HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-01/23/1986 o�oS�FFo��OG
z
TELEP14ONE
(516)765-1892
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
JANUARY 23, 1986
7: 30 P.M. - REGULAR MEETING
The Regular Meeting of the Board of Town Trustees was held
on JANUARY . 23, 1986 at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold..
President Smith opened the meeting at 7: 30 P.M.
Present were: President Henry P. Smith
Vice-President John Bredemeyer
Trustee Ellen M. Larsen
Trustee Phillip J. Goubeaud
Absent: Trustee Albert Krupski
Clerk Ilene Pfifferling
Trustee Smith: May I have a motion to approve the minutes of the
December 26, 1985 regular .Trustee meeting?
Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Goubeaud it was
RESOLVED to APPROVE the minutes of the December 26, 1986 .regular
Trustee meeting.
Vote of Board: Ayes: All
This resolution was declared duly adopted.
Trustee Smith: May I have a motion to approve the minutes of the
Organizational Meeting held on January 2, 1986?
Moved by Trustee Larsen seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer it was
RESOLVED to APPROVE the minutes of the January 2, 1986 Organizational
Meeting.
Vote of Board: Ayes: All
This resolution was declared duly adopted.
Trustee Smith advised that Field Inspections will be held on
February 20, 1986 and the next Regular Meeting will be held on
February 27, 1986 to commence at 7: 30 P.M.
Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Larsen it was
RESOLVED to APPROVE the March 1986 Mooring Renewals.
Vote of Board: Ayes: All
This resolution was declared duly adopted.
Board. of Trustees - January 23, 1986 - Page 2.
Trustee Smith gave the monthly report for December 1985 as
follows: Application Fees $15. 00, Wetland Application Fees $350. 00,
Wetland Inspection.-Fees $20. 00, Dock and Ramp Fees $81 . 00 and
Mooring Renewal Fees $20. 00 for a total .of $486 :00 . The Trustee
Yearly Report for .1985.7_is' as follows.: January $1489 .25,
February $459. 00, March. $3772. 25, April $895. 00, May $971.00,
June- $1182. 50, July $1249. 00, August . $912 . 75, September $1359 . 50
October $1056. 00, November $565. 00 and December $486. 00 for a
total amount collected $14, 397. 25.
Trustee Smith dispensed with the reading of the Public Notices,
but advised that they are listed on the agenda and posted on the
Bulletin Board if anyone wishes to review them.
Trustee Smith commenced withthe Communications.
III. COMMUNICATIONS:
1. From Richard, Anna & Evelyn. Audioun comments regarding the
the application for the,.North Fork Property Development.
Trustee Smith: Does anyone have any comments on that one? No
comments.
2. From James H. Redman, N-.Y.S. D.E.C. Marine Resources 'Specialist
III, regarding information .on marina or mooring facilities from
governmental agencies involved--in regulating coastal marinas or
docking facilities.
Trustee Smith: Jay, do you have any .comments on that one?
Trustee Bredemeyer: , No., I guess we should respond to that.
3. From the Greenport Fire Dept. an invitation to participate in
the Washington' s Day Parade on Saturday, February 15, 1986.
4:.:...._.Erom-Robert .G.azza.-regarding,::the:'matter- of. Gaston J. Criblez,
Watersedge Way, Southold.
5. From Gertrude Reeves, Secretary_ to. the Orient Association,
a request for Town Board consideration to have the Hallock' s Bay
area declared-- as a Critical Environmental Area.
6. From Robert N. Thurber, DEC, regarding Richmond .Creek Associates.
7. From Mr. Gaston J. Criblez a request for an extension on
wetland permit no. 163.
Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded. by Trustee Goubeaud it was
RESOLVED to extend permit no. 163 for a period of six months .
Permit will expire- on May 22, 1986.
Vote of Board: Ayes: All
This resolution was declared duly adopted.
Board of Trustees - January 23, 1986 - Page 3 .
8. From Glenn E. Just, Land Use. Company a request for an
extension on wetland permit no. 163 for Gaston J. Cri lez .
(see -temc-number 7)
9. From Philip R. & Jeanne P. Marriner information regarding
Wetland Application No. 335 for John J. Newman.
Trustee Smith: We.-.will review this._correspondence. during the
Public Hearing on this application later on this evening.
10. From the Southold Town Planning Board Chairman, Bennett
Orlowski advising that the Planning Board rescinded their Lead
Agency Declaration on the Charles Bowman wetland application.
11 . From. the New York State D.E.C. regarding the Lead Agency'
Coordination Request on behalf of the Richmond Creek Associa ion.
Trustee Smith advised that the Trustees are meeting with t e
Planning Board on January 24th regarding this matter.
12 . From Garrett A. Strang a request for a determination on the
need of a wetland application of if the Board would consider a
waiver to construct a new residence for Mr. Stocker on Dawn Lagoon,
Greenport, seeing that the property has been previously bulkheaded.
Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Goubeaud it was
RESOLVED to WAIVER the need of a Wetland _Permit for the construction
of a single family dwelling with garage, deck and swimming pool with
the provision that the following measures are taken during construction:
1. Roof run off shall be discharged into dry wells.
2. Driveways and parking areas within 75 ' of the water shall be of
porous construction. Blacktop shall not be used on this site.
3. Care shall be taken so as to preclude the entry of any
construction material into adjacent wators.
4. Immediately following construction, all areas of exposed soil
shall be properly protected with suitable erosion control devices
and/or vegetated to prevent, entry .of eroded soil into nearby waters .
5.Care shall be taken .so as to preclude the entry of any discharge
from the pool into the adjacent waters.
Vote of Board: Ayes: SfUth, Bredeme er, .Goubeaud;.. . Nay: Larsen
This resolution was declared duly adopted.
13 . From Mr. Troy Baydala information regarding the property
adjacent to his residence on Clearview Ave. , Southold.
14 . From the Mattituck Estates Property Owner' s Association
regarding the map of Mattituck Estates and Wetland Application No. 312 .
15. From the Southold Town Baymen' s Association regarding dredging
in the creeks.
Trustee Smith:. - Ellen will you please read this communication?
Trustee Larsen: Dear Sir: This letter...is in reference to public
Board of Trustees - January 23, 1986 - .Page 4 .
to . public notice number 12439-85-443-L2. We regret receiving
this notice after the .December 13, 1985, expiration date, but
feel that it is important to reply.
Our association unanimously rejects the dredging aspect of
this application. To allow dredging of this sort is.. one of the
most insidious means for totally destroying all productive creek
bottom in the town of Southold.
Historically, our local creeks ' ecological health was never
more devastated than when each and every creek was dredged, to
accomodate a few waterfront land owners. The net effect of this
dredging, has been to allow a few people .to stare out their
windows at their large boats, which they typically only .use a few
times per year. Meanwhile, the productivity of our creeks has
decreased dramatically, dating specifically to the moment of
artificial channel creation. To now allow any property owner to
dredge public creek bottom just because it lies adjacent to their
private property, is to allow the death of our creeks. We hope
that this past policy of public betrayal has ended. It is the
responsibility of the Army Corps and local officials to educate
and inform the usually unenlightened property owner about the
ultimate destructiveness of dredging. Please start heeding these
facts or instead of calling estuaries creeks, we will have to label
them sewers. We would appreciate a responce to this letter.
Sincerely, Peter Wenczel, President, Steve Latson, Secretary,
Dated: January 2, 1986 P.S. two more creeks have been closed
to shellfishing in the Town. It is crisis time--the�ico.ur.sesr)bf
action are clear, but no action has been taken. Lets finally
start doing what is necessary to save Southolds Environmental
Heritage.
Trustee Smith: Thank you Ellen. Ilene will .you please send a
letter to the Southold Town Baymen' s Association and advise them
that we read their'_letter.-ratc:our�_meeting ,and will take it into
consideration.
16. From Theodore Zang regarding wetland application no. 324
for Arthur Bujnowski.
17. From En-Consultants, Inc. a request for a determination on
the need of a wetland permit for the construction of a house on
Narrow River Road, Orient for Alexander G. Koke.
Trustee Smith: Jay are you familiar with this at all?
Trustee Brederceyer: Very, as a matter of fact I was taking a walk
on Sunday af.ternoon,.and unbeknownst this was waiting in by box on
Monday. I happened to walk past the parcel and see it all staked
out with stakes and labels on the stakes. It would seem from the
survey provided, and where the stakes are located as proposed it
is located more than 75 ft. from an intertidal zone. The lot has
Board of Trustees - January 23, 1986 - Page 5.
some Phragmites but it does -not appear to.=be ' -
wetlands in keeping with the definition and. what has been done
out there. We could put it on .for a:.field survey. I would say
that we do not have jurisdiction.
Trustee Smith: It says here that the house will be 90 ft. from
the marsh fringe.
Trustee Bredemeyer: It is really not a wetland, it is marginal
land, to say the least. As proposed it is not wet in that section.
We do not have to waiver it, it is not in our jurisdiction.. as proposed.
Trustee Goubeaud: What is the water table in that area?
Trustee Bredemeyer: I would say that it is probably within 2 ft:.
of the surface of the ground. It is relatively shallow..
Trustee Goubeaud: Will he have a problem with his septic system
there?
Trustee Bredemeyer: He will have to secure the usual County approval
which on new construction, on a_ lot that size, he will probably
have to meet the full standards of that Department. They would
take into accouht: they- have requirements for separation of the
bottom of the pools and the ground water. He would have to raise
the grade or alter the grade on the site, I think.
Trustee Smith: Okay.,. just send a letter.
Frank Kujawski: Can I ask a question on that?
Trustee Smith: Surely.
Frank Kujawski: Will the cesspool system and the grading on the lot
also be 90ft. from the wetlands?
Trustee Smith: You can come up and take a look at the site plan.. if
you want to Frank.
Trustee Bredemeyer: It is probably more than 100ft. away. There is
nothing at all with respect to this, that is even within the 75 ft.
at all. '
Trustee Smith: Everything that is being done on this lot is at least
90ft. back, and then towards the road.
Trustee Bredemeyer: This is next to the Narrow River Marina. The
house will be located the same distance from the road as the existing
house that:''.P.luschau has.
Trustee Smith: Okay, send a letter to Mr. Haje and advise him that
the Trustees have no jurisdiction in regard to this matter.
We will start on our resolutions until eight o' clock.
Board of Trustees - January 23, 1986 - Page. 6 .
V. RESOLUTIONS:
Trustee Smith: Jay, will you take resolution number one?
Trustee Bredemeyer: The Trustees, in viewing the site, had
discussed a negative declaration based on if the applicant was
willing to temporarily tabling. or remove from the application the
groin section. Have we had any communication from the .applicant?
Clerk: No, we have not. had a response to this request.
Trustee Bredemeyer: We also have comments from the CAC generally
opposing the application, so I don't know if additional comments
from Dr. Garrell would be pertinent? I might be willing to offer
a "Conditional Negative Declaration" if we can hammer some of this
out, otherwise we will have to table this.
Dr. Garrell: That was our primary concern, the groin, . and the
problem with the neighbor and,_of -starving. .sand. We had problems
with the idea of bulkheading of the neighbor on the East and the
neighbor on the west,. just extending the bulkhead through. We couldn't
see any reason for going in for the additional construction because
he is pretty well screened from the North West wind and by the
natural point off to the west. So the principal problem we had with was
the groin. .
Trustee Larsen: I think we are in agreeance with that.
