HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-01/23/2002Albext J. Krupski, President
James King, Vice-President
Artie Fester
Ken Poliwoda
Peggy A. Dickerson
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town I{all
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-1366
MINUTES
Wednesday, January 23, 2002
7:00 PM
PRESENT WERE:
Albert J. Krupski, Jr, President
Jim King, Vice-President
Ken Poliwoda, Trustee
Peggy Dickerson, Trustee
Artie Foster, Trustee (Absent)
Charlotte Cunningham, Clerk
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 at 8:00 a.m.
TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING; Wednesday, February 20, 2002 at 7:00 p.m.
WORKSESSION: 6:00 p.m
TRUSTEE KiNG moved to Approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE POL15VODA noted that he would be on vacation February 15th through
February 25th, 2002.
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of October 24. 2001, November 20, 2001,
December 19, 2001 TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve with corrections noted
November 20,2001 minutes. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES.
MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for December 2001: A
check for $10,517.58 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the
General Fund.
IlL
PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin
Board for review.
AMENDMENT/WAIVER~'CttANGES:
MICHAEL CORDASCI request a One Year Extension to Permit #5087 dated
12/2/99 Located: 435 Private Road off Soundview Avenue, Southold, NY
SCTM#59-9-4.2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the one year extension
to Permit #5089 dated December 2, 1999 to construct a single family dwelling as
per survey with the condition that a 30' setback from freshwater (sohd line drawn
on survey] be maintained. TRUSTEE KING seconded, ALL AYES
DOUGLAS DEFEIS request a one year extension for Permit #5141 expires
3/22/02; Located: 1165 Cedar Point Drive, Southold, NY SCTM# 90-1-3
TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL
AYES
3. DAL Construction Corporation on behaifofFRANK PELLEGRI1NO request a
one year extension to Permit #5109 expires 2 24/02 Located: 330 Minnehaha
Blvd. Southold, NY SCTM# 87-3-38
TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL
AYES
4. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of BREEZY SOUND request an
Amendment to Permit #5439 to propose a 4'x72' fixed timber walk and access
stairway - access ~nstallation is proposed to coincide with destroyed access
location. The timber walk is proposed to be supported by (36) 4"x4" CCA timber
posts with a depth of penetration of 6 feet + - proposed 360 +/- vs. proposed to be
backfilled with 20+/- cubic yards of clean fill tracked in from an upland source
and then planted ~vith Cape American Beach Grass on 18" center. Propose a 3'
wide +/~ x 3' deep ~-/- x 30' long +/- trench with gravel to catch and control
'upland runoff. 10 --,- cubic yards of gravei (1/2"+/- to 1" +/- in Diaz.) is
proposed to be utilized for a 2 foot wide +/- xl.5' high +/- x 90 feet long +/- berm
to aid in channeling and controlling the upland runoff. Located: 61475 County
Road 48 Greenporr, NY SCTM#45-1-2.1 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to
Approve. TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES
PAUL LOEB requests an Amendment to Permit #5350 for expansion of
driveway. Located 1215 Main Street, Greenporr, NY SCTM#34-1-10
TRUSTEE POL1WODA moved to Approve TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded
ALL AYES
ROBERT MOSQUERA request an Amemdment to Permit #5297 for a 20'x20'
extension, 20'x21' garage. Located: 370 Hobart Road, Sonthold, NY SCTM#62-
03-06 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Table the application because property
was not staked the day of inspection also to place drywells and gutters on property
for mn-off also a ro~v of hay bales. TRUSTEE KING seconded ALL AYES
DEBRA & PHILIP RYBECKY request a change of name from June L. Hussey
to Debra & Plfilip Rybecky transfer Permit #186 & 1911 also Amendment to
Permit # 1911 and 186 to replace 165 feet of existing bulkhead and allo~ving sand
to fall into creek Located: 1065 Fleetwood Road, Cutct~ogue, NY SCTM# 137-4-
24 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve change of name and transfer permit
#1911 and #186 to replace 165 feet of existing bulkhead as shown on plans and to
amend that bulkhead as per discussion at meeting 1/23/02 - plans to show what
was discussed 3 feet wider on this site, cutting back property line in the front and
material tracked off site. TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES
8. MATT-A-MAR MARINA request an Amendment ro Permit #5083 to assemble
an open steel boat rack, consisting of three bays on the left side of storage
building and seven bays on the right side of storage building (west side of
building) the dimensions of bays are 12' wide, 12' high, 25' deep maximum
height 25' Located: 2255 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck, NY SCTM#114-3-1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded
ALL AYES.
9. EDWARD FOX request an Amendment to Permit 5084 to allow extent of work
including spread of fill and topsoil 15 feet into survey indicated wetland area at
north and east property line. Located: 2504 Camp Mineola Blvd. Mattituck, NY
SCTM#122-09-9.4 TRUSTEE KRLrpSKI moved to Approve the plans dated
1/23/02 with the restoration of the disturbed area 12" culvert to allow water to
flow no more fill to be brought in TRUSTEE KING seconded ALL AYES
10. MANZI HOMES, INC. requests an Amendment to Permit #4986 for the change
in the Side yard from 30' to 2T7' southwest side only, well and well water line
screened through wetland area, and cesspool in front of house instead of rear, as
per the Health Dept. Located: 400 Rene's Drive, Southold, NY SCTM#54-6-4.4
TRUJSTEE KING moves to Approve. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL
ASYES
11. J. Kevin McLaughlin, Esq. on behalf of MARK L. LAMPL & PATRICIA
LAMPL request a Coastal Erosion Permit for "as built" chain link fence
surrounding in-ground swimming pool and Amendment to Permit #5197 for
stairs. Located: 910 The Strand, Pebble Beach Farms, East Marion, NY
SCTM#30-02-81
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve TRUSTEE KING seconded ALL
AYES
12. Eh-Consultant, Inc. On behalf ofKIMBERLY MUELLER request an
Amendment to permit #5119 to shorten proposed catwalk in its seaward extent
and lengthen in its landward extent (to completely traverse the high marsh area).
Located: 1445 Bungalow Lane Mattituck, NY SCTM#123-3-19 TRUSTEE
DICKERSON moved to Approve. TRUSTEE KING seconded ALL AYES
13. Mark Schwartz Architect on behalf of LEONARD & JOYCE BECKENSTEIN
requests an Amendment ,.o Permit 75307 to extend deck to the north. Located:
830 Jackson Landing, Mattituck SCTM#113-06-04 TRUSTEE KING moved to
Approve TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES
14. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. onbehalfofROGER COOMBE
request an Amendment to Permit #5177 proposed dwelling reduced in size and
shifted away from above ground power lines and other minor changes. Located:
4294 Wmmeweta Road, Cutchogue, NY 111-14-27.1 TRUSTEE POLIWODA
moved to Approve with the stipulations that there be drywells and gutters for roof
run off TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES.
15. James H. Rainbo, Inc. on behalfofROBY & THOMAS GLUCKMAN
request an Amendment to Permit #5240 to construct a 4' wide dock-walk
seaward of the lower bulkhead running from existing lower deck to the dock,
stairs at the deck will be removed, access to beach would be from pedestrian
access to allow passage along the shore by the public. Located: 1340 West Cove
Road, Cutchogue, NY SCTM#111-5-2 TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to
Approve. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES
THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE
FOLLOV~ING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE
WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE
AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE SUFFOLK TIMES.
PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO
ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.
PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIBF
FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS IF POSSIBLE
JOANB. LACAILLE request a Wetland Permit for a low structure to
protect wetland grasses from further erosion, construction of one foot high
retaiulng wall, approximately 60 linear ft. on north-west side of catwalk,
4
and approximately 30 linear f~. retaining wall 1.5 high north east of
catwalk. Located: 1255 Waterview Drive, Southold, NY SCTM#78-7-17
Postponed per Applicant's request - will reinspect 2/13/02
Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of WILLIAM H.
PRICE, JR. ESQ. requests a Wetland Perm'zt to construct a 1725 s.f.
Single family dwelling (footprint) with a 550 s.f. A~ached deck (footprint)
an 865 s.f. Gravel driveway, septic system and waterline, and place 125
CY of fill to elevate the septic system. Located: 100 BayRoad,
Greenport. SCTM#43-5-10
Postponed per Agent's request
3. Patricia Moore, Esq. onbehalfofEDWARDWERTHNERrequest a
Wetland Permit to construct a single fanfily residence 61 feet to bulkhead
and 60 feet to MHWL (partially bulkhead property) sanitary system 108
feet to bulkhead (outside jurisdiction) Located: Windy Point Lane, (180-
Private Road) Southold SCTM#78-6-2&3
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in
favor of the application?
