit, we would be happy to follow it up. TRUSTEE SMITH: What's that? BRUCE ANDERSON: Take some spot elevations. I'm not sure. I'm hearing a foot difference but I'm not even sure it's that much but however, what I'm willing to do is take the spot elevations because frankly it may be shown that there is some interest in both parties (unintelligible). But we do know is that we don't want to marry that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh What's everyone's feeling on this. It's a big structure and we are trying to be very careful here and how it's going to affect the whole area. That's why we're not jumping up and down and saying, hurray. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there any consideration for bulkheading in all of this? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not on SuesseYs. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Ok, but Gleason there is. TOM SAMUELS: Gleason needs elevation. Suesser doesn't need elevation. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Are we going to do this in combination? TOM SAMUELS: At the same time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We had the discussion about eliminating the bulkheading section. BRUCE ANDERSON: Right, I'm going to get to that one on the next one. My feeling is that we're going to decide that that is not the way to go. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Eliminating it or leaving it in? TOM SAMUELS: Why don't you address them at the same time Bruce. BRUCE ANDERSON: Alright, I'd be happy to. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is important. This is an opportunity here, either One, to preserve their upland and preserve their beach, or Two preserve their upland and completely lose their beach. This is an opportunity to do one or two things. BRUCE ANDERSON: What we did on our plan, and this is Gleason, essentially the same plan that you're looking at here. I'm submitting these tonight. The discussion was whether or not the bulkhead should be removed in place of a revetment. Our problem hereis that we need to get the elevation here because of~he steepness of the bluff because of the area that...and the other question was, and this is the question you raised Al, was on the top elevations of these rocks and how that might interplay with storm tides. We gave you the elevations of apparent high water mark at 2.6' and that was on the survey with this application. That's high water. We have the elevation at grade at 4' here. we have a top elevation of 5.2'. Here is a top elevation, which is at 10.3'. The argument is the storm tide above norma, if you will, is about 2 ~', which tells me that this toe armor here is appropriately sized for this structure. Now, if we're talking about replacing the bulkhead with a revetment, I have drawn in here a 4§ degree .angle, Which is unsta.ble at best. Most of these revetments to be armored for the Corp. of Engineers are going to be drawn at a 2/1 Scale. You're going to snug th~s up against the toe of the bluff. The revetment will cover the beach. At a 2/1 scale, it will actually extend .20' out from there. At a it the high water mark. So, when you talk about 1/1 scale her9, goes right to removing this',bulkhead and just building a revetment, you're talking about 100% coverage over the beach at high tide. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're talking about a revetment here, not here. BRUCE ANDERSON: Well you can't do that because what you're going to have here is you're going to have to dig into this bluff to do what you want to do. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: First of all, I would save the beach. Second of all, add to the disturbed bluff, so it's not like you're going to disturb it anymore. BRUCE ANDERSON: Well the top of that bluff is going to collapse below you. Thatfs an unstable elevation as it is. TRU:STEE KRUPSKI: Don't you have to rebuild that bluff anyway because it's unstable'? BRUCE ANDERSON: I don't want to make it any steeper. If I dig into it, it's going to collapse on top of it. If l were to dig into the bluff, as you suggested, the top of that bluff would further collapse and there would be tremendous property damage, Unfortunately, it's not a reasonable alternative. This is just at a 45 degree angle. That's a 1/1 slope. The idea of the bulkhead here is it minimizes the width of the structure and it's already snugged-up against the toe of that bluff, and I think we all agree with that. The idea of the toe armor is prevent the 14 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: BRUCE ANDERSON: TRUSTEE KRUPSKh comesup. BRUCEANDERSON: horizontal attack of waves against that fiat surface. Again, it disperses it. This ' you see up here, the splash pad, that will be 5'. There is simply no way to actually dig this thing into the side of the bluff creating a revetment that won't cause that bluff to collapse on top of you. TRUSTEE SMITH: How are you doing with DEC? BRUCE ANDERSON: The DEC looks favorable on both properties. I expect to have the permits shortly. We met out in the field and they don't see a problem. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'm sorry to have to not say hurray, but it's still a big project and I'd like to see it completely staked out in the field then as far as the scope of the height of the proposed finished bulkhead. I'm still looking at all the options. BRUCE ANDERSON: What I'm trying to say here is that we can't pursue the kind of ideas, that's why I said to you, I have to look at this because I'm not even sure it can be done, but as I looked at it and laid it out and thought it, I know it can't be done. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No I mean show us the height of the proposed bulkhead. BRUCE ANDERSON: It's right here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, in the field. BRUCE ANDERSON: The grade is 4'. It is 6' higher. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I want to see it. I want to look at it. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Stake it and string it. BRUCE ANDERSON: Do you see the height of this bulkhead here? It's the same height. It's simply located landward of where this bulkhead is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Also, put a couple of stakes in front of, how far out the revetment is going to come. BRUCE ANDERSON: Above ground or underground? At the bottom. At the bottom, whether it's covered or not? Where the finished grade come up, where the beach Do you want to know this distance, or this distance? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Here to here. BRUCE ANDERSON: You know how high it is because you know how high the adjacent bulkhead is. You know how far this comes out. don't see that we're accomplishing anything. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: One reason that you should stake a string there is there are two fox holes up there and some barn swallow holes also in that bluff. So, just to see how close you're actually going to be to those. BRUCE ANDERSON: You're not serious. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Well why. This is an environmental review board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh This is such a big project. It's hard to visual it. It's not like a set of stairs. You're talking about how many hundred feet of bulkhead and retaining wall. What's the total? BRUCE ANDERSON: 190' TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Well you've got 325' on one property though. But I mean the whole project is an enormous project and we have one chance here to do it right. So, if you could stake it where the bulkhead is going to go. Draw a line in the sand, so we can visualize the impact it's going to have on the beach. Then, we can figure out the' elevation when we get out there. BRUCE ANDERSON: When can you get out there? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: November 14th. It's worth the extra month if it's done right. We were out here three times already and the first time was what July? An extra month, if it's done right, it's well worth it. That's our consideration, total beach loss. That's what we're concerned about. BRUCE ANDERSON: Well our concern is ttiat I don't want to cover the beach with revetment. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Al, do you think it might be worthwhile to try to do what we did with Fragolas? To have the DEC with us at the same time. That's a good idea. Did you meet anyone at the site from TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: the DEC? BRUCE: ANDERSON: TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: BRUCE ANDERSON: TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, Chris Arfsten. When did you meet him? About a month ago. It's a big project. We only have one chance here. TRUSTEE KING: Maybe we could get a copy of their field report. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The proposed bulkhead, the amount of beach taken up by the proposed revetment on Gleason and on Suesser, so you get the full impact on what it will look like. (changed tape) BRUCE ANDERSON: Are you talking about what's Underground? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No what's above ground. All right, thank you. TOM SAMUELS: If I may, very brief, No. 1, on the Gleason property, that bluff is at an angle of repose right now. In other words, that's a natural sand angle. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Except for the top. TOM SAMUELS: The top has (unintelligible) over the edge, overhanging, that should be cut back to eliminate that. That's one thing. The other thing is that we recently finished an identical structure in Old Field and I'll take some panoramic photographs of that so that you can take a look at what that looks like. We also did 1500' of an identical structure for the Corp. of Engineers on the Ram Island causeway, just below where the Ram's Head Inn is. That flooded all the time. The Corp. acknowledged that in a super storm, December 1992 storm, that that would be over-topped, but it's impractica to build structures that will take any eventuality because only God knows how high they are going to be. So, i'll bring you a picture of that and the one in Old Field. You'll get a better idea. I agree wholeheartedly that it should be done one time right. The engineering on this is right. You might have other considerations but it's not a compromise structure in any way. It's the same shore-guard section that the Corp. of Engineers, the research section in Mississippi recommended to the New York District. That's the specification used on this job. I know what you're looking for and I do recall at the last hearing that we discussed the benefits of armor and revetments vs. vertical face walls, and you know what my feelings are on that and I'm not going to bother repeating that. I saw Jack 16 Welsh on television last night and he said he had never been to a meeting that couldn't have been settled in the 5 min. of the start of the meeting, so with that I'll leave you and bring you the data that you need. This has been more than 5 minutes. TRUSTEE SMITH: This one on Ram Island, could we get access to look at that? TOM SAMUELS: Oh yeah. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We should look at that. Is that revetment and bulkhead or only revetment? TOM SAMUELS: That's a bulkhead and armor. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have to take a look at that. TOM SAMUELS: Thank you gentlemen. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Unless there's any other comment, we'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to Table these two applications. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALI AYES 13. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of TOM GLEASON requests a Wetland Permit to construct 195 linear ft. of bulkhead beginning from the southeastern most property corner, along Cutchogue Harbor, (w/5' return at northern term inus) with a 5' wide splash pad on landward side of proposed bulkhead and 5' wide toe armor on seaward side of proposed bulkhead along entire length. Extending from the northern terminus of said bulkhead will be 130 linear ft. +/- of 16 foot wide +/- of rock revetment, itself running along the southeastern edge of subject property to the northern property line. In addition, applicant proposed to construct an access road (8.0' wide) on the northeastern section of said property. Located: 5115 New Suffolk Rd., New Suffolk. SCTM#110-8-34 (See Public Hearing for ALFRED & MARIANN SUESSER.) 14. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of LISA EDSON requests a Wetland Permit to construct on pilings a two-story, one-family dwelling, deck, and swimming pool; install a pervious driveway and sanitary system with concrete retaining wall; place approx. 450 cy. of fill; install drywells; establish a 50' non- disturbance/non-fertilization buffer adjacent to the tidal wetlands; and connect to public water and other utilities. Located: 9326 Main Bayview Rd., Southold. SCTM#87-5-25 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? ROB HERRMANN: I'm here on behalf of the applicant, Lisa Edson. Certainly I have been over this enough times so I won't even bother summarizing for the record. I think we summarized it at the last hearing at which time we had submitted the drainage plan for the driveway and that was the last item that the Board had been looking for, other than the Zoning Board issues that Patricia Moore had discussed with you at the same time. I don't think there was really any subsequent comment of the Board last month other than that you had to l? take a look at the drainage plan that had been proposed for the driveway. So, I'm certainly hoping and even expecting that we finally conclude this tonight. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Any other comment? MARY KIRSCH: I'm the neighbor adjacent to the Edsons'. This is a paste-up of my property and his new survey. If you look at my property, the octagon house at the top, there is a 20' right-of-way. Code, Zoning Code and Building Code, is as you see in my survey, next to the right-of-way is a 20', a 30', excuse me, side-yard, then I have my deck, and then there is an additional 20' side-yard on the other side, in the back, which should be to Code a 60' front-yard. If you look at the first piece of paper on the to p, I got this information out of the Southold Town Code Book, that it is a minimum requirement for a one-family dwelling to have a front yard of 60' and a side-yard of a minimum of 20'. So, if you continue down to the Edson property, because it's really confusing down there, there's so much brush and shrubs and everything, you'll see that the Edson's are proposing, it's again, this survey hasn't changed from the last survey basically, there is no side-yard. The septic system is literally next to the right- of-way. There is maybe 1' there. In the rear, again there is 20'. To the house, it's 60'. It looks like they had it down marked as 60' but that's not true either because they are including the right-of-way, which you cannot do. It's just not Code. You cannot do it. Now, the house is 47' wide and their above-ground septic system is apl~rox, say 60'. So that's a 100' structure right there. Again, the septic is bigger than my entire foundation of a house where there are some really beautiful old oak trees, 12 old them, which would be eliminated also, which I didn't realize until the other day when I walked down there. As far as the pool goes, it's 60' long, alright, the pool is 36' but when you count the deck, etc. it comes to like60' and again, there is no side-yard. When you do the survey correctly, and add side-yards, it affects you the Trustees because all of a sudden, they no longer have a 75' setback from the wetlands. It becomes 55' or it becomes 57' or it becomes 71' so in the end, they don't meet any of the criteria for the Building Dept., for the Zoning Board, or for the Trustees. The newest thing that was proposed was this drainage, this very elaborate drainage system that's supposed to go on this right-of-way. That's all well and good but 'n order to install this drainage system, they will be cutting doWn approx. 