Trustee Bredemeyer: In viewing the proposal, the bulkhead lines
of the both neighbors structures do seem to be out further
seaward then what he has, so that I..would say that I would not
want to rule against the construction, which really only gives
him equal rights to the shore as the adjoining property owners, and
since it is a hight energy beach. . With those comments, and the
comments from the CAC. . .
Dr. Garrell: Can I ask, what is the feeling of the DEC about
stringing bulkheads all along the beach?
Trustee Bredemeyer: They have strong feelings, several houses down
I think, Candelles was the name, and they in discussing that application
his bulkhead is I think in place slightly seaward of the neighboring
properties and they had convinced him to move it back.-so it was more
in line with the bulkhead line in that area. I am not familiar with
any specific policy other than-.that. I move it as a "Conditional
Negative Declaration" conditioned on that there will be no groin
construction at this time, and that way will can move the application
along in that light, if the applicant is agreeable.
Board of Trustees - January 23, 1986 - Page 7.
1. JOHN XIKIS
Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Larsen it was
RESOLVED that pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental
Conservation Law State Environmental Quality Review and 6NYCRR
Part 617, Section 617. 10 and Chapter 44 of the code of the Town
of Southold, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Trustees,
as lead agency for the action described below, has determined that
the project which is unlisted will not have a significant effect
on the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: To construct 200± ' of timber retaining. wall
from corner to corner of adjacent retaining wall and approximately
10 ' in front of failing gabion wall. Backfill iwht 27.5± cubic yards
of clean sand to be trucked in from commercial upland source.
Proposed wall will be above H.W. property is located on Middle Road,
Southold.
The project has been determined not to have a significant effect
on the environment for :the .following reasons:
An environmental assessment form has been submitted which indicated
that no significant adverse effect to the environment are likely to
occur should the project be implemented as planned.
Because there has been a response from the Southold Town Conservation
Advisory Council indicating that this project would not have a
significant effect to the environment.
Because there has been no response in the allotted time from the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the
Southold Town Building Department, it is assumed that there are no
objections nor comments from those agencies.
1. Vote of Board: Ayes: All
This resolution was declared duly adopted.
2. DIANA TENDLER - LEAD AGENCY DECLARATION
Moved by Trustee Larsen seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Trustees declare .itself lead agency
in regard to the State Environmental Quality Review Act in the matter
of the application of Diana Tendler for a wetland permit on property
located at the foot of 9th Steet, Greenport.
2. Vote of Board: Ayes: All
This resolution-,.:was declared duly adopted.
Trustee Smith: Jay will you take number.- .three?
Trustee Bredemeyer: Environmental Assessment on wetland application
no. 337 for Joseph Schoenstein. Property is located on the Main
Road, Greenport. The Trustees made several surveys there, one
init•iallyi. n::respo.nse;.:to•-:the?plac.emeht)bfvfill on the parcel to
the East of the building and. then subsequently for the inspection
for the wetlands permit for the construction- of an addition to the
business, a building, which will be placed within 20 ' of the stream
bed that goes in behind there. The CAC presented us with comments
in opposition to this feeling there would be possibly alternatives
to placement of the building construction so close to the stream.
Maybe Dr. Garrell would like to adress that more specifically. I_
don't know what the feeling of the Board was, I did that inspection
Board of Trustees - January 23, 1986 - Page 8 .
by myself. I would not want to answer for the Board, as I
don't know what: their::_feelings were.
Dr. Garrell: This one, we had reservations with for several
reasons. First there were Town Ordinances that were already in
question with the Welding Shop. We felt that it should be at
least held up, with respect to the Town Board, to find out what
the Variances were and what kind of arrangements ha&been worked
out . to give Schoenstein permission to use the School Building in
the first place, and whether they had said anything about expanding
in the first place. More importantly we felt that he had. adequate
property to site that shop differently, maybe it was an oversite.
It just seemed that he could turn it around to at least 45c: degrees
and not 90 degrees and keep away from the wetlands. The third thing
was'::the rip rap that was lying around which certainly didn't indicate
the type of stewardship that you would give someone to go within
a creek. This in fact, _'..I think you will remember Jay was working
on this with us the other night, thee-Significant Habitat.; Designation this
whole area is on the Significant Habitat .pesignation.
Tr.ustee`::Bredemeyer: I move that we table the application.,requesting
additional information. In light of what Dr. Garrell said, whether he
has approval for the use and for the expansion of the facilities
and that possibly to request if a different configuration could be
made to try to lessen the potential impact on the stream.
Trustee Larsen: Dr. Garrell how many feet do you think he will
gain by turning the building?
Dr. Garrell: I figure he will gain 40 or 50 feet by turning it.
Trustee Bredemeyer: I paced it off this morning. That is a small
20 ' he ends up with a 90 ft. structure.as proposed. There is some
debree in the way. There may be an error in that figure.
Trustee Smith: We will send him a letter and ask him to rearrange
the building as Marty has so stated, and maybe we could get a
vegetation buffer in back there to help the situation greatly.
Trustee Bredemeyer: In tabling„ it I think we can come to a
reasonable conclusion with the applicant.
Trustee Goubeaud: I ' ll second that motion.
.3.-.. Moved.:by::.Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Goubeaud it was
RESOLVED to TABLE the Environmental Assessment for Joseph Schoenstein
and forward a letter requesting additional information regarding his
project.
3. Vote of Board: Ayes: All
This resolution was declared duly adopted.
Board of Trustees - January 23, 1986 - Page 9 .
4 . ALBERT BRENEISEN - NEGATIVE DETERMINATION?
Moved by Trustee Goubeaud seconded by Trustee. Bredemeyer it was
RESOLVED to declare the following Negative Environmental
Declaration:
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION _
NOTICE OF NO SIGNIFICANTT--EFFECT -ON THE ENVIRONMENT
APPLICATION NO. 338
NAME: Albert Breneisen
This notice is issued pursuant to the provisions of Article 8
of the Environmental Conservation Law State Environmental Quality
Review and 6NYCRR Part 617, Section 617. 10 and Chapter 44 of the
Code of the Town of Southold, notice is hereby given that the
Southold Town Trustees, as lead agency for the action described
below has determined that the project will not have a significant
effect to the environment.
TYPE OF ACTION: Unlisted
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: To construct an upper (110 ' ) and lower
(751 ) retaining walls and a 20 ' x 40 ' .swimming pool and to excavate
150 cu. yds. for pool 50 to 70 ' above MHW.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Dawn Drive, East Marion, New York or more
particularly known on the Suffolk County Tax Map as 1000-035-5-16 .
REASONS SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
1. An environmental assessment form in the short form has been
submitted which indicated that there would be no adverse effect
to the environment should the project be implemented as planned.
2 . Because there has been no response in the allotted time from
the Southold Town Building Department and the New York State D.E.C.
it is assumed that there are no objections nor comments from those
agencies.
4. Vote of Board: Ayes: Smith, Bredemeyer, Goubeaud
Abstained: Larsen .
This resolution was declared duly adopted.
it
II
Board of Trustees - January 23, 1986 - Page 10.
5. DANIEL SILVERMAN - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Moved by Trustee Smith seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer it-was' . . . ....
RESOLVED to declare the following Non-Significant Environmental
Assessment:
Date: January 23, 1986
I
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NOTICE OF NO. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT. ON 'THE ENVIRONMENT
Application .No: 314
NAME: DANIEL .SILVERMAN
This notice is issued pursuant .ot .the provisions of Article 8
of the Environmental Conservation Law State Environmental Quality
Review and 6NYCRR Part: 617, Section. 617. 10 and Chapter 44 of the
Code of the Town o,f Southold, notice is hereby given that the
Southold Town Trustees, as lead agency for the action described
below has determined that the project will not have a significant
effect to the environment.
TYPE OF ACTION: Unlisted
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: To construct a 20 ' x 5 ' fixed dock, 15 ' x 5 '
ramp, 81x2l ' floating dock. and two 3 ' x 28 ' floating docks and
to dredge approximately 150 cu. yds. and to remove to an upland
site.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Wunneweta Road, Nassau Point Cutchogue.
Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-111-14-32 .
i
REASONS SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
1. .An environmental assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicated that there would be no adverse
effect to the environment should the project be implemented
as planned.
2. There has been no response in the allotted time from the
I
New..York, State Dept—of Environmental Conservation and
the Southold Town Building Department, so it is assumed that
there are no objections- nor comments from those agencies.
I
5. Vote of Board: Ayes: Ali This resolution was declared duly adopted .'
I,
Board of Trustees - January 23, 1986 - Page 11 .
Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Goubeaud it was
RESOLVED to recess the regular meeting in order to hold the
public hearings on the wetland applications.
Vote of Board: Ayes: All
This resolution was declared duly adopted.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
8: 00 P.M. - In the matter of the application of Ian Shand
for a wetland permit.
8: 02 P.M. - In the matter of the application of John J. Newman
for a wetland permit.
8: 04 P.M. - In the matter of the application of S . Heagen
Bayles for a wetland permit.
8: 06 P.M. - In the matter of the application of John Lang
for a wetland permit.
8 : 08 P.M. - In the matter of the application of J. Lane Curry
8 .• 10 P.M. - for a wetland permit.
In the matter of the application of Claeyes
Bahrenburg for a wetland permit.
8: 30 P.M. - In the matter of Thomas W-, Cramer in regard to
the DEIS. "
Regular Meeting resumed at 10: 20 P.M.
V. RESOLUTIONS CONTINUED:
6. RESOLUTIONS TO APPROVE THE WETLAND APPLICATIONS
6A. IAN SHAND - WETLAND APPLICATION NO. 327 - APPROVAL
Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Larsen
WHEREAS, the Land Use Company on behalf of Ian -Shand applied to
the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of
the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold, application dated
October 2, 1985, and
WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town
Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and recommendations
and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Town Trustees with respect
to said application on January: 2.3y 198E at which time all interested
persons were given an opportunity to be heard,
WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar
with the premises in question and the surrounding area; and
WHEREAS, the Board considered all testimony and documentation
submitted concerning this application; and it is noted that there
was no public opposition; and .
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the project as proposed will
not affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the people
of the Town,
Board of Trustees - January 23, 1986 - Page 12 .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED that The Land Use Company on behalf ,of Ian Shand be
granted permission under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance
of the Town of Southold, New York all in accordance with the
application submitted. The permit will expire on January 23, 1987
if work is not complete- by same. The Trustees are to be notified
upon completion of the work.
1 6A. Vote of Board: Ayes: All
This resolution was declared duly adopted.
i
l
6B. The Board reserved decision on the wetland application of
1 John J. Newman.
6C. S. HEGAN BAYLES - WETLAND APPLICATION NO. 331 -� APPROVAL -
Moved by Trustee Goubeaud seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer
WHEREAS, En-Consultants, . Inc. on behalf of S-. _Hegan Bayles applied
to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of
the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold, application dated
November 13, 1985, and $4
WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town
Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and recommendations
and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Town Trustees with respect
to said application on January 23, 1986 at which time all interested
persons were given an opportunity to be heard,
WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar
with the premises in question and the surrounding area; and
WHEREAS, the Board considered all testimony and documentation
submitted concerning this application; and it is noted that there
was no public opposition; and
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the. project as proposed will
not affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the people
of the Town,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED that En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of `S. Hegan Bayles be
granted permission under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of
the Town of Southold, New York '.all in accordance with the application
submitted This permit will expire 'on January 23, 1987 "if work is
not complete .by same. The Trustees are to be notified upon completion
of the work. --�
6C. Vote of Board: Ayes: All
This resolution was declared duly adopted.
