HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-03/24/2004 SyFFO��'
Albert J. Krupski, President ��.� CQG Town Hall
James King,Vice-President �� 'yam 53095 Route 25
Artie Foster y =� P.O.Box 1179
Ken Poliwoda Southold, New York 11971-0959
Peggy A. Dickerson y�o a��� Telephone(631) 765-1892
1 `1► Fax(631) 765-1366
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MINUTES
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
7:00 PM
Present were: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President
James King, Vice-President
Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee
Peggy Dickerson, Trustee
E. Brownell Johnston, Esq.
Assistant Town Attorney for Trustees
Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant
Absent was: Artie Foster, Trustee
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Monday, April 12, 2004 at 8:00 a.m.
TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. All AYES.
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 at 7:00 p.m.
WORK SESSION: 6:00 p.m.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to Approve, TRUSTEE KING
seconded. ALL AYES.
I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for
February 2004. A check for$1,365.95 was forwarded to the
Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town
2
Clerk's Bulletin Board for review.
III. APPLICATIONS FORAMEN DMENTSMAIVERS/CHANGES:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before we start I see at least one postponement
under Public Hearings, Number 10, John Betsch has been
postponed. I guess that's the only one. I'm sorry, Number 1,
Anna Acker has been postponed under Amendments. If
anyone has any comments under amendments, please step
forward quickly because we'd like to move through these.
2. ROBERT GRISSEL requests a Transfer of Permit#1834 from
William Nicol to Robert Grissel, and replace the pilings on
the existing dock. Located: 1705 Fleetwood Road,
Cutchogue. SCTM #137-4-36.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Peggy, would you like to make a motion?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, I've looked at this. I'd just like
it to say it is a transfer, but it should be repair of the
existing catwalk. He wants to repair that instead of
pilings.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: He didn't say that he wanted to change
the pilings.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He can do that now under the new
code. He has the permit in his name, so he can repair that
now.
MS. STANDISH: And the pilings mentioned in this permit --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If he wants to, he can replace them.
MS. STANDISH: 14 of them? So we need to change this
then. Original permit has 14, if you want to transfer the
permit the way it is then he has to.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: She's right. How many pilings are there?
TRUSTEE KING: Eight plus a -- 10 all together.
MS. STANDISH: We want to amend it to say the eight?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Condition it to replace it and
maintenance of existing structure as of-- here, I'll give
it a stamp as of this date. All in favor? ALL AYES.
3. ROBERT A. AND CHERYL SCHEIDET request a transfer of
Permit 5241 from Marc and Anna Clejan to Robert A. and
Cheryl Scheidet. Permit issued to construct a single family
dwelling with attached garage and deck, pervious driveway,
sanitary systems, dry wells, and a 50' non-disturbance
buffer with a 4' wide cleared path. Located: 2570
3
Clearview Avenue, Southold. Do I have a motion to approve
that transfer?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make the motion to approve with the
stipulation that a silt fence and hay bails be set up at that
50' buffer zone.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: During construction?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Prior to construction.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
4. JAMES P. SWEENEY requests a Transfer of Permit#5381
from the Walter E. Erickson Estate to James P. Sweeney.
Permit issued to install a 77' low-profile retaining wall.
Located: 2950 Minnehaha Boulevard in Southold.
MS. STANDISH: It was just amended in the last six months.
I told him he could try and get on for a transfer. It
didn't make inspection.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Remember the one with the flagpole and
the neighbor had the concrete seawall.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any photos?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: This is spartina.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. And we made them bring the wall
way back. We met an Ian Crowley there, didn't we? He was
there. This is a long time ago, Peggy, were you on the
Board then, 2001?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Actually, no.
MS. STANDISH: It was just amended though, if you look on
top.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What did we amend it for? That was just
a one-year extension.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That sounds correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's the plan that we approved. I
don't remember it, but that flag pole always makes you, and
all it is, see the neighbors have the concrete seawall, they
wanted to connect it in front, but it is spartina, and we
said, come back and that spartina will all come back nicely.
Is there a motion to approve the transfer of permit?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
5. Paul Caminiti, Esq. on behalf of MATTHEW F. STANTON
requests a Transfer of Permit#2109 from William and Susan
Trawick to Matthew F. Stanton for the existing dock, ramp,
and float. Located: 2725 Wells Avenue in Southold.
