Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-07/28/1994 OSUFFO��c Albert J. Krupski,President p� OG Town Hall John Holzapfel, Vice President _� y1 53095 Main Road William G. Albertson y _ P.O. Box 1179 Martin H. Garrell O Southold, New York 11971 Peter Wenczel `y, a0� Telephone (516) 765-1892 1 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD.OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES JULY 28, 1994 PRESENT WERE: Albert J. Krupski, Jr. , President; John Holzapfel, Vice-President Peter Wenczel, Trustees Martin Garrell., Trustee William G. Albertson, Trustee Diane J. Herbert, .Clerk CALL MEETING TO .ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wed. August 17, 1994, at :12 noon TRUSTEE ALBERTSON moved to: approve; TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE BOARD MEETING: Thur. Aug. 25, 1994 at 7 pm WORKSESSION: 6:00 pm TRUSTEE ALBERTSON moved to approve, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded. ALL AYES I . PUBLIC NOTICES: Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk' s Bulletin Board for review. II. AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES: 1. ANN BERRYMAN requests a waiver to construct a 6' high vinyl fence 60 ' long on her western property line, as shown on survey dated 7/6/94. Surveyor gave copy of deed showing that property line goes down to MHW.Located 2100 Youngs Road, Orient. SCTM #18-2-1 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to deny the waiver and request a full application, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES 2. RICHARD ZEIDLER requests an amendment to Permit #4169 to add 40 to 50 c.y. of fill to property. Located Edgemere Path, Mattituck, Brushes Creek. ' SCTM #145-4-15 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to approve the amendment';, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES 'Board of Trustees 2 July 28, 1994 3 . En-consultants Inc. , on behalf of HENRY LATHAM requests an amendment to Permit #4138 to place 1.00-300 lb. armor stone immediately seaward of 57' of existing bulkhead. Located Rogers Road, Southold. SCTM #66=2-40 TRUSTEE WENCZEL moved to table the amendment and reinspect in. August, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES 4. En-consultants Inc. , on behalf of. GEORGE S. CASE requests an amendment to Permit #4284 to replace beach house on its foundation which is presently lying on its side. Located 3745 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM #111-9-4.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve the amendment, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES 5 . JOHN MC QUAID requests a waiver to build a wooden deck 40 ' X 14' over a. pre-existing concrete patio. Located 1720 Mason Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM #104-7-12 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve the waiver, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to go off the regular meeting and go onto Public Hearings, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded.. ALL AYES III. 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 AND AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE. LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN. 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 7:15 p.m. In. the matter of Proper-T Services on behalf of EDWARD HINDERMANN to construct a fixed open walkway 41' X. 3 ' , a hinged ramp 12' X 3 ' and a floating dock 20' X 6' .' Also install two 2-pile dolphins .to secure floating dock. Located 405 Pierce Drive, Cut.chogue. SCTM #136-1-7.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ` Anyone in favor of the application? MR. FITZGERALD: I have nothing to add to the application, but I'd be happy to answer any questions. BRUCE LOUCKA: You have our recommendations. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: "CAC recommends approval with the stipulations that the walkway be a minimum of 4' above the vegetation and that applicant replant all spartina damaged during the work" . TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I inspected the site today, and it was hard to tell from standing on the bulkhead will this dock be substantially longer or longer than the adjoining docks. MR. FITZGERALD: It will be, as close as I can tell, is the . same length as the docks to the north. Board of Trustees 3 July 28, 1994 TRUSTEE WENCZEL: You would have no problem with us putting that stipulation on the permit, that it would be..no longer; that the overall finished length be no longer than the adjoining docks? MR. FITZGERALD: I certainly would have no problem with that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor or against the application? Do I have any other comment from the Board? Motion to close? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So moved. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Motion on this. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I'll make a motion to approve as applied for with the stipulation that this finished dock be :no longer that the adjoining docks to the north and the fixed open walkway be in sync with the other docks, and that the fixed open walkway be 4 ' above grade. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So moved. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES 7:16 p.m. - In the matter of En-Consultants Inc. , on behalf of NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD to- demolish an existing boat storage and replace with a smaller metal building with: drywells 56' back from water. Remainder of area of old building will be covered with bluestone- to match existing yard, and area shown on survey as "covered shed: with "X" will be used for installation of outdoor boat storage racks. Located New Suffolk Ave. , New Suffolk. SCTM #117-5-29.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone here like to speak against this application? Would anyone here like to speak in favor of this application? "CAC recommends approval and they 'suggest . outdoor boat storage racks be no higher than the shed" Dion, can I ask a question? What are they taking that., barn down for? DION: The problem with the barn now is that it's too low to fit our equipment in. So moving boats in and out is extremely inefficient. It needs total gutting. It needs roof, siding, doors, windows, etc. The building is larger than we need. The cost of refurbishing the entire building justifies demolition and replacing it with a smaller building. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Do you a problem with the CAC's comments, in terms of limiting the height of the dry racks? DION: Absolutely not: TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What was the concern there? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I think they just don't want, them to be 200 feet tall. DION: The new structure and addition will be smaller and lower and available height will be lower than the existing building. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How high can you store a boat rack? . DION: We' re not really looking for major capacity and we're not trying to get into the dry rack storage in and out of wet. and dry. The capacity of our fork -lift limits us to. . . .the lower portion of the third high rack is in the neighborhood 16 or 18 feet, which is lower than the plate lines. ' Board of Trustees 4 July, 28, 1994 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don' t know if. you want to get into limiting a marina to say how high they should put their boats. TRUSTEE GARRELL: I think it' s just one of those things of an expansion that's unproposed. I don't see the reason here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any other. comments? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GARRELL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE GARRELL: I move to approve. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES 7 :20 p.m. - In the matter of J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of ALICE MIGNEREY to reconstruct within 18" approx. 80' of, timber bulkhead and to backfill structure with approx. 20 C.Y. of clean sand which shall be trucked in from an upland source. Upon completion of project any disturbed areas located landward of bulkhead shall be replanted with Rosa Rugosa 18" on . center. Located 1480 Paradise Point road, Southold. SCTM #81-3-21 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone here who would like to ,speak in favor or against this application? "CAC recommended approval provided the applicant plant beach grass in front of the bulkhead. The CAC suggests the applicant consider repairing the bulkhead. There is no apparent need for a new bulkhead, the existing bulkhead appears to be in good shape'l. ' .She's not here and neither are her agents. TRUSTEE WENCZEL:' I looked at it and it' s just a; bulkhead replacement basically. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there a lawn coming down to it? TRUSTEE WENCZEL: No, there's a bluff and a bulkhead on the beach. I don' t think there' s a problem with this. Whether it's necessary or not the owner feels it' s deteriorating. . . . . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about the CAC's comment about the beach grass? . TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Should we leave it as a recommendation? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: OK, we' ll leave it as a recommendation. Is there any further comment on this? TRUSTEE GARRELL: Move to close. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I'll make a motion we approve the application. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES 7:24 p.m. - In the matter of James Thompson on behalf of LOUIS BACON to reconstruct an existing. deteriorated 12! X 285' fixed timber dock, reconstruct offshore 6' X 64' "L" section with the installation of a wave curtain to protect docked' vessels from. north, northeast and northwest winds, reconstruct offshore 32' X 32' filled dock, replace two 6' X 24' floats and- add three additional 6' X 24' floats with associated mooring pilings and install four 7-pile dolphins to safely berth ferry boat and/or supply barge. Located Robins Island, Southold. SCTM #134-3-5* (NOTE: Applicant requests an amendment. to this application to provide a temporary dockage by installing. 