Board of Trustees - January 23, 1986 - Page 13 .
6D. JOHN LANG - WETLAND APPLICATION NO. 328 - APPROVAL
Moved by Trustee Smith ::seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer
WHEREAS, the North Fork Marine Construction, Inc. on behalf of
John Lang applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under
the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town , of Southold,
application dated November 14, 1985, and
WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town
Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and recommendations
and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Town Trustees with
respect to said application on January 23,. 1986 at which time-all
interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, .
WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar
with the premises in question and the surrounding area; and
WHEREAS, the Board considered all testimony and documentation
submitted concerning this application; and it is noted that there
was no public opposition; and
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the project as proposed will
not affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the people
of the town,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the North Fork Marine Construction, ;nc.. on behalf
of John Lang be granted permission under. the provisions of the
Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold, New York 'all in
accordance with the application submitted. This permit will expire
on January 23,. 1987 if. work. is' not complete by 'same. The . Trustees
are to be notified upon completion. of tho..'work. It is 'recommended
that you reestablish the marsh. fringe 'by replanting grasses.
6D. Vote of Board: Ayes: All
This resolution was declared duly adopted.
6E. J. LANE CURRY - WETLAND APPLICATION NO. 325 - APPROVAL
Moved by Trustee Smith seconded by ,Trustee Bredemeyer
WHEREAS, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of J. Lane
Curry applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a . permit under
the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold,
application dated October 25, 1985, and
WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town
Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and
recommendations and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Town Trustees with
respect to said application on January 23, 1986 at which time
all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard,
WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area;
and
WHEREAS, the Board considered all testimony and documentation
submitted concerning this application; and it is noted for the
record that there has been no public opposition; and
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that .the project as proposed
will not affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the
people of the Town,
Board of Trustees - January 23, 1986 - Page 14.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that Costello Marine Construction Corp. on behalf. of
J. Lane.-Curry be granted permission under the provisions of the
Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold, New York all in
accordance with the application submitted. This permit will
expire on January 23, 1987 if work is not complete by same. The
Trustees are to be ,notified upon completion of the work.
6E. Vote of Board: Ayes: Smith, Bredemeyer, Goubeaud-Abstained:Larsen
This resolution was declared duly adopted.
6F. CLAEYES BAHRENBURG - WETLAND APPLICATION NO. 329 - APPROVAL
Moved by Trustee Smith seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer
WHEREAS, North Fork Marine Construction., Inc. on behalf of
Claeyes Bahrenburt applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a
permit under the provisions of the Wetlandordinance of the Town of
Southold, application dated November 14, ,1985, and
WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town
Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and recommendations, rf
and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Town Trusteeswith respect
to said application on January 23, 1986 at which time all interested
persons were given an opportunity to be heard, and
WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar
with the premises in question and the surrounding area; and
WHEREAS, the Board considered all testimony and documentation submitted
concerning this application; and it is noted for the record that there
has been no public opposition; and
WHEREAS the Board has determined that the project as proposed will
not affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of
the Town,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that North Fork `Marine Construction, Inc. on. behalf of
Claeyes' Bahrenburg be granted permission under the .'provisions of the
-- Wetland Ordinance of the .Town of Southold, New York all in_
accordance
with the application submitted. This - permit will - expire on
January 23, 1987 if 'work .'is . not . complete .by 'same. The Trustees are
to be notified upon completion of 'the work.
6F. Vote of Board: Ayes: All
This resolution was declared duly adopted.
Board of Trustees - January 23, 1986 - Page 15.
7. Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Smith it was
RESOLVED that the Clerk be and hereby is 'authorized to advertise
for the Public Hearings on the Wetland Applications.
7. Vote of Board: Ayes: All
This resolution was declared duly adopted.
8. SCOTT L. HARRIS - WAIVER OF THE WETLAND ORDINANCE
Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Smith
WHEREAS,, the Board members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question ,and the surrounding area; and
WHEREAS, the Board has considered all the documentation
submitted concerning this request; and
WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact:
-1. By this request, appellant requests a waiver of Chapter 97
from the Code of the' Town of Southold to -regrade a 101x155 section of
property upland of an existing berm separating his property from
Town regulated wetlands.
2. The property in question is on the Map of Property at
{ Orient, Town of Southold or more particularly known on the Suffolk
County Tax Map Designation: Dist. 1000, Section 020, Block. 3, part
of Lot 9.
In considering this request, the Board finds and determines:
- 1 . The project as proposed will not adversely, affect the
wetlands of the Town.
2. The project as proposed will not adversely affect the
health-, safety and general welfare of the people. of the Town.
i
8. Vote of Board: Ayes: All
This resolution was declared duly adopted.
9. ANTOINETTE TISBO - MOORING TRANSFER
Moved by Trustee Smith seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer it was
RESOLVED that the Town Trustees APPROVE the transfer of mooring
permit no. 1931 mooring no. 634 issued to I1se. Scheible, to
the new owner of the property, Antoinette Tisbo residing at
296.5 Minnehaha Blvd. , Southold all in accordance with the
application submitted.
9. Vote of Board: Ayes: All
This resolution was declared duly adopted.
10. WINDS WAY BUILDING CORP. - PLANNING BOARD REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION
The Trustees personally visited the site and reviewed the
information submitted and it was determined that as submitted
the proposal would not require a wetland permit, but advised
the Winds' Way Building Corp. that if the plan is amended the
-applicant will be required to resubmit a new site plan for
review and determination for jurisdiction.
Board of Trustees - January 23, 1986 - Page 16.
11. FRANK ZALESKI - REQUEST FOR DETERMINATIQN
The Trustees reviewed the site plan for the subdivision and
conducted an inspection of the subject premises on January 16, 1986
and it was determined that a new site plan of the proposed dwellings
will be necessary before a final site inspection is made to ascertain
whether the Trustees have jurisdiction in regard to this matter.
The Trustees advised that a letter is to be sent to Mr. Zaleski
advising him of this request.
12 . NORTH FORK PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT - WETLAND APPLICATION NO. 315
Moved by Trustee•. Smith:. s.econded by Trustee Bredemeyer it was
RESOLVED that the Wetland Application NO. 315 for the North Fork
Property Development be and hereby is WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
12. Vote of Board: Ayes: All
This resolution was declared duly adopted.
13. DR. BERNARD KIRSCH - LEAD AGENCY DECLARATION
Moved by Trustee Smith seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Trustees Declare lead agency in
regard to the State Environmental Quality Review Act in the matter
of the application of Dr. Bernard Kirsch for a wetland permit on
certain property located on 9th Street, Greenport.
13. Vote of Board: Ayes: All
This resolution was declared duly adopted.
14. MARTIN AND FLORENCE GELLMAN - LEAD AGENCY DECLARATION
Moved by Trustee Smith seconded by Trustee Goubeaud it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Trustees Declare itself lead agency
in regard to the State Environmental Quality Review Act in the
matter of the application of Martin and Florence Gellman for a
Wetland Permit on certain property located on Meday Avenue, Mattituck.
14 . Vote of Board: Ayes: All
This resolution was declared duly adopted.
15. ARNOLD BLAIR - LEAD AGENCY DECLARATION
Moved by Trustee Smith seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Trustees Declare itself lead agency
in regard to the State Environmental Quality Review Act in the matter
of the application of Arnold Blair for a wetland permit on certain
property located on Midway Road, Southold.
15. Vote of Board: Ayes: All
This resolution was declared duly adopted.
16 . CYNTHIA KAMINSKY
Moved by Trustee Smith seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer it wa
RESOLVED that Cynthia Kaminsky is authorized to repair an existing
dock with the provision that no additional dock surface is added to
the structure.
16. Vote of Board: Ayes: All
Thismesolution was declared duly adopted.
Board of Trustees - January 23, 1986 - Page 17.
17 . ARTHUR BUJNOWSKI - WETLAND APPLICATION NO. 324 - APPROVAL
Moved by Trustee Smith seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer
WHEREAS, The Land Use Company on behalf of Arthur J. Bujnowski
applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the
provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold,
application dated October 10,. 1985 and,
WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town
Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and recommendations
and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Town Trustees with respect
to said application on December 26, 1985 at which time all interested
persons were given an opportunity to be heard,
WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar
with the premises in question and the surrounding area; and
WHEREAS, the Board considered all testimony and documentation
submitted concerning this application; and it is noted for the
record that there were comments during the hearing, which are under
separate cover in the file; and
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the project as proposed will
not affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of
the Town,
r
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED that The Land Use Company on behalf of Arthur J. Bujnowski
be granted permission under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance
of the Town of Southold, New York with the provision that a low profile
groin, not to exceed one ft. above MHW, is constructed. This permit
will expire on January 23, 1987 if work is not complete by same.
The Trustees shall be notified upon completion of the work.
17. Vote of Board: Ayes: All
This resolution was declared duly adopted.
18 . MATTITUCK YOUTH ACTIVITY - RUSSELL NINE
Moved by Trustee Smith seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer it wa
RESOLVED to WAIVER the need of a wetland permit for the placement
of brush over the band on the sound side to fill in the wind
tunnels to rebuild the bank to the grass area on property located
at Bailey Beach Road, Mattituck.
18. Vote of Board: Ayes: All
This resolution was declared duly adopted.
Moved by Trustee Smith seconded by Trustee Goubeaud it was
RESOLVED that this trustee meeting be and hereby is adjourned
at 10: 48 P.M.
Vote of Board: Ayes: All
This resolution was declared duly adopted.
i
Ilene Pfiffer n Jerk
Board of Town Trustees
PUBLIC HEARING
IN THE MATTER OF
JOHN J . NEWMAN
JANUARY 23,_ 1986
8: 14 P.M.
PRESENT WERE; Trustee President Henry P , Smith
Trustee John Bredemeyer
Trustee Ellen Larsen
Trustee Phillip Goubeaud
Clerk Ilene Pfifferling
Bay Constable Kent McCarthy
Frank Kuj awski
Jeanne P. Marriner
Martin Garrell, CAC
c
PUBLIC HEARING
IN THE MATTER OF
JOHN J. NEWMAN
8: 14 P.M.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE
TOWN TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, AT THE SOUTHOLD TOWN HALL,
MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 23, 1986 ON
THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION FOR .PERMITS UNDER THE PROVISION OF
THE WETLAND ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD; IN THE MATTER
OF JOHN J. NEWMAN TO DRIVE 12 PILINGS LANDSIDE TO SECURE EXISTING
GARAGE. PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON SAILORS NEEDLE ROAD, MATTITUCK,
NEW YORK.
TRUSTEE SMITH: That was the official reading of the notice for
Mr. John J. Newman. Does anyone have anything to say pro or
con to this application? Please come up and state your name.
MRS. JEANNE P. MARRINER: I live next to Mr. Newman. I would
like this opportunity to reiterate some of our concerns we
expressed in our letter to you. In the letter we called attention
to not only our concerns regarding the proposed piling project,
but we also asked that you .review the application in relation
to the other recently completed construction and alteration on
the Newman property. Our permanent residence abuts the Newman
property and we have been affected by bulkhead construction
during 1984 and 1985 and. we fear .future .cumulative. af_fects .and
we are gravely concerned about the proposal to construct second
story living quarters on top of the existing garage by placing
the garage on twelve pilings. Our reasons for our concerns are
as follows: The garage is right at the waters edge and we fear
the project will have a potentially- large impact on groundwater
quality from salt water intrusion.. As our well is about 90 '
from the Newman garage. The project we. know, _ will cause objectionable
ground vibration because we have experienced this when the bulkheading
was done during the 1984 and 1985 construction. The composition of
the land that our houses are on, sand and topsoil placed on bog is
very fragile. The land is surrounded on three sides by James Creek.