SCTM #:70-4-16.
4
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this one, if you see the
plans there's a note that the project has been built two
feet longer than the description, and they would like to
transfer it with the two feet addition, the additional
length out into the creek. I didn't have a problem with it,
and I met the owner on the site, and I believe he'd have to
keep the boat inside of the project, landward of the
project, you know what I mean?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, it shows it sticking straight out.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right. He wouldn't be allowed to have
his boat.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I see what you mean now.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Creekward of that. I don't have a problem with
the two foot addition.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want to make him amend it on paper?
What is it, two foot extra catwalk?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes. It's very small. I didn't have a
problem with the two feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, just have him, Ken, transfer it with
the amendment of 3 by 21 foot fixed dock. Tell him we'll
approve the transfer, but he's not going to get the transfer
until he applies for an amendment next month.
MS. STANDISH: Did that happen on a transfer within the last
few months? He just transferred in October. When they were
first going to sell the property, they never transferred it
in their names. They transferred it first, sold it and now
they're transferring to the new owners, but it was just done
in October.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we want to see them change their
permit. They need, before we give them the transfer, they
have to request an amendment and change their permit to
what's constructed and to put in the permit that the boat
can't be moored any further seaward than the dock.
MS. STANDISH: The permit is for what's out there doesn't
match?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct. It was built two feet
longer. We'll approve it, they just have to apply for it to
be approved.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is that a motion?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MS. STANDISH: So we approved it?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. We approved the transfer on the
condition of them applying for an amendment.
MS. STANDISH: So they won't get that letter of transfer
5
until they apply.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. Until they apply for an amendment
for the as-built size plus the condition that no boat can be
moored on it further seaward than the dock, so it doesn't
stick out of the navigational lane.
MS. STANDISH: All right.
MR. JOHNSTON: Let the record show that no one regarding
that application was present.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to go off the regular
meeting?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING
APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM
THE SUFFOLK TIMES. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ
PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.
PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF.
FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS IF POSSIBLE
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And identify yourself and sign in and
we'll have a clear record.
1. David Corwin on behalf of KENNETH L. STEIN requests a
Wetland Permit to remove 107 linear feet of deteriorated
bulkhead and reconstruct in the same location with vinyl
sheathing. Located: 2535 Cedar Lane, East Marion.
SCTM #37-4-10.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment
on this application? If no public comment, does the Board
have any comments from being on the site?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I don't think we had any thing negative
to say about the project proposed, fairly
straightforward. I'm looking through the file. CAC
recommended approval of the application with the condition
that the current non-turf buffer be maintained. With that,
if there's no other public comment, I'll make a motion to
close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES?
6
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetlands Permit
on behalf of Kenneth L. Stein.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For the record, we received notice today that the
new Chapter 97 Wetland Code has been in effect by the state
since March 4th. So we'll be trying to operate under those
guidelines as much as possible in the future.
2. Joel Daly on behalf of ANN MARINO AND BERNARD TELSEY
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a set of stairs to a
new deck and stairs to the beach. Located: 465 Old Harbor
Road in New Suffolk.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would
like to speak for this application? Or against this
application? I looked at this. I did find it. I'm
just not sure which house it belongs to, but it was staked
out. This is the staircase down. This one doesn't have
it. CAC did not have an inspection, so we have no
recommendation, and this is very similar to a staircase and
deck that's right to the south of this spot. So, if there
are no other comments, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the
application Wetland Permit to construct a set of stairs to a
new deck and stairs to the beach for Marino and Telsey, Old
Harbor Road in New Suffolk.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
3. Meryl Kramer, Architect, on behalf of JOHN AND MARION
BRANDWOLD requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing
one-story frame house, re-use and modify the existing
foundation, build new one and one-half story residence and
expand existing wood frame deck. Located: 1955 Bayshore
Road in Greenport. Is there anyone here to comment on this
project?
MS. KRAMER: My name is Meryl Kramer. I'm available if the
Trustees have any questions. I submitted revised plans that
have the septic and dry wells and leaders noted as well.
TRUSTEE KING: It has everything we're looking for. Any
other comments on this project? Any Board comments? Make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: Conservation Advisory Council recommends
approval. I'm make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: In the new code are dry wells, gutters
so we shouldn't have to always add that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think so. We have to check to make sure
it complies though.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But it should be on the surveys coming
in.