4 - 6' X 241 , 1 - 6 ' X 30' float (secured with associated pilings) & a Board of Trustees 5 July '28, 1994 3.2' X 30 ' access ramp to shore (for foot traffic only) . The floats will later be used in completing the floating section of the dock facility. ALSO: Applicant requests to amend this application to add the following to the New Suffolk Site as Robins Island dock cannot be built without modifications to New Suffolk Site: To install five pilings in front of the dilapidated bulkhead (north side of Town launching ramp) to secure their landing craft and barge during the loading and unloading of equipment and supplies. Applicant 'proposes using the upland area .for deliveries and storing equipment, supplies, etc. which will be used on the Island. Chesterfield is presently using this section as access to his landing craft. It will be beneficial to install a temporary access ramp (20' X 120 ' Geoweb) in this area (northerly side) . on 'southerly side: to install 5 - 6' X 20' floats (with 5 associated pilings) and a 32" X 20' access ramp in front of the dilapidated bulkhead, install 3 mooring pilings in the vicinity of the launching craft area to secure landing craft when equipment and vehicles are loading and unloading. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Something seems to be redundant here. It was necessary to do the work on the Island. to get better access in New Suffolk, so we amended the application. In the description, it's got the first temporary dockage facility as 4 - 6' X 24' floats and 1 - 6' X 30' float with a ramp. But then it mentions down here (indicating on description) also. So I think we covered that twice. TRUSTEE GARRELL: Weren't there modifications on there that were opposed after our inspection? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to make sure we have our facts straight on this, I 'm going to ask Mr. Thompson to come up and try to clarify this before we open it to public comment. MR. THOMPSON: I think the confusion here is the first temporary floating docks described is at the Island site in order to maintain access to the Island while the work is being done on the existing deteriorated dock, we needed a temporary float to the east of the existing site. The second one is the New Suffolk bulkhead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: O.K. Now I ' ll open it up. Would anyone like to speak against this application? MR. FITZGERALD: I have a question. Do I read this correctly that that dock is 12' wide? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That' s right. That's more or less what was originally there. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It's a replacement. inkind/inplace of the dock on Robins Island. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone who would like to speak; in favor of the application? MR. LOUCKA: You have two recommendations of mine. One for the Island and one for New Suffolk. GEORGE COSTELLO: I just want to make myself available in case there are any questions from the Board. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: One of the concerns just looking at it is when you put the floats in and then you place a large boat there is it going to be blocking. . . . . ? Board of Trustees 6 July � 28, 1994 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, that was explained to me by John Costello this afternoon. The floats are going on the south side of the old oyster barn, they're not going by the Town ramp. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: When we went out and looked -at it our presumption was that it was going where the boat ramp was, and that was a concern. MR. COSTELLO: There will be a barge on the north bulkhead where we're gonna put a couple of pilings just for loading and unloading. It's not our tie-up slip, so we don't .want Ito obstruct any boats or .launching. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: "CAC's comments, Approval as submitted" . Also any further comments? that was our concern in the field, that we had our location switched around. Motion to close? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Motion to approve the application including the amendment for the work in New Suffolk. TRUSTEE GARRELL: Second. ALL AYES 7: 30 p.m. - In the matter of Jay Dempsey on behalf of WALTER GREEN to construct a 6' X 20' float, a 3 ' X 12' ramp and a 4' X � 24' catwalk to accommodate dockage of private boat. Located Pine Neck Road, Southold. Approx. 1,000 ' east of intersection of Oaklawn Ave. & Pine Neck Road & approx. 800' west of intersection of Oakwood Drive & Pine Neck Road. , SCTM #70-6-20 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor or against this application? "CAC recommends approval with provision that it does not interfere with the neighbor' s navigation and does not impinge on the use of the neighbor' s dock." Our Trustee' s policy requires 15' from property line. It can' t be kept 15' off the property line because he's got 3 ' on one side and probably 4' on the other. Mr. Dempsey could you give us a little explanation on this please? Are you familiar with any sort of docking facility to the west of here? What sort of docking facility do they have to the west and how close is it? MR. DEMPSEY: It' s similar to what saw but not exactly, probably about 10 feet from the existing decks of the neighbor.. Obviously it's a small piece. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there one to the west? MR. DEMPSEY: No, it's hundreds of feet away. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now the one to the east, we have that ramp penciled in here in a "T" shape configuration. MR. DEMPSEY: . I believe that is the way it is. . TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I can't see how they' re gonna ;put the dock in and put a boat on it and not have it in front of the neighbors property or not interfere with the neighbor to the east, Mr Wells. I think the only way we can approve this kind of application is if we have a written agreement from the neighbors that allows Mr. Green to dock his boat in front of the neighbors property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Or at least so that there's some spirit of . cooperation there that the neighbor realizes that this is Board of Trustees 7 July' 28, 1994 happening and that they're willing to work together, 'cause obviously there' s enough if they want to squeeze them in to work together. We really don't like to force the situation. We would rather see a letter from Mr. Wells. saying "I don't have a problem with my neighbor putting a dock in 3' from my property" . TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: What's happening here is if you put a 6' float and then you put a boat next to it your overlapping onto the adjacent property owners extended line. We 'don' t have the right to do that. It sets a problem. as to whether we can approve that. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I think obviously this property tapers down so that there' s access to the creek but it does 'not necessarily guarantee a dock area, without that cooperation between neighbors there. It certainly can be in agreement with the neighbor to the west, Mr. Rhinehardt also. MR. DEMPSEY: Should we stipulate the size of the boat perhaps? TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I would think so, yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do we really want to do that? ' Because he could put any size boat on the other side of it. TRUSTEE WENCZEL:. I would think that Mr. Green should make it very clear to whoever he makes an agreement with what size boat is gonna be on that dock. It's a complex issue., TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It seems like there' s room if he wants to have one boat to keep it on the right side. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: There probably is, as long as his neighbor is happy. with that arrangement. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would it be possible to get letters from neighbors there saying. . . . .? We' ll close the hearing tonight but we won't vote on this. When we get the letters if its a real rush, we can come in and vote and if its not we can put the vote off until the next meeting. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I have another concern. That is if one of the property owners were to sell you might be forcing a situation on a new owner. . . .I don't know quite how to deal with that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think that' s a problem- because your into our property really so it's a matter of if we feel we want to give this fellow a dock to access his property: If he puts it in properly at the right angle he could have a boat there without any problem. You can have a problem with your neighbor no matter how far you are. I think it' s just a matter of whether we want to go ahead and do that. If we' could get that letter, then we' ll put the vote off until next month. We' ll close the hearing. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Perhaps we want to leave the hearing open until those letters get into the record. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I' ll entertain a motion to recess the hearing. I' ll make a motion to recess the hearing.TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES 7:35 p.m. - In the matter of Harbor Marine Construction on behalf of LUIS PORTAL to construct a 4' X 20' catwalk, a 4' X 10' ramp, a 6' X 18 ' float and install 8 pilings. Also to dredge to 3 ' below MLW on south side of float to a maximum of Board. of Trustees 8 July ;28, 1994 20' out from MHW. Located south side of Jockey ,Creek Drive, 650' west of Gilbert Street, Southold..* SCTM #70-5-52 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor or against this application? WAYNE HULSE: If you have a you have any questions . I would be. glad to help you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: "CAC recommends disapproval of the dock as submitted but would approve a shorter version of the dock. The dock should not be any longer than that of the dock on the adjacent property to the east. The submitted version was too long and would create navigational problems. Also, the southerly piles must be removed. There is not need for them and they would be a danger to navigation. In addition, the CAC approves a minimum of dredging and. the dredge spoil must be hauled off site. Do the Board members have any comments? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is this any different than the one you applied for 3 years ago? MR. HULSE: No there haven't been any changes and all those questions that they had were addressed at the last meeting. this had been approved twice before, but due to financial problems the client wasn't able to build then. :Basically we are looking for a renewal and. it looks like we will -be able to build in September. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The owner of the mariner across the street had no problem. Wasn't he at the meeting? MR. HULSE: Yes he was and that' s why he moved it as far to the south as we could. to prevent any access problem. MR. LOUCKA: Those two pilings. Why are they there? Are they really needed, 'cause they're gonna be sitting there by themselves and if someone goes by with their boat they're gonna run into them. MR. HULSE: Basically the two outside posts are ,just to hold the boat up to the dock. That's just what the elient wanted. MR. LOUCKA: If this boat' s not there, they're gonna be sticking. out into the creek. MR. HULSE: It also provides some protection of :his boat when it is in. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I had a problem with the dredging in that creek. As a matter of record I'm opposed to this kind of dredging. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It's. an unusual area and I have the same feeling as you do Peter, but if your at all familiar, it' s that big pipe that comes down and it's all the dirt and sand coming off the farms coming off the Main Road. They come out scoop out a hole in front of the pipe on a regular basis. ! It tends 'to fill in a lot with that, so it's not that your dredging a big hole, your trying to remove some of the stuff that' s been dumped in by the state. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I 've had individuals approachime and claim that whole creek up to the bridge is filling in and it should be maintenance dredged. Maybe yes, maybe no, but I still have a problem with dredging that far. into the creek. ;If we grant this dredging project, then maybe we should dredge out that whole section. I think it sets a precedent. Board of Trustees 9 July �28, 1994 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I agree with John, that this is an unusual area because of the tremendous volume of road run-off that silts in there. TRUSTEE GARRELL: I also question the reason for a 4' X 20' catwalk instead of a 3 ' X 20' & a 4' X 10' ramp ,instead of a 3' X 10' ramp given the guidelines that we follow. MR. HULSE: We don't have any problem following those 3 ' concerns. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does anyone else have concerns about the length of the dredging? Anyone else have any concerns before we close the hearing? ' TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I ' ll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE. HOLZAPFEL: I ' ll make a motion we approve the application with the change and that the catwalk will be 3 ' X 20' and ramp will be 3-' X 101 . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And the condition on that will be, that for any. . . . .we' ll leave the two outside pilings off and if those 2 outside pilings become necessary you can apply next year to amend that permit for those 2 additional piles ; TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Opposed dredging. (dredge Spoil Site hearing will be last) 7 :45 p.m. - In the matter of CHRISTOPHER CONNORSI to construct a single family dwelling with associated sanitary system as per map dated November 3, 1993 and approved by the Health Department January 5, 1994. Located West Drive, Southold. , SCTM #59-5-29.3 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll change the date. As per map dated. . .instead of November 3, 1993, the most recent map submitted was July 15, 1994, then apparently it was approved by the Health Dept. at that time. Would anyone here like to speak against the application? JAMES MANOS: I own the property including the wetlands to the south of the applicants property. The site plan that was included as part of the draft environmental impact statement originally and was dated 1988 was the one that was accepted by the Trustees. All' of you should have copies since I provided you with copies.. It shows an area to be utilized by the applicant on the northern half of the property approx. 65' X 1351 . This amounts to 8,000 s.f. It represents the best best thinking at the time on the part of the applicants expert, which is Mr. Haje, who recommended that the structure be placed on the northeast quadrant of the property so as to have the least impact on the environment. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Can I just interrupt .for a minute. Northwest, your 'saying, not northeast.. MR. MANOS: Northeast. The upper right quadrant. This. site plan when provided for the preservation of 12,.000 of s.f. the wetlands, that would be the area to the south of, the structures approx. 75' X 155 ' including a small area to the west of the. i Board of Trustees 10 July 28, 1994 septic system. The present site plan reverses the figures. The present site plan shows an area to be utilized by the applicant of approx. 90' fronting. on West Drive and going back 2 lengths that average approx. 130 ' . This amounts to a utilization of 1,500' of these wetlands. Approx. a 50% increase in the destruction of the wetlands as compared to the accepted site plan. It means approx. 8,500 s.f. in a wetlands- state. I think this is a substantial difference. And as such should be the subject of another application, and another SEQRA process. It should also be rejected because it does not represent a maximizing of the saving of the wetlands. I also wish to point out that the DEC after a long hearing in which experts appeared made findings, conclusions and a decision denying a DEC permit, wetlands permit, on the basis of the contamination of ground water that would be caused by the insertion of a sanitary system on the property. I realize that later on this decision which was up on appeal an application was made by Mr. Connors for an exemption, which was he was absolutely entitled to, from the wetlands act, the New York State Wetlands Act. And it was granted. The case was marked off the calendar not because of any merits but because of this exemption. Again, he was entitled to. But what is more important here is .1 think the Trustees have a legal right to consider the findings and fact the conclusions of law of that DEC decision. Over a period of approx. 5 months I took a series of photographs of the wetlands. The Town' s property, my property and the Peconic Dunes Camp property. I wish to submit them for your consideration. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone else like to speak against this application? ANN LOWRY: I am representing the North Fork Environmental Council which has roughly 1,000 people, members, who are concerned about the preservation of our natural resources her on the North Fork. The NFC is alterably opposed to interfering with the sizable important wetland area such as the one that is described in this project. This has been described area as unique by the consultant Santakas.. Unique, as I understandiit . because it contains tidal wetlands and fresh water wetlands. Aside from the fact that the DEC has seen possible serious problems with any sanitary system placed on the site, it is our understanding that the. Trustees is the major governmental proof in Southold for the responsibility for protecting and conserving our natural and water related resources. Clearly disturbing these wetlands is interconnected serious of ponds and swamps is. not in the interest of conservation of Southold Town Resources. We have learned over the years that we have done many, many destructive things in the past which doesn't mean we have to repeat them now. Building a house with a central sanitary system on this land in or near the wetlands with a threat of contamination of ground. water is a dangerous action to take now. We know that. We urge the Trustees not to allow a permit for construction of a home on this property. We realize that the private property right issued is in the forefront here, but Board of Trustees 11 July 28, 1994 if we do not protect what belongs to the community we won't have a community. ' TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone else like to speak against the application? Would anyone like to speak in favor of the application? JANET GAESA: I'm the attorney from Wickham, Wickham . & Bressler. We represent the Connors. I'd like to make a couple of points. As you know we appeared before you previously and so your fully aware of the Connors position so I' ll be brief. With respect to the DEC issue, which is a non-issue as Mr. Manos acknowledged the DEC granted the exemption, the issue of the sanitary system itself then. was placed before the agency with proper jurisdiction to determine those issues namely the Department of Health and as the Trustees have recognized you have before you a map which presents you with the approval of the Department of Health. I would suggest it would be inappropriate for you to consider the DEC' s findings in an area where they were ultimately required to conceive they have no jurisdiction to make a determination in the first instance. With respect to the discrepancy if any of the site plans as you know this is a matter that has been long pending an application has long been pending by the Connors. requiring them to go to various agencies and that application which is before tonight is the result of various agencies recommendations and approvals. I would suggest that those agencies approvals for items such as sanitary system, which is I believe a particular item you seem to be concerned about, should be given great weight. With .respect to Ms. Lowry' s contentions with all do respect to her and her agency, her position expressed tonight is that they object to any development of the area at all and this amounts as you know to taking the Connors property without just compensation. And that is impermissible. We've been, with all do respect, around and around on this issue and ''we believe that the application which the Trustees have before it, is the proper one in order to permit the Connors their right to develop the property in a matter most reasonable, not only to them, but to the Town of Southold. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of the application? TOM SAMUELS: Roy Haje is on vacation, and fortunately because of the much dated. . . . .I have been following this application for some time and it would appear to me that this applicant has gone through a rigorous regulatory proceeding. I think there comes a time when the final regulatory body has to say, "Well he has some use for his property" , or if the Town had some means of acquiring the property, so be it, that's certain. I don't see that. It would seem that the Health Department,, who had the most rigorous standards for setbacks from tidal waters and fresh water wetlands, in the northeastern United States. The Suffolk County Health Dept. has made a determination. I think that . determination, on the basis of their expertise, should hold some merit as far as your determinations are concerned. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Are you saying, that where they're siting the cesspools is not wetlands? Board of Trustees 12 July 28, 1994 MR. SAMUELS: I'm not saying that at all. I'm not familiar with the details of it. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Well let me tell you so that your at least familiar with what your talking about, so that would help you. The siting of the cesspools is right on top of the wetlands. So the Health Dept. . . . .this is the only areas they can use because of the wells that are on the adjacent properties determine the distance that it can be. MR. SAMUELS: This applicant has had quite a burden, and. one must have some compassion for this applicant. And I think. that in view of what the other agencies have done, your even in a more difficult situation.. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think we' re gonna deal out any compassion here tonight either way, but I' ll acknowledge that the Connors have been helpful this last month in finding out any extra information, and working with the new Board and they've been cooperative. MR. SAMUELS: I'm just looking that one issue is explainable. MR. FITZGERALD: Is the location of the cesspools the only stumbling block? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually, the site itself is by the applicants admission is 66% freshwater wetlands. The rest of it is a mixture of upland and freshwater. A different consultant looked at it and claimed that is was 75% wetlands. But your not talking about a large lot, your talking about 1/2 acre lot. So you take even 70% of 1/2 acre lot, that's a problem. MR. FITZGERALD: Kind of responding to what John said before; about the adjoining wells being, a problem, the wells could be moved, if somebody wanted to pay for them. If that was the only problem. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was never proposed. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That definitely a choice. MR. MANOS: I think another problem is that even if Mr. Connors totally filled in this parcel, there's no place on that parcel where you could put a sanitary system that would be less than 40 feet from surface water. Contamination from surface waters leaks directly to contamination of ground water. MS. GEASA: With all due respect the Dept.. of Health has already taken that into consideration and we must remember the parcel with which we are dealing. The fact that some of those wetlands were created after the Connors purchased the property and by reason of the fact that this was taken until this point in time to we arrive before you. TRUSTEE. KRUPSKI: I don't understand you. The wetlands were created after the Connors purchased. . . . . MS. GEASA: They were designated. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh, then they weren' t created. That's a big difference. MR. CONNORS: I'm not gonna go' through a long dissertation, but for 8 years you people know that your Building Inspector checked the maps. This land was not on a wetlands map. This Building Inspector gave us approval, totally gave a C.O. then said go ahead clear the land. He lied in a subsequent statement. when he went before the judge but he didn't say it, 'cause he Board of Trustees 13 July 28, 1994 couldn' t, and in this court, he said "Yes, I told you you could build on that", however, you didn' t tell me there was some water on it. So he knew, he told us. That' s one thing. The second thing is, certain times if you don' t have rain for long period of time, that is dry. I walked all the whole thing, but the water flows from the Shorts property which was filled in, and from the road which -is raised. This is a man made created problem. It wouldn't have been a problem is the Building Inspector didn't make the error. One more thing. They require that we build a. cement wall to keep it away from the septic system would be. I would have had a house there except for Mr. Manos. This man not only spoke against the adjacent property owner, but if you know the history, the man who know owns the land, that man applied for a building permit. This guy objected strenuously and gave him a permit and then he bought the land.. So now he. owns the land adjacent to him. One other thing, at the Health Dept. I thought this man, for eight years, was an environmentalist and had deep concern for the waters. Maybe the guy was honest. He said at this Health Dept. meeting he's like to build 2 houses for his sons, on that property that is all along mine. MR. MANOS: That is not true. I happen to own 2 parcels that are undeveloped and next to my house. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This kind of discussion you could take to the parking lot later, we don't want. to get into this. Let' s stick to the record here. MR. CONNORS: The Shorts property was filled in and they built a house. We can't put any fill in and build a house, that's the problem. Eight years of this and it was created by the Building Inspector and some of you Trustees told me, " yes, individually we have an idiot for a Building Inspector but I'm not gonna admit this in public". MR. MANOS: I happen to have a copy of the decision by the Health Dept. And if you read the decision it is so patently wrong. The decision seems to be based on the fact on the mistaken belief on the part of the hearing officers, that permits were issued by the DEC" to build a house on this property. Its also based on the mistaken fact, and if you read it. . . . . (he presents this statement) The decision was also based on the mistaken fact that the hearing officers could not consider wetlands or surface waters. It doesn't describe the degree of danger involved by the insertion of sanitary system. It doesn' t Say that there will be no danger, it doesn't say that there wouidA�i danger. It's no decision. It was based on considerations other than merits. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let me read this. That was Mr. Manos's interpretation of the report, and I don't really want to hear a rebuttal of Mr. Manos's interpretation. You can speak on anything that I read from the record. I don't want to get back and forth. MS. GEASA: Fine, so long as the Board is aware that he doesn't have the standing to make those kind of arguments before you as to his own interpretation. Board of Trustees 14 July 28, 1994 KRUPSKI: But we do recognize that that was his interpretation. I' ll read the findings and facts from the S.C.D.H.S. And the hearing date was October 7, 1993 and the Statement of Problem: The departmentts construction standards require that subsoil conditions and groundwater conditions be conducive . to the proper functioning of subsurface sewage disposal systems. The site has poor soil and/or groundwater. conditions. Proposed leaching pools will be less than 100 feet from area which periodically floods. FINDINGS AND FACTS: 1. The following facts were presented by Mr. Daniel Ross, Esq. for the applicant: The lot is part of a 1992 subdivision; It was noted that Town documents indicate conceptual approval was issued in 1974; Mr. Connors purchased the property in 1987 for $57, 000; A similar building project was granted approval in 1975; Town Trustees are withholding further consideration. on the application pending a ruling by the SCDHS; Applicant has been issued orders of violation by the town to stop filling of land; NYSDEC had denied wetland' s permit, however, based upon an Article 78 action, the applicant was granted an exemption. 2. The following documents were provided by the applicant: August 19, 1992 letter report prepared by Bruce Anderson Environmental Consultant; Draft Environmental Impact Statement by Roy Haje, En-consultants; Article 78 judgement of the State Supreme Court (Hon, Thomas M. Stark) . The suit was resolved by agreement of the NYSDEC to issue an exemption to the applicant pursuant to ECL 24-1305, thus allowing construction of a single family residence. 3. October 4, 1993 letter submitted to the Board from William G. Albertson, Town Trustee, regarding the proposed development. Concern was expressed that portions of the property consisted of wetlands subject to seasonal flooding. The Board of. Town Trustee' s resolution dated 1/27/89 was also furnished which recommends disapproval of the project. 4. Testimony and photographs presented by Mr. James Manos to establish the fact that standing water and wetlands exist on the proposed building site. Mr. Manos owns adjacent. lot.. Mr. Manos also questioned the. Town' s conceptual approval, noted in the applicant' s testimony. 5. No well data was provided, ,however, it was noted that private wells of depths of 60-90 feet have acceptable water duality. 