We fear undermineing of the lateral support could lead to the cracking
of our concrete foundations. The project could have an impact on
both the public health and safety of ourselves and other Salt Lake
Village residents and on James Creek due to- excessive water pumping
and additional sewage resulting from proposed facilities added to
an already overloaded parcel of property of less than one acre.
We are concerned with the overload even without the new proposal
because of the proximity of the Newman cesspool to the creek and
to his and our wells. The cesspool was placed closer to our wells
and the swimming pool took the place of the original cesspool..
r
Public Hearing In the Matter of John J. Newman Page 2 .
The system already services the following: The main house facilities
which is all on one acre, the Lighthouse, guest .bathroom and kitchen
facilities, and the Lighthouse is surrounded`'by: water. The Cabana/
guesthouse facilities situated on the. waters edge.,n.ext to the pool.
The washing machine, shower and other facilities located in the
existing garage which is .also situated on the. waters edge. -.As we
mentioned in our letter, we are extremely concerned about short water
supply::_and-.saltwater.' ihtr.usion._ resulting. .from :exce:ssive water pumping
of the newly installed. inground. -sprinkler:..system of both Mr. Newman
and his abutter to the North, Mr. . Fahey. We ask that you consider
how much water and waste disposal this property could handle without
contaminating our wells and the creek. We ask "that you please
consider the total situation when you are deliberating on application
number 335. While we recognize that Mr. .N.ewman:.s. garage needs repair
due to termite damage, further compounded by the recent construction
which made it slip off of its', foundation, we 'do not understand
the request for twelve pilings .to repair the garage., ..-.The pilings
are only a means. for. Mr. Newman to accommodate a .second story
to add additional living _space. Tonight I am speaking primarily
to application no. 335, as it ismy understanding that Mr. Newman
withdrew his request for bulkheading in application no. 330 . and
will replace the spartina he removed last Fall from his: property
directly abutting ours on -James .Creek. If there .is any change to.
application 330, we request the opportunity to comment because
the safety of our wetlands and property -could be affected. Because
we are deeply concerned about what could happen. to our home if the
project described in No. -335 - is permitted we ask .you. to please look
at the entire picture before making your decision.. We realize that
with current mandates, may not include responsibility for:-,s:ome. of
our concerns, we hope you will never the less recognize that there
could be a...potentially serious problem if further expansion is
permitted on ,this sensitive creek front. Thank you for letting
me comment.
TRUSTEE SMITH: - Does anyone else have anything to say?
MARTIN GARRELL: Question for you _Henry? What is the sequence
of determination on that? Who gives approval on the second story
building? Is it the ZBA? Or is it Planning?
TRUSTEE SMITH: That would be the Zoning Board. .
MARTIN GARRELL: That wasour. hopes that somehow we would .get a
decision on that before we would have to decide on the pilings.
TRUSTEE SMITH: It was my understanding that our part of. this matter
was to put the pilings in to stop the garage from sinking or slipping
into the creek. As far as .putting a second .story on, where he is
Public Hearing In the Matter of John J. Newman Page 3 .
within 75 ' of High water. He would have to come back to us for
an application to do that. As far as the cesspools and ground-
water and things like that, it is out of our jurisdiction.
MARTIN GARRELL: The thing. of it is,, sooner or later we are going
to get clobbered with one of thise things_. If we do not look at
the whole picture.
TRUSTEE SMITH:- I agree, but right now the mans problem is that
the garage is at a tilt.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: . I reviewed a 'let ter that was sent to us by
the Marriners. The swimming pool and that .particular item, I
believe started prior to the April lst date of the Wetland
ordinance, because we were out on this last fall. Apparently
that change went beyond our jurisdiction.. The discussion on
the inground sprindler system has got to make you wonder an
awful lot. That is such a fragile area to- be drawing on water
resources and there has been probably• no comment .from any other .
agency at all on that installation. It is one that deserves discussion
here as a principal. In ground ,sprinkler systems can draw a
tremendous amount.of, water . to put it on such a fragile location
as that', it deserves mention.
TRUSTEE SMITH:. Now well drillers are required by law before
they put a well in, as such, they have. to get a -permit from
New York State and the use of the well has to' be so stated. I
think they .:should be looking more closely where these wells will
be going and what use it• is going to be used for. If you get
dry years, you get salt water intrusion. A few years ago, the
people on Nassau Point has salt water intrusion. They had to
move their wells back close to the. road.. . It went. back after the
rains came back, but it was due to -lawn irrigation.
FRANK KUJAWSKI: I have agreed to represent Mr. Newman. I have
a letter I will give to the Clerk shortly. The reason I have
agreed to represent him is,. in the past couple of years in dealing
with him, I think the way he has conducted construction on that
property has been in a sensitive manner. A couple of compromises
he has made with this Board and the withdrawal .of applications
in the past. Before I agreed to represent him, I have also talked
to several people in the construction business_. It is their
opinion that this was rot, which was the basic part of the problem
here,. I acknowledge there is concern here on saltwater,-..intrusion,
but I am looking back at my own personal experience in this area.
The greatest danger occured during the. excavation 'or removal.- of
hydrostatic pressure. I would of thought that for instance,
during the pool construction period or any of the bulkheading,
where it would be going on, that would have been the time to see any
evidence. In the driving of pilings, the pressure is maintained
even though the interface between fresh and salt may be provoked
Public Hearing In the Matter of John J. Newman Page 4 .
or actually interspersed, the pressures still .remain. You are
not removing earth. I personally can' t see any other way to save
the garage other than the pilings. As far as the other couple of
things, I did: 1. To note, and,I think Mrs. Marriner correctly
I oted, discharges of waste prior in this garage as it is presently
constructed right now. There has been an improvement already,
because on buying this property that discharge of waste was a
direct discharge into the creek. I think we all know what that
means, since then this has been hooked up to the cesspool system.
There is a gain right there. 2. The other point_ I would like to
mention is that Mr. Newman has a very large family. He is not
going to rent this out or .increase the population of this piece
of property. The personal wastes that are generated, and the
amount of water used by the population is not going to be
increased. In other words, the amount of water pumped there and
the waste generated right now. would be the same whether or. not
the Zoning Board of Appeals choose to allow him to make living
quarters in the garage. Is this Board in receipt of a letter
from Mr. Newmans. other adjacent neighbor? If not, I have a
copy of a letter from Mr. Fahey..which I would like to read.
"Dear Jack, After reviewing the information that you sent me
concerning the- raising of the garage and the adding of the
two bedrooms plus a bath, as well as your proposed extension
to the back of the main house, please be advised that I have
no objection to these improvements. You should feel free .to use
this letter in connection with your appeal to the Town. Sincerely,
Philip Fahey, Dated January 13, 1986" . I think that should be
part of the record that as the other adjacent neighbor here, and
that he is more: than sensitive to. any concerns this Board has.
I will convey them to Mr. Newman, thank you.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Does anyone have any other comments on this
application: Do any of the Trustees have any other comments?
(No comments) Then I will close this hearing in the matter of
John J. Newman.
Hearing Closed at 8: 26 P,M.
Nto 6,11&�
Transcribed by er Ilene Pfif rling
BY
11 1 1; 50U Y 1�OLD T01,V14 CL1-1-Z4
DATE a1ablEG 1JOUR S:-�o�°,M.
Town Clerk, Town of Southold
s
"l
PUBLIC HEARING
IN THE MATTER OF
THOMAS W. CRAMER
JANUARY 23, 1986
8:35 P.M.
PRESENT! Trustee President Henry P . Smith
Trustee John Bredemeyer
Trustee Ellen M. Larsen
Trustee Phillip Goubeaud
Clerk Ilene Pfifferling
Martin Garrell, Southold Conservation Advisory Council'
Thomas W. Cramer
Ben Herswig
Robert Costanzo
Ralph Costanzo
Robert Bennett
John J . Dabrowski
Hazel A. Hirche
Chester Boherg
Thomas Reilly
Kent McCarthy, Bay Constable
David Emilita, S .T. Planning Consultant
(approximately 30 to 35 people in the audience)
Chuck Voorhis
PUBLIC HEARING
IN THE MATTER OF
THOMAS W. CRAMER
8: 35 P.M.
THIS NOTICE IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 8 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION LAW STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW AND 6NYCRR
PART 617, SECTION 617. 10 and CHAPTER 44 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN
OF SOUTHOLD. A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT HAS BEEN
COMPLETED AND ACCEPTED IN WRITING PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TO
BE HELD ON JANUARY 23, 1986 at 8 : 30 P.M. , AT THE TOWN HALL, MAIN
ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK. THE DRAFT MAY BE REVIEWED IN THE TRUSTEE
OFFICE PRIOR TO JANUARY 23, 1986 .
LEAD AGENCY: Board of Town Trustees
Town of Southold
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P. 0. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
APPLICANT: THOMAS W. CRAMER
63 Clifton Place
Port Jefferson Station, New York 11776
PERMIT APPLIED FOR: Wetlands Permit
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: To construct a 1545 sq. ft. two story frame
single family residence with attached garage, deck, well and
sanitary system.
PROJECT LOCATION: Meadow Lane, Mattituck, New York 11952 .
More particularly known as Lot no. 42 of Mattituck Estates,
Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-115-5-7, east of LILCO Pole
No. 5; 322 . 95 ' north of New Suffolk Avenue, tributary north of
Deep Hole Creek, Mattituck.
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
A. The intertidal marsh is extremely close to
the property.
B. Within the marsh there are-a variety of species
of nesting fowl.
C. Controversy over the development of this lot
within the neighborhood itself.
0
Public Hearing in the matter of .Thomas W. Cramer Page 2 .
Trustee Smith: The Trustees hav& made a Significant Environmental
Determination on this application, a Draft has been submitted and
this hearing is to obtain additional comments from the public
regarding this application. Please sign in so that we have a
record of your name for the file.
Thomas Reilly: I live on Azalea Road, Mattituck. I represent
the Mattituck Estates Property Owners Association, and we are
against the granting of a permit for lot 42 on: .Meadow Lane for
two reasons: 1. The lot has not been used by the builders.'.of
Mattituck Estates because of the swampy nature, now known as
wetlands and 2. There is not enough room there to build a house,.
To build there would cause erosion, contaminate the pond, and
pollute the creek with run off water. It would have an affect on
the wildlife,':which is found in the area, it would drive. them away
from the area, robbing them of one more sanctuary. We have a lovely
community here. The land is well'.-.maintained and more than forty,
homes fall in conformity with the Covenants and Restrictions that
were drawn up in 1965..an&_are still in effect. We urge you to
enforce the 75 ' Wetlands Law. Thank .you.
Trustee Smith: Is there any one else who wishes to be heard?
Chester Boberg: I live on Meadow Lane, Mattituck. One of the
criteria used to determine the significant effect on the
environment is the ,creation of the material conflict with the
community' s existing plans. Our Community plans were set some
twenty years ago in the form of Covenants and Restrictions. These
rules were filed in Suffolk County in 1965, and recorded by Mr.