MS. STANDISH: I did tell them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could you do this next one, Jim?
4. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of STEPHAN
KLEIN requests a Wetland Permit to install additional rock
armor in front of the existing bulkhead at 2 plus/minus tons
per linear foot and for the existing stairway. Located:
9202 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM #73-2-3.1. Is there
anyone here who wishes to comment on this project?
MR. COSTELLO: George Costello, Senior, Costello Marine. I
believe in 1992 the Trustees did approve a rock more than
three tons for this site, and as you can see on your
inspection, there is inadequate amount of rocks down there.
TRUSTEE KING: That bulkhead to the east is already armored,
correct?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When were those stairs built?
MR. COSTELLO: I don't know.
TRUSTEE KING: Somebody else own the property?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: When those stairs were built, different
owner?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, different owner.
TRUSTEE KING: Not having the other permit, we can't tell
what was on it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did the applicant ever transfer this
permit into their name for the bulkhead?
MR. COSTELLO: I don't believe so, not at this point. I think I have a
copy of the '92 permit. Are you looking for something on that
permit?
TRUSTEE KING: I was looking for the permit for the
stairway.
MR. COSTELLO: Okay, let me see what I have.
TRUSTEE KING: I didn't have a big problem with it, but get it on the
permit as as-built.
8
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I didn't have a big problem with it
either. Write on the permit as as-built, yes.
MR. COSTELLO: You may have the same thing. It says
something about platform on the bottom half.
TRUSTEE KING: This is old stuff.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When they come in, they should transfer
the permit for the bulkhead, and, I mean, I don't have a
problem with approving this tonight.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't either.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then they should also show the stairs
as-built as they are and transfer the stairs with plans, you
know, drawing and the bulkhead at the same time.
MR. COSTELLO: Okay. I have a new survey that shows the
bulkhead and the stairs. Do you have a copy of it?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, but submit it with when you submit for
the transfer of the permit.
MR. COSTELLO: Okay. Jim, could I have that copy back?
I'll get yelled at if I don't.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments on this project? I'll
make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve armoring the
bulkhead, and the owner's going to come in and take care of
the transfer.
TRUSTEE KING: Second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MS. STANDISH: Do you want to condition that permit?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know if you want to condition that
permit.
TRUSTEE KING: No.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When you send them the amendment for the
rock, just send a separate letter to the applicant. We'll
just send a letter out to the applicant telling them to come
in for a transfer, and then you can send in the as-built
stairs and everything at that time.
5. Charles Cuddy on behalf COVE BEACH ESTATES requests a
Wetland Permit to improve the existing roadway. Located:
North side of Route 25, East Marion. SCTM #22-3-9.1.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone who would like to speak in favor of
the application?
MR. CUDDY: Good evening, I'm Charles Cuddy. I appear on
behalf of Cove Beach Estates. Also with me is Howard Young
and Tom Wolper, both of Young and Young of Riverhead who
prepared this plan. This is a 105 acre site. It's going to
9
have 12 lots on it. It's done in conjunction with the
Peconic Land Trust. Two-thirds of the site is going to be
saved through open space easements that have already been
actually recorded on the site. We had a plan that ran the
road somewhat to the east of the present road, that went
through wetlands and because the Peconic Land Trust had a
problem with that, we placed the road exactly where it was
before. The road exists. It's a macadam road. It has to
be improved though, and when we improve that road we're
going to be immediately adjacent to a pond. So we're asking
for a permit to permit us to go right along the road, but
with the understanding that we'll do everything we can
to mitigate. Certainly we're not going to harm the pond.
We're not going to take anything from the pond. We're not
going to deposit anything in the pond, and we just bring it
to your attention because we don't have much of an
alternative.
The DEC has given us a permit for the map that's before
you, and I'll hand that up so it's part of the record.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment on this
application?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We visited the site last week.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't have any problem with it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Board have any comment?
TRUSTEE KING: The pond we felt was a man-made pond.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And the extensive drainage.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because I was on the Board of Directors of
the Peconic Land Trust, years ago when this project was
discussed at various stages, I'm going to reserve my right
to recuse myself. However, I don't really have a problem
with the project as it's submitted. Do I have a motion to
close the hearing?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to approve the
application?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
6. William J. Reese on behalf of ANCHOR LANE, LLC
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a first floor wood
framed addition comprising of 407 square feet and 42 square
foot Bilco door, 360 square foot one story attached garage,
and 296 square foot patio with trellis. Proposed wood
framed second floor comprising 1,719 square feet and dry
10
wells to contain the roof runoff. Located: 1615 Anchor Lane, Southold.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to comment
on this application?