6 . The record was opened to allow inclusion of the following documents: October 22, 1993 letter from Mr. Daniel C. Ross regarding clarification of the towns approval status of the project. A revised site plan dated 10/25/92 with a proposed five pool shallow sanitary system with retaining wall. Department staff indicated that the design is the result of meetings with the applicant' s representative and Mr.. James Manos. 7. Building site is 20,000 square feet in area. 8. Site is in Groundwater Management Zone #IV. 9• Area is zoned A-Residential. 10. Public water is not available. Site is within the Greenport W.S. , but nearest water main is one-half a mile from the site. 11. Depth to groundwater is about 2.3 feet based upon test hole. 12. Soils are loamy sand 0 to 1.6 feet; brown log 1-6 to 2.7 feet; course sand 2.7 to 9 feet. Determination: It was a 3 to 0 determination of the. Board of Trustees 15 July 28, 1994 Board to grant the request for the variance, provided the applicant installs the expansion pools during the initial construction of the sanitary system. It should be noted the Board' s decision is based entirely upon the issue of whether a sanitary system can be adequately constructed to prevent any public health hazard. The Board acknowledges that wetlands. may be lost, however, the impact .on the wetlands is not an issue for consideration of the Board since the NYSDEC has agreed to issuance of the necessary permits via a State Supreme Court judgement. The Suffolk County Department of Health must defer to NYSDEC regulations and cannot override the court' s judgement. That .is what was submitted. You may comment on any of that. MS. GEASA: The only portion that I think is really relevant to the issue here tonight is the Dept. of Health' s acknowledgement that they need not make a determination with. respect to the wetlands, because the DEC had already granted the exemption as they were required to do. That is not a negative declaration on the part of the Dept. of Health by any stretch of the imagination. I believe further the decision of the Dept. of Health reflects that the conclusion which they are about to reach is one which enables the Connors given the property that they own and the characteristics of that property. Because we're not dealing in a vacuum here, we have to consider what we are dealing with, that they could construct a proper sanitary system and that it met with their requirements. Now they have placed the structure so as to comply with these various requirements and I think we're going around and around the issue here. The DEC, in essence, waived off, as they are required to do. That is no longer an issue. What we're presented here is how can they build their home in a reasonable manner that satisfies the Trustees with reasonable requirements. I think that's really the issue here. I. think that to go back and redetermine issues, which by the way, have, already fully mitigated, discussed and Mr. Manos has had his opportunity before those other Boards to assert those issues. I think that it is a disservice to everyone to distract the Board from the issues which are before you to deal those past issues. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone else like to speak in favor or against this application? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Can I just ask the Connors, did you talk Miss. Cook about her sanitary system? MR. CONNORS.: She wouldn't let us look at it, she said she was tired of people coming around studying her system. But she to check back maybe she will be inclined to do that. I also wrote to her and I called about the Clivus Multrum up in Massachusetts. Apparently they're a small outfit because they don't even answer 1clivus Multrum", they answer "leave a message on the record", I did that but they never called me back. I did it twice, I asked them to call me back. Either they're very busy or just aren't interested in calling me on Long Island. TRUSTEE RRUPSRI: Thank you for making that effort. Board of Trustees 1.6 July 28, 1994 MS. GEASA: I was advised that Mr. Reynolds of the Health Dept. informed Mr. Connors that the Health Dept. neither insists nor even recommends the Clivus Multrum system. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I spoke to Mr. Reynolds about the Clivus Multrum and he said his department basically doesn't have jurisdiction over it since its in the house and if you wanted to put one in you didn't need any approval from their department. Motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So moved. TRUSTEE GARRELL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: These are the findings of the Board and again, we should have brought the paper work up and about this high (indicating how tall file is) and it hasn't been easy for the Trustees or the Connors and its just too bad the system worked the way it did. I can't answer the fact about the Building Dept. whatever happened to that because that didn't happen in this department and I wasn't party to it, but it' s been a long road and I hope it' s over. (TRUSTEE KRUPSKI proceeded to read the resolution prepared by the Trustees, see attached) . And I other wise adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the Town, therefore there's a motion for the Board of Town Trustees to deny this permit. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE GARRELL: Al, would you amend it to read, "Therefore the Town Board of Trustees denies this permit for application that is currently written"? Do you want to add that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. TRUSTEE GARRELL: Given point number 15 particularly. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments? 8:37 p.m. - In the -matter of DREDGE SPOIL SITES with regard to dredging the mouths of creeks in Southold Town owned by the Board of Trustees. The Board would like the input as to possible dredge spoil sites. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here for that matter? MR. SAMUELS: I'd like to add some input on some of the dredge spoil sites that I feel there *can be some improvement in some of the selection of the sites. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anything specific? We have a map if you want to go over it. MR. SAMUELS: I know them fairly well. one in particular. Mattituck Inlet. The spoil is put immediately east of the east jetty, and that beach is built up considerably. That's where the Boy Scout Camp. is. I believe that it should be piped further east along that beach. There' s a number of bulkhead . that have been built in recent years, the beach has been scoured out. It' s in the 'shadow of the jetty. The cost of doing that will add very little to the dredging project. It's not a long PUMP. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It was scoured right there in the shadow of the jetty. MR. SAMUELS: It must have been right after the big storm, because that beach is built pretty well. Board of Trustees 17 July 28, 1994 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think the bluff area has been scoured out, but we' ll take that into consideration. I think their concern is for the sand to keep moving to the east, like yours is, to keep moving to the east, but I think the want to impact directly underneath the jetty. M.R. SAMUELS: If in fact that' s their goal, then they certainly will achieve it there, but the areas to the east of Bailey' s Beach Road is narrowing up remarkably. Especially I would say approx. 1,000 feet east from that stretch on. . . . .On one of your applicants tonight has a project before you which is to some extent impacted by that east jetty. It' s very difficult to bypass these channels and I appreciate that the channel has to be kept open. But there' s enough material coming out of there so that I think the area the Town's concern was to be protected and not over built seaward moving the. high water mark so far seaward, maybe working on elevation a little bit, which can be done relatively easy and run. some stuff off further east for that part of the beach which is in time gonna have to be. . . . . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You don' t think that sand moves down there? MR. SAMUELS: It does, but it takes 'a long time and if your gonna get a secession of serious storms in the meantime, while it' s moving, your gonna lose it. Whereas, you could build that up. It' s almost all storm pavements north of the low water mark. It' s really gotten down to the nitty gritty on that whole shoreline. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think they plan on, when they rebuilt that whole jetty, they planned on dredging that., There's gonna be a little bit of maintenance dredging, then you backfill. I don;t believe their gonna dredge the mouth of that. MR. SAMUELS: Well, it depends on the conditions at that time.. That will be a separate date. There's gonna be two bids. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, they said they weren't going to. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Part of why we're having the hearing is that the county is doing a -massive re-doing of all of their applications for dredging, generically and environmentally.. It' s not only specifically this event but their building the applications for the continuing process. So what their looking, for is over the next 10 or 20 years what kind of applications they want to have in place to take care of .it. That' s the kind of input we're looking for. MR. SAMUELS: That' s why I'm speaking to the issue. Since we've done so many of these dredging projects, and I have my own ideas from practical experience, of what's wrong. Another one would be Wickham Creek. Intermittently, Wickham Creek should be pumped to the other side. We've had .a number of projects before you again, where I'm sure you recognize that that beach needs nourishing. They' re attempting to do it from Mudd Creek off Broadwaters Creek. Periodically they go either side. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, that will be addressed. That's in the works right now. In fact, I spoke with the County and when we had Ray Cowan out also, everyone is in agreement that it should be put on the east side there. Board of Trustees 18 July 28, 1994 MR. SAMUELS: It can be balanced. I'd like to see the flexibility in those permits where the decision can be made what needs it. Richmond Creek. If you get a chance to look at the plans you will see that there is a channel .that's cut and it leaves a bar which is above high water to the east of the channel, which means that that channel will fill just as quickly as you get the first easterly. I would love to see a deposition based where that bar is. Which will cut down your incidence of dredging which is environmentally desirable. That bar should be taken out. It' s really a mistake. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is being done in the fall. The way the DEC and the county. I don't think I have to tell you how they mishandled the Richmond Creek dredging. It should have been done this winter and it wasn't. I think they' re gonna do it the way they have permits, in place to do it just to do it. I think the channel should be shifted more towards the way the ?, water wants to come out of the creek so that it won't. . . . .if you shift it to the side, it doesn't want to go to the side, it wants to go the way it wants to go. MR. SAMUELS: Follow the natural channel which they have failed to do on a number of cases, there' s three jobs in Southampton the same way. They insist on departing from the natural channel and nature does not tolerate that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But that's what we wanted them to do. Move that channel further to the east so that. . . . .directly it more to the east towards. Corey Creek, so that it will keep itself open. The same with Little Creek. I would rather see that moved over towards the north so that it keeps itself open. Now, I don't know if your in favor of that. MR. SAMUELS: We did manage this year, as you probably saw, managed to come up further south on that beach, which is at least an improvement. I understand that we had to twist some arms to do that, but I understand that the other side needs some help. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's another creek that we would like to go both ways. It should alternate years there. TRUSTEE GARRELL: I keep listening to us among ourselves agreeing on what has to be done, and I know in come the other players, in comes County dredge, seemingly everything gets loused up between here and there. I wonder if the time hasn't come in this To%vm. for people like ourselves who know the story of these creeks and advise on how to do these jobs best. To sit down with the County and sit down with people and sort of a planning session before the year begins and decide how we're gonna tackle these things, sort of like an advisory dredging board., or something of that sort. Whether that wouldn't save everybody, including the tax payers some money.. MR. SAMUELS: I think what happened, a point well taken, there' s no question that that's what we should do. In fairness to the County, the County is working on 10 year dredge permits. And the DEC has with this GEIS going forward will not issue any changes pending the outcome of the GEIS. The guys at County who are in charge of dredging are well aware of what we're talking about. There is no flexibility in the system the way it is Board of Trustees 19 July 28, 1994 now. Hopefully, what comes out of ,the $600,000 study will be some flexibility. I would like to see- on-site inspections prior to the dredge jobs when they're started. Not 6 or 8 months ahead of time, because what happens, and it's a classical mistake. They dredge, there' s a storm, and your back where you started from, and you dredge it the same way again. It's great for the dredging business, but I really don't need the annuity. Corey Creek is another one. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It tends to go west, coming out of there, and the water is very quick through there. It's very sharp, it just cuts it right out. It's fairly open. The channel stays. open because the water moves quickly. MR. SAMUELS: I'd like to see the technique change slightly so that the slopes on the side slopes are much shallower angling. That' s one of the problems, you come right to the edge of the channel and its a one on three channel and it should be a one on six or eight. Incidentally, that will be the best spot for little neck clams three years after the project is done. Well, with almost any of these channels, my channel which is Mudd or Broadwaters, three years after the dredging you get such a great bunch of nutrients right in those side slopes. That' s. another one, Deep Hole Creek. This needs some help. It always goes west. It builds a big bar, a 'tempolo' , a big swirling sand bar. That always builds up on the west side. My assumption is that .periodically something ought to go to the east side. The next creek up should be dredged. That' s the one. the County dredged for years, that' s the one where Al Smith lived. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why did they stop dredging that? MR. SAMUELS: I' ll be darned if I know. The argument at the time was there wasn' t enough of a launching ramp. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They stopped that years before that because they didn't want to do Deep Hole. I think John. Kuj awski was on the Board then. MR. SAMUELS: Water quality back in there has really deteriorated. It' s just not good stuff at all. . TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: You can't go in. The waters only 6 inches deep. MR. SAMUELS: The water quality in there is pretty poor. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Has the DEC ever tested it? Is Hall's Creek open? MR. SAMUELS: I understand one of the property owners has an application before you and is willing to pay for it. I think you should use your good officers with the DEC because it would really improve the water quality in there, that' s a real good spot for shellfish. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That should be easy enough to test water quality and shellfish resource. MR. SAMUELS: Anytime I can give you any practical input. . . . .The County does Cedar Creek up by the college all the time. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Any comments on Goldsmith's Inlet? MR. SAMUELS: Sure. Goldsmith's should be dredged and spoil should go to the east. It's going in minuscule quantities. The Town dredges there and nourishes Kenny' s Beach public beach and Board of Trustees 20 July 28, 1994 Town Beach, which is fine. It should be properly dredged and. periodically dredged or take the jetties out. Which we know has. been going on for at least 15 years. It's one time that the County spent quite a bit of money there and we built a road to the other side. Dragged line for about 2 weeks, moved a lot of material to the east side. That was a help. - But they seem to be reluctant to do it. Now the Town' s doing it and needless to say it' s an expensive process. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It would be easier to let the tides carry it. . MR. SAMUELS: If you pumped hydraulically, I would think it would be easier. Again, you got got a water quality problem back in there. So there are a couple of problem spots that judicious dredging might do improve some situations. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other creek? MR. SAMUELS: I have opinions on all of them, but I remember years ago, when I started out I spent. a lot time with Duke Latham who most of you know. We used to do much of the drag line around most of the creeks for the Town and there was a lot of dredging that took place that shouldn't have taken place. One of the points he made was water quality and it's so easy to see when it starts to deteriorate and you certainly see it in yield as far as shellfishing is concerned. I think it's like a question of which side you put the sand, I think you have to be site specific and you got to be realistic about what. . . . .it's not just boating that we're doing this stuff for. I think it' s important to keep flushing these creeks because there' s development all around all of them, we're not gonna stop that, it done, so we have to live with that problem, if it is a. problem, and those who live there say its not a problem, but at least we have to keep recognizance of the need to keep water quality high, and that' s one way to do it. There' s going to be enough pressure for dredging with boating and so on and so forth. But I think the Trustee's have to look at it a little beyond that. It' s all your bottom and that' s what we pay you the big bucks for. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We had the same public hearing at least weeks meeting and a fellow was here from Orient. And that little creek that comes into Orient Harbor., he said the state had dredged that a hundred years ago. He thought that should be dredged and its spoil placed up on the beach in front of him to slow down the erosion. What he said made sense. He wasn't gonna come up and say don' t do it, he wanted it done. Naturally what he said made sense, but none of us was familiar with it. MR. SAMUELS: I think there's another misconception that there's a lot people who think that the Town is dredging-. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Someone came in inside of Eugenes Creek on Little Neck and got a sand bar in front of there. MR. SAMUELS: End or south. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. What' s your feelings on having the County come in and maintenance the channels. MR. SAMUELS: Ken' s a personal friend of mine and I've fixed his docks a couple of times and I can only tell you what I told him and that is that that was one of those areas that was originally Board of Trustees 21 July 28, 1994 dredged when you could go right through a marsh. Now you have a shoal on the outside of it and I don't think that the County will spend. the money to immobilize a hydraulic dredge because the spoil would have to go over on Fleet' s Neck Beach I guess. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was the problem originally wasn't the dredging that filled in the marsh with the spoil. I spoke to Bill Shannon in the County about that he thought they could do. it. MR. SAMUELS: It certainly is desirable to do it because again it's a water quality problem. There' s another one on the other side where Mike Lo Grande lives and there' s a silt problem there. Maybe you could put some of those together. The county will certainly look at everything that the Supervisor requested them to but it's expensive.. Unless your gonna move a lot of yardage. . . . . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, which doesn't look like it. Mr. De La Salle said he has a 17 ' boat. It's not like he' s trying to move the Queen Mary in there. Some people want to get a 50' boat in there. He' s not being unreasonable at all. MR. SAMUELS: I know we were in there setting pilings for those two homes in there in the Spring and we got in at high tide and we couldn' t get out of the tide. It' s a real bar there. There' s several other places like. that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any Board member have any feeling on that issue. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I think what we should do is sit down at some point at a work session and go through each one and take public comments and draw up a statement that we want to send on. It. might take a month or two. There' s no big rush for this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment then? I,'ll entertain a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: So moved. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I' ll entertain a motion to go off public hearings. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So moved. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second ALL AYES IV. ASSESSMENTS/ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: 1. THEODORE PETIKAS requests a Coastal Erosion .& Wetland Permit to place 52' of rock wall to prevent erosion, construct a 14' X 20 ' deck and a 4' high fence on .west side of property and a 6' high fence on east side. of property. Located 52755 Soundview Ave. , Southold. SCTM #135-1-2.7 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved .to give a negative declaration. TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES 2. Karen Oxholm on behalf of WILLIAM &. GEORGIA. MANOS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story dwelling. Plans include to retain as much vegetation as possible and foundation to be constructed on slope of land eliminating full height of basement construction. Located north side of t , . Board of Trustees 22 July 28, 1994 Soundview Ave. , Southold, 606 ' west of Horton Lane. SCTM #54-5-46.1 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to give a negative declaration. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES 3 . Robert Brown Architect on behalf of PETER MC HUGH requests a Coastal Erosion & Wetland Permit to construct a 4' X 12' deck, 8- 4' X 6' stairs, 4- 4' X 6' platforms and 2- 4' X 8 ' platforms as shown on survey dated June 30, 1994. Located Hill Crest Drive, north, Orient. SCTM. #13-2-8.19 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to give TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to give a negative declaration. TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES 4. Proper-T Services on behalf of RONALD STRITZLER to construct a 410 ' long retaining wall typically 6' above grade, with returns at each end. Length of returns estimated from survey to be 12' at west end and 22' at east end, actual lengths to be determined during construction by intersection of top of retaining wall with face of bluff. Smooth face of bluff, in accordance with recommendations of Suffolk County Soil & Water Conservation Department, to permit vegetation and minimize further erosion from run-off, use material resulting from smoothing as backf ill behind retaining wall. Located 3055 Soundview Ave. , Mattituck. SCTM #94-1-14 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to give a negative declaration under conditions that retaining wall be completely covered with sand and vegetated. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES 5. En-Consultants on behalf of LOUIS CORSO to construct 460+ l.f. of armored timber retaining wall plus ( 2) 12' angles returns. Wall will be at toe of bluff and will be armored with 2 courses of 1-3 ton stone on filter cloth. A 6' wide splash pad landward of wall will consist of 8- 12" stone on filter cloth. Approx. 200 c.y. of cleans sand will be brought in via Duck Pond Road. Applicant attempted to stabilize the bluff by plantings only but failed. Unless the toe is stabilized, slope will continue to move. Following installation of wall, slope will again be planted in accordance with plan of S.C.S.W.D. Located 1020 Glenn Road, Cutchogue. SCTM #83-2-10.4, 10.5 & 10. 6 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to give a negative declaration under condition that retaining wall be completely covered with sand and revegetated. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES V. RESOLUTIONS: 1. Larry Matzen on behalf of GARDINERS BAY ESTATES requests a Grandfather Permit to repair 261' of bulkhead and docking that adjoins the bulkhead under Permit #3818. Located Spring Pond, East Marion. SCTM #37-4-17 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to approve the Grandfather Permit.. Board of Trustees 23 July 28, 1994 TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES 2. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of. THOMAS W. RUSSELL, JR. requests a Coastal Erosion Permit to reconstruct and upgrade an existing rock revetment by installing a 65 ' X 18' rock slope. Two to four ton boulders shall be utilized by placing them atop filter fabric and a 1' layer of rock chips ( 4-6" tailings) and a 1 to 1 1/2 slop will be created.. No grout of any type will be used and any disturbed areas will be filled with loam and seeded. Located Fox Ave. , Fishers Island. SCTM #6-1-2 3. ANN LENCESKI & ELIZABETH SHALVEY requests a Grandfather Permit to replace an existing 75' bulkhead inkind/inplace built in 1965. Located 3700 Minnehaha Blvd. , Southold. SCTM #87-3-5 TRUSTEE WENCZEL moved to approve the Grandfather Permit with a 10' non-turf vegetated buffer. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI abstained. 4. J. Kevin Mc Laughlin on behalf of MARY HOPE LO CASTRO requests a Grandfather Permit for a 90' existing bulkhead. Located 2400 Park Ave. , Mattituck. SCTM #123-8-12 - TRUSTEE WENCZEL moved to approve the Grandfather'Permit. TRUSTEE .HOLZAPFEL seconded. ALL AYES Meeting Adjourned at 9: 45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted By: Diane J. Herbert, Clerk COUNTY OF SUFFOLK / Cgcf v ROBERT J. GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES MARY E HIBBERo. M.D.. M.P.H. COMMISSIONER December 17, 1993 Messrs. Christopher M. and William Connors 340 Jericho Turnpike Floral Park,N. Y. 11001 Dear Messrs. Connors: Subject: Board of Review Hearing-October 7, 1993 87 SO-93,Property W/S West Dave, 85 Feet N/0 Lake Drive, Southold,SCTM 1000-59-5-29.3. Enclosed is a copy of the Board of Review's findings, recommendations and determination concerning the subject application. Based on the information submitted, the Board granted the request for variance with the . provisions indicated in the determination. Ile granting of this waiver does not imply that your application will be automatically approved. It is your responsibility to ensure that your application is complete; otherwise,your approval will be subject to unnecessary delay. Very truly yours, Dennis Moran, P.E. Chairman Board of Review DM/!r Enclosure cc: Board of Review File-Riverhead Ms.Susan D.Windesheim Mr.Royal R•Reynolds_,P.E. James Manos, Esq Daniel C.Ross,Esq. O)V15ION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ■ 225 RABRO DRIVE EAST.HAUPPAUGE-NY 1 1786-4290 ■ TE1-(516) 833-3079 FAX(516) 833-2927 EXECu77YE OFFICES'RV CES SUFFOL.K COUNTY DEPARTb ENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY . . DEC 10 �fl 3I � •� Article 2,Section 760 220,Suffolk County Sanitary Code To: Mary E.Hibberd,M.D.,M.P.H. Commissioner From: Dennis Moran, P.E. Chairman,Board of Review Subject: Report of Findings and Recommendations of the Review Board Regarding: 87 SO-93,Property W/S Nest Drive, 85 Feet N10 Lake Drive, Southold,SCTM 1000-59-5-29.3. Applicant Christopher M. and William Connors,340 Jericho Tunrpflce, Floral Park,N.Y. 11001 Notice of Hearing: September 24, 1993 - Hearing Date: October 7, 1993 Statement of Problem The department's construction standards require that subsoil conditions and groundwater conditions be conducive to the proper frmctioning of subsurface sewage disposal systems. The. site has poor soil and/or groundwater conditions. Proposed leaching pools wfll be less than 100 feet from area which periodically floods. Findings and Facts L The following facts were presented by Mr.Daniel Ross,Esq.for the applicant: •The lot is part of a 1972 subdivision; •It was noted that Town documents indicate conceptual approval was issued.in 1974; •Mr. Connors purchased the property in 1987 for$57,OM; •A similar building project was granted approval in 1975; •Town Trustees are withholding farther consideration on the application pending a ruling by the SCDHS; Mary E.Hibberd,M.D.,M.P.H. Page Two Subject: Report of Findings and Recommendations of the Review Board Regarding: 87 SO-93, Property W/S West Drive, 85 FL N/0 Lake Drive, Southold, SCTM 1000-59-5-29.3. Findings and Facts (cont'd) •Applicant has been issued orders of violation by the town to stop filling of land; •NYSDEC had denied wetland's permit, however, based upon an Article 78 action, the applicant was granted an exemption. Z. The following documents were provided by the applicant •August 19, 1992 letter report prepared by Bruce Anderson Environmental Consultant; •Draft Environmental Impact Statement by Roy Haje,En-Consultants; •Article 78 judgement of the State Supreme Court (Hon. Thomas M. Stark). The suit was resolved by agreement of the NYSDEC to issue an exemption to the applicant pursuant to ECL 24-1305, thus allowing construction of a single family residence. 3. October 4, 1993 letter submitted to the Board from William G. Albertson, Town Trustee, regarding the proposed development. Concern was expressed that portions of the property. consisted of wetlands subject to seasonal flooding. The Board of Town Trustee's resolution dated 1/27/99 was also finished which recommends disapproval of the project. 