55 trees. So, when you tell me that this piece of property, this whole building package is appropriate and doesn't make an impact on, it makes an impact on everything. The wetlands., environmentally, it overwhelms it. For me, it's just an eyesore. It's just not fair. I had to have side yards, front yards, and so should they. Fm not being the bad guy. They have to do what I did. For some reason, the Edsons refuse, I don't know if they're above the law or what, but after two years, it's a big much. That's it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. PATRICIA MOORE: Would you like me to try to address some of these things? To begin with, the issues that you have to deal with are the wetland issues. We have maintained the setbacks that the DEC approved and which was submitted to you all along, which is the setback from the edge of wetlands that has been flagged, along the center and southerly part of this flagging. Those setbacks have not changed at all. What we have had to deal with is the fact that our Zoning Code is says that when there are right-of-ways, you have to maintain what would be a front yard setback for a right-of-way. Mary Kirsch had the same problem on her piece of property and it was something that we all had to deal with. The Zoning Code, they tried to correct the Zoning Code to give relief for people because people that live on properties like this often times there a right-of-way that if this right-of-way, that runs along the Edson property, if that right-of-way did not give access to the other two properties, we would have no issues of front yard setbacks because the Code was changed for that purpose to give people relief. However, because this right-of-way gives those two properties access down to the dredged canal, and it's purely for use for the dredged canal, so there is not going to be vehicles going back and forth there. It's not going: to be for ingress, egress, it's going to be for recreational purposes, and relatively limited because they don't want to clear this area any more than they have to. So, the right-of-way that we're talking about, within the Edson property is a :very limited right-of-way. But, the issue, because of the way the Code is written, still has to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals. That application has been submitted and we're hoping that it will get on the calendar as soon as they have a chance to put it on. I was hoping that it would be on the Novembercalendar but I think that because of their schedule, it might be pushed to either late November, or pushed into the early December calendar. But it's at the Zoning Board and we're hoping that it will be dealt with. The reason that this needs the Zoning Board is a couple of things. One is that when you have a property that gets access over a right:of-way, and the 'right-of-way now that I'm talking about it the one on the Kirsch property, that right-of-way is a deeded right-Of-way that gives Edson access to her property. That right-of-way can be imprOved to whatever standards the Town deems appropriate. Lisa Edson doesn't ~vant to put the kind of money and the :kind of improvements that you've recommended. She is saying she'll do it because that's what you have recommended and the drainage systems that have been designed along this right-of-way are environmentally suitable for this property. She is willing to do it. It's an expense. It's something that Mary Kirsch will be able to benefit from in a sense because she has the right to use that same right-of-way for access. But, none-the-less, it's an improvement that has to be done and it was at your request. If she conwnces you to lessen the standards of that right-of-way, Lisa Edson won't complain. As far as the foundation of the sanitary system, you know as know and most of these people in this room know, the Health Dept. regulates sanitary systems. When you have a Iow ground table, as we have here, the ground-water table, you have to have the sanitary system with the proper retaining walls to maintain the pitch, maintain the standards of the sanitary system. Generally the Building Dept. does not consider a wall around a sanitary system a structure. Therefore, if is not a structure, it does not have to deal with the front yard setbacks. TRUSTEE SMITH: Excuse me, who doesn't consider it a structure? PATRICIA MOORE: The Building Dept. When you have a wall, that is a retaining wall that is a requirement of the Health Dept., the Building Dept. says that's out of our control and that's not a structure to house a person. It's not holding anything up. It's for the purpose of the sanitary system. The reason that we've incorporated it into the Zoning application is because to make the wall a more attractive feature here, because it is not a very attractive feature for the Edson property as well, is to try to incorporate it into the design of the house so that it can be screened with vegetation, on the side where the house and the pool are attached. If any part of that wall can be used as part of the foundation wall, it takes away the requirement from putting in another foundation wall and adding more to the whole structure. So, those wails, if they are used, if we'just separate the house and the deck from that wall, it is not a structure and the Building Dept. will give us a permit tomorrow. But, if we attach it and make it a part of the structure, then we have to incorporate it into our plan where it's setback from the right-of-way that's within the Edson property line. ROB HERRMANN: Just again to sort of follow what Pat's saying, we've been going through this for quite a long time with Ms. Kirsch and I ~ould get into the issues of the fact that what was done for the Kirsch property, which was the need for a Zoning variance for the same issue, is the same thing of what's being done here. Ms. Edson has to go to the Zoning Board for a variance. The primary difference is that when the Kirsch dwelling was approved, it was not approved meeting this Board's wetland setback so I continue.to find it befuddling that MS. Kirsch throws out the allegation that somehow we're not meeting your standards and she did, when in fact the truth is exactly 180 degrees to the reverse. Her house was not located 75' from the wetlands. All of these dwellings, this dwelling and the pool and the patio and every associated improvement is located 75' or more from the wetlands. MARY KIRSCH: Interruption...(intelligible). ROB HERRMANN: Excuse me. I've listen to this long enough... MARY KIRSCH: So have I... TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Let him finish. ROB HERRMANN: In the Town of Southampton, there were so many situations before the Southampton Town Conservation Board, who is given the express responsibility of regulating wetlands, there were so many cases where the Conservation Board was compelling landowners to meet the wetland setbacks that they wrote into their'Code an allowance for an automatic relief, non-Zoning Board required, up to 50%. The reasons for that are obvious. In a situation like this, whether this swimming pool is 100' or 10' from this right-of- way, is really meaningless. It's meaningless to anyone. If Ms. Kirsch wishes to drive her car from ,her property down to the canal, how close she drives it to the swimming pool is pretty insignificant when the other alternative is to meet the Zoning Code, meet that setback, and put the swimming pool 40' from the wetland. So, what we're doing here is we're trying to meet, and are meeting, all of the wetland requirements, and the fact that there is a Zoning Board vanance required, really doesn't have anything to do with Chapter 97, it doesn't have anything to do with this Board, nor is it any different from what Ms. Kirsch did. And, to conclude, Ms. Kirsch bought this property from Lisa Edson's father. She had the ability to buy the one on the road or she had the ability to buy the one 20 closer to the water. I understand that she would, as would I, prefer that this lot remain vacant forever. We have been working very, very closely with this Board and with the DEC, going on two years, and at some point, there has to be a line at which Ms. Kirsch can stop showing up every month and stating what we know to be the obvious and compelling this Board to keep putting this off. My patience has pretty much run out with this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No Rob, actually it's not your patience that's running out. Originally this property came to our attention on a clearing violation back in, I believe, 1999, which is over two years ago. After that, after the property was clear-cut, then the applicant applied for a wetland permit, back in 1999. This Board made a number of field inspection out to this site and we totally wasted our time because either things weren't staked or they weren't staked properly. We wasted a lot of time out here as a Board. ROB HERRMANN: That's right. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You make it sound as if... ROB HERRMANN: I don't make that sound as if it's your fault or your Board fault. Not at all. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As far as, and this isn't Southampton either, and they might have some kind of a speedy process to develop .... ROB HERRMANN: No it's not a speedy process to develop. My point is the compariSOn of the concern fo r the wetlands vs. an antiquated zoning setback from the right-of-way. There is a big difference. F~ATRICIA MOORE: He's just trying to point out that the balancing...you're Board wants to consider the setbacks from the wetlands and what once you tell us where the location that you approved the location, the closest point, the setbacks that we are permitted to use, and the improvements that you want on this right-of-way, with that information it makes the case for the Zoning Board to say, Yes Zoning Board, we agree, you should put these improvements on the right-of-way because again, the Trustees using your jurisdiction, believes that's the important thing to do to keep the property...it mitigates any impact on the wetlands. The structures themselves are going to be setback and again, your Board comes first. Generally, you establish where you want the closest point of the wetlands to be and then from that point, the variance has to be obtained. But again, the variances here are so, he uses the right word, antiquated, because it's technically a right-of-way, we use a front yard setback that somebody living on the road would need. The reason for front yards is visibility. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We're going over the same ground, Pat, and I'm not disagreeing with you. The right-of-way thing, we asked for a similar mitigation for drainage that we did on the other side of Bayview and it worked well there. That's what we were going to require. That's pretty much a non-issue with us, for mitigating the right-of-way impact on the wetlands. But, as far as the Zoning thing, is this going to come back to us in two years and they're going to say, well the ZBA doesn't like the way it's laid out, maybe we should change the footprint. PATRICIA MOORE: I can never guarantee that because sometimes you do things that make us go back and forth. I'm hoping that that's not the case. 2! TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well that's what I'm saying. What's the case here? PATRICIA MOORE: Wel I think that we've gone as far as, to leave a reasonable building envelope and to allow for setbacks to try to kind of cut the baby in half where we can't meet a front yard setback of 50'... MARY KIRSCH: It should be 40'. PATRICIA MOORE: It should be 40', ok, from the right-of-way. It's shown as 60' because that's the way Joe Ingegno marks it. But .... (loud discussion in the audience) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Wait a second. I'm not looking to say ~s it 40' or 58', what I'm sayin§ is, do they need a pool? Do they need a house that big? Is it possible to build a house there without a swimming pool, which would definitely lessen the impact of that property. PATRICIA MOORE: But keep in mind, this property, because of all of the activity on this, all of the wetland on the property, you have certain uses. When it's all said and done, it is a very valuable piece of property. The house itself is only 30' in width an actual house. There is 3 ~ acres here. You have a relatively small pool. We can certainly cut back the deck but the deck, as I see it., is going to be cut back from the right-of-way, which I think is where the ZOning Board is going to push us. In fact, the house design has been reduced significantly from the original footprint, which was the original submission to you. I had Lisa sit down with the architect and say, hey what is it that you want. Look at the design of this house and see what parameter so that Mark Schwartz, the architect, can design around what are your standards. I don't want'to come in with a castle and that's not what she's come in with. She's come in with a footprint of 30' and then 47' width, which part of it is actually cutting into the foundation on that sanitary system. MARY KIRSCH: In the middle of the wetlands. PATRICIA MOORE: It is not in the middle of the wetlands. (loud discussiOn in the audience) PATRICIA MOORE: We have the upland area that is limited here. This is the area of upland. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let me get some Board comment before we go back to any other comment. Does the Board have any comments on this as far as deck, pool, house, cess pool, total fill? PATRICIA MOORE: Keep in mind that you've got most of this being a sanitary system. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Personally, if you want my opinion, 'd rather not see them not build on the property at all but they met everything...everything we asked them to do they've done. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They met the standard setbacks that we impose on a standard wetland application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Now if we wanted more than that, we should've stated so. But, there are other issues that they are going to have to overcome. It's going to have to run its' course. It's got to go to ZBA. If they're looking for our approval and they've met all of our requirements, where do we go from here? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: This property has followed our policies as far as building requirements. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We aren't the ZBA and they've met all of our requirements so if you want to approve it subject to approve by the ZBA then that's fine. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No because if it's a big problem with the ZBA then it will come back to us for an amenc merit. That's all. PATRICIA MOORE: As far as precedence, Mary Kirsch's property set a certain precedence on setback from the right-of-way which is the actual access to the Edson property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are only looking at the setbacks off the right-of-way, not that we care what it's set back from the right-of-way, from our Boards point of view, because we don't have that jurisdiction. Whatever precedent she set doesn't really concern us. ROB HERRMANN: The answer to your question Al, is that if the Zoning Board didn't go along with this, the footprint could only get smaller, it can't get shifter clOser to the wetlands. There is no way this Board is going to approve less than a standard setback on this lot. is that a good guess Kenny, or anybody else? So, it can only get smaller. But the reason for it to get smaller, it has to come from the Zoning Board. It can't come from a neighbor whose upset that the house is being developed. That's the point. Your question is, are we going to come back and say, oh, this is all we get, the Zoning Board won't let us do it, boo hoo hoo, let's get closer to the wetlands: I'm telling you now that's not going to happen because I know it can't happen. The DEC won't let it. In fact, the DEC made us revise the sanitary 'system for the setback from the tongue of phragmites on Ms. Kirsch's property just to meet the 100' setback for the septic. We were told that a variance would not be granted. So, we are in a position where we can:not get any closer to the wetlands than what you see here, for your purpose or the state's purpose. TRUSTEE FOSTER: My calculations show that the concrete bunker will hold 800 yds. of fill, if it's filled up. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But that's what it is though, right? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well they're asking for 450 yds. PATRICIA MOORE: Well do you think it's going to be morethan that? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well it wil hold 800 yds. of fill. ROB HERRMANN: The fill was calculated by the surveyor based on the amount of fill that needs to come on the site. In other words, this fill that comes up from where the cesspools drop, there is an additional amount, so probably the difference in the math is the difference from what's calculated in the volume of the septic. TRUSTEE FOSTER: But given the dimensions that are on here, I calculated it and it and it's 800 yds. My comment was going to be that no fill should come on the property other than what goes in the septic system. ROB HERRMANN: That's why everything is proposed on pilings. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How about the pool? ROB HERRMANN: On pilings. PATRICIA MOORE: That's the reason why everything needs to be included he re because that's the usable space of this property. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's concrete. It's a gunite pool isn't it? SHELLEY: I make a living as an artist. I'm an artist. I wanted a studio on my property. I abided by all the rules and all the setbacks and I was limited to an octagon house 40' in circumference. So I'm now painting in the basement because I could only put that size house on that piece of property. They don't need a pool and why can't they make a smaller house to fit on their piece of property like I had to do. I make my liwng as an artist and I'm working in the basement. I can't have a studio because I don't have the setbacks. I want to know, is there such a thing as a 60' setback. Is it black and white? Is it on paper for a front yard and side yard? is there any wayl can see this? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't do the front yard and side yard setbacks. We are only doing the Wetlands setbacks. SHELLEY: They have a wetland setback because they pushed everything up against my right-of-way. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, they did. Absolutely. SHELLEY: That's why they cleared it with the DEC. MARY KIRSCH: :That's why it's going to clear with you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely, yes. SHELLEY: In other words, who do you see to rectify that? TRUSTEE KRLPSI~I: The ZBA. You have to tell them. PATRICIA MOORE: They'll have a chance to speak their mind all over again to the Zoning BOard. SHELLEY: As far as that elaborate drainage road to nowhere, it's 20' the right- of-way and they are going to disturb the whole 20'. They are going to put four 8' drywell right in the middle of it, right under my nose, cut down all of the trees, the house Will be bare. MARY KIRSCH: 55 trees. SHELLEY: The utilities, do they put the utilities underneath the drywells? Do 1 have to see poles, the utility poles? TRUSTEE SMITH: Well we have nothing to do with utility poles. PAT MOORE: I honestly don't know. SHELLEY: They are trying to fit a damn elephant in a Volkswagon and it can't be done. PATRICIA MOORE: If I could just point out something that I'm sure the Board has already noticed, but the Kirsch property is half the size of the Edson property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, no we don't want to make comparisons because every property is different. PATRICIA MOORE: But, no, absolutely, but they are all.constrained by the wetlands, wherever the wetlands are. The Kirsch is constrained by the wetland on the piece to the west and that's the reason for the size and everything. MARY KIRSCH: We made the effort to do that and comply with everybody's codes and rules. 24 SHELLEY: And one more thing. We are 81' from the wetlands. We gave them an extra 5'. It said 75' and we made it 81'. We're not the bad guys. We built a house that fits. They don't need a pool. Go swim in the creek, I do. What do you come down here for?. You've got a beautiful creek and you have to have a swimming pool. MARY KIRSCH: And make a two-lane road. It's like a highway. PATRICIA MOORE: If you want to reduce the roadway, we'd be happy to do that. SHELLEY: The fire department only requires 15'. Is that so? PATRICIA MOORE: Yes. MARY KIRSCH: It's just for one person, not a family, not teenagers. SHELLEY: I work in a damn basement when I needed a studio. I make my living as an artist. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh On the driveway issue, it shows 16' finished driveway. What does the Town require? TRUSTEE FOSTER: 15'X 15'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So it's nothing more than the Town really requires. ROB HERRMANN: The additional footage is for the drainage. SHELEY: But the additional footage on the side will knock down all of those trees. So that's 20' they are disturbing, all the way down. ROB HERRMANN: The Board asked us to design a drainage plan... MARY KIRSCH: Well make a better design. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Artie, as far as the drainage or the driveway goes... TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's adequate. It's more than adequate. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what we need. We need the drainage on the driveway. I don't think there's any question about that. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well it's there. They've got it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? Make a motion Ken. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Since we have done a totally thorough review of this piece of property, and because it meets the required setbacks of the Board at this time, as far as building 75' for the structure and it shows a 50' non- disturbance buffer, and the septic system 100' away from the wetlands, as it stands now, I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES 15. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of DONNA FRAGOLA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story, one-family dwelling with attached garage and porch; install a pervious driveway, sanitary system, drywells, and public water service; and establish a 50' non-disturbance/non-fertilization buffer adjacent to the apparent high water line/tidal wetland boundary. Construct approx. 125 linear ft. of vinyl/plastic retaining wall with a 10' northwesterly return and backfill with approx. 50 cy. of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source (southeasterly terminus of proposed structure to be tied into adjacent retaining wall to southeast); and construct a timber dock to be extended off proposed 25 retaining wall, consisting of a 4'X 17' fixed timber catwalk; 3'X 14' hinged ramp; and 6'X 20' float secured by (2) 8" diameter pilings. Located: 1145 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM#35-4-8 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of this application? ROB HERRMANN: Certainly for time sake, I think our meeting the other morning probably wrapped up all the issues except for one which I discovered I need to run past the Board. I apologize but I discovered this when trying to revise the plan in accordance with our meeting. I've sketched this, and this is another one of those issues with the property boundaries being at an angle to the shoreline. When we walked 15' from the pink ribbon that we're showing as the marker of the side Yard, walked out this way and then obviously Chris Arfsten walked straight out perpendicular to the shoreline. The problem is, if we follOw that line, becaurse the property boundary is actually shooting that way to the east, this ends up over here, over the proPerty line, and because these pieces are both Privately owned, it's not even as simple as the riparian dghts deal. They are Privately owned. So, the question is and I know what you're going to say, that you draw it perpendicular, and I was... TRUSTEE FOSTER: You're going to dredge the other guy's land basically. ROB HERRMANN: Well no, the dredging is over here so the dredging is not an issue. The originally proposed dock was over here somewhere, I don't have it on :here, but it was over ihere, and the dredging is going to be this headland here so that won't affect~ it. My queStion to you is, and spoke to Tom Samuels, but Tom has explained that he can do a little bit of a screwy angle like this on the dock, so we can kind of come off and do kind of an open "L". My only question to the Board is, and is Helen Rutkowski. here? Ok. My question of the BOard is, would you want some sort of authorization from Helen Rutkowski, that this float be placed less than 15' from the property line or does that not even become your business to do that because these are privately owned? I just wa~ted to raise this as an issue before I submit it. TRUSTEE KING: Where is the float on the neighbor's property? ROB HERRMANN: Well it's not that close because if you remember, Chris and ] estimated that there were 10' or 12' to the in~er-tidal marsh and then the thing was down further. You can see it on the pictures. I did take a picture looking in .that direction. TRUSTEE SMITH: I would say go with the way you suggested out in the field, and I don't think she would have a problem with that. ROB HERRMANN: The Corp. of Engineers probably is going to require that I do this because they have their 15' setback. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's our policy also. TRUSTEE I~RUPSKI: It's our policy, but in a case where the neighbor already has their dock, I don't think she would have an objection because we're not worried about placement. I think it would be a good idea to get her blessing on this. ROB HERRMANN: Artie, it's basically going to be the same thing as what we did in the field. The float, it's maybe a 10' difference. It's not really a big difference. It's still going to be in here and as I said, we can come over there or,,, TRUSTEE FOSTER: Can't the dock come off at a little bit of an angle. ROB HERRMANN: Yeah, and that's what Tom was saying. We can come off at kind of an odd angle like this. In other words, I can exaggerate this even more but obviously we need to keep the float parallel with the shoreline otherwise half the docks going to be kind of up on the shoal. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, because that's where the dock belongs. ROB HERRMANN: Ok. So, as long as you're aware of that. I mean obviously I have to get you a revised plan. I got half waY through this. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Are you going to contact Helen? ROB HERRMANN: I'm going to have to do that because need to contact the other neighbor about the bulkhead too. I just want to make you aware of it. I don't know if you want to approve it conditioned upon that 0r put'it off for a final approval next month once I can actually hand you something. It probably doesn't make a difference, and I always like to walk out with a permit as to no permit, but he~s not doing the dock n the next 4 weeks anyway. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Alright, we'll wait on that then. ROB HERRMANN: Just so long as you don't have any conceptual objections to this, I can follow it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you g~ve us any plan for any of that? ROB HERRMANN: No, in other words, this is showing the stone in the corner, and this is how far I got. So, that's that. We can hold it off or however you want to do it. I just needed to make sure that this was Ok so that I can pursue it with Helen. I don't think we want to show the float on her property. TRUSTEE FOSTFR: Maybe you should get a hold of her, get her approval, and draw it appropriately, and then submit it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: -['he CAC recommends Approval but they want a 50' non- disturbance, which is shown, and they want the dock to be on that side also. make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 16. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of EUGENE BOLTER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a timber dock to extend off existing bulkhead, consisting of a 4'X 6' cantilevered platform; 3'X 12' hinged ramp; and 6'X 16' float to be secured by (2) 8" diameter pilings. Located: 510 Bayberry Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#111-14-36.1&36.3 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? ROB HERRMANN: The Board actually issued a permit for this in March of 1993 for virtually the same thing. I think this is perhaps flip-flopped but it's pretty straight-forward. It's a cantilevered platform with a ramp and float. Just for st the record, it was Permit #4121 that was issued on March 31 of 1993 and I have it if anyone wants to see it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone else who would like to comment on this application? The CAC recommends Disapproval until the applicant repairs the bulkhead and installs a 10' non-turf buffer. Most of the property is unbulkheaded. In fact, I believe they own that whole peninsula going out there. ROB HERRMANN: The bulkhead is a very small portion of the lot actually. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It's out in Wunneweta Pond and there's a little sliver, probably about 50' of property that's bulkheaded, and then they own a huge peninsula that goes into the pond. It's all natural. They want to put a float right here. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's a big enough area there, it shouldn't be a problem. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would only recommend that non-turf buffer when, and the bulkhead is in disrepair somewhat, it's certainly not falling in, but ... ROB HERRMANN: It didn't strike me as in any urgency to repair it but Tom is the contractor so... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: At the time that they repair it, that's when we'll require it. It will be dug up. That's when we'll require the non-turf buffer. ROB HERRMANN: A good portion is decked now also so you're going to see a major change. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? Do I have a motion to cloSe the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUS;I'EE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES 17. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of THOMAS & SUSAN MERIAM requests a Wetland Permit to construct a swimming pool and patio; retaining wall and planter; deck addition and steps; and install a pool drywell to contain backwash. Located: 1335 Marratooka Rd., Mattituck. SCTM#115-11-26 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? ROB HERRMANN: This is pretty straight-forward. There's an enclosed patio, it's setback 100' from the vegetated wetlands. It's just border line on the Board's jurisdiction but obviously there will be some ground disturbance as far as the excavation for the pool, which is why we're in for a minor permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? Artie? TRUSTEE FOSTER: There's a letter here from the neighbors. Is there anybody else here to comment on this? Walter & Mary Kane? There's a letter here. Trustee Foster reading letter from Walter & Mary Kane. ROB HEF~RMANN: The swimming pool is proposed almost 60' from the Kane's mutual property boundary, which far exceeds the requirement of the Zoning. I believe he will probably have to put some sort of fence around the patio, but that's NY State Law, so that would be done. TRUSTEE FOSTER: May be some screened planting over next to the property. Well he can work that out with the neighbor. ROB HERRMANN: There is a row of evergreen, that's even shown on the survey, between the two properties. But, I'm sure that the Meriam's won't be any more anxious to expose their pool activities to the Kane's and vice versa. I 28 don't think they're going to put up any lead walls to hide the sounds of conversation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about the point raised about the back-wash contaminating their well ROB HERRMANN: Well we could stick that somewhere else but of course the idea of the drywell is that it's contained. It's not an open leaching pool that's going to drop the chlorine into the groundwater. The idea is that it is a drywell so that it actually contains and they are designed to contain the volume of the backwash of the pool, unless Artie corrects me on that. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's just a leaching ring, that's all. ROB HERRMANN: It is? Well that's different from what some pool contractors had explained to me. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well are they going to collect it forever though? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well if it's a solid concrete structure and it retains everything that's put in it, then it has to be pumped on a regular basis, which I don't know what the normal gallon of backwash is for a pool that size, but I'm sure it's substantial. ROB HERRMANN: I may be thinking of a different system that was for some specific project where maybe that was a concern, Artie. I apologize, but, ih any event, we could possibly shift...there is no special reason that side was chosen. I don't I~now where the Kane's well is but I think the topography of the site shows pretty cleady that the groundwater table is heading pretty straight down right into Deep Hole Creek. So, unless the Kane's well is down near the creek, which I would not anticipate it would be. Did they show it on their plan? TRUSTEE FOSTER: No, it's just a letter. ROB HERRMANN: If you want to condition it that we put the drywell somewhere farther from the Kane's property, I suppose we could do that. I seriously doubt that there would be'any affect on it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well they might be able to put it at the other end of the pool. ROB HERRMANN: We could certainly slide it to a different location. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You are applying for a permit, because originally there was a request here for a letter of non-jurisdiction. ROB HERRMANN: Yes, I went through this with Lauren. Basically we designed it to be out of your jurisdiction with the expectation that after being reviewed, and I think Al reviewed it and indicated that, and we're even showing the disturbance there, we just didn't know how the Board was going to handle it. We suspect that it would be either non-ju'risdiction or it would be a minor permit. TRUSTEE FOSTER: When I looked at it I measured from the stake and I got to 92' to the bacharus. ROB HERRMANN: Well that is one problem because the stakes that are in the field are out of date. The Medams had originally, and I don't know whether he was using an attorney or a friend or somebody, was handling this for him and the pool had originally had been drawn on the survey from the high-water line. The DEC went back to them and they said it's not the high-water, it's from the vegetated wetlands and at that point, to make a long story short, the contractor suggested that he retain us because the first thing we had to do was flag the wetlands. The problem is that they never re-staked it because it was not a critical issue, whether it was 92' or 100' or whatever it is. The thing is going to have to be re-staked for it to be built. So, if you would want to even condition the permit that you revisit the site after it's been staked to confirm that it's where the survey says it's going to be, I don't think that's a problem. John's pools is going to need it re-staked in order to build a pool anyway. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Are you going to want it more out of our jurisdiction? ROB HERRMANN: Yeah, it has actually been moved farther landward than where you looked at it, and the reason for that is because where I flagged the wetlands boundary is obviously 10' or 15' farther up that bluff. TRUSTEE FOSTER: But during construction, there will be disturbance within that 100' area. ROB HERRMANN: Oh yeah, even as it is now. We showed it on the site plan. We tried to disclose every conceivable project aspect for the Board's records. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that's why [ reviewed it in the office I said they had to go for a permit. ROB HERRMANN: As I said, we can flip-flop the drywell if that would give some piece of mind to the Kane's. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that's a good idea. ROB HERRMANN: You can also condition it that Artie look at it or whatever. But, those stakes out there are out of date. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Does anybody have any problem with that? TRUSTEE SMITH: I'1 make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKh What's the CAC comment on that, Artie? TRUSTEE FOSTER: They recommended Approval but questions the size of the dryweliS currently on the property. What's currently there is all getting wiped out anyway. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'1 make a motion to Approve the application with the stipulation that the pool drywell get flipped to the other end, away from the adjacent neighbor, and a row of hay bales around the project during construction. The pool is going to be moved back to the 100'? ROB HERRMANN: it's going to be where it's shown on this plan. The stakes just need to be adjusted. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES 18. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of GILLIAN & MICHAEL WILSON requests a Wetland ~Permit to remove and replace (inplace) approx. 115 linear f. of existing timber bu Ikhead with C-Loc plastic bulkhead and dredge area 80' long up to 10' off bulkhead to a maximum depth of-4' ALW to recover lost upland fill; use approx. 60 cy. spoil for backfill. Construct off new bulkhead timber dock, consisting of a 5~X 5' cantilevered platform; 3'X 14' hinged ramp; and 4'X 20' float to be secured by (2) 8" diameter pilings. Construct a one-family dwelling with attached deck; driveway and sanitary system; and connect to public water service. Located: 590 Tarpon Dr., Southold. SCTM#57-1-6 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anybody who would like to speak in favor of the application? ROB HERRMANN: Their attorney, Patricia Moore is also here but hopefully we won't need her. This diagram will probably look familiar to you because this one was, well basically, a less detailed version of which was submitted during the infamous Kick hearings, basically showing a cantilevered platform and a ramp and a float along the bulkhead, a proposed dock, and also they are proposing to replace the bulkhead. There are two returns proposed and then there's a 12' what we anticipate will be a non-turf buffer, behind the bulkhead. If you have any other questions, we'll be happy to address them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We'll take any other comment first. Is there any Board comment? The CAC did not make an inspection. We looked at the site last week. We felt this was a straight-forward application. It's a very narrow cana and our policy is that the float and the boat extend no more than 1/3 the way across for reasons of safety and navigation. This appears that it will conform to that with a reasonably sized boat, 10' beam. It shouldn't be a problem. That limits them also to the size of the boat they can get to put on there, on that dock. The only concern I had was that if they want to dredge it to 4', and the only reason we would consider this is because it's a dredged canal. ROB HERRMANN: The only reason this was proposed is because there has been some pretty significant loss of upland backfill through the bulkhead into that area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But is that going to create a hole? I see that there's a line drawn from 2'4, 3'2. Is that going to create a hole and then a little shelf and then it's going to go down again. ROB HERRMANN: Well it gets deeper as you get to the east so the canalward, is there's such a phrase, extent of the dredging, well actually 4' existing grade on the east, as you get farther to the west, it probably would create more of a hole but. I was anticipating implicitly that as they got further west, the dredging would be tapered down to What the existing depths are down there, which is 2 ¼'. Certainly we could clarify that some way in the plan because it doesn't help to dredge to 4' if 2' later is 2 ¼'. But, I just didn't go into that level of detail in the dredge area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does that make sense to the Board, to have them show that? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yeah, that's fine. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh What I'm looking for here is a 50' non-turf buffer. Is it shown there? ROB HERRMANN: Oh yeah, no it isn't. I think that, Pat had exp!ained to me, originally when the house was proposed, the DEC permit was issued and it was out of your jurisdiction. Now, it's in your jurisdiction so the house kind of got in there as a "oh yeah, we need a permit for the house too", so the 50' buffer, I think, was required by the DEC, right Pat? PAT MOORE: Yes. ROB HERRMANN: We can just add that. That's just my omission. 3! TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That'll be non-turf behind the bulkhead. Also, when you do that, show a path down to the dock. What about drywells and gutters on the house? ROB HERRMANN: Drywells should be added also. Again, that's the same thing. That's an omission because again, the house almost an afterthought to everything else, because we realized it was now in your jurisdiction. We really should just condition the permit on a revised plan that's going to show the 50' buffer, it's going to show drywells, and it's going to show a path to the area of the dock through the buffer. That's simple enough. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right. Is there any Other comment? TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with a 50' non- disturbance buffer, hay bales at the 50' non-disturbance line, and drywells to contain any roof run-off. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 19. Young & Young on behalf of PETER S. & SUSAN DANOWSKI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family residence together with the associated water supply and sewage disposal systems. Approx. 200 cy. of clean sand and gravel will be used to backfill the building site to the proposed grades. Located: 1625 Monsell Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM#138-1-14.1 TRUSTEE K~RUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? PETER DANOWSKh I'm sure my wife does, but my name is Pete Danowski and I'm here in support of the application. I know it's a night with a lot.of applications on and I know you've been to the site and maybe I could just start by just asking if you have any questions with regards to this matter. I have the affidavit of posting and mailing and I'll submit them to you now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll take any other comment first, before the Board has any questions. We looked at the site.. The only thing we need is a 50' non-turf buffer, which I'm sure you've heard about a dozen times tonight already. PETER DANOWSKI: That's fine. A 50~ buffer is a condition, and that's not a problem. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other questions? The only other thing that I saw was that it showed curious property lines here. It's actually one week away from, this Board rests on the colonial patent, the Andros Patent, is one week away from our 325 Anniversary. So, when we saw these property lines extending through Baldwin's Creek, we were a little curious. PETER DANOWSKh Well I don't want to bore you tonight, but there was a map of Norwald created, this was a dug canal, I know probably your family can present history better than I can, but it was actually artificially created. I have some old ma ps that indicate it tothe beginning of the construction of the dug canal. So, it wasn't a natural waterway, it was actually dug. It was also, just a little bit of historical significance, there was a famous historical novel about Southold that was written by a man named George Hummel, who owned this property at one time, and curiously enough amongst my paperwork, I got a copy from the Monsell family an obituary from the New York Times about Hummel. I went down to the public library and read this historical novel about the area. It's a great book to read and I'm sure everybody in Southold reads it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What was the book? PETER DANOWSKI: I'm trying to remember the name now, you've got me as a loss for it but I'll give you the name. It told about the areas and Hog Neck and other areas in Southold. It's a really well-written and he was a quite famous author; He owned originally this land and the Monsell family came into ownership. Also, the tax map number, there were four separate tax bills when I bought this property from the Monsell family and it is now one. I've merged the lots into 14.1. We are beyond the 10' contour so we'll get a letter of non- jurisdiction from the DEC. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. But officially, we're not going to acknowledge your claim of the underwater lands. PETER DANOWSKI: I can understand that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does the Board have any other comment? TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the condition of a 50' non-disturbance buffer shown the survey, hay bales at the 50' bUffer, and drywells to contain the roof run-off. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 20. Gary F. Olsen, Esq. on behalf of NElL SCHLUSSEL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, deck and sanitary system. Located: 3185 Stillwater Ave. East, Cutchogue. SCTM#136-2-7&8 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? GARY OLSEN: I'm here to represent the applicant. We've been before this Board several times and the last time, and I believe it was August of 2000, the Board recommended that they Tabled the hearing and suggested that we go to the Health Dept. to get Health Dept. approval and you authorized the secretary to write a letter to the Health Dept, so that they could proceed. We do have Health Dept. now to build a single-family residence. You have a copy of that in your file. 'We also have approval from the NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation to also construct a single-family residence. I had the design professional here tonight, Tom Wolpert, if you have any questions or any questions for me. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. 'm going to take all comments first before we have any questions. Is there anyone else who would like to make a comment on this application? CARL VAIL: I'm the adjacent neighbor and I'd like to present the Board with this letter for my neighbors and myself. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would you like to read it? CARL VAIL: Yes I would. Here's the original with our signatures. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think the survey that I passed out isn't the ... I just want to make sure we're all on the same page here. You can read the letter while we make copies of the survey. CARL VAIL: Dear Trustees: reading letter in file. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? TIM WACKER: I'm Tim Wacker, 595 Track Ave., Cutchogue. I pretty much agree with everything that Cad said, but one thing I wanted to point out, there's a fairly long stretch of undeveloped property here. I'm not sure how many building lots and what could happen should this permit go through but it seems like it would open the door for perhaps for additional structures to go up there, and my biggest concern is that this whole area is kind of a back-water. It's really still water and it doesn't get much flushing action. I think with that in mind, it makes it particularly environmentally sensitive to run-off and it seems to be clear that there would be impacts of that sort, given the narrow sketch of this piece of property and it's proximity to the road. So, I just would like you to bear in mind that there is minimal flushing action in this particular part of the creek. In that whole creek system, which really encompasses three different branches, there has been a lot of development there. I think any further development there should be examined very carefully. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. PETER BELL: I live at 3580 Stillwater Ave. I think this proposed development for the proposed building is an indication why people are moving for 5 acre land. I don't sympathize with the 5 acre limit because I understand the problems that the farmers have in that kind of a movement, but that is the kind of reaction you get when somebody tries to build on a piece of land that doesn't really have an upland to sustain it. It's so close to the wetlands, as you can see. If you approve this permit, the land adjacent to it, which is more suitable for a house, will be also built upon. So then we're going to have two houses, or maybe even three houses, on this very sensitive part of the creek. There's also a freshwater stream that runs behind the LoGrande property that comes right into this area. This is a very fragile area with nesting swans and ducks all up that stream. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment? Would you like to address any of those comments or just wait for our comments? GARY OLSEN: No, I think actually maybe it would be good if the design professional Mr. Wolpert spoke because he's familiar with it. THOMAS WOLPERT: Good evening Thomas Wolpert, Engineer with Young & Young for the applicant. We started this project approximately 2 years ago with the original rendition of our survey. Since that original survey, we amended the survey a total of 8 times. Most of that was in response to the rigorous review by the NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation as well as the Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services. Generally the concern was as the previous speakers indicated, the location of the proposed sanitary system. By the 8th addition of the survey, we had selected a location through the review process with the DEC and the Health Dept. that finally suited their requirements. Although we don't have 75', we do have 64' from the seaward edge of the closest leaching pool to the limit, or the landward limit of the tidal wetlands. You might note that from the 34 seaward edge of the closest leaching pool to the high water mark, is in fact 122', but I understand your jurisdiction is to the landward limit of the tidal wetlands. I'm not sure this Board has read the DEC Permit or the general conditions, or special conditions but I would like to call your attention to several of the 11 special conditions that appear on page 4 of 4 of the NYSDEC Permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We only received it yesterday. THOMAS WOLPERT: You only received it yesterday? Ok. If I may just jump down to No.7, special condition No. 7 on page 4 of 4, To protect the values of the tidal wetlands a permanent vegetated buffer zone shall be established. There shall be no disturbance to the natural vegetation or topography within an area extending 30' linear ft. landward of the tidal wetland boundary. No. 8, A row of staked hay bales or approved erosion control, device shall be placed as per NYSD£C approved plan at the commencement of the regulated activities and remain in place until the project is completed. (changed tape) drywells located on the landward side of the dwelling or immediate on-site recharge. Drywells and parkir~g areas shall be constructed of pervious material These are but 4 of the 11 special conditions that were imposed by the DEC and I would hope that it provides this Board with some assurance that another agency has taken a hard look at this application. As Mr. Olsen indicated, the Suffolk County Health Dept. has also granted a permit to construct both water supply and sewage' disposal facilities in conjunction with this project. That's all have to present unless there are any questions. T.RUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Does the Board have any comments? I think it's the sanitary system that's unusually close to the wetlands. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: From field inspection, I stated that it's unacceptable to compro.mise the wetlands and wildlife that's included on the buffer zone and fringe on the wetlands, as Trustees, and the reason for that 100' setback for the septic system 'is to get the maximum protection. I couldn't approve this application. THOMAS WOLPERT: I'm not sure exactly what the focus on the 75' or 64' or 50' or 100' is but the way a sanitary disposal system works is in an area like this where we've been to the Health Dept. and we dug a test hole and we've demonstrated that we have soils that are conducive to the proper functioning of a conventional sanitary system such as the one that appears on this plan. The truth to the matter is that the lateral leaching extends perhaps 3' or 4' beyond the outside diameter of the leaching pool and from there it is pulled by gravity downward. These leaching pools areset so that the bottom of the lowest leaching pool is at a minimum of 3' above the water table. What happens with the effluence is it's discharged first through the septic tank where the solids are collected and the clear effluence overflows into the leaching component of the system. From there it may go out laterally as I said 3' or 4' before it is pulled downward. There is a 3' layer of clean sand before it reaches the water table. Once it reaches the water table, it then has to travel through the soil.64' until it finally reaches the tidal wetlands. So there is plenty of filtering going on in this system and I'm not sure that we can say without any certainty, that I think we would like to achieve the most separation that we can. The fact is that this is the best that we could do on this single and separate lot. It's not as if this system overflows and runs over land and impacts the wetlands. That's just not what happens here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The problem that we have with this lot is that it is so small and really confined by the wetlands and the road. Is there any possibility of moving it further to the west where the setbacks are much greater. The applicant owns that property there, the adjacent parcel. I think you could get a greater setback, I believe the scale is 40' to an inch. The scale is 60', no I'm sorry you're right, it's 40', I was thinking of the previous application. I think through the process with the DEC, the DEC was concerned with saving some of the wooded area along the western portion of that site. We could certainly consider that and request an amendment to the DEC permit. TRUSTEE SMITH: Does the same owner own lot 83 & 82 & 817 GARY OLSEN: The subject property is owned by a Nell Schlussel. These are two tax lot numbers. We are going to be merging these two parcels. I believe he owns tax lot #7 and tax lot #8 they were tying to keep these properties single and separate ownerships so hewas going to plot #8 in his name as to a 99% interest and a 1% interest in Murray Schlussel, who is his father, who is now deceased. We are agreeing to merge the two. As far as the property to the west, that's owned by the Estate of Murray Schlussel and has nothing to do with Nell .Schlussel. TRUSTEE SMITH: Merged in with each other? These two lots? GARY OLSEN: The property you see on the survey contains two tax parcels. TRUSTEE SMITH: Correct, lot 82 & 81. GARY OLSEN: Right. TRUSTEE SMITH: My concern is that could lot 83 be incorporated. GARY OLSEN: Well that's not owned by Neil Schlussel. That's owned by a totally different individual. TRUSTEE SMITH: Ok. So that's not an option then? GARY OLSEN: I don't know. That's owned by the Estate of Murray Schlussel it is not Nell. I don't represent that Estate and I believe he died a resident of Florida or Maryland, I'm not sure. We've been :)efore this Board a number of times and we've really done everything that, juggling the house around and so on and we'Ve really done everything that the Board's requested including get through the hard part of the Health Dept. and the DEC who have addressed the same issues and listening to Mr. Wolpert it seems to me that your concerns about whether this has any real adverse affect on the wetlands and the water and the creeK, and according to what I'm hearing, it doesn't sound like it really does. Of course, the most significant thing is the location of the sanitary system and that's been approved by two other departments. ELIZABETH VAIL: I'm the property owner across the street. The Health Dept. permit, from what I understand, is really only addresses the issue of distance between neighboring wells, correct? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No, they also address the distance by the creeks. ELIZABETH VAIL: Oh the distance from the wetlands too, but that's their main concern and your concern is making sure that it's not within...is your jurisdiction 100'? It used to be 75' and now it's 100'. All through this evening you've been stressing this 50' buffer and they have a 30' buffer here. Everybody else has to have a 50' buffer how come they only have to have a 30' buffer. As far as the properties are concerned, I don't know if they were trying to confuse the issue but if you see the application shows the house on the two lots already. That's the piece of property. They've already put the two lots together and then if you see, again, these are issues that are not your department but if you look 17' from the property line from the front property line, I mean, that's how far they have to push the house up to the street, and they don't even meet the other regulations of your Board. Again, the setbacks are not your department but just by looking at this, how can you think...you can see that it doesn't fit on this piece of property. The house is actually less than 50' away from the wetlands line. If you put that diagonal line, or whatever line, from the corner of the house, then they added the deck, the edge of the deck is actually going to be closer than 50'. 50' is even to close for the house to the wetlands then 17' away a front back set back of 17'. It's so obvious that this house does not fit on this piece of property. That's a I. CARL VAIL: I think Mr. Olsen has done an excellent for his client but he just doesn't have the right piece of property to do the job with, that's all. GARY OLSEN: Just addressing the last issues, thank you for the compliment number one, but we obviously have to go to the ZBA after we get done with the Board of Trustees because we do need variances for the house location. We wouldn't be before this Board if we...we're only here because we can't meet the distance setback. That's why the Board's here. It's very much like the Zoning Board. You're here to grant relief. It's a very valuable piece of property and they are under contract for this property and the contract is contingent on getting these approvals and we're talking about a substantial sum. If this Board denies it, in effect, you're condemning the property. I understand from the Vail's standpoint and they've never had a house across the street and they like it the way it is but unfortunately these waterfront pieces have now become extremely valuable and we've gotten all the permits that we need with the exception of this Board and then of course we have to go to the Zoning Board. ELIZABETH VAIL: In regard to the value of the property, if the property cannot be built on, this piece right here, maybe there is relief if you can go and combine the other lot because the wetland line does go back. As far as the comment of, sure, I like the fact that I have the empty piece across the street from me but if this was a buildable piece of property, and I had no argument, I wouldn't be here. My argument is not that don't want a house there. The argument is that this is an environmentally fragile of property and there is relief that can be sought if you have a piece of property that can't be built on. You can go to the Land Trust, you can go to the Land Preservation Coordinator, you can do some kind of a bargain sale, there is relief if You have a piece of property that can't be built on. I know that these situations do exist. I know that Mr. Schlussel has owned this property for a long time and yes, now you can get a lot of money for a piece of property, especially waterfront, but he's also owned the property for many years and he paid very little for the property. Again, I looked at the property cards and I know what he paid for the property. He paid about $9,000.00 for one piece, $16,000.00 for another piece, so here he wants to get like $300,000.00 or something, and I mean this relief is ridiculous. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we don't begrudge him that. ELIZABETH VAIL: No, I know that and everybody has a right but when you're talking about an environmentally sensitive piece of property as this is, I mean you have to stop somewhere. Thank you. PETER BELL: Mr. Olsen said that the property was valuable. It's valuable because of the way it looks. It's pristine. It has a wetland that comes almost up to the road. There are swans nesting in there, mallards nesting in there, that's why it's valuable. Why should it be desecrated now, because somebody wants to make a ton of money and put a house there that doesn't fit. It jeopardizes the creek with the cesspool. ELIZABETH VAIL: (unintelligible, not using microphone) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Unfortunately that's every creek. GARY OLSEN: Not to be too redundant but just answering those issues, the DEC has looked at these issues and their concerns are the same as your Board and they have determined that the location of the house and the placement of the sanitary system, will not have an adverse affect on the wetlands, and they granted a permit. If there is any additional information that you feel I can come into this Board with, before you make a determination, I'd be happy to do that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I have a couple of comments. There is a tremendous battle going on out here to preserve land for what many of us that have been here for a lot of years know to be native and pristine and open. Somebody told me once that there's no such thing as an unbuildable lot. I'm inclined to disagree. Now, I'm in the business of making money through develepment but I don't believe that every little parcel should be built on. Now, as far as value of the land, I don't think you can put a price on the fragile environmental areas that we're losing. We're elected as Board not so much to give relief to applicants but I think to grant some relief to the environment. As I said, we are elected to do just that. Now, and I'm not inclined to approve every application that comes across this desk inasmuch as our political opponents for this upcoming election seem to think we are but personally, there was this one and there were two other parcels that have come before us in .no so distant past that I'm inclined to say that I don't want to see anything there. It really has nothing to do with the people across the street who don't want a house there, it's really not an issue here. I have no personal connection here. I personally know a lot of the people in the audience. Gary, I've known for years and there's nothing I'd like to do more than say, yeah, yeah, you can do this, you can do that. I really feel that too much of that has gone on and that's why we're facing the situations that we're facing now. I think personally if they want to preserve a lot of land around here instead of, in addition to, I should say, working something out with the farmland and keeping a lot of this open space open, that there should be something put in place to take up a lot of this property as wel because this is property that is a lot more fragile than a piece of farmland as far as I'm concerned. It has a value on it. I'm not concerned about the resale value or what speculators are going to get and so forth and so on and it's just that I think we as an elected board here have an obligation to do what the people elected us to do and protect the environment in any way we can. As far as the DEC issuing a permit here, those guys don't live here. Those people in Stony Brook, I know a couple of DEC officers that live out here and I know how they feel about things like this. They have a job to do as well. The Department of State, the people from Albany, and the DEC, they don't live here. Personally, I'm not inclined to approve this application and it's simply for the reasons I just stated. That's the way I feel about it. Not every piece of property is buildable and especially properties like this. There is possibility a way after looking at this that, if they are really true to the cause, maybe try to secure that other piece of land and make a smaller house and put the septic system all in a row along the front, which can be done because I've done it many times. I'll tell you now how I feel about it. GARY OLSEN: I won't interrupt but, let me go back to the owner of the other piece, between the LoGrande piece I believe, and this property, and see what their feelings are about merging so that we'll have three lots merged all up and down the road, so that we can do what you're suggesting. To be honest with you, we've done everything that you wanted us to do as far as, last time we were here you said, go get Health Dept. approval, and we spent a lot of money and a lot of time, and a lot of effort and we got it. I'm hearing these comments and I don't know why we bothered. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I didn't think the Health Dept. was going to approve it, quite honestly. We talked about that at field inspection and I made that comment. GARY OLSEN: Can I request that the Board Table this until I can determine what the adjoining land owner is willing to do and I'll get back to you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'd be happy to do that but the problem is, when we have to explore a difficult application like this, we have to explore every possibility. We can't just come out and say, we don't like the look of it. If we don't go through all of the steps, we can't make a good decision. GARY OLSEN: I'm not criticizing you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm just saying, that's why we had to make you jump through all of the hoops. GARY OLSEN: Well we did. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I couldn't agree with you more Gary. I think this Board made a terrible mistake asking you to do that without putting certain restrictions on it by saying, if the Health Dept. we'll approve this for less than 100', not necessarily 68', if you can get 80' we'll approve it, or something like that. I fully agree that there was extra work done only to come to this decision. GARY OLSEN: We went to the board of review and so on, and we do have the approval for the construction of a single-family house. Again, I also have to go to the Zoning Board. Henry raised the issue about, why don't we see what we can do with the contiguous piece to the north and I'll make those inquiries. 39 TRUSTEE FOSTER: If this application gets approved, I'll bet you any amount of money, it's on ly a matter of time before an application comes in for that remaining single-lot between LoGrande and this piece. The same will happen to the next'one. GARY OLSEN: That's why people checkerboard properties and they have historically to preserve pieces as single and separate ownership. I will make the inquiry and 1 don't know what the answer, is going to be, honestly. TRUSTEE FOSTER: This Board has made a lot of mistakes and we take a lot of heat for it, but I think we've got to stop doing it. That's only how I feel. I don't know how everybody else feels. GARY OLSEN: It's going to be very difficult to explain to this client why does the DEC approve it and the Health Dept. approve it, but the Southold Town Trustees don't approve it. What is there about what we're doing that the Town finds offensive and that these other agencies don't. In the meantime, let me go back to the other landowner. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I think if your client reads through our minutes, even just this one meeting tonight, they'll get kind of a sense of what we're trying to do here. This is pretty substandard compared to all the other applications that we've approved tonight. You can see that there was heated opposition to some of them that we approved but we approved them according to the standards that we developed over the course of a period of years. I think that would give them a better understanding of why we're not just rolling over because the DEC approved it. GARY OLSEN: All I can do is go to the other people and see what they're willing to do. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 21. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of WILLIAM D. REED requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, associated sanitary system, public water line, driveway, patio and garage. Located: R.O.W. off of Penninsula Rd., Fishers Island. SCTM#10-3-12 TRUSTEE KR UPSKh Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? We issued a permit here in 1998 for a single-family dwelling, sanitary system, water line, driveway, patio and garage. The permit expired. Do you want to look at it? TRUSTEE SMITH: I think we better. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We approved it three years ago. I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 22. Sandra Savage of Long Island Permit Service on behalf of JAMES CAVANAUGH .requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 26'X 26' single-family dwel.ling with 20'X 22' attached garage, driveway, and septic system. Located: 205 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM#35-4-4 4O 23. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? SANDRA SAVAGE: I'm here on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Cavanaugh, and he would like to build a single-family dwelling on the property. We have a valid DEC permit, we have Health approval which is pending if we go before your Board, and if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. TRUSTEE SMITH: Is there a permit for that dock? SAND RA SAYAGE: The dock, there's a separate permit application being handled right now by a dock builder who will be doing the repair there. That will be coming before your Board separately. TRUSTEE SMITH: Is there a valid permit now for the dock? SANDRA SAVAGE: No, it's very old. It was built approx., I think in the early 70's by the previous owners of the property. The Cavanaugh's have owned the property for only a few years. The shed was also built by the previous owners. TRUSTEE SMITH: The shed? SANDRA SAVAGE: The shed has a C.O. built in believe 1968. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The DEC permit, does it have a 50' non-turf buffer?. SANDRA SAVAGE: It has a 60' non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All we would want to see in addition to that is gutters and drywells for the building. The CAC recommends Approval. The Board will require a 50' buffer, to try to be consistent. If the DEC requires 60' on there, then the applicant is limited by the most restrictive one. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLtWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with a 50' non-turf/non-disturbance buffer, hay bayles during construction, and drywells. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh What we'll need to get a permit, is you're going to have to show, just draw a line on the survey, the 50' with hay bales, or if you want to do it 60' because of the DEC permit, and also show the path going to the shed, so that it's all on there. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of ERNEST H. SCHNEIDER, SR. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling (2,000 sf.) a min. of 43' landward of the tidal wetland boundary, 24'X 24' garage a min. of 59' landward of the tidal wetland boundary, associated sanitary system a min. of 103' landward of the tidal wetland boundary. Expansion pool to be relocated and pervious driveway. Located: 800 Lakeside Dr. North, Southold. SCTM#90-3-6 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? DAN HALL: I believe that n association with the DEC permit, they are considering a 30' to 40' buffer from the wetlands line. Of course you could increase that but it would limit the backyard, so that they wouldn't have a backyard. 24. 25. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The CAC recommends Disapproval. They are recommending a 75' non-disturbance buffer. DAN HALL: From the wetlands line? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what they recommend. Is there any other comment? Our comments in the field were that the house should be moved 10' landward. ' DAN HALL: That would allow for a 50' buffer then? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 43' plus 10' off the house, that would be 53', that would be a 3' backyard. TRUSTEE KRL, PSKI: Well it would be non-turf. We've conditioned that before where there is no turf in the backyard and the backyard be kept natural. It's what it is. DAN HALL: He cou Id just knock 10' off the house, right, and it serves the same purpose. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. Do you want to leave it open? DAN HALL: Leave it open and I'll revise the plan. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Do you want to Table it? DAN HALL: Well what would you approve? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We would approve a building envelope outside the 50' non-disturbance buffer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When he finalizes this plan, whether he wants to move the house or decrease the size of the house, he comes in with that plan, then we can stamp it. I think that satisfies all of our setbacks. It doesn't matter to us if he has a 40' house or a 30' house. It's still a house. It's up to him if he wants a 40' house closer to the road or a 30' house. DAN HALL: Yeah, I'm not sure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They could probably move the house to the west and get a little bit better setback but I think he has enough room there to work it out. Unless, you want to Table it and come in with... DAN HALL: Yeah, that would be a good idea. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of ERNEST H. SCHNEIDER, SR. requests a Wetland Permit to re-locate an existing lot line and construct a 1,320 sr. single-family reside nce and sanitary system on the southern lot. The limits of clearing, grading and ground disturbance shall not exceed the 100' setback. Located: 915.Lakeside Dr., Southold. SCTM#90-4-5&5 POSTPONED UNTIL NOVEMBER AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of BREEZY SOUND cio NElL B. ESPOSITO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 72' fixed timber walk and access stairway. The access installation is proposed to coincide with destroyed access location. The timber walk is proposed to be supported by (36) 4"X 4" CCA timber posts with a depth of penetration of 6'+. A proposed 160+/- sr. of existing eroded bluff is to be augmented with 20+/- cy. of 500-1000 42 lbs. stone placed on filter fabric against existing eroded scarp face. A proposed 200 +/~sf. to be backfilled landward of stone with 15+/-cy. of clean fill trucked in from an upland source, and then planted with Cape American Beach Grass on 18" centers. Located: 61475 County Rd. 48, Greenport. SCTM#45-1o2.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? DAN HALL: I'm here to answer any question the Board may have on this application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We noticed that a lot of the erosion came from the upland. We would like to require that a French drain be put in at the top of the bluff where the whole lawn drains down into that area and then that's where the stairs were put coincidentally. Some sort of a French drain, what could we ask them for dimensions here, Artie? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well what do you want a trench with gravel in it or an actual French drainage structure? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No, just a trench with gravel. I think we decided that would handle it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Make it 3'X 3', well you're going to dig it with a backhoe and the average backhoe bucket is in between 2' & 3' wide. So make it 3'X 3' X 30' long. You should hit some pervious soil, I would think, down there. DAN HALL: How do you want that running? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Parallel to the bank. That'll handle the run-off and that and the stone and the re-planting should stabilize that bluff pretty well. Any other comment? TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the condition that a French drain 3' in width, 3' in depth, and 30' in length, filled with gravel is installed on the upland side of the stairway. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 26. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of BREEZY SOUND CORP. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a motel on the property with a 50' non-disturbance area from flagged wetlands. Located: 61475 County Rd. 48, Greenport. SCTMf145-1-2.1 POSTPONED UNTIL NOVEMBER AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST 27. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of ROBERT & DIANE SCHROEDER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story dwelling, garage and swimming pool. Located: 150 Rene's Dr., Southold. SCTM#54-6-4.3 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of the applicant? PAT MOORE: Let me start off with, I have a whole packet for each Board member. What I have collected since our last meeting is some documentation that hopefully will, that I believe will, refresh your recollection of this property and my thought was today, I found what convinced me that maybe what you 43 saw you may be confusing with the piece to the north. There is a survey in that packet which is the property, Manzi is building the house right now, it's just north, excuse me, just south of the Schroeder property. If you look at the survey there, that survey clearly shows a huge pond area that takes up about ~ of that property. I believe in all honesty that the property lines would'ye been difficult to identify between the Schroeder property and the Manzi piece. I'm trying to give you some possibility of what you could'ye seen there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Impossible because we are very familiar with the site. We've been out here a number of times over the last probably 5 years. PAT MOORE: Al, if you could just let me go through my whole packet, and maybe I can convince other Board members. What I found is the document with regard to the property to the south. I also happen to represent the buyer of the Kerbs property that is across from Rene's Drive and in that survey, it shows, when Kerbs was going through the permit process, there is a larger survey that is in your file that is under the name of Jon Kerbs. That shows on the vacant parcel and it says, edge of standing water. In that area, it showed, what we believed to be, there was a one and only ponding area that the Schroeder's have on their property. So I found from two sources the mapping of the ponds that we believe, still exists on the property. What I did was I also investigated with the Highway Dept. inquiring about the drainage rings, the drainage pipes, that appear on that property, and I discovered from Ray Jacobs that there not drainage pipes from the Town but they are Vector Control. Vector Control hand dug some of the areas, particularly around Rene's Dr. and then used the pipes to drain out to try to off set some of the water that comes down Rene's Dr., take it under Soundview Rd., and then take it and continue it down the line. So, you've got mosquito ditches here and certainly it's a clay area that collects water. In addition, I have an affidavit from Joe Ingegno which he states that he was on the property February 4t~, February 9th, and February 10th, which is when the Schroeder's were in the process of buying this property and his responsibility as a surveyor, a licensed surveyor, licensed and certifying to the owner, what areas might be ponding areas which would certainly cause someone to stop and think and say, oh there are issues here that they have to deal with, with other agencies. Attached to his affidavit, is his staff's field notes and if you see that the parcel is described as a wooded, irregular terrain, then he identifies a large pond area, which is along the south end of the property. He shows on the Soundview side, the concrete drainage rings and some plastic corrugated pipe and then he states on that corrugated pipe, water-flow direction. The water-flow goes a little bit into the property and then directly towards Soundview Rd. Logically, as the property, the topography of this property is higher up from where the pond is and then slopes down to Soundview Ave. You've got some fiat areas and then Soundview Ave. The water will obviously go down hill and accumulate right along Soundview Ave. and at the pond. So again, Joe Ingegno, who had gone out there and surveyed the property and did his field notes, identified the one pond that we all thought we were dealing with. After that we also have from a neighbor, Vincent Carnegie, who lives at 11085 Soundview Ave., he's lived at this property for the past 10 years, and he only recalls seeing the ponding water in the back of the property, which is the large pond. The same goes for Vicky Patterson who lives at 1 1020 Soundview Ave. She's lived at that property for the past 15 years and again, she recalls the pond that we've been dealing with and that the Trustees gave a permit on. We also have an affidavit from Peter Sterling. Before the Schroeder's bought this property, as any good buyer, or what anyone of you would do, you want to make the-deal contingent on getting permits, making sure that all issues are dealt with. So, they went out, they brought in their friends, their experts, and said, hey take a look at this property and tell me what I can do. I don't want any problems. So, they.brought out Peter Sterling and Peter Sterling said he went out in the Spring and Fall of 2000 and in his Opinion, there was no evidence of water lying on the front portion of the property, which is the area where Al recalls seeing that pond. Finally I have from Dave Cichanowicz, Who also, we all know David both landscapes and owner of Creative Environmental Design and he also went out to take a look at the property certainly prior to being purchased in September of 1999 and there after and recently, and he also provided an affidavit that there was no water lying on that portion of the property. So we have numerous affidavits that there was no water other than the pond that Joe Ingegno had identified as the'large pond and consistent With the Kerbs survey and then the Manzi survey, the large rainwater run-off area, which is on the southside of the property. They provided you with the 30' buffer, we .continue to provide for that. Finally, I want to give you an idea of what the property would be developed, or bow it would be developed, and I received from Dave Cichanowicz a landscape plan which shows where the house would go, where are all the amenities, how this property is going to be improved, keeping in mind, as you recall from going to this property, there are some'huge boulders on this property. Some beautifu boulders. Many of the smaller ones are going to be used on the design and I can show you. Some of the boulders that can be used to line or to outline along the ...closer to the Soundview Dr. area where we showed a renOvated, low lying area so that we can have some planting of identified planting of native, moisture tolerant vegetation. While we anticipate that, unless those pipes are removed, there's going to continue to be a drainage accumulation and you have a lot of clay pockets here. We can certainly create an area that can continue to maintain some moisture, freshwater type vegetation. We also have that huge existing pond, which he hasn't shown any thing with respect to that but I know Bob would certainly ha~/e no problem enhancing the large, existing pond with a non- disturbance buffer, with additional vegetation. The most important thing is that the driveway, where it had originally, where is shows now as the playground .area for the kids, that area along Rene's Dr., they would like to maintain the area as close as natural vegetation as they can. It's quite vegetated, there are some huge boulders, and a 10 ton boulder that is right where, under the old permit, the driveway is located. So, that large 10 ton boulder, which he would like to keep it there, doesn't look aesthetically pleasing but also is going to cause more damage to try to remove it and relocate it than just to leave it there. So, Dave has incorporated the boulders and the greenery that is along P, ene's 45 Dr. as a way of enhancing his property. This property, the Schroeder's want to make this their home. They have a beautiful plan for this property and they had an existing permit at the time when the Bay Constable or the Code Enforcer went out and under your direction said, hey stop them. At that point, dudng the time that he was stopped, the permit continues to run and the permit's run out. So now we have to get the permit renewed and as you know, when you buy a piece of property, you come in with a permit, of a footprint, just so you know, a generic way of where your setbacks are going to be. The house is still within that general vicinity. The garage has been added and it has been placed in an area where he believes will cause the least disturbance. Again, because what he believes to be the important ponding areas, or the major ponding areas, and with the run-off that is created because of the topographic features along Soundview Ave. So we can speak with this. We are not married to this. This is in general what the kind of plan that they had envisioned and would like to have approved. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there any other comment? How does your applicant stand with the violation? PATRICIA MOORE: Well in his opinion, he did not violate the ordinance. He was under the impression that he had to stay away from the run-off, the rainwater run-off area. He had to get access onto the property. He had a foundation permit at the time, a building permit was issued, and he had to get access, you have to do well drilling, you have to get started with the clearing for the building envelope, he had just gotten started, when he was stopped. The end result is going to be a very beautiful, very vegetated, natural looking property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So this is how you propose to satisfy the violation? PATRICIA MOORE: Well to begin with, there is no violation. Your permit, he was to maintain the setback from the run-off area and he did. He got access off of Rene's Drive. The permit says to come in through Rene's Drive. Now he was coming in to you with modification of his plans in the interim but he did have a building permit and he wasn't going out there without a building permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Well what was done doesn't match the original permit that we issued July Ist of 1999. I believe that's why the violation was issued. PATRICIA MOORE: Well you don't know what the...he was in the process of coming onto the property. You stopped him when he was coming on to the property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh But the filling and clearing doesn't match the setbacks that are mentioned in the original permit that was issued July of 1999. PATRICIA MOORE: I looked at the permit and rather than argue over that issue, I'm trying to incorporate, I mean the judge would have us, ultimately, the judge would say .... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What judge? PATRICIA MOORE: On a violation, they would say, you could either pay a fine, or you go to trial, or you settle it with some other method. What we are trying to do is incorporate the final product, I mean, what you want to see is an enhancement of the property. 46 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, no, no. We don't want to see that. PATRICIA MOORE: Well they have a right to build on this property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we don't want to see it. You said we want to see it. We don't want to see that. The applicant wanted to build a house. We issued a permit. The permit was violated and we're back here again. PATRICIA MOORE: Well it is a matter of opinion that it's violation. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty and it could take some effort, in a Southold justice court, to establish the guilt. So, let's go beyond that because you would have to sit for as long as I would have to sit before Judge Bruer and spend a whole day and a trial on whether or not there's been a violation. Based on the documentation, I think there's question. So, going beyond that, I mean that's the way we resolve it. When I have a client, I say well, you can work it out or you want to go to trial. It's in justice court right now. What I'm trying to do is get beyond that and get to the (unintelligible) .for my client, his wife, his children to be able to come into Southold schools and start living there. That's my goal. TRUST'EE KRUPSKI: Does the board have any comments? TRUSTEE KING: I know what I saw. TRUSTEE SMITH: I have to say that I do not recall it because I don't remember it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Kenny did you see a pond there? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Originally. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Artie did you see a pond there? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I saw something. PATRICIA MOORE: I have four or five affidavits that say something to the contrary and these people have lived there for 10 or 15 years. That's why I tried to suggest that maybe the property and the pond, (unintelligible) was all at the same time that the Manzi property, the Kerbs property was being developed to the north and there were clearly ponds there and you did see a large pond~ the one that is to the south. So sometimes...l've gone to properties and posted the wrong property. It's very difficult unless you have a real good idea where you are. Sometimes property lines are a little off. So, I'm trying to suggest that there might be a possibility that you were wrong. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I know that. We don't really need much more proof that there was pond there. It's on a survey plus most of us have seen it. PATRICIA MOORE: I would ask that you put on the record what survey you're talking about. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well there's a survey here. It's says approved map dated 12/18/78, it's in the file. PATRICIA MOORE: Are we talking about the old VanTuyle prepared one? Is this the pond that the road runs through? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No, it has nothing to do with the road. In fact, the elevation is, this is one of those unusual places where the pond is on the top of the hill. PATRICIA MOORE: Are you talking about the survey dated 12/18/787 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct. 4? PATRICIA MOORE: Ok. If you see the location of the reported pond, there was a pond to the north where Rene's Dr. actually runs through and there is a little pond to the easterly side of the property where that 150' is identified. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's west. PATRICIA MOORE: There is no question under our, I think that you can say that under our Ingegno survey, those ponds no longer are depicted the same way. Woul~ln't you agree? GREG YAKABOSKI: What was the date on the Ingegno survey?. PATRICIA MOORE: The original date is February 10, 1999. There were several amendments to it but the original date was February 1999. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is the reason, and '11 .explain it to Greg. I don't know if I have before. This is the reason, when we issued the permit, and there was quite a bit of discussion with the applicant as to where the driveway should be located... PATRICIA MOORE: He wanted it off of Soundview Ave. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We didn't want it off of Soundview Ave. We wanted it off of Rene's Dr. because it would minimize the amount of disturbance in this area here. PATRICIA MOORE: Could you identify where here is. GREG YAKABOSKI: Pat, it's the survey from the original house without the garage. The first one. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, it's says house and garage. The permit reads, Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, septic system and well, with the condition that there be a 30'setback from the rear pond and a 50' building envelope in the front of the house, which was clearly violated, no grading or filling to be done near and around ponds, which was clearly violated. PATRICIA MOORE: That's the point. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh What about the 50' building envelope around the house? PATRICIA MOORE: Well so far he's got a cleared around 50' around the building envelope where the sanitary system is going to be. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But there was a whole swath that was de-vegetated coming in off of Rene's Dr. F~ATRICIA MOORE: You have to get onto the property in order to work on the property. How are you going to get on if there's a 10 ton boulder in that vicinity. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But if you have a building permit that says 50' building envelope around the house .... PATRICIA MOORE: Then how do you get your equipment on? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Through the building envelope, from off of Rene's Dr. Come here and I'll show you. Here's the original survey. Here's Rene's Dr., 50' off of the house. PATRICIA MOORE: Good I'm glad you pointed to that. There is a 10ton boulder hanging out right there and some significant trees right there.' If he had to go get access with this equipment in there, it would've been impossible. TRUSTEE K~RUPSKh No, no, no. But that's not what the permit was for. It wasn't to say, I'm going to get a permit then do what I want. It was a permit for this specifically and it was reviewed quite a bit in the field. 48 PATRICIA MOORE: Mr. Schroeder is here and he can testify to the fact that he originally wanted it on Soundview Ave. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I agree, he did want it on Soundview Ave. PATRICIA MOORE: In fact, this Board considered it and said, well for now get this and come back to us and show us where you want to come in with a different driveway. That was his understanding that at this present time, it's just for a foundation permit to get the process started. He had a building permit. Greg, I think you asked me eadier, was there a permit. There was a permit. They actually had a foundation permit. All permits were in place to start construction. GREG YAKABOSKI: On the one that the Trustees approved or the one with the new bigger garage? PATRICIA MOORE: No, the one that the Trustees approved. In the interim, they had to come in and amend their permit to include the garage. GREG YAKABOSKI: To amend their building permit and the Trustee Permit. PATRICIA MOORE: Yes. The building permit is just a foundation permit for the house. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No, it was for a house and septic system and everything. PATRICIA MOORE: No, no, what's he's asking me, you have a foundation permit to start the construction of the house. In the interim the architect finished the plans on the house and the garage. The plans will be submitted at that point, ordinarily the efforts of the building department with a survey that it depicts exactly the dimensions of the house. GREG YAKABOSKI: You're talking strictly of the building permit at the moment. PATRICIA MOORE: Correct. In addition, he understood that for purposes of the wetland permit application, we have to come in here because we have to modify it. The important issues again, was maintaining the 30' buffer from the rainwater run-off area. The southerly pond. The problem has been that what everyone so far has given us affidavits for, and what everyone remembers, including the Schroeders, is that you have a drainage area and an accumulation of water on Soundview Ave. and then the back pond. Not on the property, there was some plateaus and there's, as Joe Ingegno had put it, irregular drain. That's what you have. GREG YAKABOSKh Can I ask you a question? On the original, what is that 1999 I was just looking at, on the 1999 Ingegno survey, it had the Rene's Dr., it showed the ingress, the egress, right off of Rene's Dr., and that permit was for the septic, and it showed it to the Soundview side of the home. PATRICIA MOORE: Yes. GREG YAKABOSKh There is a slope on that piece of property. The septic, is it placed on that slope or is it at the bottom of the hill. Where is the septic? Mr. Schroeder was in clearing. You made that point earlier, that he came in from a lower down point onto the property. PATRICIA MOORE: You come in from Rene's Dr., well there are some pipes and you have to kind of have to go up again. From the corner of Rene's and Soundview; where was the first cut in? 75? You're about 75' from the corner when he came in to get access to the property. GREG YAKABOSKI: The question I have is, from the boulder, using the boulder as a reference point, if you had gone straight in from the 10 ton boulder about 10-15 yards, and then you walked towards Soundview, it slopes downhill. PATRICIA MOORE: Right. You've got to clear an area for the sanitary. GREG YAKABOSKI: I understand. Is the septic in? PATRICIA MOORE: Not right now. GREG YAKABOSKI: The septic can go in to that side? PATRICIA MOORE: It's all going down on the south end between, closer to Soundview Ave. GREG YAKABOSKI: Was there a lot of fill placed on the bottom? PATRICIA MOORE: No. GREG YAKABOSKI: Ok, I'm just asking a question. PATRICIA MOORE: Keep in mind, when you have to put equipment on there, you've got to put in on a good surface. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Alright, we've gone nowhere here. You're doubting that we're telling the truth, so we're going nowhere. PATRICIA MOORE: No, I think that what I'm asking of you is since we got permits and we dealt with ponds, that you identified on this property, you're claiming that the only reason that you're not giving us a permit now is because there is Some 78 map that shows a pond in the general vicinity of where No. 1 shows up on the lot number. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That and the fact that we saw the pond that was filled plus:it's referenced in the permit. PATRICIA MOORE: Ok, I guess you have to read your permit a little more carefully to see whether or not it's referenced. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I read it twice tonight. PATRICIA MOORE: And, with all the documentation and all the affidavits, what you're.telling me is, well I don't believe you, you're telling me that neighbors that have lived there for 10 to 15 years are liars. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why were they there? What business did they have on the property? PATRICIA MOORE: I guess you don't know how your neighbors property looks. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, why were they there? PATRICIA MOORE: I guess they're a little more observant than most. I have a plan before you and I ask that you would consider it, the rest of you, because quite frankly, if you deny this, our choices to spend an awful lot of time to try to figure Out why the basis of your den iai when I've got all of the affidavits as proOf, as to what existed on the property. You're basing it all on your observations. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I'm basing it on our old permit. PATRICIA MOORE: And a 78 survey which is clearly in error, to say the least. And a pond that is approx. 120 sq. ft. at most, this little pond that is suppoSedly causing all the problems. 50 TRUSTEE KING: Then it won't be a big deal to replace then will it. GREG YAKABOSKI: Pat, were you able to, it's a factual question between the Board and the applicant, I understand that, are there any, by any chance any aerials of the property that might show, to resolve the issue? PATRICIA MOORE: You could take a look at your own aerial, I don't know. TRUSTEE KING: Maybe some of the other neighbors might have seen a pond there too, you don't know. GREG YAKABOSKI: Those neighbors, are those the ones right on Soundview? PATRICIA MOORE: One is right directly across from the property and the other one is right next door. GREG YAK/~BOSKI: Right next door in terms of Soundview? PATRICIA MOORE: Well one is across from Soundview. GREG YAKABOSKI: I know the one directly across from Soundview, I just didn't understand in reading it. PATRICIA MOORE: Well they both have Soundview Ave. addresses. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The one that was originally approved, I'm trying to explain to Pat that it's a violation when you do something other than what your permits for. It's pretty straight-forward. If you go on the site and stake out the corners of the house that was approved, and the driveway, and if there's a 50' building envelope around that, obviously you're constrained by the pond to the soUth, but if.there's a 50' building envelope around the rest of that, then you'l see what was disturbed. That would be pretty clear. PATRICIA MOORE: I'm trying to understand what you're talking about. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I know. Stake out the house that we approved. PATRIC1A MOORE: But what you approved is just a building envelope. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What we approved is a house, garage, ...go back to the odginal permit because she's getting tedious. PATRICIA MOORE: I'm sorry, you said house, garage, and sanitary system. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ok, 1'11 read it. PATRICIA MOORE: Go ahead, read it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We approved a single-family dwelling. We didn't approve a building envelope. We approved a single-family dwelling with septic system and well. So if you stake that with the driveway that's shoWn on the survey, and then you measure off a 50' building envelope on the front of the house, that Would be by the road, the front of the house, then anything outside out there would be a violation. PATRICIA MOORE: Well we had an application before you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Period. PATRICIA MOORE: Period what. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You had an application before us, sure, but what about the violation? PATRICIA MOORE: We can deal with that separately in Justice Court. GREG YAKABOSKh On a technical basis, you have a new or amended application before this Board, correct? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It's new. $! GREG YAKABOSKh It's a different application before the E~oard than the one · that received a permit? PATRICIA MOORE: Yes. GREG YAKABOSKh Was that what the hearing was held on tonight? PATRICIA MOORE: Yes. What the client would like is the house, which clearly fits in the building envelope and the garage, and the pool in the back, which is in an area that is no question nobody is having any problem with. We would like to get a sense that we're moving in the right direction. We're trying to identify a violation and get this poor guy a permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We gave him a permit. PATRICIA MOORE: And he came in and said I need to have it changed because I need a garage on my house, and I want a pool. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Actually it was for a house and garage. How do we resolve this? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well certainly something has to be done. PATR]CIA MOORE: Vector Control dug these. Are these something that you want? It's a matter of pOlicy. Do you want to keep mosquito ditches, fine, because that's what you have right now. He is willing to improve it and with a non-disturbance buffer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Well if it's such a hideous place, maybe it's not that desirable. Maybe it's not what the applicant wants if it's such a place that needs to be al:tered so dramatically. PATRICIA MOORE: Al, if you have some comments that would be helpful here, I would be happy to hear it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's being helpful. It might be the wrong spot. PATRICIA MOORE: Then is there somebody else on the E~oard that could be more helpful. TRUSTEE KING: I knowwhat I saw. PATRICIA MOORE: That's unfortunately the way it works. We can either compromise or we can try to figure out factually who is right. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think we have to resolve this somehow. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Nothing was staked, we got a plan tonight, it's not like we can act on anything tonight. PATRICIA MOORE: Well you have a plan that's before you and it's pretty specific. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Three years ago. (Town Attorney speaking with Trustees.) TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Ok, I think what we would like to see is the proposed project staked in the field and also the old permit that was approved by this E~oard, the house and driveway also staked. If possible, for our November 14th field inspection. GREG YAKABOSKh It would helpful if you could also have yourself and Mr. Schroeder to be at the field inspection. I can also be there. TRUSTEE KING: Then we all see the same thing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We'll bring the camera. GREG YAKABOSKh The issue of the pond, we're just going to put aside for a second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application until the applicant has the proper stakes, the new proposal including driveway, septic, pool, house, and the original approval of this Board, which includes septic, and septic on the new one also, it didn't show on this plan. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 28. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of ROBERT WINCHESTER requests a Wetland Permit to install four 10"X 16' long batter piles to help re~ support and reinforce existing return. Located: 6625 Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#111-15-7 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? GEORGE COSTELLO,SR,: I'm here representing the Winchesters. All I want to do is install four piles on the existing return to help support it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is this going to cause a problem going over onto the neighbors property and all of that? GEORGE COSTELLO, SR.: Well here is the survey. This is the survey that was done is 1996 for the present owner and it shows that we're not over the line, But, in the interim, I've got a letter of permission from Mrs. Miller allowing us to go over the property line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh What side is she, over here on the south side? GEORGE COSTELLO, SR.: That's right. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Can we have a copy of that letter too? The CAC given their approval. Would anyone else like to comment on this application? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES 29. Jose F. Taveras, R.A. on behalf of JOHN KNOUD requests a Wetland Permit to install a one-story frame porch and roof with a 31'7" X 10' screened-in porch. Located: 7675 Bay Ave., Cutchogue. SCTM#104-4o26 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? JOSE TAVERAS: I'm the architect on behalf of the applicant. I would like to give you the affidavit of posting and the updated survey showing the contours on site. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there any other comment on the application? JOSE TAVERAS: The only clarification I would like to make that since the application was applied for, it says that we want the 31'7"X 10' screened-in porch. Since the application at the time has been revised in the sense of the 53 30. 31. porch, the south side (intelligible) so that's the only thing that might be a question on the application. Other than that, it's pretty self-explanatory. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I looked at it and the pond here, it probably was originally formerly connected with the creek. Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES Charles Thomas, Architect, on behalf of GUIDO & MARGE RITE DOSSENA requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing residence in disrepair and construct a new single-family residence in place. Located: 8180 Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel. SCTM#126-11-18 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of the application? JEFF BUTLER: I am here for Mr. Thomas Who could not be here this evening. I have the affidavit of posting and the mailings that I would like to submit at this time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The CAC recommended Approval. TRUSTEE FOSTER: There's no problem with this. I measured the setbacks and every thing is correct to what it says on here. The house is in disrepair. The only thing living in it is about 15 raccoons right now. We gave them a permit to put a bulkhead in there, last year. That's been done. I don't see any problem with it at all. The only thing I would say is the standard 50' setback, a row of hay bales, roof gutters for drywells and that's it. There's already a non- disturbance buffer down by the bulkhead and that's it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the condition of a row of hay bales staked at the 50' setback and roof drains to contain roof run-off. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES Chades Thomas, Architect on behalf of ROY WARD requests a Wetland Permit for an addition to the existing first floor, approx 72 sf., an addition to the existing deck, and to add a second-story to the existing one-story frame house. Located: 4075 Stillwater Ave., Cutchogue. SCTM#137-1-8.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? JEFF BUTLER: I'm here on behalf of Mr. Thomas. I have the affidavit of posting and mailings that I would like to submit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment before we start? We did have some comments. We don't want to see the house any closer to the wetlands. It's basically a new house. 54 32. JEFF BUTLER: No, it's a second-story addition to an existing house. On the application, there's 72 sq. ft. The 72 sq. ft. is an addition to the existing deck. The addition to the deck runs, the current existing setback to the deck is 55'. The proposed setback to the deck addition is 55' from the wetlands. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually the wetlands are actually the bulkhead line in this case. JEFF BUTLER: Ok. There's a two-story framed garage and the two single- family dwellings. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We've got 36' from the bulkhead but we don't want to see it any closer to the water than it already is. JEFF BUTLER: Ok. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's obviously a different house than what's there. Substantially different. We didn't want to see it bumped out closer to the water. JEFF BUTLER: So you want us to maintain the 36'? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Right. The footprint, I would think, would change. JEFF BUTLER: The footprint is staying the same other than the second-story. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ok, but we would want to see the same setback maintained. JEFF BUTLER:But that 36' setback off the bulkhead doesn't hit the house, it hits the deck. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. I think we measured from the corner of the house, not the deck. (talking between Trustees) We'll need a staked row of hay bales, this is a big project, along the top of the bulkhead, during construction. We also need gutters, liters and drywells to contain al roof run-off. Where are the existing cesspools? JEFF BUTLER: In the front yard. They are outside of your jurisdiction. I don't know if they are going to stay. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Do you know what they consist of? JEFF BUTLER: No. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is the Health Dept. involved? JEFF BUTLER: Yes. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I was going to say, you want to make sure that they're upgraded for the increased volume of the house. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: A lot of these older houses have cesspools that... TRUSTEE FOSTER: That are basically nothing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the condition that the house be no closer to the bulkhead than 36', a staked row of hay bales.at the top of the bulkhead during construction, and drywells and gutters to contain all of the roof run-off. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES Pro per-T Permit Services on behalf of JEANNINE FAUVELL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling and associated structures 33. 34. and facilities, with public water and on-site sewage disposal system. Located: 3625 Kenny's Rd., Southold. SCTM#59-1-23.2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of this application? JIM FITZGERALD: I'm here for the applicant. I don't have anything to add to this and if you have any question about the permit applications, I'd be happy to answer them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Does everyone know which site he's talking about now? TRUSTEE FOSTER: This is the sand dune. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else who would like to comment on this application? So we have a proposed house, and with that I would imagine that we would impose some sort of a non-turf buffer. JIM FITZGERALD: You can have all the non-turf buffer you'd like. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is this house on a foundation, Jim? JIM FITZGERALD: It's on piles. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Yeah, you're 4 ¼' to water. The house is only 40' to wetlands. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's going to disturb a considerable amount of area because of the septic. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The septic is right on the road. I guess we're looking at a 30' buffer here? Is that going to be acceptable? 30' around the wetlands? JIM FITZGERALD: Sure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Does it say how much fill you're going to bring in for the septic? JIM FITZGERALD: No, I don't believe it does, (unintelligible). TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Maybe you don't need it. It says 12' elevation. We did notice the location of the neighbor's cesspools. TRUSTEE FOSTER: They've got the elevation there, they may not need fill. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? (talking, unintelligible) I don't think anyone had any problem with it. Just put a 30' non-disturbance buffer around it. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with a 30' non- disturbance buffer and drywells to contain the roof run-off. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of SALVATORE GUERRERA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a dwelling with on-site sewage disposal system and public water. Construct fixed walkway 4'× 178', hinged ramp 4'X 16', and floating dock 6'X 20'. Floating dock to be secured by two piles. Located: 1450 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#122-4-44.6 POSTPONED AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST Crowley Construction on behalf of J. GARRETT DEGRAFF, JR. requests a Wetland Permit to construct an access stairway to the beach. Located: 4255 Aldrich Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#112-1-12 TRUSTEE FOSTER: I looked at that and that's go be one of the highest points above the sound on the north shore, right there. It's up there. He had stairs there before, a cou pie of times. So, he's doing, it with the neighbor now. You're the neighbor that bought the piece of land in between? NEIGHBOR: Yes. ' TRUSTEE FOSTER: Good move. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Any other comment? TRUSTEE FOSTER: The only comment I have is just do as little disturbance as possible. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is it all sand? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well no, there's a lot of vegetation. I suggest you don't take any big trees out of there, otherwise good luck. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: i'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 35. Crowley Construction on behalf of JAM ES SLECKMAN requests a Wetlana Permit to in stall a 4'X 50' fixed dock, 3'X 16' ramp, 6'X 20' float and access stairs from the beach to the dock. Located: 150 Oak St. Southold. SCTM77-2- 5 , TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The CAC recommends Disapproval becau se of the poor water quality. As a result, the area is closed to shellfishing and the added structure would contribute to this problem. The CAC recommends an onshore/offshore stake. Ok, the dock to the east is 32' with an 18' ramp and a 6'X 20' float. The dock to the west is a total of 81' but we're not quite sure about that last dock. Does that float belong there? Well we don't know if that dock belongs there or not. We wanted it to pretty much match the neighboring docks, and it wasn't staked. lAN CROWLEY: Mr. Sleckman was supposed to stake it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Mr. Sleckman did not stake it. lAN CROWLEY: I spoke to him on the phone a few days ago and he said he staked it. Maybe it's in there now. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think he staked it the day after we were there TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I think we want to keep t in line with both the neighbors, like pretty much draw a line between them. lAN CROWLEY: The dock to the east, is that the one you're talking about? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh They were both, I think, a couple of properties over, about two properties over. Tell Mr. Sleckman he can have someone on each dock and stake it in the middle and measure to see what he's got, and that's pretty much what we want. The float on the west, w ' · e weren t sure ~f that was legitimate. We measured everything on both sides. Tell him that's the general idea, but he has to stake it. We have to see it. lAN CROWLEY: Ok. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to Table the application. 57 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to go back to the Regular Meeting, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES RESOLUTIONS: Docko, Inc. on behalf of PIRATE'S COVE MARINA, INC. requests a Coastal Erosion Permit to conduct maintenance dredging to restore a depth of 7' below mean Iow water, removing 300 +/- cy. of silt and sandy bottom sediments over 4,000 +/- sf. for upland disposal. Located: Peninsula Rd., Fishers Island. SCTM#10-3-22 TRUSTEE KING moved to Table the application until an inspection is made. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:00 AM. RECEIVED /¢.' ~-/..5'~ '* Respectfully submitted by, Lauren M. Standish, Senior Clerk Board of Trustees