MR. HANCOCK: Good afternoon, I'm Phil Hancock. I'm the
builder for Anchor Lane, and I have some updated surveys for
you, and I can answer any questions you might have.
TRUSTEE KING: Bring them over here. How many copies would
you like?
MS. STANDISH: One for the record.
MR. JOHNSTON: For the record who are you, sir?
MR. HANCOCK: Phil Hancock, I'm the builder for Anchor Lane,
LLC
MR. JOHNSTON: Do you have standing here? I
mean --
MR. HANCOCK: I'm the builder for this project.
MR. JOHNSTON: I'm glad but did either Mr. Reese or Anchor
give you the authority to speak for them?
MR. HANCOCK: They have, but I don't have them in writing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Was there some change, some problem?
MR. HANCOCK: No. The original surveys I submitted on the
application didn't show the dry wells.
MR. JOHNSTON: We can accept the surveys, but he's not
authorized to speak for the people.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Do you know where the septic system is?
MR. HANCOCK: It's on the right side of the building.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Over here? That's my recommendation.
Since it's a large addition, I'd like to see where the
septic was on the survey. Other than that, I gave it
approval right now. As you can see it's behind the
bulkhead, the retaining wall's up here. I didn't find a
problem with this, simple addition. Thank you. Any other
comments from the public? Again, to reiterate my stance as
the Board Member who looked at this, I didn't find any
negative impacts to the environment, and I'd like to see the
septic placed on the survey.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that a condition of the approval?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I didn't make that approval yet. Any
other Board comments? I'll make a motion to close the
public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve on behalf
of Anchor Lane as depicted on the new drawings with the
stipulation that there be a septic system placed on it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm not going to stamp that until we get a
plan with the septic on it.
11
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Fine. Second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
7. En Consultants, Inc. on behalf of RITA AND LUKE LICALZI
request a Wetland Permit to remove and replace (in-kind and
in-place) and raise by 18 inches the existing fixed timber
dock, consisting of a 5' X 103' fixed timber catwalk and a
fixed 14' X 20' "L" portion at the seaward end. Located:
2105 Calves Neck Road in Southold.
SCTM # 70-4-46.1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on
behalf of the application?
MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En Consultants on behalf of
the applicants, Rita and Luke Licalzi. One of the
applicants, Luke Licalzi, is also present.
The application in and of itself is fairly
straightforward. It asks for the in-kind and in-place
replacement of an existing dock that is depicted both on the
submitted survey and the project plan prepared by us. And
we're asking to raise the dock 18 inches because it is
regularly submerged at least spring high tides.
After submitting this application, my attention was
drawn on a 2002 permit transfer associated with which was a
1945 site plan that exists in the Board's files that shows a
proposed dock extending from the deed line. Specifically
the dock was depicted as a 4' by 80' fixed dock, with a 21
foot long "L" portion extending south from the seaward-most
five feet of the dock. The dock that presently exists, and
which is the subject of the application, is a 5' by 117'
fixed dock, which is one foot wider and 37 feet longer with
a 25' long "L" portion extending south from the seaward-most
14 feet of the dock.
Now, using my powers of intuition, I predicted that
the Licalzis would want to maintain this entire dock
structure as it currently exists, and there would be at
least one or two Board members who would question the
disparity of the dock between the dock from the 1945 plan
and what's there. So anticipating this, I tried to do some
research on why we had actually postponed the hearing from
last month to figure out the fair and proper thing to argue
for. To do so I basically, well, I and the Board has to
answer three questions. First is how different from the
1945 proposal is the existing dock; however different the
structures, how long has the disparity existed, and however
long the disparity has existed, has the Board of Trustees
12
ever rendered any decisions that would have legitimized the
existing dock? The best answer to these questions I could
find I've illustrated in a packet of exhibits plus Dr.
Licalzi has brought a couple more, and I'm going to hand up
to you a series of exhibits and then go through them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Give us six months to review the
information submitted.