PATRICIA MOORE: Thank you Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr.
Wertlmer. We had a revision the location of the house has actually been
pushed away from the bulkhead and wetland area. The sanitary system
that was the issue at the time. When we started the hearing we were not
sure where the sanitary might end np. We have the final location of the
sanitary, There was issue related to this had to be resolved have been
resolved. The sanitary is not in the same location. I think I gave yon a
recent survey. I dropped it off- did you get that.
CHARLOTTE CUNNINGHAM: Yes it is in the file.
PATRICIA MOORE: That survey actually shows sevemy-seven feet to
the wetland line. Seventy-nine and a quarter, it varies from seventy-five
so that should be the survey that you are going to be referring to. It is
dated January 15th.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is the date on it?
PATRICIA MOORE: The last date on it where it says Job Number was
revised January 15th, 2002 that is the latest one.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just want to make sure that we are looting at the
same. Here we go.
PATRICIA MOORE: You have two things - you have the survey -
which the surveyor actually filed on Wednesday. The sanitary being a
shallow system and the fact that we have dra'mage concerns. This plan
here the new one it is designed by an engineer and that is shown as a
septic system design and it is also important that it is a drainage system.
Because the hef[y capacity infiltrator which allots drainage collection
system. This plan is not to scale. It is a little difficulty. He did the
engineering. The survey does the scale.
TRUSTEE ICRUPSKI: Pretty fancy.
5
PATRICIA MOORE: Yes it is. He apparently does this type of system in
Upstate New York and it works very well. So he recommended this to the
client and then to be submitted to the DEC as well as the Health
Department.
tRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before we comment is there any other comments
on this apphcation? Does the Board have any comment? The only thing
that we need on the survey is the buffer area,
PATRICIA MOORE: Okay, Given that the appropriate height a twenty-
five buffer. Since you are going to have this elevation system. The house
is seventy-five.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What do you think about that Ken?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Since there is a bulkhead existing it is a little
different than a 100 feet system.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Since there is development on either side. I would
rather see thirty feet and I would kind of split the difference. You will
have to show it on the survey
PATRICIA MOORE: We can have that survey revised at the thirty-foot
buffer. That is no problem.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: As you know on the undeveloped parcels the
fifty-foot buffer.
PATRICIA MOORE: These are kind of tight.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our concern is surface water run-offinto the creek.
This lot is really not givens to that.
PATRICIA MOORE: No it is pretty flat. So for the most part we are
dealing with roof mn-off structures.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How much fill is supposed to be brought in?
PATRICIA MOORE: Actually I do not believe there is any fill that is
going to b required at all. The design of the sanitary system does not
require any fill. Some regrading along the foundation that is about it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a Motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TARUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I will make a Motion on behalf of EDWARD
WERTNER to construct a single family residence 61 feet to the bulkhead
and 60 feet from the MHWL sanitary system 108 feet to bulkhead there
will be a thirty foot non-disturbance buffer beh'md the bulkhead located
Windy Point Lane. Southold NY
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of RONALD CASSARA
requests a Wetland Permit and 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 Road. ?econic,
NY SCTM#7-4-1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor
or against the application? This is another application that we are awaiting
on more information on and if there is no other comment I will make a
Motion to Table until next month.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded.
TRUSTEE ICRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES.
Proper-T Pernftt Services on behalf ofANGELO PADOVAN requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a single farrdty dwelling, partially on pilings,
with on site sewage disposal system and public water. Located: 22455
Soundview Avenue, Southold. NY SCTM#135-1-23&24.1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor
or against this application? This is another application that the Board is
waiting for additional information on and I will make a Motion to Table
the application.
TRUSTEE POLYWODA: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. 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 frxed walkway 4'x178',
hinged ramp 4'x. 16'. and floating deck 6'x20'. Floating dock to be
secured by two piles. Located: 1450 Ole Jule lane, Mattituck, NY
SCTM#122-4-44.6
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf
of or against this application? This is another application that the Board is
waiting on more information on and it will also come up automatically
next month. I will make a Motion to Table the apphcation.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ail in favor. ALL AYES
7. PAUL & PATRICIA AItLERS request a Wetland Permit to relocate
front entrance adding front porch -front bay window add 2'x12' bay
7
window on side of house - reconfigure rear entrance and ~vooden steps
and increase patio area add 12'x16' shed - reconfigure a portion of
existing roof line to accommodate second floor bedroom. Located: 1905
Gull Pond Lane Greenport, NY SCTM#35-04-1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any one who would like to speak on
behalf of or against this application?
PAUL AHLERS: Paul Ahlers, if there are any questions?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I do not think that we had any questions I think the
only recommendations the Board that I could see was that you add
drywells and gutters to contain the roof run-off on the water side of the
house. I do not know if the Board had any questions? Do I have a Motion
ro close the hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All I favor. ALL AYES
Would someone likes to make a Motion.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I will make a Motion to accept Michael
Costello request for a Wetlands for a single one family house
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. The wrong number seven. Wish full thinking
that we are on number eight.
tRUSTEE DICKERSON: I move to Approve PAUL & PATRICIA
AHLERS request for a Wetland Permit to relocate front entrance adding.
Front porch front bay window add 2'x12' bay window on side of house
reconfigure rear entrance and wooden steps and increase patio area add
12'x16' shed -reconfigure a portion of existing roof line to accommodate
second floor bedroom also add drywells and gutters to the creek side of
the house.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
8.
MICHAEL COSTELLO request a Wetland Permit for a pre-existing one
story frame dwelling, bulkhead and wood jetty as per survey also removal
existing deck. Located: 350 West Lake Drive, Southold, NY SCTM#90-
01-21
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor
of the application?
MR. BARBATO: Yes. I would like to ask a question on it? There is
conflicting report on this. On number eight it was to remove it. On the
notice to the adjacent property owners which I am west of the applicant.
On that it is stated, "Remove and repair existing deck". My question is?
If they are going to remove and build existing deck ~vhat are the
elevations?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this today, in the field and I looked
through the file. I noticed that the mason is going to work on it. The deck
is going to replace that. In front of where the wood deck is now.
MR. BARBATO: Is it going close to the bulkhead?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Sure, that is what it looks like. It is staked out
that way.
MR. BARBATO: This is why I am questioning this? I thought you had
the set rules so far from the bulkhead back.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It shows that it is 28x24 wood deck on the survey.
Is there anyone here to represent the applicant? I thought the deck was
going to be removed.
MR. BARBATO: This is conflicting. One says remove and the other one
says remove and rebuild. Now which of the two apphcations are you
going to go by.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In the actual legal notice. The project description
in the application says "Pre-existing one story frame dwelling bulkhead
and wood jerry as per survey also removal existh~g deck." It just says to
remove the deck. It does not say to rebuild it. What we just read was also
removal of existing deck. Where did you read to rebuild it?
MR. BARBATO: The notices that we have say removal and rebuild it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are just going to approve the removal and not
the rebnilding of it.
MR. BARBATO: All right that is all I wanted to know.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is different from What they had applied for.
MRS. BARBUTO: Did you say something about a bulkhead that they are
going to be building.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That was the deck that they had staked out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually in the application in itselfremove
existing deck. It does not say to rebuild it.
MR. BARBATO: I certainly want to thank you for clarifying that.
M_RS. BARBATO: Thank you very much.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE POL1WODA: As far as the bulkhead is concerned it is original
there is no bump outside. I do not know how they worded it. As far as
rebuilding in time and place.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They just want a permit for pre-existing. The
CAC recommends Approval with a ten-foot non-turf buffer behind the
bulkhead. What is behind it now?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Sand.
TRUSTEE ICRUPSKI: Do I have a Motion to close the heating?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I will make a Motion to Approve the Wetland
Permit for a pre-existing one story frame dwelling, bulkhead and wood
jetty as per survey also removal of existing deck with the stipulation that
there be a ten foot non-disturbance buffer.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
9
9. CItARLES & LYNN HILL request a Wetland Permit to construct
approximately 10'x50' area of deck/ng offthe bulkhead, ne cement- only
l"x6" flooring over l"x6" pressure treated joists deck will be free
standing - ground level. Located: 655 Lake Drive, Southold, NY
SCTM#80-3-20
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor
of the application or against the application?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I went there and met the applicant on the site.
He explained what he wanted to do. He wants to put 10 feet decking
behind the bulkhead. Instead of a ten foot non-turf buffer. I did not see a
problem with it. There is spacing between the decking.