Norman E. Klipp, Clerk of Suffolk County. These Covenants are to
run with the land for a period of twenty-five years and automatically
extended for successive ten year periods. Article-4 of these
covenants, does 'not permit any dwelling to be placed any closer
then fifty feet from the front lot line. All residents were advised
of these covenants and restrictions before purchase, and abided by
them. This is one of the reasons Mattituck Estates is a highly
regarded community. Although this wetland .application has several
alternative plans, they have one thing in common. They are all in
clear violation of the 50 ' setback. The Covenants and Restriction
herein. are both legal and binding and we will do whatever is necessary
to uphold them. Thank you.
Trustee Smith: Any one else?
Hazel A. Hirche: Good evening! I beg the Board' s indulgence
to be here, while I try to. substantiate our position on the proposed
development of a wetland lot near my home. During the 18 years of
Public Hearing in the matter of Thomas W. Cramer Page 3 .
residence here, we have enjoyed the-ambience of the area. We
have shared the property with ducks, who lay eggs under our
bushes, a family of Canadian Geese, Snapping Turtles, Box Turtles
and even a Red Fox. If their habitat is disturbed, or possibly
damaged,. we will lose the joy of living with them forever. To
build in the proximity of a wetland, I feel will be detrimental
to the area.
Dr. Martih.' Garrell: Henry do want me to step up and talk about
the DEIS? It will take about 15 minutes?
Robert Bennett: Good evening ladies and gentlemen, my name is
Bob Bennett and I speak on behalf of the four Ben.netts that reside
at 55 Azalia Road, Mattituck: ' Unlike my gentile neighbors, I have
always ascribed in my adult life, once fired upon, fire back. . I
am very disturbed with this DEIS, and I_:call your attention to
very specific areas: 1. That the Wetlands will not be disturbed.
An inspection of that property, as I :understand, some of you have
already made, would clearly indicate;--that this is nothing more than
a gratuitous and self serving statement. The applicant lists several
problems, and L...ask for your careful scrutiny to each one of them.
Number one: It.' s proximity to the. tidal marsh. Number two: The
clear evidence to the nesting water fowl. Number three: The viable
neighborhood controversy. I!.m._ surel,that is-'obvious to you, with
the presence of all the people from Mattituck Estates here tonight:,
and number four: The disposal of sanitary waste. Although the
applicant rai.ses .these problems, he: makes little or no attempt to
provide solutions other than to indicate to both the wetlands and
the steep slope there will be no disturbance. As to the soil
itself he promises low-fertilization with- absolutely no indication
as to how that would be binding to the first occupant of that house,
or ta,...the subsequent occupant of .that house. The design itself
calls for a thirty-five foot setback (that is on page 4 of the
DEIS). that is a ,clear violation of the covenants and restrictions
which the. applicant acknowledges in his presentation. . He' ta;lks-. ,__;
about _'Mih1mal' disturbance of forested area and gives some very
specific figures . 23 acres will be deminished to . 14 acres. " You
do not have to be a math wizard to figure out_..he is going to cut
the timber in ,half. He acknowledges that there is spring breeding,
but then indicates that there is no evidence of nesting water fowl.
He goes on to say "This-!.particular site is not as attractive as
other.::sites" . Now how does one come to that conclusion? Did he
talk to the. birds? Or does he propose to put up some signs. on _the
property:.and" direct;.:.them. •to.;.A, :more•::"suitable:-..location?4 4,;,This statement
is absurd.. .. We talk in the DEIS about an endanwer6dspecies or possible
elimination of endangered species. Although the comment is .clearly
made regarding vegetation, there is no clear statement�,.Ihat . there
is no threat to endangered species,:,of wildlife. If it is not there
it isn't there and you can draw a logical inference. On page 35
of the statement, the applicant refers to permission of the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation. This is a deliberate
Public Hearing in the matter of Thomas. W. . Cramer Page 4 .
attempt to mislead the Board. Unfortunately in this particular
case the D.E.C. copped out. They indicated that they had no
jurisdiction, and they sent a letter to that effect to the
applicant. That is absolutely not permission to do anything.
It is like me standing up here and saying "I have not killed
anyone yet",.� As to the Covenants and Restrictions, the
applicant .here adds insult to injury. He indicates that he
has deemed two of the Covenants impractical and invalid. I ask
you under what kind of regard dbesathda-seindividualZ deteim nenthe?>-
Cbmehants and Restrictions, by which we are bound are impractical
or invalid. He goes even further, to indicate to you, and "He assumes
the desire, the intent of the declarent" , how is it, under what
color of the governmental authority does this individual applicant
assume the desired intent of an attorney who drew these, Covenants
and Restrictions some twenty-five years ago. I would clearly indicate
to you, that 'the Bennetts readily acknowledge that this Board has
the authority to grant the application before it. We would ask you
most emphatically not to grant it. This DEIS was not preparedlDby
Bob Bennett or some other neophyte who sat down with pencil and
paper and attempted to decipher the complexity of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act. What,". I would suggest to you,
as dramatically as I can present it, -is that we have an interloper
here, we have someone who has come into the Town, attempting to make
a quick buck, and I would ask you to send him packing. Thank you.
Trustee Smith: Is there anyone else who would like to speak?
It is noted for the record that Mr. Robert Costanzo gave a
presentation using a VCR with Television Set to give a clear
and accurate account of the area in question.
Mr. Robert Costanzo: My name is Robert Costanzo. My wife and- I
own a piece of property adjacent to the property in question. This
is my son Ralph who has rode at more times on that pond,, then any-
one in this room and I would like him to tell you of some of the
wildlife that he has seen and witnessed. Not to go on and repete
what you have seen and heard tonight. All I can say, before showing
this film, if that we live on the large pond. On our side of the
pond there is no wildlife nesting, no wildlife playing at all,
while we are outside.:-_zWe?will see on the tape that they are on
lot no. 42. - I would like my son to tell you what he has witnessed.
Ralph Costanzo: We have Blue Heron, Egret, Kingfisher, Muskrat (there
are alot of these on lot 42 . ) ,, 1o.ts of duck, Snapping Turtles and fish.
Trustee Smith: Do you personally take a great joy in seeing this
wildlife and observing them.
Ralph Costanzo: Yes I do.
Robert Costanzo: Take note that there is a heron right there.
You will see it eat fish from that pond. I ' ll make note that the was
short environmental assessment form was filled out there were no
Public Hearing in the matter of Thomas W. Cramer Page. 5. '
fish in that pond.
Trustee Smith: What time of the year was that. taken?
Robert Costanzo: You' ll see a date .there. January 21 , 1986. `
There is about twenty minutes of film there and it. is taken at
all different times of the year starting last October, 1985.
Trustee Smith: Have you observed any waterfowl in the Spring?
Did you see any young?
Robert Costanzo: Yes, I have seen ducks every spring and. they
have their young. Also swans in that area, I can show you films
of it.
Trustee J. Goubeaud: Are there any Red. Fox in the area?
Mr. Robert Costanzo: I can-'-.t honestly say.
Someone from the audience: I have seen them in my backyard.
Trustee Smith: Did he get it?.(referring to_;a Breat"Bute'Heron- getting-a fish
to eat. ) It is quite a unique pond. _He got the fish and is eating it.
Mr.. Robert Costanzo: I have had my son tell you what he has. seen.
I recall, I have spoken to many people, I did live back west, I 've
lived in Huntington and Mt. Sinai. I am a sailor, I.'ve been on the
water all my life. . I was able to witness these things back west.
It is not there now. I was able to swim. Now you .can*!-.t.. At least
certain times you can-'-t. Mt. 5ina ' maybe there were three or .four
boats, now it the filled with boats. I _wonder:N4hatAimy son will be
able to witness when he reaches my age. I_ hope there will be some- .
thing for him to see. Please take that into consideration.
Frank-",.Kujawski: I just. want to add, because of my familiarity
with the project and having looked at the DEIS-, I 'm. not a resident
of Mattituck Estates, but a neighbor nearby as a user of Deep.. Hble
Creek, that the tidal action and flushing -action in:
accomplished:.:..on1y,,_`.by a_.sump-:.under the road. This is a more critical
aspect here in that nutrient loading .is going to occur even if some
one makes a minimal point of it, it is still goring to -occur. Another
point is that this is going to set a precedent. There are ,several
lots along that area that have never been developed, because they
all have the same problem there. If the first one is allowed to be
developed upon you can expect all the rest to come in. I said to
this Board, before. I think all of these marginal .properties that
are less than ideal waterfront lots are going to start coming before
this board as property prices escalate and you are going to find these
applications before you from now on. I don't believe this Board has
experienced a DEIS to a Final Impact Statement? I think that it. is
very important for this Board to make a statement now to avoid the
avalanche.
Public Hearing in the matter of Thomas W. Cramer Page 6.
Trustee Smith: Frank to your knowledge is this pond spring fed?
Frank....Ku.j.awski: I believe that it is brackish water in there. I
don't believe it is spring fed.
The audience loudly responded that this pond is spring fed.
Truste:e ..Smith:. . This is the head',. of Deep Hole Creek.
Frank Kujawski: Yes it is.
Trustee Smith: What happens here will affect the whole of Deep
Hole Creek.
Frank Kujawski: Yes it will.
Trustee Smith: Thank you.
Mr. Robert Costanzo: You can see in cold- weather when the pond
freezes, on my side of the pond the water does not freeze, and that
is where the underwater spring comes in, it is brackish water.
Dr. Martin Garrell: I don't think I have to introduce myself tonight
I just want to proceed on this under the assumption that the DEIS
will be replied to formally, in a series of points, with a view
toward the applicant preparing a Final Impact Statement. Which we
will then review and make a recommendation on. The feeling that we
had on this, was that this DEIS that had to be criticized
in many points, so that the applicant would have a chance to rewrite
it, and we would review it again. That is basically the way I set
up testimony in the letter. The C.A...C. felt despite the length of
the DEIS we find the document to be substantially flawed and feel
that a number .of issues will have to be addressed in greater detail
in the Final -Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) . A summary of
our comments appears below and will be followed by page-by page
criticism of the DEIS. SUMMARY: l. . The addition of 14. 4 lbs. of
nitrogen per year to the groundwater by the project will have a
significant effect because it will increase the nitrogen concentration
substantially beyond the current levels which may already be' 15 ppm.
by your own assertation on page 38. The effects of nitrogen loading
are additive and the effects of all houses is cumulative! 2 .
Besides effects on groundwater the effects of nitrogen and
phosphorous loading on the small pond must be calculated as well.
the pond water in the wetlands must be sampled four or six times per
year for nutrients to predict the impact of another dwelling. 3 . The
deleterious effects on wildlife, particularly nesting waterfowl, will
be .obvious, not merely during construction, but during the entire
period of occupancy of the structure. . It will :be necessary to know
exactly what fauna is in the marsh during the year through a
detailed periodic wildlife survey; a mere listing from a naturalist' s
handbook :does not suffice here! 4. Alternatives to the proposal
are given short shrift. For example, we would like to know . the answers . `.
to the following questions. Using the Composting Toilet" (Clivis Multrum)
Public Hearing in the matter of Thomas W. Cramer Page .71.
and Organic Kitchen System of Appendix 6-2 plus a cesspool for gray
water (already permitted in Southold Town) ., what does the new
number for nitrogen poundage from sanitary disposal look like?