MR. HERMANN: Yes. Or at least six seconds. The exhibits
are outlined in the table of contents to sort of do as quick
as possible the historic walk-through. The first exhibit is
a permit issued to Arthur Francisco, who is conveniently
the prior owner to the Licalzis. There have only been the
Licalzis and the Franciscos since the '40s that have owned
the property. The permit is dated in 1954, though it
references a meeting and approval from 1946, and there is,
in your file anyway, this associated plan dated November 1,
1945 that shows the dock. There was dredging that was
proposed in association with the dock, and there is a letter
at the end of Exhibit 1 dated March 26, 1956 from the then
neighbor advising the Trustees that they had allowed
Mr. Francisco to place spoils on their property from the
dredging.
Now, the oldest aerial I could find was a 1976
aerial that is Exhibit 2, it's one inch equals 100 foot
scale, this is dated April 1976. What you can see is the
depiction of the dock that exists today, not the dock that
appeared to have been proposed in 1945. So we know that
structure has existed in its current form since at least
1976 in terms of a piece of documentary evidence that is
dated.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sorry, Rob, which one is it? There's
about 10 docks there.
MR. HERMANN: I'm sorry. Yeah, the arrow got blurred out
in the photocopy. If you unfold the document, it's the "L"
that's right --
TRUSTEE KING: Just to the right of the center of the
page?
MR. HERMANN: Correct. The one that looks completely
white.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When is that?
MR. HERMANN: This is April 1976. Now, Dr. Licalzi brought
a couple photos that he was able to speak to Mr. Francisco's
daughter, who sent him a couple photographs, but before I
show you those photographs, I want to skip ahead to Exhibit
5 because this addresses the question of the disparity
between the two docks, at least with respect to the length
13
of the dock. What I did was to increase the scale of your
1945 drawing to one inch equals 20 feet, and I photocopied
that onto a transparency, overlayed the transparency onto
the current survey to which Joe Ingegno added the original
deed line, which is also shown conveniently on the 1945
plan. So what you're looking at is an overlay of the
proposed dock drawing from 1945 onto the 2004 survey showing
the existing dock with the fixed waterside deed line as a
reference point. And this obviously can only be conjecture
because we're talking about some 60 years ago, but it
would certainly appear that Mr. Francisco only depicted the
portion of the dock that required a permit from your Board
at that time, which was the portion of the dock that
occurred over the bay bottom. There is no depiction, as you
see, of the beach cottage, which existed at that time, and
there is no depiction of the landward 37 feet of the dock.
However, this photograph -- and again, this is not a
formally dated photograph, but you can certainly tell from
the beach elevation and the recent deposition of the spoils
that this was taken shortly after the time the dock was
built. If you do the math on the plan, there's almost
precisely 37 feet that exists between the beach cottage and
the deed line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When was the dredge spoil placed?
MR. HERMANN: The dredge spoil would have been placed in, I
guess, 1956, which would make the dating of that photo
wrong, wouldn't it?
MR. HERMANN: Yeah, that was the information the daughter
gave. So unless, did she mean '56?
DR. LICALZI: What was the question?
MR. HERMANN: The photo that you gave me she wrote '46 to
'47. 1 think she probably meant '56 to '57.
DR. LICALZI: I think the dredge was deposited on Hallock's
Island.
MR. HERMANN: It looks like there's spoil in the
picture. Al, the notation on that photo may be
incorrect. It would make more sense that that photo as you
just alluded to was '56 to '57, after the dock was built.
DR. LICALZI: The dock was built in '47.
MR. HERMANN: Is that what we know for a fact? Because the
permit says '56.
DR. LICALZI: It was built in '46.
MR. HERMANN: When was the spoil deposited?
DR. LICALZI: There's a letter about depositing the spoils
elsewhere on Hallock's Island.
MR. HERMANN: Maybe I need to correct myself.
14
I
Yeah, I'm giving you, I gave you wrong information with
respect to the spoil. The letter on the spoil says that this is
to advise you that I have given permission to Mr. Arthur L.
Francisco to deposit some of the spoils from the present
dredging operation of Messers Francisco and Hendrickson
on the portion of the island owned by me called Hallock Beach.
So the build up of beach in that picture is apparently not the spoil,
but whatever the case may be, it's sort of irrelevant to the larger
point, which we're now losing, which is the fact that -- yeah,
that's another photo that I handed up, it's not me, but
it's a seaward view of the docks.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's a different dock than what's
currently there, if you look at the pilings.