TRUSTEE KI~UPSKI: Okay, the CAC recommends disapproval because
the project was not staked. Although the decking behind the bulkhead
would be kind of self-explanatory. Since it is behind the bulkhead. We
are trying to find' the survey here.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I have the feeling that the bulkhead extends
behind the property line by approximately 15 feet. I believe that the
Peconic Land Trusts owns that land. Who can he contact regarding the
bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I am not on the Board anymore. If his bulkhead
extends over the property line. Ihs bulkhead extends which way? Down
here to the Block Property.
TRUSTEE POL1WODA: To the Southeast.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would you like to comment? Sir.
CHUCK HILL: I am Chuck Hill. You talked about the end.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What you explained tc me.
CHICK I-IILL: I think it goes into the Peconic Land Trust. This is the
basin down here. This bu[lchead extends about 15 feet into this area and I
cannot touch that. But it has undermined my bulkhead. So I am new to
the area, and I would like to ask the Board ~vhat would you do.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I was on the Board of the Pecohic Land Trust.
But I am no longer. I did my two years. What does the property look like
right here right .above the bulkhead?
CHUCK HILL: That is grass. There is a fence here and this is wild grass.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there an elevation change?
CHUCK HILL: No
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What do you suggest Ken? Just put a return on his
property. Sometimes you can - how far is this bullheaded?
CHUCKHILL: It comes about 15 feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The rest, what does this look like?
CHUCK HILL: Then this goes out into a beach. But this is necessary our
in this area because if you take this down this is holding up earth. About
five feet.
10
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think you should contact Peconic Land Trust and
ask them. What happens sometimes is the neighbor or they can get a
permit in their name and you can just rebuild that to protect yourself. Or
otherwise to protect yourself you going to have to build a return in and let
that land go. So you should work that out with the neighbor. I am sure
that they will be happy m.
CHUCK HILL: What neighbor?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The Peconic Land Trust.
CHUCK HILL: Or I can request that they want to participate.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You should contact Tim Caulfield.
CHUCK HILL: Is he in Southold?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He lives in Greenport. I believe the number is
283-3195 that is his Southampton number. That is where the main office
is. He wouldbe the one to talk to about making some arrangements. If
you ~vant? Your application is only for the deck.
CHUCK HILL: Mine is only for the deck. It has nothing to do with that
end.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we can approve this tonight. The purpose of
the non-turfbuffcr is so that when people put a lawn to the edge of the
bulkhead. They tend to fertihze and put pesticides on the lawn to treat the
lawn and so in the course in treating the lawn two things can happen. One
is that you can just apply to the lawn and if you get a sudden heavy rain
before the nutrients are absorbed into the soil or taken up by the plants.
The nutrients material can wash right into the creek directly. Or if it is a
sloppy apphcator on a windy day. Half of the materials can get blown into
the creek right offthe bat. So in an existing bulkhead. We hke to see a
ten-foot non-turf buffer. Just so that fertihzers and pesticides o~ anything
that is put on the lawn is not going to be apphed within ten feet and really
lirnit your margun. This Board does not have a problem with a non-turf
buffer being a deck. As long as there is sufficient drainage under the deck.
So that the deck just pulls the water up and runs off. So we would have to
specify the spacing of the boards.
CHUCK HILL: I am a landscape architect. I can arrange the joists, so that
they go perpendicular to the bulkhead. To allow the drainage. IfI would
go the other way that would block it. So this way by putting the joists
perpendicular solves that problem. As well as I can pm it on two foot
center not 16 inch center and allow for extreme drainage. IfI put a fascia
on the outside towards the house. Ifil do a 2x4 fascia instead of 2x6 again
that allows for more drainage. That is what I had plans to do.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That makes sense for you to. Because you want
that drainage. Xt is to your advantage. Our Board policy is always been a
deck is a non-turf buffer. A lot of people put gravel. Some people plant
ground coverage as long as it it non-turf. Good luck with the bulkhead.
Any other comment?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I will make a Motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
11
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I will make a Motion to Approve the Wetland
Permit on behalf of CItARLES & LYNN HILL to construct . .
approximately 10'x50' of area decking off the bulkhead and I"x6"
floOring over l"x6" pressure treated joists space between boards
Located: 655 Lake Drive, Southold, NY
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor. ALL AYES
10. VINCENT O'NEILL request a Wetland Permit for existing deck too
close to property Located: 3500 Cox Neck Road, Mattimck, NY
SCTM#113-18-01
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in
favor or against this application?
~TAPE CHANGE)
TRUSTEE KING: Environmentally, I cannot seeing it having any affect
at all. I will make a Motion to Approve.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have to close the heating.
TRUSTEE K/NG: I will make a Motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE POLlWDOA: So moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You get a second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KING: I will make a motion to Approve the application of
VINCENT O~NEIL for a deck.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
11. SUSAN M. MAGG request a Wetland Permit for 2" layer of topsoil to
plant grass within 100 feet of wetlands. Located: 495 Halls Creek Drive,
Mattituck, New York SCTM#116-7-4
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor
of the application? Or against the application.
This is the one that we saw a good deal of violations. Did you send the
Bay Constable?
CHARLOTTE CUNNINGHAM: Yes, they are checking it.
They saw it Ken went down and looked at it. But Don is going to look at
because he took the original request on it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I will make a Motion to Table it. Until they can
make their report.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ail in favor. ALL AYES.
I2
12. Century Tennis on behalf of SHAWN FITZGERALD request a Wetland
Permit remove access ramp in wetlands area and natural buffer to restore
to original state (grass). Located: 495 Paddock Way, Mattituck, NY
SCTM#107-4-2.1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone would like to speak in favor of the
application?
WILLIAM DICONZA: William Diconza on behalf of the Fitzgerald's.
Mr. Fitzgerald had received your permit to construct a tennis court at the
rear ofthepremises. They accessed, the construction vehicles accessed
the premises within one hundred feet of the wetlands of the pond. At the
front of th property. The twenty foot right of away that is Mr. Fitzgerald's
property is within eighty feet of the pond. The application this evening is
for approval for the remediation of that. Immediately upon that he was
given a stop work order. The work was stopped and bales w~re put up and
we completed the appropriate procedures to rectify that. We did not
realize that was going on was not permitted. As soon as we were told we
stopped. We certainly want to correct it. We have been in dialogue with
the DEC and worked out a consent with them to allow us to get
immediately to the problem and that is basically it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comments? Yes before we
comment.
CHRIS KELLY: I am Chris Kelly I am the neighbor that is right adjacent.
I have spoken with Mike before. My question is regarding the restoration
is whether the restoration has been done through the Natural Resource
Conservation Smwice office. Because I know there is a letter that was
written on 8th or 9t~ of this month. That had been referred to Alan
Connell office. It is the reason that I bring this up. Is because of the
amount of fresh concrete that was place down. My understanding is thal
there are going to remove three or four inches? Is that right? What I
would like is seme sort of plan because it is a conservation area. Is to
insure that is really adequate Natural Resource Conservation Service is a
preserve and they give a free guideline. They come om and gave there
recommendations I am delighted that they are commg to remedied this
entire situation. I would like to make sure that it happens correctly. I see
no reason why not. To consult with Alan Connoll or his office and get an
actual guide line so that it is done correctly and it is done. It is said and
done.
WILLIAM DICONZA: We were saying that Steve Lawrence of the DEC
has been out to the site. He has spoken to me and said that there would be
no problem in his view. That the removal of stone and replacement of
topsoil and planting of perennial grass seeds would not be a problem to us.
In fact I am getting a letter of consent mailed to me. It was suppose to be
in the mail as of yesterday.
TRUSTEE KRLrpSKI: I will take other cotrunents? Before I comment.
Let me take all the other comments. This gentlemen behind you wanted
comment. Sir, no okay. So the applicant owes the property. From the
13
Boards understanding that was the driveway only there. I can remember
cars driving on there and parking. That is when the Park District put the
telephone poles there. So no one would drive into the lake. Where the
parking area there it was used for years as a parking area. I think that the
telephone poles that were placed to prevent people from actually driving
into Wolf Pit. So ro us it looked as an improvement over the driveway.
The DEC is going to make the applicant remove the gravel?
WILLIAM DICONZA: Yes and pay approximately $1,200.00 fine for
using that as the entrance way to the property. The State is tight for
money now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI Because historically that was a driveway. If that is
what the State is going to make you do. We certa'mly are noI going to
comment on that. Our concern would be sedimentation in it. The problem
of it would be all the road nm-off into that area. You would be getting a
lot of sediment from the other side.
WILLIAM DICONDZA:: We will put it back the way it was.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is lower, we could not see how that could drain
into Wolfl~it because it is higher elevation. Between Wolf Pit and the
road and the driveway. If there is no further comment? I will take a
Motion to close th hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ail in favor. ALL AYES.
