Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-12/21/1995 co Albert J. Krupski,President h� Gy Town Hall John Holzapfel, Vice President c 53095 Main Road Jim -King--__ R z P.O. Box 1179 Martin H. Garrell �y �� Southold, New York 11971 Peter Wenczel ��j �a0 Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES DECEMBER 21, 1995 CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, Jan. 17, 1996 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to approve, TRUSTER WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE BOARD MEETING: Wednesday, Jan. 31, 1996 at 7:00 Pm TRUSTEE ALBERTSON moved to approve, TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of November 30, 1995 Regular Meeting: No minutes were available as yet. I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees. monthly report for November 1995: A check for $1,392. 52 was forwarded to the Supervisor' s Office for the General Fund. II . PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk' s Bulletin Board for review. III. AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES: 1. GLORIA SIMON requests an Amendment to Permit #2068 to change ramp and float as follows: from a 2' X 16' ramp to a 3 ' X 16 ' ramp and a 511" X 8' 6" float to a 6' X 20' float. Located: 530 Sunset Way, Cedar Beach, Southold. SCTM #91-1-9 TRUSTEE WENCZEL. moved to approve providing applicant submit drawings showing float perpendicular to dock, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded. ALL AYES 2. VICTOR & ELLA BECK requests an Amendment to Permit #4504 to increase the size of float from 5' X 20 ' to 6' X 20' for stability. Located: 2215 Minnehahah Blvd.. , Southold.. SCTM #87-3-59 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to approve, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON-seconded. ALL AYES Board of Trustees 2 December 211, 1995 3. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of ROBERT &. JEAN CALHOUN requests an Amendment to Permit #4325 to construct a 6 ' X 180' fixed dock with an 8' X 46' "L" elev. 4' above marsh, a 4' X 20 ' ramp and an 8' X 4'0 ' float. Located: East End Road, Fishers Island. SCTM #3-2-2 TRUSTEE WENCZEL moved to approve providing the fixed dock be no longer .than mean high- water and no longer than 172' .and the 2nd fixed dock be 6' X 46' in "L" configuration., TRUSTEE. HOLZAPFEL seconded.. ALL. AYES 4. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of DR. ISIS A. BARTELS requests an Amendment to Permit #448.7 for the. installation of 43+' of revetment which shall be placed between the still existing walls on either side. The revetment will consist of 1 - 1 1/2 yard rock which shall be placed on filter fabric, backfilled with 75+ c.y. of soil then planted with native grass. Located: Private Road #3, Fishers Island.. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to deny the request for an Amendment and request the applicant and neighbor submit a full application, TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES 5. Land Use. on behalf of JUDITH SCHMID requests a Waiver to construct an 8' X 34' addition. to an existing dwelling. Located: 2975 Wells Ave. , Southold. SCTM #70=4-12 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve the request for a Waiver, TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE ALBERTSON' moved to go off the regular meeting and. go onto Public Hearings, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL 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 YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF: FIVE ( 5) MINUTES OR LESS, IF POSSIBLE 7: 21 p.m. - In the matter of DANIEL C. MOONEY requests a Wetland Permit to move an existing house at 480 Rabbit Lane to across the street onto new foundation. Pilings and septic system will stay in place for future house. Located: 480' Rabbit Lane, East Marion. SCTM #31-18-10 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak either in favor of or against the project? WILLIAM LEVELL: Again, I received a copy of a letter in the Trustees file from the NYSDEC. They have a very .s.ignificant concern in regard to the existing septic system which Mr. Mooney plans on leaving on the property and reusing for the new house he plans on building. Obviously my arguments are made, at the last two times I was here, on the same tonight, I Board of Trustees 3 December 21, 1995 will point at that obviously he application is- incomplete because the application leaves his pilings sticking out. of the. sand without another application proposing what he plans doing with them. Which is building another house. Under the law, once you remove a structure any permits. or approvals. that were obtained for that structure are no longer valid. So in affect, we have to resubmit an application for a septic system. on. the south side of Rabbit Lane. Since that last permit was granted for the septic system as existing currently, the high tide line has moved northward there approx. 301 . So he got a waiver for approx. 85' and now the current distance. between. the septic system and. the high tide line is less than 601 . I think there is a substantial and significant impact and a low probability of the NYgDEC granting him another permit to re-install another septic system -on the south side of Rabbit Lane. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: This permit has nothing to do with that.. Are you linking the two? MR. LEVELL: I think it has to. He is asking to leave the existing pilings. Obviously the Trustees are not gonna let pilings sit there aesthetically damaging the view of Peconic Bay or Marion Harbor. And that's exactly what he is doing. Obviously the application is incomplete because he plans in the near future in building a house on the pilings So obviously those pilings have to be dealt with. And the application in no way shape or form deals with that. I think again, that this is really putting the Trustees between. a hard place and a stone because he' s doing this project "piece meal." . His first thing was to move the house, then the Trustees said, "well, we need an application because the other house is next to wetlands." So he got another application. At that point he never indicated that he -was leaving the pilings. Now we know he is leaving the . pilings. So, how is planning on handling those. If they're not coming down, what' s he doing with them.. He's gonna put another house on top of them. Again, he needs to submit an application.. I think the letter here from Mr. Chiarella from the NYSDEC, is very clear. Once an existing property is: abandoned or not used and the structure removed. all permits that existed for that property are no longer valid. So therefore in order to remove those pilings, and build another house there, he has to again get approval for another septic system. I believe again, the application that sits before the Trustees now, is severely. . . .is- asking the Trustees. to do something half way. At some point those pilings have to be dealt with, and they're not being done with with this application. So I think that really requires him to put before the Trustees his entire plan. What he is intending to do with these two parcels of land. Obviously the Wetlands Act and the Trustees; are making decisions for the overall good. for the Town of Southold.. So to deal. with. one piece of property at a time does not reflect the totality of the circumstances which is really the job of the Trustees are required to fulfills. So, I believe, in. order to be forthwith, and put in front of your the entire package an application that has to remain, 1) showing the removal. of the house, 2) removal- of the house, and 3) the building of the new house. Based upon Board of Trustees 4 December 21, 1995 this letter here, it seems. that the current development. restriction requires the 100' barrier between the new septic system and the high tide line on the Bay. And the property on the south side of Rabbit Lane, is only approx. 60' deep. So therefore you would know that according to the current. standards, the septic system can be encapsulated in that specific property. It's got to be placed elsewhere:. MR. DEVLIN: The DEC suggested that since it can't be used, if it's less. than 1001 , that it makes sense for it to be removed now. ' It makes sense to me, that part of your approval for , moving that house from there, should go ' along with that and take out the septic system. I 'm frustrated because this is all one big thing. MR. LEVELL: That' s exactly what. the NYSDEC recommends, that the system be removed. Obviously when it' s capped whatever solid waste material is in there, when it rains or floods., or snows and the snow melts, again causes the solid material to leach out into the surrounding area. And quite honestly, there is no indication in his application whether or. not any consequences. o€ leaving that septic system capped. and not in use. Obviously it is not in use and should be taken out and the soil that is contaminated should be removed. I know the Trustees are familiar with this. At low tide the water level is. . between 3 and 4 feet. All the other septic systems have to be bermed in order to. . . .well I would use the words "to work somewhat efficiently" . I think that' s a significant problem before the Trustees. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments? MR. LEVELL.: I would like to request that the letter from Mr. Chiarella dated Dec. 11, 1995 be made part of the file. TRUSTER KRUPSKI: Itts already in there. We have a response from Mr. Reynolds of the Health Dept. regarding Health Dept, . policy. (Al read. the letter. See attached) TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The Health Dept. says if they pump out the cesspools, it's there and cap it, they' ll be happy with that. But it' s the same basic concept. MR. LEVELL: But the application doesn' t indicate that he plans on using. . . . TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All they're saying is .that it' s abandoned, he should pump it out and then cap it. MR. ANGELL: What' s the definition of abandonment?Does it. mean that when he builds a house he can claim that he has a. cesspool on the property? TRUSTEE .HOLZAPFEL: I don't think so. I think that' s what DEC is say, that it' s a whole new ball game and that he looses all rights. MR. LEVELL: Once more than 50% of the house is removed or destroyed its as if it never existed, under the law. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Except, if it's removed., then it' s removed. If it' s there then it' s still there. Legally he might not have rights to it but he would certainly claim it. .Any other Board comments. Board of Trustees 5 December 21, 1995 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The comment I have is the pilings too. Are we removing the house and leaving these things sticking out there? I don' t know whether that' s acceptable. MR. LEVELL: In exactly that same vein., I don't know of any mechanism in place to keep a house suspended 12. feet off the ground and move it 45 feet. Normally when you move these house moving trailers are ' about 1 - 1 1/2 feet off the ground. So I don't know what kind of special equipment is needed while his. house if 12 in the air and move it to save the pilings. And. that' s what this application proposes. I don't think this. application has any information or any explanation as how he is going to move the house. If there is heavy equipment needed to do this, it' s within. . .including the deck even, 20' of the high tide line of the Bay. I believe the application isn't complete in order for the Trustees to make a decision. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Do we really want all these pilings sticking up? It' s an aesthetic question. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Except you have a house there now, which is even more obtrusive than a few pilings. That house is certainly , a significant structure. As opposed to the pilings. If you move the house, all you have is a few pilings. Now you have the house. So if you want to put it in that perspective I don't think the pilings represent that great a. . . MR. ANGELL: Could the pilings be considered a foundation? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think so: MR. ANGELL: I 'm not sure, but I think Mr. Mooney said he had a foundation there that he would have rights to rebuild. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The pilings don't. di.stress me that much, they're just pilings, and you already have a bulkhead and the. whole beach is loaded with structure. The cesspool concerns- me because there is potential- for over wash. And, it will wash out the whole system. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: How does that change over wash? The house is on pilings, and that' s not gonna have any affect. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, you have lattice and pipes and all sorts of debris. under the house and' the water just comes right through. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I don't think that's gonna change it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: My concern is that we get. . .in a storm event, you can have an over wash. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL.: Do I think if we have the opportunity to remove it, should we remove it. That' s really the bigger question. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Remove the septic system? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Yes:. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: That might pose more of a risk with contamination than- leaving it there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why? . TRUSTEE WENCZEL: You might be better off to just cap it. There's a lot of contaminated material there.. TRUSTEE. HOLZAPFEL.: But you pump it all out and, then you just get rid of the system. MR. LEVELL: It's done the same way that they do with the gas tanks that leak. They do it at low tide and they clean and. in fact move the dirt. that's underneath and around the system and Board of Trustees 6 December 21, 1995 they bring it to a special facility where it's treated.. As far as a house or pilings, that the house provides a. place for someone to live there's a benefit from having a house.. There's. no benefit from having pilings taken up and ruining the. aesthetic view. If your argument were to be from a theoretical point of view,. then you want all the houses moved there. because they affect the aesthetic view. But however, people need a place to live, therefore we are allowing a house: to be built which somewhat affects the aesthetic value of the area, however, it does, serve a function because it allows someone to live there. Once the house is removed the pilings are not serving any benefit at all except the aesthetic. nature of the area. I think that' s a consideration. Obviously everything that this Board decides on is weighed. The benefits verses nature of. certain things. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL,: I'm thinking of it in the sense of "I'm the next door neighbor. Do i want a half completed thing there sitting there for the rest of. . . . .as an aesthetic thing. " TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Put on a condition in the permit that if he . . . . .My thing is if something happens to the Mooneys then your left with that situation anyway. There' s different scenarios. If your looking through the whole scenario. You work your way through it all.. . . .you get another approval for a house and septic system. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Yes, but if we leave a foundation, we're setting up the rules of the .game already. I think Steve has a point, if you have a foundation. . . . TRUSTEE WENCZEL: But is that true. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Again, do I know that as a fact? No. But I 've always heard that, if you have a foundation there you have a certain right. MR. LEVELL: I would point out that this house where the foundation is is a non-conforming lot. The minimal requirements for a non-conforming lot aren't even met. I know this is not the place for it, but the zoning specifically states that a house that is moved or altered or destroyed at least 5.0o cannot be rebuilt on a non-conforming lot. What' s gonna. happen is, your gonna approve the application, he then will submit another application to rebuild on those pilings, you granted because in your opinion there was no adverse affect on .the Wetlands Act, then he goes before the Zoning Board and I appear there, and I say legal it' s a non-conforming lot, the house has been moved or altered, you can't rebuild because it doesn' t meet the setback requirements. Where 'are you then? That's why this. piece meal application process is not really conducive to fulfilling the goal. o€ the wetland act. If. Mr. Mooney has. a plan to move a' house and build a new house then he should put it. before you. Deciding in one process. Because ultimately if you don' t decide in one process your creating a situation there. and spending $10 $20,000 for moving a house, putting a new septic system, then ultimately the piece of property which is the most economic and nicest. piece of property on the water and he can't build on it again. Obviously that is not a situation that Mr. Mooney wants and a situation that my client, Mr. Devlin Board of Trustees 7 December 21, 1995 wants, and obviously it' s not a situation I- think the. Town of Southold or the Trustees want. I believe in the totality of circumstances his entire process should be looked at in its entirety. Exactly what he plans are. Just 'cause he gets passed the Wetlands Act, doesn't mean that down the road he will get a Building Permit to rebuild now. He still. has. the pilings. problem. Obviously if it sits. there for a year it' s not such a. problem, but if he gets denied the application to build on those pilings again, he's not gonna want to spend that kind a money to remove those pilings. And you basically have already gave him the authority to move the house and leave the pilings there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can just condition the. permit that if the pilings and septic system have to be removed, if within one year he doesn't receive a Health Dept. approval. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: We need to know whether or not leaving those pilings there makes a difference or not for future approval. MR. ANGELL: How will the Zoning Board of Appeals look upon pilings and granting a variance. They wouldn't look at that as a virgin piece of property, they would look at it as new construction. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Or just condition it that he has to remove . everything. ALLEN CONNELL: Just to comment on the septic system. If the septic system is pumped., this septic tank and the cesspool and it' s capped, your looking at two types, of pollutants. Nitrates and bacteria. If you remove that material in effect you've taken care of the pollution (could not hear, too much noise) . I don't think, it's part. of the pollution problem, I don't think the system has to be removed. Because if you require it to be pumped and capped then you have taken care of the problem. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I still think the piling thing is the question. . Are we setting up a precedent'? MR. LEVELL: It seems pretty clear that the Building Code. and Southold Zoning Code. . . .it states here that a non-conforming building contained a non-conforming use shall. not. be enlarged, reconstructed or structurally altered or moved, unless the use os such building is changed to- a conforming use. And being a non-conforming containing a non-conforming use, which the existing house and property is, has been damaged by .fire or other causes to the extent of more than 50% is fair market value, should not be rebuilt or repaired unless such building is changed to a conforming use. Now, in here it doesn't say may, it says shall.. Which means under the law, must. So I believe that he would not be able to, according to the zoning, be able to rebuild in those pilings.. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't understand the. zoning code because "unless it shall be changed to a conforming use." So what does that mean, he can go to the ZBA and get. a variance? MR. LEVELL: Well, yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? Motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I ' ll make a motion we table this until we consult our Town Attorney. Board of Trustees 8 December 21, 1995 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES. 7:45 p.m. - In the matter of NICOLO DI BARTOLO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 20' X 12' bridge, a 47' retaining wall on east side and a 30 ' retaining wall on west side, an existing retaining wall on north side. will be removed and. every other stave will be removed from the existing wall on south side and approx. 10 c.y. of fill will be brought in from upland source. Located.: . 2146 Main Road.,. Laurel. SCTM #k127-3-6.1 & 6.2. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on. behalf of the application? Anyone here who would like to speak against this application? GALL WICKHAM: I`m here on behalf of Golden View Estates. I understand that unless something came that I was not aware of, late today there is no definitive answer from -the Fire Dept. on the access question. I'd like to just reiterate it to "that point, that there is a court order permitting this gentleman access to his. property. The language in the order which provides for termination for access is only in the event other access is available. Our position is that other access is not available, it. would only be available if your Board should decide to go through., what we consider an extraordinary length granting him the right. to build the bridge across wetlands at great- intrusion, we believe, to the wetlands. Moreover, I don't believe the Trustees. are required to grant such an intrusion. They are no required to determine if other access is adequately safe that the jurisdiction concerns the viability and preservation of. the wetlands. The applicant has not entitlement to build a bridge and so he cannot compel such an act. If. you consider the construction costs of building this type of bridge, together with the cost of cutting down a number of large oak trees and building a roadway hundreds of feet long over quite 'a steep incline,. I think that money could go a. very long way to improving the access he currently has legally from the other direction. Moreover, I don' t believe the the width of the right of way concern of the applicant expressed at. the last hearing should be a concern of this Board because the narrow portion of the right of way is along railroad and that railroad bed is kept open if in the event of a. dire emergency if a large vehicle had to get through there would be room. to pass. We ask you to deny the permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Is there any other comment? MR. ANGELL: CAC has an extensive comment. We' re: going by his current plan. The existing plan was to remove this bulkhead here (indicating on map) to construct: a bulkhead. here_ and. here so that the bridge would. have footing correct? And put a 10' extension and to remove every other slat within this section of the channel to allow access. We think that' s a real problem. Because during icy conditions or during storm surges we think debris can get inhere and really compromise this. bulkhead structure as it is now.. So what we would suggest is to rebuild this bulkhead inkind/inplace leaving out this 20' section and. continuing this over as the. applicant has his original permit to build a bulkhead from here to the wing walls on both sides and Board of Trustees 9 December 21, 1995 continue those wing walls down to be a little less intrusive than the currently plan would have them be. We think that it comes