TRUSTEE KING: It's more substantial.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's more substantial and the pilings are
lower. It's a totally different dock.
MR. HERMANN: There's no doubt that the dock has been
reconstructed at least in parts over some time. In fact,
that's a good segway to your next exhibit, which is Exhibit
3, which is an ice damage permit that was issued by the
Board in April 25, 1984, and the photocopy of the dated
photograph from April '84 1 got from your file, and that
shows the outer portion of the dock, the "L" portion without
the boards on it, and you can see that that was obviously
more substantial than what was depicted in the original
plan.
The point is at some point between 1945 and 1976
either in its original form or some time between those
years, the dock that exists today was constructed. Again,
the 1976 aerial scales to a five foot wide dock with the
outer"L" being what it is today.
Now, Dr. Licalzi has spoken to the daughter that
says, well, we don't remember ever changing the dock, that
was what we think was built originally. Whether they built
to four feet and then enlarged it to five feet in width, I
don't know. The only clear thing that I can infer from the
information that I have is that the seaward extent of the
dock has always been the same because, again, the reference
of the 80 foot seaward extension from the deed line is
consistent with what's there. The catwalk's a foot wider
and the "L" was widened to the landward side. And again, in
Exhibit 5, if you look at the overlay, the seaward extent is
the same; the "L"was constructed larger on the landward
side. Whether that was constructed in 1946 or 1974, 1 don't
have any way of knowing and unless Mr. Francisco's daughter
could come here and testify about it, I don't know that
15
we're ever going to know. However, it is also clear that
this is actually the third time the Board is looking at this
dock with its current configuration and size. The first
time being in 1984 for the ice damage permit and then again
as shown in Exhibit 4 in 2002, when Dr. Licalzi submitted a
letter to the Board asking that the dock permit of A.
Francisco be transferred to him and his wife. And there's
notations on that letter in your file that show that Ken
inspected the property and that then in November it was
inspected by the whole Board then in November 21, 2002,
there was a letter issued by the Board transferring the
permit.
There's another letter in your file which I did not
include in your exhibits, it's a letter from Dr. Licalzi, I
guess he must have been responding to a request from the
Board and it says: "The request for dock permit transfer
was made to enable dock repair to be done. Rotting pilings
closest to shore are almost completely gone and need to be
urgently replaced. I have no plans to do dredging as
appeared on the 1945 permit." My point is that there's
variation between the existing dock and the permit that
was originally issued. I think the extent of the dock seaward
is reasonably easy to infer. The difference in the width of
the catwalk and the width of the "L" portion I cannot explain with any
certainty. But I would submit to the Board that your Board
has issued two permits on the dock structure as it exists in
its current size specifications. Now, there was no formal
decision that referred to specific dimensions of the dock
saying we the Board Trustees, hereby legalize these
dimensions, but you have looked at it twice, and you have
issued permits for it twice. So I would certainly contend
anyway that that has to amount to something in terms of the
Board having acknowledged since 1984 that that dock exists.
Dr. Licalzi has pictures of people boating and clamming
around that dock for a long time. I'm sure that Ken is one
of the people doing so.
So, in the interest of reaching a resolution, I'm sure that
the Licalzis would be open to some sort of compromise in terms
of shedding some of the size off of it in terms of width portions of it,
but I think the seaward extent of the dock is pretty historically
well established.
So that would be the extent of my comments in terms
of what I was able to cull out from our research of the
records that are available.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Before I ask for Board comment
is there any other comment?
16
DR. LICALZI: I'd just like to make a comment. Luke
Licalzi, I'm the owner.
This started out as a pretty simple, straightforward
approach. The landward end of the dock is rotten. It's
essentially the 37 feet that was the catwalk, and it's
fallen apart, and there's a number of other areas of the
dock that need to be refurbished. And you have photos of
the dock. It was deliberately built, the dock, by the
previous owner such that at high tide, very high tide it's
under water, and I think you've seen that. So as part of
replacing the dock in-place/in-kind, I'd like to raise it 18
inches, I thought that would actually be a benefit to the
bay bottom by raising it, rather than the way it is now.
And I think Rob has pretty much stated that the length of
the dock over the bay is the same as it always was. So, I
thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Does the Board have any
comment on this?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: My only comment is you stick out in the
peninsula, out in the middle of the high view areas. I was
hoping to recommend that you don't go with any type of
handrail system and you keep all the piles low profile, cut
down on the structural view.