I will make a Motion to Approve the application to remove the access
ramp and restore to the original state. All in favor. ALL ASCES
WILLIAM DICONZA: Thank you very much.
13. Architecnologies on behalf of CHRISTOPHER M. & GLORIA
GROOCOCK request a Wetland Permit to construct an addition to the
existing first and second floor. Located: 1030 West Creek Avenue,
Cutchogue, NY SCTM#103-13~8
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the
application?
CHRISTOPHER GROOCOCK: Good evening. I am Christopher
Groocock (cannot understand) I am submitting plans for fixed walkway
around. The main part of our application which is the building extension
to the house. (cannot understand) approval to change the major part of the
addition of house. If there are any further questions. Which you would
like to answer. My wife is here and we would be happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I do not know if we have any other
questions. We met you in the field last week. You are endorsed by ail of
your neighbors and surrounding community.
TRUSTEE KING: That was a shock.
14
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is a first, I think. You do not get letters of
endorsement from the neighbors. If there is no other comment I will
make a Motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I will make a Motion to Approve the Wetland
Permit for Mr. Christopher Groocock to construct an addition to the
existing first and second floor. Located 1030 West Creek Avenue,
Cutchogue.
TRUSTEE tCR_UPSKI: It should also say for a dock- construction of a
dock also. It should say that so we should include that.
TRUSTEE POLIWDOA: What type of material
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As per plans for a 48 foot plus the ramp and the
float.6×20.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What size post, 4x4, 4 inch by 4 inch in that
location.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It does not say.
CHRISTOPHER GROOCOCK: It is going to be round - six inch poles.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Six inch poles - low profile.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want to get into that. With a handrail.
TRUSTEE POLIWDA: There are no docks that could be built on now.
MRS. GROOCOCK: Yes right next door.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To the south - right.
TI~.USTEE POLIWODA: Are they legal?
TRUSTEE KRUPSLI: I think that in this case. We will have to let it go
and discuss this. Actually we will discuss it tomorrow.
CHRISTOPHER GROOCOCK: It will only be on one side. Handrail on
one side.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What kind of height do they show. Again this is
a big prestine creek.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No it is appropriate. We looked at this.
TRUSTEE ?OLIWODA: Not the dock though.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Get me all the files. You submitted pictures.
What years is this?
MRS. GROOCOCK: 1977
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: This has to come down here. It looks like 3
foot 9 and over here it looks like almost double it. that is six or seven
feet. So you are looking at a catwalk about this high at the edge of water.
That has to come down three foot.
CHRISTOPHER GROOCOCK: If we did that then with high tide the
scale at the other end would be. It is 42 inches above the mean high water
mark and the low water mark.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Forty two plus.
CHRISTOPHER GROOCOCK: Forty two plus. The actual high water
actually comes a lot more steps. The actual high water comes to the
15
bottom of the steps and in fact. At Spring high tide it is up against the
bottom of that catwalk. It is a very shallow creek.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have a problem with it Jim?
TRUSTEE KING: No.
HRISTOPHER GROOCOCK: You can actually walk out on the old
broken dock. That was at 48 feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is what they had.
CHRISTOPHER GROOCOCK: The forty eight feet takes you to the edge
of spartina .drop.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I am just looking at the piece of paper and it
seems that it is five feet up from the edge of the marsh at the edge of the
water.
TRUSTEE ICRUPSKI: Well actually at high water it would only be four
feet. Actually the dock itselfI cannot see how they could make it lower.
At high water they are showing a couple of feet above the high water.
How can they change it though.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA; Scale it down one step
CHRISTOPHER GROOCOCK; The center portion here. It is four feet
nine, This will be the main point here and it is three feet nine from there
to there. So it is only four feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think what he is saying maybe the handrails
could be three foot. Instead of four feet. Would three feet be high
enough? Three foot handrails.
TRUSTEE KING: Standard counter height in the kitchen is three foot.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That drops the whole thing down a foot.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Anything helps.
TRU8STEE KRUPSKI: Because I do not see how you could lower the
dock too much.
CHRISTOPHER GROOCOCK: No you can't. In terms of the high water
will actually hit the bottom of the steps. We can drop the handrail.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That will help. Just for the eutectic view of
the creek. If you are out in the middle of the creek and you look and see
these big docks. They are not too appetizing,
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I am going to mark this on here then. Just mark
the distance on here of three foot high showing the handrails three foot up.
TRUSTEE KING: Have you been to the DEC with this yet.
CHRISTOPHER GROOCOCK: No not yet.
TRUSTEE KING: You might be back with us.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They have a funny thing about heights too?
TRUSTEE KING: Sometime they are hard to deal with on heights?
CHRISTOPHER GROOCOCK: Well that is not tree. I have not
officially been to them. But I have discussed it with them. When we were
drawing up the plans.
TRUSTEE KING: So you have already talked to them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have Motion to close the hearing?
ATRUSTEE KING: So moved.
16
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before we vote I would just like to say we would
like to have drywells and gutters on the addition to the house. To contain
all roof run-off standard for any application. All in favor. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I will make a Motion to Approve the
application on behalf of CHRISTOPHER & GLORIA GROOCOCK for a
wetland permit to consumct an addition to the existing first and second
floor located 1030 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue, NY with the
stipulation that there be drywells and gutters on the addition to contain
roof run off also include a dock that is 48 feet in length with ramp and
float as per submitted plans and the pilings be no greater than 6 inch by 6
inch and the handrails be no greater 3 feet handrail one handrail no
greater than three feet above the decking of the dock.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
14.
Charles Thomas. Architect on behalf of JOHN & ELIZABETH
REARDON request a Wetland Permit for a one-story addition approx.
453 sq. ft.- enclosed masonry patio with trellis over approx. 692 sq. ft.
Located: Cedar Point Drive East, Southold, NY SCTM#90-2-19
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor
or against the application?
CHUCK THOMAS: I am Chuck Thomas the arch/tect for the applicant. I
have the notice of posting. I would also like to make a comment on that
the one story addition will be a small addition and it includes a masoury
patio. It is an open trellis.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken you inspected this?
TYRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes, I was out there today, jnst for the record
I confused the masonry work here with the Costello pernfit. It was staked
and I did not have a problem with it. Do you want anything beyond the
plastic PVC?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want drywells and gutters Ken?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Sure, yes
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would like the drywells for the roof run-off.
No other comment?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I will make a Motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor. ALL AYES
I will make a Motion to Approve the Wetland Perrrdt on behalf of JOHN
& ELIZABETH REARDON for a one story addition approximately 453
sq. ft. enclosed masonry patio with trellis over approx. 693 sq. ft. Located:
Cedar Point Drive East with the stipulation that there be gutters for roof
17
run offand drywells on the addition and not to disturb the seaward of the
DEC landscaping border.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there a second on that?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The CAC for the record recommends disapproval
because the project was not staked and labeled. Did you close the hearing
or is that a motion.
TRUSTEE POL1WDOA: That is a Motion.
TRUSTEE ICRUPSKI: ][ was reading too far ahead. We got a Motion and
a seconded. All in favor. ALL AYES
15. JMO Environmental Co~tsulthtg on behalf of CATHERINE A.
McGOVERN LUCARELLI recguest a Wetland Permit to remove +/- 70
feet of concrete bulkhead and reconstruct in place 70 feet of C-Loc 4500
Vinyl Sheathing and to backfill structure with +/- 20 c.y. Of clean sand to
be trucked in from an upland site. Located: 830 Oak Avenue, Southold,
NY SCTM#77-1-4
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here to comment on this
application in favor or against. We have the pictures from Field
Inspection. I th'ink we should see if there are any CAC comments? They
recommend disapproval - project requires 200 cubic yards of excavation
as opposed to twenty yards. But I tlfmk what we envisioned and they can
do this without being invasive they can drive the plastic sheath'mg in
behind it. We do not want any fill. What we envision, or what I envision
anyway is that they take a section at a t/me. All this cement in the front
should be taken out and removed. Towards the front, see how wide that
is. The C-Loc is about that wide. Kind of like this it has a little C- Loc
here. It goes Yfice this and like this, The next piece fits into that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Oh - I see.
TTUSTEE KRUPSKI: It just goes, I am not sure if that is totally accurate.
But you get the idea.
TRUSTEE KING: You look down at Kenny's bulkhead it was the first.
That is where it gets it strength.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So if you take this out. The marsh is going to
spread up.
TRUSTEE KING; You are going to gain a little wetlands all on the face.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You are just going to put plastic in.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I was going to recommend remove silt with
plants behind it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just keep it the way it is.