If the turfed area were eliminated completely with fertilizer only
applied to.. shrubs what is the new estimated poundage of applied
nitrogen? 5.° It would be helpful to see yet another alternative.
siting plan which would put a smaller home on the property and move
it next to the road (Meadow Lane) . The environmental impacts could
be greatly reduced. by leaving a much Larger buffer between dwelling .
and wetland. Page-by-page comments: Page 6. Where are the catch
basins for subsurface recharge? How will wildfowl breeding periods
be handled once the dwelling is occupied? Page 14. What does a
typical flow plume look like -for groundwater. in the area? Flow
will take place not only along the hydraulic gradient but also
perpendicular to it. See various models as discussed in. texts like
GROUNDWATER.,'by :F.reeze and Cherry (Prentice Hall, 1979) . Page 15.
Where were these samples taken? At what time- of year? Are they
averages? Units appear scrambled for PH and for .ions in Table 4
and were left out altogether for conductance. Are the readings
of ammonia, and nitrate for the ions or for ammonia-N and nitrate-N?
Your say that no organics have been detected in the vicinity, yet
Table 3 . 1ists clear contamination levels. Page 24. What is
"Practical difficulty".? Could you scale down the structure or go
to the ZBA or Planning Board for modifications? Page 25. No mrnyion
here is made of the Town Wetland Act. No thought is given to
attempts to change covenants, should they actually be in force.
Page 31 .. The statement that "No Significant Impact is anticipated
from sanitary disposal or lawn fertilization" hardly appears
justified from the discussion of the preceding paragraph because 7. 3ppm
is rather close to 10ppm and because you will be adding to the
current levels (already 15ppm) .., ,- Besides you should address the impact
on the pond area, not just groundwater. Page 32 . see page 14 comment.
You are not taking perpendicular movement into account here. We
cannot agree with the conclusion that "No surface water impact will
occur" on that basis. Page 37. What- would such ai,covenant look
like? Page 38. Again see comment for page 31 ! Page 47. Septic
systems are��indeed required in addition to the systems discussed,
but there is no reason why such a hybrid cannot be used here. You
should detail the nitrogen reduction which would be possible by
using composting toilets and by eliminating turf areas altogether.
We hope that these questions will be adequately addressed in a
rewritten FEIS so that the Cac may proceed in our deliberations for
a recommendation for a Wetlands Permit. Thank you.
Trustee Smith: Mr. David Emilita reviewed the DEIS for the Trustees,
perhaps you would like to comment�:Mr. Emilita?
Mr. David Emilita: At the Boards request we reviewed the DEIS
and upon review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of
Public Hearing in the matter of Thomas W. Cramer Page ,8.
"Meadow Lane Residence" by. Cramer & Voorhis Associates, the
following questions have been raised. In general we find the
DEIS to be a thorough and sensitive examination of the site but
several areas need amplification.
1. Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 12 directly surrounding the intertidal
marsh in question, are undeveloped. What would the cumulative
impact be if all these lots were to be developed? The DEIS does
not address tje subject of cumulative impacts were the adjacent
lots capable of being developed.
2. Directly relating to the above cumulative impact, what then
would be the impacts on the fresh groundwater resources (Salt water
intrusion) and sanitary waste disposal?
3. If the proposed well and septic system is allowed where shown,
what negative or positive effects would they cause adjacent lots --
6 & 8 (100 ' setback of well from sanitary system) . We note there
has been no approval obtained fro the on-site well.
4. On-site groundwater elevations and gradients are not shown. The
use of soil-borings would have provided this information and verified
groundwater elevations. It would have been possible to provide this
information by limited clearing in the proposed disturbance areas.
5. The floor of excavation is not shown for the structure or
the- septic system. Coupled with the'lack &f` groundwater elevation
data, it cannot be determined whether excavation,;will or will not
penetrate groundwater. This has implications for environmental
impacts that cannot be precisely determined until such data are
included in the EIS.
6. It has not been specified how stockpiled material will be
contained so as not to prevent erosion, or where erosion control
measure will be placed on the site.
7. It has been stated that no disturbance would take place below
the 10 ' contour, yet the plan approved by the Suffolk County Dept.
of Health Services (p. 54. ) clear shows that there will be. such a
disturbance. This conflict needs to be addressed.
Further discussion of these concerns needs to be addressed in the
impact statement so that a complete overview of the proposed
action may be seen.
Should the applicant be able to successfully address the above
points and a finding or no significant environmental impact be made,
the following measures would have to be taken at a minimum:
1. Condition all permits on the granting of a well permit from
the SCDHS.
2. Specify containment of stockpiled material.
3. Place tow interlocking and staked rows of haybales at the
ten foot contour and erect a snow fence uphill to protect them from
dislodging during construction.
4. Ribbon trees to be maintained in the area of minimal
disturbance and the areas of no disturbance prior to submission of
the FEIS.
5. Approval of the building permit site plan showing the mitigation
measures to be incorporated into the project shall be granted by the
Board of Trustees prior to submission to the Building Inspector.
Interior water saving fixtures also to be shown.
Public Hearing in .the matter of Thomas W. Cramer Page_ 9.
6. Approval should stipulate that no building permit be issued
prior to the first of June 1986.
In conclusion, we ,find that this lot is probably the only buildable
lot remaining on the east side of Meadow Lane. The physical
limitation of lots 5, 6, 8, and:_9 probably render them unbuildable
without significant adverse impacts.
We cannot comment on wildlife impacts since only two field
visits were made earlier in January. We have no other familiarity
with the species alleged to inhabit the site or surroundings.
Trustee Smith: Does anyone else have anything to say? Any of
the Trustees?
Trustee Goubeaud: I would like to add that in reading through the
DEIS, I did not find any.. site specific soil testing done on this
site. I called the Suffolk County Health Department today, and I
asked how they. approved the sanitary system without site specific
tests. They advised me that it was due to the County Health approved
map that was made in 1965 when the development was laid out.
Because it was already approved by the County Health Dept. no--.site
specific testing was required or no boarings. I would like to see
some site spacific testing;.;.done and boarings to see what the water
level is where the system is to be installed., I would like to see
what the seasonal rise and fall of the freshwater supply is . I would
like them to find out what the percolation-.rateLis in 'that area:..
Trustee Smith: Jay, did you have.-.anything to add to this application?
Trustee Bredemeyer: Yes, I think alot of the comments here are good.
I had trouble reconciling the ,seeming conflict within the DEIS,'between
one hand the sentiment expressed that the C & R' s -('the existing ones)
were:..somehow not binding or important. `.'On the other hand there is
an offering there to apply C & R' s as a tool of which to limit
fertilizing on the land use development. The C & .R' s remain a tool
for Boards, like ours, to try to effect change for the future where.-we
also try through means of education., Sometimes. you may have to
entertain the C & R' s and so although it may not._be a subject for
us but it may be for the courts. I. would hope that the final impact
statement could somehow come to terms with the issue .and:.maybe
reconc'ile,.it' so I can understand :how;_- if ,there is -a way, that this
project is going to be compatible with the environment that the
C . & R' s will be respected in the future.
Trustee Goubeaud: I would like to add that the nitrites showing
human waste in" the soil has not been addressed. Also,the movement
of viruses in the soil, which I would like to see addresses.
Trustee- Larsen: All I would like to say is that I will be taking
into consideration the effects of the approval of this lot on the
subsequent_ request for development on the remaining lots in the
area.
Public Hearing in the matter of Thomas W. Cramer Page 10 .
Trustee Smith: Ilene (referring to the Clerk of the Board) do you
know of any applications applied.-'for that were approved or denied,
for this property?
Ilene Pfifferling: Not to the Trustees, but there has been an
application before the Zoning Board, for a varience on the
setback for the house. I guess that there was alot of controversy
regarding the application, as the applicant, Mrs. Renate Riedel
withdrew the application which was before the Zoning Board of
Appeals. At that time, she did not need Trustee approval for
the-'-.construction, as the Wetland Ordinance was not amended to
include the 75 ' distance from the water.
Mr. Ben Hertzwig: I 'm not an environmental: consultant and I 'm.
not a carpetbagger as one of the speakers suggested. I 'm one
of the owners of the property and I 'm. also a lawyer. I 'm just
here to address some of the legal arguments that have been raised.
The United States is a democracy. There is always contradiction
to the laws, so here I am tonight. There was a. statement made
regarding setting a precedent. When considering land use applications,
every application is considered unique. The. general rule is that
just because one application has been approved does not mean that
another will be approved, each one is unique.. In as far as these
covenants are concerned, these covenants were created. in 1964 or
1965 and restrictive covenants do serve a purpose but are subject
to policy of the State of New York. In 1965 covenants were placed
on the property there were no Environmental Conservation Law
no SEQRA, no Environmental Assessment Forms, no.:DEIS, no_ 45 hearing
period, no 60 day period from the date the DEIS was. submitted, no
Chuck Hamilton. Since that time, we are concerned with the impact
on the environment. If we. were required to build at the 50 ' set
back line, we would be in violation of the DEC requirements and
the DEC would probably not give us a permit, because we would be
below the 10 ' contour line. If we complied with the covenants and
restrictions the property is useless. Since we have a .State law
that manifests the Public Policy those restrictions are useless.
Now I never like to invite litigation, and I hear threats of litigation.
I read one of the letters to this board. I was not planning to come
tonight. But I was impressed with the stridency of. this letter.
It is my feeling no. 1 . If they- .had to test the Covenants and
Restrictions in court, the court would rule them invalid because
they must be secondary in Public Policy in the State of New York...
2 . In these kinds of applications, Zoning Board, Board of Trustees,
the Covenants are private Covenants and they are really not your
concern. The gentlemen from the CAC made point directly .
concerns basically environmentally. The covenants are extensively
for a judge. Ultimately we cannot go before the Zoning Board of
Appeals and I 'm sure we can be raised in saying the question of
the rule of law is private covenants and restrictions don't enter
into the deliberation before a public body. I 'm saying that in
somewhat anger. I want to set the record straight, and I don't
want to be boxed into a corner. Report from your consultant says
that this lot is basically the only buildable lot in- .the area.
Public Hearing in the matter of Thomas W. Cramer Page 11.
Those other lots would never be built on, because of the physical
limitations. We don't plan on building on the marsh. We plan
on building a small little house. As a matter of fact .:I- would
like to propose to build about 30 ' from the front lot line that
would reduce any environmental impact. I think the DEIS addressed
many issues that had to be addressed.
Chick Voorhis: I was involved in the preparation of the DEIS . I 'm
an environmental consultant. I didn't bring any films here tonight.
I wish I had. I would like to begin by pointing out some of the
features of the project,which we feel had been incorporated into
to minimize the environmental impact. You know the purpose of the
DEIS is to study the potential significant environmental impacts
of the project..which has been required and rightly so as it is
a tight piece of property. Some mitigation measures were incorporated
into the project. But you must decide whether or not the mitigation
measures,: were sufficient to minimize the maximun extent of the
environmental impacts. If - various potentially significant impact
remain, then it is certainlyi. a difficult decision to make. We
will attempt to address all of the concerns. We would like the
opportunity to response to the concerns addressed here tonight.
We will prepare a final impact statement. The project as stated is
above the 10 ' contour line. What we attempted to do is maximize
the setback from the road, place the house on the property so that
it would not affect the environment, and would somewhat conform to
the character setting of the community. The property is nearly 1/2
wetlands, ,.there is approximately 3600 sq. ft. of surface water on
the property. Only the upland portion of the property will be
utilized. The 10 ' .contour and everything, below that will remain
natural. The house was :i.designed. and selected, plans are available.