4. Testimony and photographs presented by Mr.James Manos to establish the fact that standing water and wetlands exist on the proposed building site. Mr. Manos owns adjacent lot. Mr_ Manos also questioned the Town's conceptual approval noted in the applicant's testimony_ 5. No well data was provided, however, it was noted that private wells of depths of 60-90 fleet have acceptable water quality. 6. The record was.opened to allow inclusion of the following documents: •October 22, 1993 letter from Mr. Daniel C. Ross regarding clarification of the town's. approval status of the project Mazy E. Hibberd,M.D.,M.P.H. Page , Subject: Report of Findings and Recommendations of the Review Board Regarding: 87 SO-93,Property W/S West Drive,85 Ft N/0 Lake Drive, Southold,SC M 1000-59-5-293. Findings and Facts (cont'd) •A revised site plan dated 10/25/92 with a proposed five pool shallow sanitary system with retaining wall. Department staff indicated that the design is the result of meetings with the applicant's representative and Mr.James Manos. 7. Building site is 20,000 square feet in area. 8. Site is in Groundwater Management Zone#IV. 9. Area is zoned A-Residential. 10. Public water is not available. Site is within the Greenport W.S., but nearest water main is one-half a mile from the site. 11. Depth to groundwater is about 2.3 feet based upon test hole. 12. Sons are loamy sand 0 to 1.6 feet;brown bog 1-6 to 2.7 feet; coarse sand 2.7 to 9 feet Determination It was a 3 to 0 determination of the Board to grant the request for the variance,provided the applicant installs the expansion pools during the mural construction of the sanitary system. It should be noted the Board's decision is based entirely upon the issue of whether a sanitary system can be adequately constructed to prevent any public health hazard. The Board acimowledges that wetlands may be lost,however; the impact on the wetlands is not an issue for consideration of the Board since the NYSDEC has agreed to issuance of the necessary pe niits via- aStat+e Supreme Court judgement The Suffolk Comity Department of Healthmust deferto NYSDEC regulations and cannot override the court's judgement. Date Dennis Moran,P.E.,Chairman ' DM/lr .Albert J. I{rupski,President / p COG Town Hall John Holzapfel,Vice President <�N _� :` y1 53095 Main Road William G. Albertson y ':, z P.O. Box 1179 PVT Martin H. Carrell G Southold,New York 11971 Peter Wenczel y'�J,pl ��4� Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516)765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD July 29, 1994 Mr. Christopher Connors 340 Jericho Tpke. Floral Park, NY 11001 Re: SCTM #59-5-29.3 Dear Mr. Connors: The following action was taken by the Board of Town Trustees during its regular, meeting held on Thursday, July 28, 1994 regarding the above matter: WHEREAS, CHRISTOPHER CONNORS applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a .permit under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold, original application dated May 22, 1987 and, WHEREAS said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and recommendations, and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Town Trustees with respect to the revised application on Thursday July 28, 1994 at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, and, WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area, and, WHEREAS, the Board has considered all the testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application, and, WHEREAS, the subject parcel lies within flood zone A-7 as shown on the survey of Roderick Van Tuyl, P.C. , dated July 15; 1994, WHEREAS, the subject parcel, contains an area of 20,000 square feet with a front and width of 133.33 feet and a depth on both sides of 150.79 feet, WHEREAS, the applicant seeks to construct a single family dwelling of. 2,200- square feet with on-site sanitary system, driveway, and waterproof retaining walls,' .and grading all as shown on the above mentioned survey dated July 15, 1994, +•;fir. WHEREAS, the environmental assessment form submitted by the applicant states the depth to the water table as between ten inches and 1.1 foot, WHEREAS, the applicant's consultant, in the supplemental report to the DEIS, admitted that 66% of the parcel is freshwater wetland and that a large portion. of the remaining parcel contains a mix of wetland and upland vegetation, WHEREAS, from a personal inspection of the parcel by the Board and its ,consultant, . it is the finding and conclusion of the Board that "nearly all of the lot is freshwater wetlands", WHEREAS, the only non-wetlands area on this lot was found adjacent to West Drive and this non-wetlands area is viewed as a transitional area (and) extends approximately forty feet from the road, (Anderson, environmental consultant to the Board, 8/19/92) , WHEREAS, the report of Tsontakis Associates (an environmental consulting firm that concludes from an environmental perspective, the subject site is unbuildable.) , shows the freshwater wetlands to be over 75% of the parcel, WHEREAS, the above mentioned survey together with the applicant's vegetative map shows the sanitary system located on freshwater wetlands and the septic system will be required to be 2 feet above ground water which will require the excavation and the filling of wetlands, WHEREAS, the septic system will require being surrounded by a minimum of eight feet of waterproof concrete retaining wall which will extend approximately 44 feet on the south and another 44 feet on the west side of the septic system, all- of this area resides in the freshwater wetlands, WHEREAS, the septic system will then have to be covered with fill to a height of almost 6 feet and then gradually graded which will result in the loss of an even greater amount of wetlands, WHEREAS, the Board of Town Trustees agree with the many significant advantages of small freshwater wetlands made in the publication, Wildlife Benefits Associated With Selected Smaller Freshwater Wetlands In Suffolk County prepared by Steven Sanford, a senior Wildlife Biologist with New York State Department of Environmental Conservation which is included with this. statement, WHEREAS, the subject site is one half acre' of .a freshwater wetland system which is much larger, WHEREAS, it concludes a stretch of land from Goldsmith's Inlet, to Kenny' s Road, a distance of approximately 1/2 mile which includes Great Pond, WHEREAS, the small size of the parcel 20,000 square feet, which is substantially freshwater wetlands, cannot support the proposed project without destruction of over half. of the wetland area, ate....—• _ . . .. .,.,..� .. ._.. . . ._. .. .. - ... . . - .. _,..::.,..., WIN - WHEREAS-, the applicant claims the destruction of only 3,000 square feet, WHEREAS, it .is the Southold Town Board of Trustees finding and conclusion based on the project as shown on the applicant's July 15, 1994 survey that a greater area will be destroyed, and much of the remaining wetlands and groundwater will be clearly and unequivocally endangered by the proposed: sanitary system and altered rainfall run-off from the project, WHEREAS, the maintenance of the proposed five pool shallow septic system will be problematic due to the widespread boggy underlying soils found in the area of the septic system and* the seasonal and yearly fluctuation of the groundwater elevation, WHEREAS, the septic effluents (nitrates, detergents, etc. ) will also have an easy path into the groundwater and surface waters of the entire surrounding .area due to the fact that only two feet of sand are required between the septic system and the groundwater at this time, WHEREAS, the subject' parcel is at a very low elevation and is in very , close contact with the groundwater as stated above and occasionally parts of this parcel contain standing water, WHEREAS, any contamination by sanitary system malfunction on this parcel could cause direct and immediate contamination of groundwater in the surrounding area including Great Pond (approximately 400 feet to the south) which is used year round as a day or residential environmental cap by Suffolk County and whose property lies directly adjacent to the applicant' s parcel, WHEREAS, Commissioner Thomas Jorling, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, in adopting the findings and conclusions of an ALJ of that agency .rendered after a full hearing involving the applicant' s permit, stated in his decision that "The Applicant's potential for problems identified with the operation of the Applicant's septic system make it impossible to conclude that the project would be compatible with the public health and welfare. . ." . WHEREAS, the Conservation Advisory Council of the -town of Southold recommend the denial of this application on environmental principles, WHEREAS, the Board of Town Trustees believes that a smaller single family home could be built on the northwest corner of this parcel with a contained or closed sanitary system or clivus multrum (composting toilet) system that would not require the filling and destruction of freshwater wetlands for a .sanitary system, WHEREAS, the Board of Town Trustees has compared and weighed the adverse environmental impacts with the social and economic impacts of this project and finds and concludes that the impacts of this project do not outweigh the need to protect these wetlands and the general welfare of the people of this town, WHEREAS, The Board of Town Trustees finds that this project will according to the standards of Chapter 97-28: A. Adversely affect the wetlands of the Town D. Adversely affect fish, shellfish or other beneficial marine organisms, aquatic wildlife and vegetation or the natural habitat thereof I. Otherwise adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the Town, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees denies the application that is currently before this Board without prejudice of CHRISTOPHER CONNORS to construct a single family .dwelling with associated sanitary system as per map dated November 3, 1993 and revised July 15, 1994. Located: West Drive, Southold. SCTM #59-5-29.3 Very truly yours, Albert Krupski, Jr. President, Board of Trustees AJK/djh cc. C.A.C. Roy Reynolds, SCED Building Dept. Zoning Board Town Attorney Wickham, Wickham & Bressler, Attorneys RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK DATE 9�a HOUR 9.sd _ Town Clerk, Town of Southold