TRUSTEE KING: A non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It wouldbe plastic instead of cement. That willbe
gone and you have gained that much because it will revegetate into it. We
18
do not envision them to change the grade at all. It is a plus because you
are taking all the cement out Because once they put this in, there is going
to be A void. Because the old wall is here and you got a void to fill here.
I still do not know where they want all that fill to go?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That is what they were questioning.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The project requires 200 cubic yards of excavation
and fill. That is why they should be here. Because whoever did those
calculations could expla'm to us. Maybe they envision a different prqiect
that from what we saw. Maybe they think somehow it is going to do.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Maybe they thought theywere going out m
front of it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is possible.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: But we have to specify that the C-Loc go. The
front side they fill it or the backside.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But in place I am sure that you can take out a
section and drive that in and then take out a section and drive that it. The
plastic drives right in Peggy- it drives it fuirly simple.
TRUSTEE POLlWDOA: We will specify in place in the landward
position of.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It shows both but the plan shows some bulkhead
to bulkhead on either side. Here is the house it is twenty feet from the
limit 0fdisturbance and fill. So they have to put tie rods into this and it
shows. Here is the vinyl sheathing just put a little cap on it with a whaler
with a tie rod. So they are going to dig out all behind it and put the fie
rods in. But the plan also shows going from comer bulkhead to comer of
bulkhead so that is where it goes. The plan does not say that it is going to
remove all in the front. But we are going to recommend. We are going to
specify that,
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: How do they remove that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They can backhoe it. It is all fragmented. It
would be easy to pick up a comer and then break it in half. It works. So
we are going to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: [ will make a Motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. All ayes
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I make a Motion to Approve the Wetland
Permit on behalf of CATHERINE A. McGOVERN LUCARELLI to
remove 70 +/- feet of concrete bulkhead and reconstruct in place 70 feet of
C-Loc 4500 Vinyl Sheathing and to backfill structure with +/- 20 cy of
clean sand to be trucked in from an upland site. Located: 830 Oak
Avenue, Southold with the stipulation that there be ten foot non-turf buffer
at the completion and all cement shall be trucked away and the new C-loc
will be placed on the landward side of existing bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before the Motion is seconded. Before we vote.
This is down in Goose Creek where they have that paper road along the
19
beach. This goes into it. Quite a bit. Maybe we should get something
from - we had tiffs for years. In front of this little sub-division. There is a
paper road. It is owned by everyone.
TRUSTEE FOLlWODA: Do you want me to rescind it?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No we do not have to rescind. We just motion to
Table it. Environmentally this is the best way to go. Because if you make
it on a comer you are going to have erosion.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Give him apermit it is on his property. It goes
back to the theory because it is not on his property. We can issue the
permiL
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I know.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So that is the truth, cannot give him a permit to
public property. Let Greg look at.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So the motion is lost and we table this and please
send this to Greg for a determination on ownership of that road?
I need a second on the table.
TRUSTEE POLYvVODA: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
16. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of JAMES GRATHWOHL request a
Wetland Permit to construct a two-story one farnily dwelling with attached
pomh and pervious driveway install a sanitary system with approximately
240 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be retained with concrete retaining
walls according to Suffolk County Department of Health Services
standards connect to public water services and establish a 25' non-
disturbance/non-fertilization buffer adjacent to tidal wetland boundary.
Located: 545 Williamsburg Road, Southold, NY SCTM# 78-5-16
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the
application?
JIM GRATHWOHL: Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. I am Jim
Grathwohl. I appreciate the time that you are taking to review this
application. I have owned the property for more than thirty-five years and
I plan now to build a retirement home there. In the interest of time I
would like to introduce Rob Herrmarm and Fred Keith who will speak in
more detail to the application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
ROB HERRMANN: Rob Herrmarm of Eh-Consultants 1329 North Sea
Road, Southampton, New York 11968. As Mr. Grathwohl alluded I am
spealdng in support of the application. We do realize the time that the
Board has been here. I will ask the Board to indulge both my testimony
and that of Fred Keith the Project Design Engineer. In order to provide
the Board with the complete record of information upon which it can make
an informed decision on the application before you. I will break the
testimony down into some very basic parts to walk the Board through the
20
application and will begin logically first with the description of the site
plan that is before you and the relevant facts of the site itself. The parcel
is in an R40 Zone and it is in a flood zone under the FEMA Regulation of
88. Which means there is a based flood elevation requirement of eight
feet. The proposed dwelling is a little less than 1100 sq. ft. with the
proposed first floor elevation of 12.5 house will sit on an exposed
foundation. There will be no additional fill brought to the site to raise the
grade. The foundation will be exposed changing from a foot to five feet.
It will be unexposed on the west side. The house could be elevated lower
but the New York State DEC requires all septic system components to be
elevated a minimum of two feet above ground water. It means, therefore,
to elevate the sanitary system above ground water necessities raising the
house to a higher elevation. As a practical component in order to enter the
house at the proposed first floor elevation there is a proposed landscape
terrace on the west side of the house. That will require approximately 3
foot high retaiu/ng wall. The proposed grade within which will slope
gradually upward from the driveway to the entry porch. You may note
that there is access stairs designed determined as to the driveway. The
proposed sanitary system is situated in the only feasible location on the
parcel where it maximizes the wetland setback of 55 feet. There is a
minimal structural set back of 40 feet proposed with a twenty-five foot
wide non-disturbance, non-fertihzation buffer adjacent to the title
wetlands.
(TAPE CHANGE)
ROB HERRMANN: Which is the first and most fundamental test to pass,
so to speak. There are no variances required to construct proposed
dwelling as it appears before you on the site plan. This parcel is a
recognized lot. Pursuant to Section 100-24A1 of the Town Code. The
parcel was created by deed around 1952 and held in single and separate
ownership by James Grathwohl since prior to 1983. There are no bulk
sectiun requirements for parcels created prior to 1957. Therefore, it is a
lawfully pre-existing non-conforming under sized lot. Whose structures
must conform to the set back requirements set forth in Section 100-244B
All such setbacks were either met or exceeded. Section 100-239 -4B2
indicates that as far as a required set back from the wetlands because this
is a non-bullheaded parcel. The code essentially leads it to this Board to
make a determination as to the set back of the structures. That brings us
then to this Board's requirements. In addition to those in the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services. Those are the three agencies whose
development restrictions. The site plan must meet. On an environmental
level. As the Board obviously knows. There is no specifically mandated
numerical setbacks dictating how far structures and septic systems must
be located from the wetlands in your own Chapter 97. It is ultimately at
the Board's discretion based upon whether the proposal. Whatever it's
setbacks meet the standards for permit issuance, set forth in 97.28. Under
2t
the statutory authority of Article 25 of the New York State Environmental
Conservation taw however 661.6 or I should read into the record
6NYCRR Part 661.6 which is the Tidal Wetland Land Regulations. As
the Board also knows that the section does set forth among other
development restrictions. The commonly know set backs of 75 feet per
structure from wetlands and 100 feet for sanitary systems. 661.6A1 does
provide an exception however to the 75 foot setback. I will read that
section into the record. "Where numerous and substantially all structures
which are - one, of the type proposed by the apphcant - two, lawfully
existing on August 20th 1977 and - three, within 500 feet of the subject
property . Are located closer to the subject title wetland than the
minimum setback required by this paragraph, which is 75 feet. Placing of
a structure as close as the average setback of these existing structures from
the subject title wetlands shah fulfill the requiraments of this paragraph."
The requirements necessary for this so called DEC average set back rule to
apply to the subject property were met and the required set backs
determined to be 35 feet. We have proposed a greater set back of 40 feet
and it is worth just showing the Board this exhibit. Not only because of
the power pertaining to the DEC rules and regulations but also because it
does protect the general location of the homes in this waterfront
community relative to the wetlands. For the sake of time I will not go into
the detail measurements of how the DEC average set back calculations
work. But as a general concept. They look at all the dwellings within 500
feet of the subject site, which is here, and they ask how many of those
dwellings on those parcels where lawfully present prior to 1977. Then
how many of those homes are affected by the Title Wetland Regulations
at all. How many of them are less than 75 feet from the wetlands. What
they do is they make a determination that you may include all the homes
whose set backs are less than 75 feet. If more than 50% of all the homes
within that 500-foot radius are closer than 75 feet than that average set
back rule applies. The difference between the set back of 35 feet versus
what we are proposing of 40 comes from the fact that in order to limit the
number of homes that are included in the formula. They take out the
properties whose set backs are greater than 75 feet. Which in this case are
90 feet and 82 feet what it does it kind of stacks the deck against the
apphcant as far as the numerous test is concerned because very really do
you actually have more than 50% of the dwellings within a 500 foot radius
actually prior to 1977 less than 75 feet but if it does pass that numerous
test. It ends up shrinking the average set back. So the DEC would have
had to allow by law the set back of 35 feet on this parcel. But 40 feet is
proposed. Forty feet is also the set back that is achieved if you include
these two greater setbacks. You can see as a general node that most of the
homes in this neighborhood have been for a vei'y long time as close or
closer to the wetlands. Then what is proposed to the Board today?