into the marsh too much. To bring in fill to raise the road bed to the top of this bulkhead and have the bridge be even with top of that bulkhead. There' s- another. concern that the bridge as ,it stands now in the application is much too close to the water line during the storms and we think that would be under water. It' s actually below the level of this bulkhead here. We think that during times of storm this bridge would be compromised. Which would deny the applicant access egress to his property. And it could in effect cause major problems with its stability. We' re also concerned that fuel oil trucks and delivery trucks that come in here could actually end up in the marsh and that could be a real damaging event if it should happen. It' s unlikely, but it's possible. So we really think this should be beefed up more than it is now. That' s why we would like this to be rebuilt. This bulkhead here. We don't think that. this bulkhead that is currently there is gonna be adequate to hold the load on that bridge. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Rebuild this. section and this section? MR. ANGELL.: The southern bulkhead. MR. CONNELL: The northern bulkhead should be removed totally. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI.: You want to raise the elevation of the entire structure? MR. ANGELL: No, we think that the top of. the ,bulkhead now is OK, but this structure should be raised. As the current plan. exists, this is much lower. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On both sides? MR. CONNELL: The existing elevation of the south bulkhead is adequate and everything else should be brought to that elevation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now what about this one here? MR. ANGELL: That should be removed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Completely? MR. ANGELL: Yes, and that' s the applicants current plan. MR. CONNELL: What we're really concerned about is getting open flow through that channel so that there is no way that it, could be restricted. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When we went out into the field originally,. that was our big concern. That these structures. were causing a tremendous amount of erosion as they stand. MR. ANGELL: We think that the plan. to remove every other board within the existing bulkhead here on the south, is really asking for trouble down the road. Especially in a situation like we have tonight. When you get a storm surge come in and there' s ice. I don't think it's a well thought. out situation. For the environment it could be a disaster. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mr. Di Bartolo, I agree with that., that this should be removed.. There is no flow restriction. Would you have a major problem amending that? MR. DI BARTOLO: No, I think I can understand that problem enough to consider it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The suggestions they're making are common sense suggestions. Board of Trustees 10 December 21, 1995 MR. DI BARTOLO: It makes sense to me only because you have a one foot area there that if a big tree comes down in s storm it won' t go through. I think if that' s the only objection I can, live with that. I think what your saying is only for the 20 ' section of the bridge. MR. ANGELL: Correct. Actually the bulkhead that, you would be building to rest a. bridge structure on would actually tie into the existing bulkhead there and would shore that up. Unless your engineer says he could repair what' s there. MR. DI BARTOLO: The only concern that I have is the higher you make it the more you loose in stability from an engineers standpoint. But the longer any pilings. are above the water the more stability problems your gonna have. So probably what I have to do is make them bigger. MS. WICKHAM: Regardless of the engineering, I can' t believe that this Board which has shown incredible concern for the wetlands is considering letting this man, who came in on a false premise, put in a' bridge. over the wetlands. I just think it will. create a horrible precedent. I know you are always concerned with restrictions, and how the wetlands are affected, and I just think it' s appalling to even be allowed to come in and say I need this, when he doesn' t. I think it' s the wrong thing to do. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To address that, we spoke to the Town Attorney about that. The key word here is, "roadway'° . And the meaning is not clear. You could decide. that roadway means.. the. public road that goes to the border of the parcel. In which case the easement of the main road would terminate. Alternately, you could decide that roadway means driveway access in which the easement of. the main road. would not terminate until and unless you grant an approval for the driveway. So it' s up to us to decide. MS. WICKHAM: The order specifically states to plaintiffs land tax map 6.1 & 6. 2 That roadway from Golden View Estates is not from 6. 2. And whether he merged it or not, . it was clearly intended by this order that access to the house be affected. That was the whole point of the litigation. Was the access to the house. Right now, there is a body of water blocking access to 6.2. And whether it is merged or not from the zoning point of view, the. house on 6.1 does not have access without your granting him the right to build the bridge. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI.: I don't think it's that clear. Does the Board think it's clear? (All said yes. ) MS. WICKHAM: He doesn't have access without a bridge.. MR. AGNELL: He' s not required to get another access. That the agreement or order will cease upon getting another access:. MR. CONNELL.: When the CAC looked at this, we looked at. it as far as an environmental impact and if there were no structure there right now, we would probably have different opinions but the current structures that are there are causing just as much damage with all kinds of erosion that's occurring there and the existing structures cause more damage than anything. And that' s the way we looked at this. How could this be improved? I€ Board of Trustees 11 December 21, 1995 everything is taken out of there that would be one way, another way would be the concept of. . . . . (could not hear him) MR. DI BARTOLO: I think it' s obvious from the court order that there' s some doubt in there. However, it does say, there is one deed. We don' t have two deeds. So the fact that we' re talking about different parcels I think is irrelevant. It is on one deed and that' s been verified by yourselves. Secondly, about 3 months ago I discussed this matter regarding the driveway when it came up in conversation with Mr. Cusamano. M.R. CUSAMANO: No, never. Don't say that, we never discussed that. Itm the owner of Golden View Estates. MR. DI BARTOLO: What I meant to say is not a negative factor, but a fact. that did exist that when Mr. Cusamano found out that I was going to build a driveway, he thought that part of that land at the Cul de Sac, when I had. the discussion, and I said; "Gee I didn't realize that., but if it is. that, there's no way I'm gonna do anything without your permission. It' s obvious. Later when I checked with the Town, we found out that in fact it was a public street, which abuts on my land. I did not create this problem. The public street is there. I didn't do that. But, to get down to the point, now, and to ensure Mr. Cusamano and the other owners, it is not my intention to do anything to damage the lots. Because he had expressed some concern about people dumping garbage in the back. And. this happens everywhere. He had to clean it up and. I've cleaned some of it up myself. I think it's a problem we've both had. I think his feeling was that if there' s a driveway there, because my house is so fat back, that there might be some possibilities of people dumping things. My feeling is .that. if I 'm there and I'm using it, it' s not likely to happen simply because someone is always going in and out. Other than. that I don't intend to do anything to damage his property or my property. Frankly I'm not sure the Town will move this or not, but I am concerned and dismayed that the situation is not being presented as a environmental problem when in fact it may have to proceed as an economic problem. I want to reinsure him and everyone else who may own this land because I'm not sure who all the owners are, that in no way is it my intention to any damage. If anything I will try to make it better if. nothing else. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One thing I 'd like to say to the Board is that you have a situation here, forgetting about the right of way, what you have is an application of a structure over the wetlands. If you look at it from an environmental stand point it' s an improvement over the existing situation which is causing a problem. To put it in prospective, how many structures do we grant over wetlands.? A lot. Catwalks.. This is over private property. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL.: To turn it around the other way, how many bridges have we allowed over wetlands? TRUSTEE. KRUPSKI : Privately owned? TRUSTEE GARRELL: Mr. Simon' s. garage is one, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That' s. it. One. Simon' s was simply. . . .to question that as a wetland, that was a highly questionable. Board of Trustees 12 December 21, 1995 wetland. It was a wetland simply because the Town runs off, the road run off. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, because of vegetation. . . . .So I'm trying to get away from the access issue which is very contentious. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So, if somebody came in to build a bridge over wetlands for no reason at all, we'd say no. We did that to the guy up at Arshamomoque, who wanted to build a bridge. across to their property on. the other side. TRUSTEE. WENCZEL: Yes, but that was Trustee land. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was Trustee land and he could also go three feet to the side and walk around. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: This is Trustee land. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. TRUSTEE. WENCZEL: No, it' s privately owned. MR. ANGELL: Your bottom ends about 20' to the south of there. MS. WICKHAM: Whether it's privately owned or not, you have jurisdiction. TRUSTEE KRUPSKL: Right, and I don't think it' s up to this.Board. to say whether he has some sort of. legal need for this bridge or not. the question is, he' s applied for it. TRUSTEE GARRELL.: The benefit to the creek of opening up what' s now seems to be a blockage.. Does that turn out better for the wetland, the marsh, and the creek than the risk of say run off from any roads that would be constructed on the other side? If If you look the benefit and damage to the creek itself you've got another issue there too. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI.: That' s the issue that we should be focusing on.. MS. WICKHAM: There's already a road there, and he put a road on side he wants.-. . . .I have a map here I'd like to submit that shows an incredibly steep contour. TRUSTEE. GARRELL: We're pretty familiar with the contours. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: My point, and still in response to that is in order to improve the flow there, you don't need a bridge. The bridge doesn't make the water go. I mean the whole thing could be abandoned. MS. WICKHAM: Eventually that structure will deteriorate. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Right. It practically is now. It' s questionable whether it's still functional. In reality it' s no longer functioning. MR. ANGELL: I would debate that it' s no longer functional. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would too. MR. ANGELL.: He could. come in and say I want to rebuild this bulkhead inkind/.inplace for flood protection. And. then you have. a worse case than you have now. TRUSTEE. HOLZAPFEL.:. But, I 'm not sure it's functional. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is. It' s causing all the sediments to be eroded around it on either side.. If it' wasn' t functioning you wouldn't have the erosion on either side. MR. DI BARTOLO: ., You gentlemen have the DEC approval in the file. TRUSTEE. HOLZAPFEL.: If you read their permit they say a lot of things in there that. . . . .They say there' s no fill of wetlands. I don' t understand that. That' s what their permit says., that Board of Trustees 13 December 21, 1995 you may not fill the wetlands. And yet your doing it. So there's some inconsistency with their permit.. MR. DI BARTOLO-: It' s indication that a small amount of fill. as indicated on the_ plan and they approved the plan. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You mean there should be no disturbance of vegetated tidal. wetlands? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Right, and also here. . . . . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But, there won' t be. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL.: Sure there will. They're gonna bury. it. They' ll bury the wetlands. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, that's not re-vegetate wetlands. That' s what' s being scoured out.. It' s not vegetated wetland. It' s only become creek because it' s being scoured out constantly. And eventually, this whole thing will go. It will just cut through eventually_ . And all you do is fill the creek in with that. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: They're not gonna put in any equipment below high water? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI For what? No they can' t. Why would they have to? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL.: Also on this side (indicating on map) . This land is wetlands and Lou-said-this particular part he said you' re gonna have to fill in wetlands and we' re not gonna allow that. That was the first meeting. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because the original proposal was to put the culvert in and fill and that' s what we wouldn' t allow. And that's how this plan grew out of where the applicant wantingg to put culverts in and fill that completely and our Board. said no and DEC said. no if. you want access you have to bridge that in. order to gain access becausee you don' t want to disturbed the tidal flow. After about- 3 meetings on the site and one at Town Hall then this. plan came about. And the CAC is attempting to modify it even further to provide greater protection to the marsh and provide a. safer structure. MR. DI BARTOLO: I've incorporated every change that has been suggested to do since the very first meeting. I've tried to conform to everything you have all. suggested to try to make this an improvement .rather than anything else. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So moved. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I' ll make a. motion we approve the application with condition that the bridge be constructed to the specifications of the suggestions of the. CAC and that the bridge and driveway be limited to a single family dwelling and that permit conditions. conform to conditions of DEC, haybales be put in on up slope and all disturbed areas be vegetated even the driveway itself.. So you could seed. over. the gravel driveway so that it will help stabilize. i.t. Also a new drawing reflecting the new plan suggested by the CAC. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Second.. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Abstain TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Nay. Board of Trustees 14 December 21, 1995 8: 16 p.m. - In the matter of BERNARD PEPER requests a Wetland Permit for an existing house with attached deck, sanitary system, and existing stone wall and concrete block walk along property as per survey dated Oct. 7, 1995. Applicant wishes to sell house and is trying to get all permits. Located: 9.55 Lupton Point, Mattituck. SCTM #115-11-6 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI`: Is there anyone here who would like to speak either in favor or against this application? CAC recommends approval. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Move to close.. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL.: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI:' I' ll make a motion to approve with condition that he submit a. planting plan in front of house with. spartina. alternaflora and that that be planted on north side of- stone wall between mean high water and mean low water at. 18" centers. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES 8: 2.5 p.m. - ' In the matter of Hepler Associates on behalf of ERNEST GAEBEL requests a Wetland Permit to construct 18` of bulkhead with a. 61 return and place rock revetment and planting plan across approx. 75' o€. property. Located: _ 1765 Westview Drive, Mattituck. SCTM #107-7-7 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who wishes to speak either in. favor or against this application? MR... ' ANGELL: CAC recommended approval now that he provided erosion control. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Any Board comments? TRUSTEE WENCZEL: 181 of bulkhead, is that necessary? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's up to that tree. . It's protecting the return on the other side really. TRUSTEE GARRELL: Move to close. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE. HOLZAPFEL: Motion to approve for a wetland permit according to plans submitted. TRUSTEE GARRELL: Second.. ALL AYES. 8: 35 p.m. - In the matter of Costello Marine on behalf of ROBERT SCHISSEL requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct 90' of timber bulkhead within 1811 , replace 301 inkind/inplace, remove upper concrete retaining wall to landfill, backfill with approx. 