That house was selected because of the configuration and the way it
would sit on the property. The front of the house is actually set
into the bank which is approximately a 7% slope. The back of the
house will have a raised foundation and in that way-we can conform
to the existing natural topography without causing any unnecessary
disturbance. As many trees as possible will remain. The area will
have to be cleared for the house. The sanitary system will be in
the driveway. A crane will be used to dig the foundation for the
house and the sanitary system. That will minimize the amount of
disturbance,.-in that area. The topsoil will be taken off of the site
with the exception of the backfill for the foundation. And the
topsoil for the landscape that will be placed in the area of the
driveway. It will incorporate the mitigation measures requested by
the environmental consultant. Erosion was one of the first concerns
that came up. That will be controlled by the use of hay bails.
We did see to minimize nitrogen loading as much as possible. The,
wildlife question had been addressed to some detail in-: the DEIS .
Numerous site inspections, consultations with ornithologists and
review of relevant publications so not support statements that the
area is a:-prime location for nesting birds and water fowl. We can
provide documentation to that effect. Some of the concerns of the
Public Hearing in the matter of Thomas W.. Cramer Page 12..
Town Consultant on this issue, the buildability of these lots
and the cumulative impacts on the environment if all the,-.,lots
were to be developed? We did provide in figure 6 of the
DEIS a Topographic Map of the surrounding area. I think it would
be worth while to note that 10 ft. contour does move away from
the road in the vicinity of this subject site. It does allow for
the positioning of a house above the= .10 ft. contour and it conforms
with the 35 ft. setback. That is very significant considering that
the two lots to the North'.that we referred to and the two lots to
, the South does not have this ability. I feel this application is
unique.
Trustee Smith: I keep hearing this 10 ft. contour. You make it
sound like if it is above the 10 ft. contour line it is okay.
That is just for the D.E.C. that has nothing to do with this Board.
That is strictly with New York State. That does not change this
Boards thinking.
Martin Garr.ell: Is there an application for development on an
adjacent lot?
Ilene Pfifferling: Yes for a Mr. Paul:_Canalizo. The Trustees
did a Significant Environmental As.sessment on that application and
requested a DEIS, which has not been-:.submitted as yet.
Chick Voorhis: Also, the address of the cumulative impacts, -in this
states, is really an inappropriate type of feasibility of those
lots being developed are very slim.
Trustee Larsen: But, years ago we would have thought the feasibility
of those lots being developed were. very slim.
Chuch Voorhis: The fact that the permit for the well had not been
obtained, application was submitted to the Suffolk County Health
Dept. who. has jurisdiction over wells and sanitary system under
Article 6 of the Sanitary Code, and at that time it was reviewed
for sanitary system and well placement. You may wish to note on
page 51 of the DEIS oi-the' building survey that well placement
has been put on the map on the original which we have, and I will
provide you..with a copy of' it, it was actually sketched- in by the
County as well as the location and depth of the well. As far as
the disturbance below the 10 ' contour for the sanitary system, that
as I said they can take the plan and show where the sanitary system
should go in there. I believe that what we can do to fit this in,
I see Mr. Bredemey.er referring to the survey, is to simply reverse
the configuration of the pool and put the two pools on the' North
and one pool on the South and it will still meet the setback that
was designed into the plan. All the activity will be above the 10 '
contour line.
Trustee Smith: The only thing the 10 ' contour will do is that
it-.relieves .you from DEC. jurisdiction.
Public Hearing in the matter of Thomas W. Cramer Page 13.
Chuck Voorhis: I also like to note that the time of the preparation
of the DEIS, - we did not do on site monitoring for ground water.
I was able, however, to come up with a report which was prepared
by the Suffolk County Health Dept. on the Aldicarb situation,
but more important:.it did include some water table maping. There
is a well about 2 mile nor.th -:of the- site, which had an elevation
of three- ,ft. and it is further south so that cuts down the gradient.
So we can estimate the ground water to be 22 above sea level. This
is fairly accurate and it is based on a one foot interval contour
line prepared by the Health Dept. in 1981 . Again referring to that,
and with that knowledge, and Topographic Map, as well as the proposed
project it is possible to estimate with pretty good accuracy whether
or not the foundation will intercept groundwater. in response to
the Planning Consultants comments the front of the house is elevated
at approximately 13 ft. the cut for the foundation at that location
is 8ft. that leaves 5' above sea level ground water is 2 to 22ft.
so you have approximately 3ft. between the front of the house and
groundwater based on these estimates. The rear of the house is at
llft. contour with a 4 ft. cut necessary, that would place the
bottom of that cut and the back of the foundation at 7 ' which is
approximately 5' above ground water by this estimate. The County
requires 2 ft. between the lower part of the cesspool and the top
of the groundwater table. I don't feel that there will be any problem
and I would like you to know that when the sanitary system is installed
the .County Health Dept. will be there for inspection to be sure that
it is condusive to a .properly --functioning system. Backfill material
will be of .a suitable quality. There will be. haybailes staked into
the ground around the perimeter of the stockpiled material. In
addition to the 10 ' contour area, which we feel very important
to the DEIS. We would like the opportunity to respond in writing.
Trustee Goubeaud: What is the seasonal fluctuation of perched
water? You are telling us that the ground water level is about
2 to 22 ft. above sea water, which puts it somewhere between.,0 and
8 ft. in that area?
Chuck Voorhis: I can probably come up. with estimates of the seasonal
fluctuation. It does tend to.. be less near the shoreline and greater
near the center, of the groundwater divide of an a quifer, -system..
In this case I would estimate 6" to a ft.
Trustee Goubeaud: Doesn't that depend on the soil? what are you
basing your findings on? What type of testing for that type of soil?
Chuck Voorhis: I heard your concerns. before, .as far as.- perk tests
and on site determination of suitability of soil and testing for
moulting.
Trustee Goubeaud: Testing for moulting to see how -.high::the_water
will rise up.
Public Hearing - Thomas W. Cramer - Page 14 .
Chuck Voorhis.: The best time to monitor is in the spring. .as
you can see from some of the reports taken in 1981 . , I don't
feel that it would fluctuate more than 6" to a foot. Again,
near the shore line it fluctuates in response to the
sedimentation, it creates a hydrolic head, an elevation above
sea level. Near the shoreline there is less then the elevation
of sea level, because of the hydrouler contour -of the aquifer. If
you can picture the angles, as it rises and falls in the middle,
the actual angle near the shoreline changes much less.
Trustee Goubeaud: Now you don'.t know if there are any clay
barriers there at all?
Chuck Voorhis: Again we do not have the on site information.
Trustee Goubeaud: Don't you think that this should be done',
prior to any work on the property?
Chuck Voorhis: If it becomes necessary.
Trustee Goubeaud: What I'm trying to address here, the gentlemen
who spoke previously here, said that the C & R' s would probably,
if addressed in. court, would not. stand up. Alot,_has :happened . ...
since 1965:�' . The. same .thing can be said of when the County accepted
and approved the site map that was done in 1965.. Alot of laws have
come up since then. Maybe testing should be done to find out what
the soil is like,.prior to any construction.
. Trustee Bredemeyer: I. am very concerned about the nitrogen study
that you...did. It seemed very clear and concise, but some.. how I am
still having trouble understanding, as you developed it, the annual
rainfall contribution to the soil with the nitrate loading was going
to yeild 7 milograms per letter? That is based on the entire area
of the parcel?
Chuck Voorhis: That was the contributing area. We did not include
the area with the tidal wetlands.
Trustee Bredemeyer: Essentially, if the house and everything is so
limited and the , planting . are limited around the foundation., in
essence although the area of concern is very valid .in determining
nitrate loading for nitrate loading for drinking water supplies and
areas distant. ,,If the loading is occuring from a sanitary system
and occuring around the foundation; princip4l--ly there is going to be
a pulse of nutrients which is going to be moving somewhere in the
ground. My concern would be that part of this on-site study would
determine using the maps that may be available, exactally where
it would be going. I still have a problem understanding that while
it may be..7 parts for that given. year that there woun't be a cumulative
onsite effect that might be having it going_ from` 7_to .10 to 15: There:
may be a trend in the ground water that is coming there at 13, 15,
parts per million. Now, maybe the trend is going down because of
changing land use. Maybe the use of fertilizer is changing in thearea
Public Hearing - Thomas W. Cramer - Page 15..
There may not be information on it. I am concerned with that.
The anylsis seems good, but it seems to stop and leave you
hanging.
Chuck Voorhis: .. THe numbers are not carved in stone. The method
behind it, , the Cornell University method is developed to computer
modeling, where they actually fed in parameter and tried to
simulate what that effect on the ground water system. Then they
can back out and determine what those parameters actually mean.
How much nitrogen is being absorbed in the soil, gas, what gets
through that soil horizon. It is an estimate, and the best
estimate that I am aware of, has been applied. The Southold
' Demonstration Site, the South Shore had a study. I would like to
look for other means of monitoring, but this is the best I am aware
of. It is not carved in stone. It may be less, it may be more,
This is an estimate. The important thing to note, I think this
was included in the DEIS, that to have nitrogen moving in the
surface of the groundwater toward the surface water system at
the point of discharge the bottom of streambeds there is a layer
of clay, silt and material which does have the character to
promote a bionic exchange in the soil. We just finished a study
at .Southampton where we did do some,-,on site monitoring and found
the .water level of concentration of nutrient in the stream that
were being fed by the ground water on the site.
Trustee Bredemeyer: Another concern I had along these lines,
was that once the water moves through the soil to the point that
intercepts Trustee Land, our j.urisdiction, essentially the project
as proposed--..is the last user of the water before the Trustees and
as such I am not sure that applying. the 10 milograms per liter
standard which is devised for human health, is necessarily the
appropriate. standard for Trustee land in a creek. That is
something that I would want considered.
Chuck Voorhis: Will I get a copy of the record?
Trustee Smith: Yes, you will get the questions we want answered.
Your name please. Will you comp up please.
John J. Dabrowski: I look at theis and I see a group of people
that represent 950 of an area.. We represent almost exclusively,
Mattituck Estates. We the prople of Mattituck Estates did not
come to you, disturb you or. the County or any other agency. We
could adhere the- size of the land we purchased, through the
rules and regulations that we werb-bound to. The set backs, the
displacement of the well 100 ' from the cesspool etc. , whatever it
is 25 ft. away from the house to the cesspool, oh, Mr. Voohres did
mention.Ithat he' had ll. ft. to deal with -and I think you were talking
about the area where the pools will be placed. I guess you need a
900... sq. ft. pool? You talked about the 11 ft. depth of water table.
Public Hearing - Thomas W. Cramer - Page 16 .
What bothers me, we represent a majority of people from the area.
We abide by the rules, now twenty-five years later two people
buy a piece of property that is under contention, knowing it is
under contention. They come to you, and disturb you and all of
us residents because that is illegal. We are at the helm to
justify or contend any individual that comes along. I 'm sure if
we dig hard enough, and we know perhaps we don't have to dig hard
that the law can be written sometimes, okay, for a choice few. and
I think we see sometimes in our everyday life. I think it . is a
rather poor example for children, we send them to school, rear
them and say we want a society that abides by .rules. In fact,
there has to be other wise if we do not abide by rules we expose
ourselves to a chaotic situation. What I feel is wrong in this
case, we have people abiding by the law, not hiding behind the
law. I look at you and say you blatantly.- .disregard your fellow
man. I don't think we have to tolerate .this in this town. I
think we have to look in the past, in the future, there will be
mercenaries out there who will come in and say, "Hey" the rest of
you_.dombo' s have lived here for years and neverseen the dollar sign
staring you in the face and the piece of gold sitting out there.