TRUSTEE K1RUPSKI: In all your comments on that. They are regarding
DEC regulations.
22
ROB HERRMANN: Well my comments are regarding the DEC
regulations for two reasons. One because they illustrate some thing that
this Board always wishes us to look at. Which is what is the general
character of the community? What are the setbacks of the other homes in
the area in relations to the wetlands? The Board has certainly passed on a
parcel where every home along a street is 70 feet away and somebody
comes in and proposes it 50 feet away. The Board typically makes
reference to those other lots. I am also making those comments regarding
the DEC regulations to illustrate to the Board how we derive that 40 foot
set back on this plan. Obviously it is a constrained lot. The wetlands are
constrained what can be developed here. But we did not just arbitrarily
decided upon 40 feet om ora whim. It was derived fi:om fimdamentally
what is mandated to us by the State Law. Because it meets the average set
hack rule. There is only one development reshScfion ar the State level.
From which a variance is required for this site plan. Which is the DEC
100 foot rectuired set back for sanitary systems. Obviously, also a
concern to this Board. Which brings us to the third tier of regulations,
which is the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. The Health
Department standards for approval of sewage disposal systems for single-
family residence is similarly required. That sanitary systems belocated
one hundred feet not fi:om the title wetland boundaries as for the DEC.
But 100 feet fi:om surface waters. Also 150 feet fi:om both what would be
proposed and neighboring drinking water well. Here it was necessary, to
petition the Health Department Board of Review. Only for a variance for
the required 100 foot separation from surface water. However, because
the Suffolk County Water Authority indicated to us in a letter dated
August 8, 2000. Thai public water connectionwonld be available to the
parcel as of August 2000. The date of that letter~ Just as a note any of
these documents that I make reference to I have handed up to Charlotte at
the beginmng of the hearing. There is nothing necessarily need to review
during this hearing. Bnt just so that you know that you have them in the
record. So with the need for that variance fi:om 100-foot separation
requirement between the sanitary system and surface waters. We did
petition the Board of Review for a variance. There was a hearing held on
October 11th, 2001 and October 19th 2001 the Board of Review granted the
requested variance. Concluding" Approval of~a properly installed
disposal system will bave no s~guificant adverse effect on surface or
ground water quality. Despite the reduced distance to the shoreline".
TRUSTEE POLIDOWA: Rob, was this office notified of that hearing?
ROB HERRMANN: The Health Department notifies the Town of
Sonthold by routine-yes.. So the Town should have been notified of that
hearing. I do not know whom they notified. Bni the Towns are always
copied on the hearings. We are not charged with that. The Health
Department does that themselves. Obviously, the issue of the sanitary
system is likely to be a s~gnificant concern to this Board. Because of the
conclusion that was drawn by the Board of Review. I have asked the
23
project design engineer. Fred Keith of Sag Harbor Engineering to present
the sanitary system design and function to the Board this evening and
answer any questions that the Board may have regarding the sanitary
system design and installation. So holding my fmal conclusions for a few
momcmts I would ask Fred to present to the Board the information
regarding septic systems.
FRED KEITH: Thank you, my name is Frederick S. Keith I do business as
Sag Harbor Engineering located at 381 Townline Road in Sag Harbor. I
have over forty years experience in land and environmental engineerh~g
work. Formally with the firm of Stems & Freudiander in New York
State. Have been in Sag Harbor business for the last five years. This
particular sewage system proposes two challengers basically. The way it
is dealt within the Enl~neering Report which I have given to you is the
challenge of essentially building the required five-pool cluster and
retaining wall system. The site constraints both wetlands and the size and
access to the site requires a very thoughtful and mythical two stage
process for construction because the soils on site are relatively unpervious
down to a depth of about 18 feet. The soils beneath the leaching pools
will have to be excavated and replaced with a perm able sand. This pauses
a construction process problem in that part of the excavation will be below
ground water. So that the technique that is proposed here is that there be a
preliminary excavation of the house area as well as a preliminary
excavation of the septic system area down to the ground water level and
that material would be tracked off site. That material would not be too
wet for immediate tracking At that point, the crane with at least a one
cubic yard clamshell would come in and excavate soils from below the
ground water. Down to the 18-foot depth. Where it would intercept the
natural sands and gravels below the silty sand layer. In the process of
excavating that material. It is very important that it be done very rapidly.
So that material does not slough and the holes does not become too large
so rather than track out the wet material which is excavated from below
the ground water level. It will be boomed over and deposited in the area
that has been excavated for the house or at the house location. As a
holding location where that material can drain before it is tracked from the
site. It will also allow the crane to operate as quickly as possible so that
the hole will not slough. The hole can be filled with sand. In the most
expeditious way. As I mentioned the engineer's report outlines this
process for building the system. But in addition to this. In the building
aspect of the system.
You heard Mr. Herm~aun indicate that the Suffolk County Department of
Health Services agreed with us. That this particular design is not of major
concern to the surface water quality. The reason for that is that the soils
on the site are relatively impervious. So when the soils are excavated
from the walls of the leaching pools. Filled with sand that will open a path
of drainage that will go vertically through the sand column to the sand
and gravel below. Rather than horizontally towards the surface water. I
24
have a small illustration of that. So you can get a sense of what I am
talking about. Because of this material here is relatively maperious and
because it extends out and under the canal. This excavation and
replacement with sand will allow the percolator water to go down to the
natural sand layer and then disburse at that point. Rather than it will take
the path of least resistance rather than percolating laterally.. It is all
within the ground water I will make mentiom Because ground water w/Il
still come. But what I am saying is the path of the water coming from the
leaching pools will move downward to the natural sand and gravel layer.
Then will move in all directions. But will not move percolator down.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is that proven?
FRED KEITH: Yes that is the reason why the Suffolk County Departmen!
of Health Services approved this.
TRUISTEE POLIWODA: I have never seen one.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: First of all, we have got only one test hole on the
survey. You show that silty sand area. Consisting flowing out towards
the canal. How can you verify that?
FRED KEITH: I cannot verify it with test holes. All I can say is that the
geological characteristics of outwash point which this is because it is on
this side of the Moran. These soils tend to be consistent for some
distance. I have no test holes in the canal. No test holes that would verify
that. But even then the bottom of the canal is also Ftkely to be filled with
impervious.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: May I ask you a question? Is there another
septic system around like that?
FRED KEITH: Every one of these systems that are put in close to ground
water requires the removal and replacement of unsuitable soil.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: However, not within our jurisdiction. If you
measure from the edge of that actually it is only forty-two or forty three
feet from the edge of the wetlands.
FRED KEITH: I guess what I am saying is that the water is going to take
the path of least resistance and once it gets to the ground water it has no
gravity. To force it to go in any particular direction. It is going to take the
path of least resistance. This material is perm able sand. This material is
considerably less perm able than silty sand. So the bulk of the leaching
that comes out of the system is going to flow down until it reaches the
natural sand. Now at that point it is free and natural sand material to move
in any directions it wants to. Naturally the general flow is towards the
canal. But it's towards the canal at that level there is no force that I am
aware of it. That would cause that flow to come upward.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Isn't there a natural flow of ground water into the
creek?
FPdED KEITH: Yes there is and you can see the ground water ingredients
here it is very slow. There is also by the way an intermediate stream that
comes in here into this area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: From where?
25
FRED KEITH: It shows on the Five County Typo- Graphic Map.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could you show it in the area?
FRED KEITH: It is shown as little grass line. I do not have a copy of that
proof. At any rate the canal is feed. But it is not feed from this layer. It
is feed from the general ground water layer. The general ground water
layer in those whole area moves to the extent. What I am saying is at this
location the path of least resistance is gomg to be dominant. I th'ink that is
the reason.
TRUSTEE POL1WODA: How many years does that work for?
FRED KEITH: Pardon.
TRUSTEE POLIWDOA: How many years does that work for?
FRED KE1TH: As long as it is there.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Doesn't it clog up eventually through flushing
and sedimentation?
FRED KEITH: No it does not.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: [s there any proof or data on this. That it does
not leach sideways and out on upper levels.