40 c.y. of clean sand, remove all drainage pipes, place drywells. upland and replace disturbed area. Located: 710 West Shore Road., Reydon Shores, Southold. SCTM #80-1-46 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: CAC recommends approval with condition applicant plantthe flat area behind. the bulkhead with. beach grass. Board comment? Motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: So moved. TRUSTEE GARREL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE WENCZEL.: I' ll make a motion we approve. the permit. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL.: Second. ALL. AYES TRUSTEE ALBERTSON moved to go back to regular meeting, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded. ALL AYES Board of Trustees 15 December 21, 1995 V. ASSESSMENTS- 1. En-Consultants .Inc. , on behalf of JOHN DE. GENNARO requests a Wetland Permit to. construct a timber dock consisting of a 3 ' X 21' fixed walk, a 3 ' X 51' fixed walk, (min. 41 _ above grade.) a 3 ' X 16' hinged ;ramp and a 6' X 20' f loat.. secured by ( 2) sets of 8" diameter X 25' dolphins.. Located: 2213 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM #86-5-10 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to grant a Negative Declaration, TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded... ALL AYES 2. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of FREDERICK C. HAMILTON' requests a Wetland Permit to construct walks, terraces and gardens. A staked line of- hay bales with silt fencing shall be installed prior to and maintained during all periods of construction. Located: Private Road., Fishers. Island. SCTM #5-2-4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to grant a Negative Declaration, TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES{ 3 . J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND GOLF COURSE requests a Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permit to restore an eroded shoreline by installing a bounder slope and reconstruct/repair existing dune. Boulder slope will have 2- 4. ton stones along eroded shoreline beginning at an existing rip-rap wall and continuing an additional 200' to the east. and. placed on filter fabric with a 1' rock ship base, with no grout. Approx. 150 . c.y. of boulders shall be used for wall which will vary in width from 6' - 181 . Any areas disturbed. will be re-vegetated.with American Beach Grass planted 12" on center, and 410' of eroded dune shall be restored by placing approx. 750 c.y. of clean sand trucked from upland. source along eroded shoreline. Located.: East End Road, Fishers Island. SCTM #1-1-3.13 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to grant a Negative Declaration, TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES VI. RESOLUTIONS: 1. WILLIAM PARROTT requests a Grandfather Permit for a 4' X 5' dock, a 3' X 10 ' ramp and a 6' X 20' float, .a 60' bulkhead and a 60' concrete wall with 45' on south side and 15' on north side as per survey 'dated 8/6/91. Located: 2435 Cedar Lane, East Marion. SCTM #37-4-9 TRUSTEE ALBERTSON moved to approve the. Grandfather Permit, TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES 2. Costello Marine on- behalf of JOSEPH ZEVITS requests a Grandfather Permit to replace 48' of existing bulkhead. inkind/inplace and backfill with 28 c.y. of clean fill. Located: 1300 West Lane, Southold. SCTM #88--6-18.1 TRUSTEE WENCZEL moved to approve the Grandfather Permit with condition they Grandfather the whole bulkhead, re-vegetate and maintain vegetated. buffer, and an updated survey showing Board of Trustees 16 December 21, 1995 bulkhead and vegetated buffer, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES 3 . ELSA RIVERS requests a Grandfather Permit for a 15' 9" X 14' dock, a 7' 9" X 25' ramp and 2 new piles. added to 2 sister piles and a 7 ' X 17' float. Located: The Gloaming, Fishers Island. SCTM #10-9-15.4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to grant the Grandfather Permit, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded. ALL AYES 4. SANFORD FREIMAN requests a Wetland Permit to extend existing dock by 100' making total structure 195' from bulkhead. Located: 1165 Old Harbor Road., New Suffolk.. SCTM #117-3-8. 4 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to approve the Amendment .to the. Grandfather Permit with idea that he be no further out than neighboring docks (Old Cove Yacht Club) from MHW. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON SECONDED. TRUSTEE WENCZEL nay. 5. DANIEL MOONEY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a foundation, septic system. and move house from across the street onto foundation. Located: Rabbit Lane, off Bay Ave'. , East Marion. SCTM #31-17-11 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to table the application until. Board talks with Town Attorney, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded. ALL AYES 6. Board to rescind Waiver for FRANK SCAVONE to replace five concrete piers as well as complete the block skirt around the perimeter of structure of house with all fill outside the Trustees 751 -jurisdiction, issued -on October 26, 1.995 and request a full application. Located: 161.5 Fleetwood Road,. Cutchogue. SCTM #137-4-35 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved not to rescind. the Waiver but to ask for full application if he plans on using boulders, without boulders he can have Waiver providing he contact Soil Conservation Service, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded. VII. MOORINGS• 1. JOE ANGEVINE requests an on-.shore/off-shore stake in Mill Creek for a 24' outboard boat. ACCESS: Public. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve only if boat is up to 19' or less on length, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded. TRUSTEE WENCZEL abstained. 2. AARON AVENT requests to move duck blind from Haywaters Cove to Broadwaters Cove. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve, TRUSTEE GARRELL seconded. ALL AYES Meeting Adjourned at: 9:15 p.m. Board of Trustees 17 December 21, 1995 Respectfully Submitted By: Diane J. rbert Clerk, Board of Trustees