Not that we did not see it but we were willing to abide by the
rules. I think this should be taken into consideration. .. I think
for once .and. for all perhaps. .when you .make your decision you may
perhaps alleviate us further coming down here and expending our
energy also. I think we agree there are more ' numbers out here and
more man power that is. being wasted right now. I feel it is
being wasted because we have lived by the rules and regulations.
I feel you should rule in the majority. We talk about buildable
lots, when I bought property from Ed Abbot we were the first,
perhaps to buy and one of the last to build. We were told that .
area was going to be dedicated to wildlife and a park area, play-
ground area for the area. Then the next thing that transpired
because some how the land-transformed-into someone elses hands.
I think all of us had an opportunity to buy. I don't think we
lacked sensibility. Perhaps it was because we had sensibility!
Those lots can not be built on, this particular lot . 51 acres .
In the literature you see .28 . We are all protected by covenants
you pointed that out. I woun' t. belabor you any longer.
Trustee Smith: We will not approve or disapprove this application
this evening. This is an ,opportunity for the public to give .
information to the Board on. this application.
Robert Bennett: The property owner suggested to us tonight a term
that I did not use "Carpetbagger" perhaps that is the more
appropriate than the legal term interloper .that I used. I would
ask you to examine in your deliberation, the price paid for the
property and the fair market value of forested property in the
hamlet of Mattituck. Council attempts to enlighten us as to the
case law. I am sure that my neighbors in Mattituck would join me
Public Hearing - Thomas W. Cramer - Page 17 .
in a judicial determination based on the real test of the
creditable evidence of our Covenants and Restrictions verses this .
clouded application. I would also ask you to examine in your
deliberation the record of the Zoning Board of Appeals as well
as. �the Town Board. I refer you specifically to ..the matter of
Peter Scoutelas who is my neighbor across the street. At that
time he was .preparing to build, he -was not aware of the Covenants
and Restrictions and .the fifty foot setback. When the Mattituck
Estates Property Owners Association brought it to the attention
of Mr. Scoutelas and the Town Board he was directed to move the
foundation from where it was originally proposed to 50 ' beyond
the front lot marker. No matter which way you look at this
application, whether it puts the house 12 '. in the middle of
Meadow Lane by adhering to the 75 ' ' from the wetland, or if he
puts the house in the middle of the pond because they adhered to
the 50 ' setback. The bottom line is inexcapeable, this site is
not suitable for a house.
Thomas W. Cramer: I am the applicant for .the '.piece of property
and also the owner. I am familiar with the previous application.
I feel that case.- there was a community sensitivity to the site.
Whether the people like it here or not, I am a neighbor now.
There has been references':_.made..:.as--:far- a:s "Carpetbagger" , . ."Interloper"
I--have family in. this:.:town:: . .I- am: out. here all..the time- '_I. would
like to spend more time out here. They imply that we would like
to break the law. We are in here abiding by the law. We are
offering a solution to the development of this property that we
feel is something that will help to .protect it in the future.
True the property was bought, the area they think was for a park,
but the fact remains that I am the property owner now. I have
certain rights that go with that. I am voluntarily offering to
give up some of those rights to restrict myself in the development
that: .takes. place.::.It is, �beyond. me, no I understand where they are
coming from. . This is something that has existed there for years.
They want it to remain that way. I was offered to buy the adjacent
lot next to me. I didn't want anything to do with it because I
knew it could not be developed upon. This piece of property, is
the only piece of property as your Planning Consultant referred
to that "This lot-is probably.. .the:..:only._:.bu.ildable: .lot..r.emaining on .
the East side of Meadow Lane" . There are things in the DEIS that
we are proposing to abide by to reduce the impacts that take place.
Granted any type of development there. are. .impacts. We are not
looking for . the Health Department to the fullest extent. The
question is, what is the land good for? If you do not put houses
there, the property is zoned for residential development? The only
alternative _1eft .is acquisition of: this piece of property. I don'.t
want to threaten anything, but, I am. the property owner. I spent
money for this property, it makes no difference how much I spent.
I am looking to develop this property.
Public Hearing - Thomas W. Cramer - Page 1$...
Trustee Goubeaud: Mr. Cramer, when you bought the property according
to the DEIS, you were then -full aware of the C & R' s that were
bounded by the property.
Thomas W. Cramer: Yes, when we made application to the N.Y.S. D.E.C.
because of the set back, what they told us to do was to move it
back. I believe I .supplied the Board with a copy of that letter.
If you don't have it I will forward- one to you.
Trustee Goubeaud: You also were aware of the problems that,--,'the
previous land .:owner_.had;_.in. attempting to acquire permits to build
on the property due to the sensitive' -,:nature of the environment in
that area. Is that correct?
Thomas W. Cramer: I was told that the reason why that wasri:'.t
pursued, or that why she didn't remain the contract vendee was
because she was belabored and her contract finally expired. The
property owner at that time was finally fed up with it and she
put it back on the market. When I saw what she had..,proposed,:.,-_;
it was insensitive to the site. We held the plan and we feel it
is extremely sensitive to the site and the community. There will
remain natural back by the water, we will leave most of the trees
in their natural state.
Trustee Goubeaud: From your profession, you do work in the
Environmental Profession, is that correct?
Thomas W. Cramer: Yes, Licensed Landscape Architect---in New York
State.
Trustee Goubeaud: When you first noticed the property you could
see that there might be some difficulty in getting permits,to build.
Thomas W. Cramer: I recognized that we would probably have to go
to an Impact Statement. We felt that this could be justified that -
we-do not have a significant impact on the property. I:f we can
respond to all of the questions .asked here today-.. in writing.
Trustee Goubeaud: Then .you agree with council that precedents
are based on a site by site method.
Thomas W. Cramer: Almost definitely. Every site has to be judged
individually. As I said the lot next- store was offered to me for
sale and I did not want anything to do with it. If you look at
the DEIS, this is the only site that has a potential for development.
Trustee Goubeaud: If a no build declaration is given to you, because
the Board feels that there may be problems that you are not addressing
as far as the environment, and your septic system, then you have
alternatives as indicated on page 48 , "It would be considered as
confiscation and appropriate compensation would be sought" . Another
words you are thr.eatening: :retribution for the Board making a
declaration for a significant impact.
Public Hearing - Thomas W. Cramer - Page 29�' .
Thomas W. Cramer: I am not threatening anything. We feel that
through the due process and DEIS process that we can adequately
demonstrate that the project will not have a Significant Impact.
on the environment. As such we hope to get the necessary approvals
for the project.
Martin Garrell: There was a remark about your living out here,
and being a neighbor. I am a little confused about that because
as I understood as a head of a Brookhaven CAC when you attended
our Long Island Sound CAC work last spring, that you gave your
address. as Rockey Point, no Port. Jefferson and that you actually
lived in Port__Jeff. .. .I would assume, or we made the assumption that
feeling that application for building the house for speculation to
sell.
Thomas W. Cramer: Conditionally. we bought the property with the
hope of being able to live out here. I had the opportunity to
buy my family homestead. I see where it makes no difference.
Since we bought a place in Port Jefferson. But, now I intend to
sell it to get my initial investment. I see where this makes little
or no. .
Trustee Smith: Please give him the courtesy.
Thomas W. Cramer: I intend to sell it, I can't afford to hold
on to it now.
Robert Costanzo: Mr. Cramer, I am happy to have you as my
neighbor. I have one question, I know you have your attorney,
and I don't expect an answer tonight. I will consult my legal
advice to— You see I own a great deal of property, almost 4 acres
of land, right there. Two acres of that land is unuseable land. It
is beautiful, it is alot of marsh, as well as water. I know you
are taking all kinds of necessary steps to prevent erosion. from
chemicals coining onto the :.water. I appreciate that. There is always
an ".If" . Being that small pond and the erosion of that beautiful
10 ' slope that you have if flushed down, if it does, 10 years, 20
years. If it rushes down and starts to pollute the water, you see
the major pond is completely on my property. This stream that
feeds from across the road, is completely on my property. You
can not get on that major pond without walking .on my property.
I am going to ask my legal advice, my legal council, and the Town
if in 20 years the water is polluted, . when I "can't stand the smell
any longer, who do I go after? Who is responsible? I don't expect
an answer right now.
Thomas W. Cramer: The covenants that we suggested to be put on
this property, what_ we are looking for is if the .Town required
us to -place them on the property, so that the Town can inforce
them. So that we do not get into a situation:-where there are
private covenants placed on this property. Where private individuals
Public Hearing - Thomas W. Cramer - Page 20 .
have to seek the conformance to those covenants. If the Town
imposes these covenants it gives you the opportunity to be
able to inforce that, and to insure that the area remains in
the state that we are looking for. The piece of property would
not be what it is now, if it was not in a healthy state. That
is what we are looking to keep'. This property could be developed
in an insensitive manner, I feel that we try to address it in
an extreme sensitive manner and propose development that would
protect the pond.
Trustee Smith: Thank you.
John J. Dabrowski: Actually in reference to the impact statement
and Mr. Cramers_ frequent accounts up here, - you do putt-he
burden of responsibility, of. protecting, we would like to in
fact put it on him. Now I would like to. point out, we are the
taxpayers, we do not have to take responsibility. I don't know
how they expect the Town to possibly. police, and.. work out the
legalistics, with the budgets we have, to safeguard this piece
of property and do it properly. . .To me logically I do not- see how
this could be done.
Thomas W. Cramer: The .use of. covenants is . a mechanism that has
been proven in the past as probably only. one of the means, the
property owners surrounding the property, there are asking them
something where, they are hoping that nothing will ever happen
there. Nobody can ever guarantee :that, you can, I. can- and I
don't believe they can. What I am trying to say, at_. least provide
the mechanism so that if. something'. happens, right, I don't believe
the Town will go out and :inspect every site. They will have the
ability, if they get a` call from the neighbor that someone is
dumping at stream side, they can go in there and .stop them. This
is the mechanism., the enforcement power. If someone is going to
do something, someone is going to do something!
Trustee Bredemeyer: Henry, Could I just. move that if there is no
major problem with it, to limit the discussion to three minutes
-for the remainder of the hearing?
Trustee Smith: Yes.
From the audience: The town .doesn't need any more laws, we have
enough laws.
John J. Dabrowski: The very reason we are all here:.tonight, is to
protect our property.
Public Hearing - Thomas W. Cramer Page '21.
Hazel A. Hirche: I am opposed to this project. Nineteen years
ago when we selected our site because it was going to be looking
into a 4 acre lake. At time Mr. Abbot' s promised us this. Now
the whole thing is turning .right around.
Someone from the audience.. asked: I would like to know how much
land will he have for a front yard if we have to have, water-by
the Town brought in, cesspools. put in, how much land will he have
for a front yard? How much land will the Town take from the road
into his property to build sewers and water?
Trustee Smith: The road is usually 50 ft. wide. If they do put
in a City water or sewer system they will do it in the roadway.
Does anyone else have anything to say? No response. Then I
will close this hearing on the' DEIS:.for._..Thomas W. Cramer.
Hearing Closed at 10: 20 P.M.
Ilene Pfifferling
Clerk to Board of Trustees
IZECE11TED AND FILLEKSD BY
THE SOUTbHOLD TOWN CLERK
DATE-2P zV-19 G HOUR 8_' .' OPA
UTd�wn �r�'o .