FRED KEITH: Some of this will move this way. But very little because
it takes the path of least resistance. Because the perm ability of sand is
much greater than the perm ability of the silt.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: [ am highly concerned of being that close to the
wetlands and DEC did not measure each hole and water quality. Testing
our creeks and it only takes that very minor amount maybe a billion to
register and close our entire shellfish community.
FRED KEITH: To give you an idea the amount of fluent flow, which
comes from a three-bedroom house for a septic system like this. Is
equivalent to an inch of water per day. We have 18 feet of vertical path
before it gets to this point. So you are talking about 18x12 for a couple of
hundred days. Just for a drop of water to get here. As it passes through
soil as sanitary leaching passes through soil. It is treated by that soil
whether it is aerobically above the ground water level or unaerobically
below the ground water level. It is treated by that soil. Microorganism
form on the surface of the grains of the soil and they consume organics
from the waste... So that is why septic systems work. That is why they
remove nutrients after the water goes through the leaching pool.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is not only the nutrients that are the concern. It
is also the amount of chemicals that get dumped into a normal septic
system throughout the year. The amount of soaps and detergents.
FRED KEITH: I understand your concerns I am not saying that your
concerns are not reasonable but I do think that we have already dealt with
these issues ~vith the Suffolk County Department of Health Services.
They are satisfied that this is not a problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How can I put it, I guess this a lot more important
to us. Then it is to any other agency that you dealt with so far. Obviously
the DEC has decided that they are willing to repeat the mistakes of the
past.. They go back in the past and see what mistakes they have made
26
and they are willing. Based on what Rob said. They are willing to repeat
those mistakes. While a lot of houses were placed close to the wetlands.
That is okay. So we are looking at this at a little different angle. Even if
another agency approves it. We feel that it does not necessary add weight
to our review.
FRED KEITH: In a way, when soil replacement is required. That is when
the soils that are too impervious to met Suffolk County standards and have
to be replaced. That is looked upon as a negative. In this particular case it
is positive. In this particular case if the soil is on that site were sand. Not
silty sand and not relatively impervious then your concern about the lateral
flow of leached to the canal would be very sxgnificant and very true. I do
not think that it would have been approved by the Department of Health
Services. In this particular case. The soil replacement process works in
our favor in terms of ta!dng the wastewater away from the canal.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just one brief question. You show in your cross
section and obviously as you have explained. When you excavate you are
going to get a good deal of sloughing off from the sides because the
ma~e~/als that you are digging through is silty sand. Is there any, and just
for my own information, what kind of hydrologic force is going to be
concentrated on the bottom. Because you are concentrating that force of
water. So that it is relatively perm able sand material that the water is
going to flow through relatively uninstructed compared to the finer
materials on the sides. So you are going to get hydrologic pressure
coming down. As opposed to opening it as a cynclinder. Straight
cylinder with straight sides. You would be able to measure the flow of the
force of water.
FRED KEITH: I do not think what you are saying is I think is maybe with
the velocity of flow where the area is 8 foot in diameter. It is greater than
the velocity.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I am asking you if that is different.
FRED KEITH: Yes it t would be highly measurable. As I mention an
inch a day. At the upper level. Is still going to be a pretty slow process of
flow at the lower level. We are not talking about flow (cannot understand)
it is only going to have only significant effect. That the tapered nature of
this. Is only because it is necessary that the size of the hole will sluffas
the excavation takes place and that is why the report makes the point that
the materials should be excavated as rapidly as possible and replaced as
rapidly as possible. You talk with the contractors that do this soil
replacement and they will all say that is the trick of the trade, ls to get in
there and move the soil out of there and replace it. Not letting it sit and
have something and that is why the procedure is outlined in the report.
We are allowing that excavation to become as rapidly as possible
TRUSTEE ICRUPSKI: Thank you.
ROB HERRMANN: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to conclude my
comments but I also did want to respond to a couple of comments that you
had made for purposes of clarification. One of which is that you briefly
27
summed up the presentation 0fthe average set back rules enforced by the
DEC. As essentially allowing people to repeat the mistakes of the past. I
would disagree with that. Not across the board but certainly in an instance
such as this and other similar instances because this is an owner. Who has
owned the property since 1966, which pre-dates the wetland laws? With
both the town and state and the reason that the DEC has set that rule is not
to perpetuate physiological to allow the mistake of the past to be repeated
but rather because they are built into State Laws and most laws a
balancing of economical and social benefit to a land owner verses
ecological considerations and public benefit. While some might trim a
strictly developmental perspective say to preclude an owner today from
sharing the same benefit from their land as others who have developed
their land in the past. Is essentially punishing an owner for not getting to
the chase and developing their land. As rluickly as his neighbor's were
willing too. Now as a biologist I am not going~to make Ihat statement.
But I will say that statement can be accurate when the method of
development that is mandated by today's regulatory and statutory
environment. Will actually result in a development of this piece of land
that is much more ecologically sensitive and much more ecologically
benign than most of those properties that you are looking at of that aerial
photograph. This is the irony of what I see as professional in pubhc
heatings throughout the East End where there are neighbors who appear
and oppose the construction of a house on the last piece of land on the
street. They say look at this big terrible sanitary system and look at these
terrible retaining walls and this must be causing some great .determent to
the environment. It is very much to the contrary. The sanitary system that
is designed here and is approved routinely by the Department of Health in
a shallow ground water situation. Is actually much more effective at
treating septic affluent. Protecting the wetlands and surface waters than
most of the homes that have been around for twenty or thirty years who
have probably have. I say this as a generahzation fi:om my experience.
Probably one cesspool with no septic tank. Whose leach/rig is literally
going untreated directly into the surface waters? Where this is not tree
through some magic but basically through scientific fact not going to have
that negative determinant. The second comment that you made. Which I
would just note when you say that you do not see this system in your
jurisdiction. Or they do not exist in your jurisdiction. That is a bit of a
movin~ target because certa'mly m my experience. We used to have
systems like this that were located more than 75 feet from the wetlands
and thus out of your jurisdiction. Might today, be sitting in your
jurisdiction. Your jurisdiction is now 100 feet. So this system is certainly
well within your jurisdiction but I think that the question the Board has to
ask. Is the system going to have a negative affect on the ground water and
the adjacent surface waters and the wetlands not just a mirror looking at
whatthe set backs is. I would tie those comments into my concluding
ones. Appropriately, because ultimately this Board is charged with
28
making the determination as to whether this site plan. Based on the
information and evidence before you can in fact met the standards for
issuance ora wetland permit set forth by 97.8 Perhaps (cannol
understand) I will allude to the DEC again but only because the DEC was
charged with making the same determination. 661.9B of the State Tidal
Wetland Land Use Regs. Setsforth a number of standards for issuance of
wetlands permit whose language really is generally power with and
essentially inclusive of the language of the relative standards for permk
issuance under Chapter 97. They really are a httle bit long winded. But
essentially the Town and the State are charged with making the same kind
of determination against the same kind of standards. As an example I
would saythat 97.8 mandates that the Trustees (cannot understand) a
Wetland Permit that it determines that the proposed operations will not
substantially adversely affect the wetland of the Town. Adversely affect
shellfish or other beneficial marine organism aquatic wildlife and
vegetation or the natural habitant thereof. Or adversely affecl the health,
safety and general welfare of the people of the Town. 661.9B of the State
Regs. Similar reads that the department can issue a permit for a proposed
regulated activity on any title wetland only if it is determined that the
proposed activity will and than the language is some what similar. I will
just read into the record one portion of that because I tkink it is not to be
taken lightly. It is what the State is charged with and they are charged
with the same determination as this Board is. It says "that the permit
maybe issued if the proposed activity is compatible with the policy of the
act, which is the State Title Wetlands Act. To preserve and protect title
wetlands and to prevent their despoliation with the destruction and such
regulated activity ~vill not have any undo adverse impact on the present or
potential value of the affected title wetlands area or adjourning or near by
title wetland areas and them it goes onto say the various values associated
with title wetlands". It is certainly our conclusion and position that this
project - despite the constraints meets such standards for various reasons,
which would include aside from the fact that we have discussed that this
dwelling, is consistent with other in this community in size and setback.
from the adjacent title wetlands and waters. But unlike most of those
neighboring parcels as I alluded to before. This lot will not be cleared to
the waters edge nor will it be bulkheaded. Thus the natural character and
ecological fmaction of the shore line and adjacent wetlands will in fact be
preserved to enhance that preservation. There will be a non-disturbance
non-fertilization buffer. Established adjacent to the wetlands Which will
serve as natural flood and storm type protection and also act a reservoir for
absorption of nutrients and other potential anti-progenitor containments
such as pesticides that otherwise might enter directly into the wetlands.
There will be a modem drainage system with leaders gutters and drywells
installed to collect run-off. Before it can travel even into this undisturbed
protective buffer and there will be installed a modem sanitary system
designed by Frederick Keith in accordance with the standards of the
29
Health Department to adequately treat septic affluent in a shallow ground
water environment as again opposed to manyofneighboring parcels that
probably that have only a single cesspool and no septic tank. Ultimately
the New York State DEC agreed with our position. By granting a variance
for the sanitary system setback and issuance title wetland permit #1-4738-
02385 which I have also provided you a copy of that permit is dated May
10, 2001 and we certainly expected this Board will reach the same
conclusion based on the evidence presented to it. If you have any other
questions regarding the site plan. I will be happy m answer them, Fred has
remained available in answering questions and I am sure that Jim would
be happy to address any other questions that the Board may have to the
interests or history of property.
TRUSq'EE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there any other comment before we
have questions? Any other comments. This is the last application. This is
your last chance.
CARL VAIL: I just would like the Board to stick to their mutual set
backs.
ROB HERRMANN: Could the speaker state his name and address for the
record please.
CARL VAIL: [ am a humble resident of tiffs town. Carl Vail my address
~s 3234 Wells Avenue, Southold, NY.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you - a couple of questions for more
information. One it is, I will do the simple ones first. One, I think our
absent Board member could easily verify the method of septic system
installation. He has got probably more years experience than Mr. Keith
does in septic system installation. I would cert~fmly like to bring him on
board for this application. Two, you spoke about the consistency of the
adjacent soil and I asked whether they were consistent throughout. You
had the diagram showing the silty sand and I was wondering the particular
size of the adjacent soil is consistent flowing towards the creek or not. I
think that is something we would have to look at. As far as how that
septic system would operate. It is hard, we have got one test hole and Jim
just brought this up. We have one test hole in one comer of the property
and we kind of want to make sure that is representative of the surrounding
area. I know what you said in a general statement that is correct. But I
think thai the edge of the septic system is forty some feet away from the
wetland area. I think we want to verify that.
FRED KEITH: Sure that is tree. We ran a test hole it is only t~vo or three
inches in diameter. So two feet away could be different. It usually isn'l
because even on the south fork and uncork areas. The outwash areas ..
are remarkable uniformed and although they may have difference in the
upper horizons of soil. The first twenty-four or thirty inches of soil may
differ some. Generally they do not vary a lot as you move in one direction
of another. That is not to say they cannot.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that should be verified though. I agree with
you in general terms, but also there is also my final comment would be
30
that there is and it goes back to Rob's original presentation of the State
Regulations of placement of houses in these sensitive areas. I think you
have to look m the accumulative affect of placing a septic system in this
prox'nuity to title waters and how it would affect. Which has not been
historically done by this Board even you mentioned the 75-foot mark.
Which we used to have. Tiffs is b-ell within that. I think that you would
have to lo0k at the accumulative affect of what other lots (tape change).
How many other lots could be developed under those standards in these
creeks and how the cumulative affect of these lots being developed would
affect water quality in the creeks. Because this is considerable lowering
the standards that we have been operating under for years. I think it would
be smart to know these impacts.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I just like to comment also. Through this
public hearing I am dissatisfied with this entire septic system. Your own
engineer admits that if there be just a little bit leaching outward. Again for
the health of our creeks and shellfish beds that little bit adds up to be a lot
when it comes to water quality testing from the State standards. I find that
unacceptable to allow in our creek. The creek shellfish beds are for the
health of the system.
ROB HERRMANN: Just in response Al, it would not take too much to
ask McDonald Gee Science to take some more test holes. Locations that I
would ask Fred to direct Mark to take them. In order to provide some
more data to support what he is telling the Board. Certa'mly, I cannot
respond more adequately to Ken's comment than Mr. Keith I would
cerra'mly say that if there is some sort of information. If there were some
technical information or evidence for analysis Of your own that you
would want to present to us. That I could have Fred review. I understand
your general concerns but we have to rely openly on the expertise of the
design engineer. Who of course is working priyately for Mr. Gratwohl but
then of course the Suffolk County Department of Health Services who I
have certainly seen disapprove variances for one reason or another. They
have to be the word of the people. So to speak as far as their own
technical people agreeing with Mr. Keith's analysis.
TRUSTEE POL1WODA: It would be a pain staking process to approve
that this is a good system because you have to have similar conditions
similar water types around the septic system that exists. That is why I
asked Mr. Keihh if one existed already. Then you might have to go as far
as testing for DNA in the water samples five, ten, fifteen feet, etc. Away
fi:om that septic system at different levels and see how it infiltrates
towards the salt-water marsh and you would have to have similar
situations. You would have to do it maybe three or four different sites in
the town or a surrounding area.
ROB HERRMANN: This design is actually. It is not out of the creative
mind of Fred Keith. It actually the standard design for alternative sanitary
system. That is a system located where the ground water level is shallow
than nine feet. This system is the common system in the water front
31
communities of all of the east end. They are all over Southold. They are
all over Riverhead, Shelter Island, Southampton you name it. Now I
understand. You are saying that you do not typical see one so close to the
wetlands and if this were fifty feet farther away. We would still be
standing here. I absolutely hear what you are saying but just in response
ro your comment about whether these are around whether they are used.
They are all over the place. They are the standard county system
throughout Suffolk County for shallow groundwater. So that is clear.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The ones that were built prior to our existence.
They are all mistakes, as far as.
ROB HERRMANN: No that is not tree.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: See that is the mason that development in Town is
compromised the water quality in the creeks. We just do not want to keep
reinforcing that.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Otherwise why are we here? Or not be twenty
feet off the water.
ROB HERRMANN: Well it should be and that you are not
misunderstanding what is being presented to you. This is not some
antiquated system that ~vas around before you had the chance to be
involved. This is the current modem standard up-dated as recently as
1996, the sarfitary system by the Suffolk County Department of Health
Services. This is new.
FRED KEITH: I should saythe soil replacement process that identifies
that funnel shape hole. You may have not seen that before. Because
people draw it vertically because they are not realistic about it. It is not
vertical.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It cannot be - of course.
FRED KEITH:. But that is the soil replacement process that takes place
every time we run into silty or flaky material. We have to get that material
out of there and replace it with sand. That process of removing and
replacing is witnessed by a field representatives of the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services.. They will not sign off on the full
replacement. They have got to be there to see it happen. It is a day and
day half work to do that. But as Mr. Herrmann indicated this is done all
over the east end. These types of septic systems.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Do you have a copy of Suffolk County hearing?
The health department.
ROB HERRMANN: I also handed up to Charlotte with the vast papers
that I handed up in the beginrfing of the heating.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The copy of the Minutes.
ROB HERRMANN: The copy of the Minutes no they do not provide me
with that. But I do not know why they would not.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there is no other comment? I am going to make
a Motion to Table the application.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I would like to make a comment. Table it for
March. I will be back
32
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have a problem with a full Board with winter
vacations.
ROB HERRMANN: It certainly would seem best that all five of you were
here. If that is going to be March that is what it is going to be.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It also shows and this is just and it almost seems
that it is being picky but it shows the driveway into the twenty-five foot
non-disturbance. A minor issue. But nonetheless.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Another issue is that the Town Building
Department has a minimal 800 sq. 1t. building plot and to protect the
wetland further. To get that far is to push the house to a 50-foot set back
and decrease the house size..
ROB HERRMANN: It is 850.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 850.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just:to complete the public hearing for tonight I
have a~number 0f letters of concern from adjacent homeowners, which are
available in the:file for you to review. I am not going to read them
toaight~ !atsd hav~ the recdmmendation from the Southold Town
Gonservati0~ ~dvisory Council, which recommends disapproval over the
septio system r~e health of the wetlands and the proposed structure being
the negative-: it says the proposed structure would have a negative impact
in the Corey~Creek system. But, you can review that in the file also I am
not going to:go over the whole thing..
ROB ~:; Could your office send us copies of those letters?
CHARLOTTE.CUNNINGHAM: Do you want me to fax them in the
morning:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure.
ROB~I-1BRRMANN: That wil/be fine.
FRED ~IT.H: What is your date for the March meeting?
CHARLOTTE CUNNINGHAM: March 20th.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I will make a Motion to Table.
TRUSTEE ~G: So moved.
T~USTEE ?OL1WODA: Seconded.
T. RUST,EE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is that. Motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
Meeting Adjourned: 11:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, ,
Charlotte Cunnilighan, Cler~/
Board of Trustees
33