DR. LICALZI: We're not planning any handrails.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Peggy, any comment?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My only comment is to baymen that were
out the other day we inspected it, they were concerned because it
was a very productive area for shell fishing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Jim, do you have any?
TRUSTEE KING: It's been there a long time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'd like to see it rebuilt in its original
permit width, you know, four foot wide width. And the
length, I think you demonstrated the length is pretty
consistent with what was originally permitted, which gives
you pretty good water depth. They originally wanted to cut
it back, bring it more inshore because what you demonstrated
pretty good water depth in the area. I would rather see it
cut back to even 10 feet. I would suggest, Ken, you're the
most familiar with this, cut back in length 10 feet, they
could keep the platform on the end because it's historic and
just make it a four foot wide catwalk. That would reduce
the size of the structure substantially and still give the
applicant, you know, it shows between 6' and 6'3" of water.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Working in the area and being familiar
with that dock location, is there anything in the permit
regarding the pilings, offshore pilings?
17
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There isn't.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's another issue.
MR. HERMANN: The mooring pilings are actually not on the
plan because they didn't appear in the survey. I don't know
why. I know in your new code you allow for tie off poles
for one vessel. I think that, I mean, I don't think it's
too much to ask, I hope I don't misspeak for Dr. Licalzi, to
reduce the width of the catwalk to four feet. I mean, that
is a fairly certain part of the original approval, and it's
probably adequate. But otherwise, I mean, I think it's
fairly clear that we're talking about a structure that has
existed more or less in that shape, location and
configuration for demonstrably three decades and based
anecdotally for almost six decades. We're not proposing to
change anything other than the height of the dock. So there
would not be anything new planned or proposed or installed
that would interfere with the baymen or with navigation or
with swimming or anything else that hasn't existed for
longer than some of the baymen have been alive. So we're
really just asking to maintain what has been reasonably
shown to have existed. But if it would help in terms of
reducing the aesthetic scope of the dock, if nothing else,
by reducing its width to four feet, I think that's
reasonable.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Going back to the pilings, the pilings to
the north --
MR. HERMANN: Opposite the side of the "L"?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right. That's the side where most baymen
do work and end up on the east wind we're drifting into
the wind there, and we're banging into the pilings constantly.
MR. HERMANN: That's where they dock their boats. I mean,
you need to have the pilings for the safety of the vessel.
DR. LICALZI: There's no float there. We keep the pilings
to tie off the boats off the dock. If I don't have the
pilings I can't keep the boat.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Why can't you dock to the south?
DR. LICALZI: I plan to use both sides of the dock.
MR. HERMANN: I think the Licalzis certainly --
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: My point is you monopolize quite a bit of
18
the creek bed there with all the pilings. It must be 40, 50
feet in width between pilings to the south, pilings to the
north, that's quite a bit of bottom.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is the length because of the number of
boats or because of the depth; what is the need for the
.length?
MR. HERMANN: It's the combination of both.
DR. LICALZI: At's just that there's been a lot of erosion
in that area because of the fact that there is the spit of
land opposite Founder's Landing has been eroded over the
past few years. There's a lot of wave action, a lot of boat
action in there, and there's a tremendous difference between
the high and low tide. So there's a lot of the bay bottom
there, which is not under water all the time, and need the
length in order to have any function.
MR. HERMANN: I think the answer to Ken's question is if the
boat is being tied up to that dock it's preventing baymen
from being right in that area. I don't know what kind of
productivity you're getting right under where the boat is
docked, but I'm saying that that space is being taken up by
the craft whether there's pilings to tie up to or not and if
the boat's not there, well then it's open bay bottom.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That creek isn't open until January 1 st.
There is no vessel until that time. My point is the pilings
are there. It's in a fertile area and it's a lot of
problems when your boat drifts in there it's hard to make
the turn because there is a flat just to the north of those
pilings. Everybody says what are the pilings doing there.
MR. HERMANN: I'm not sure how you could distinguish that
site from any place else in the town. Wherever there's dock
structures, there's going to be interference for baymen or
for anybody else.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I just think whether the pilings have a
permit or not, if they don't have a permit maybe they
shouldn't be there.
MR. HERMANN: But the Board would be able to grant a permit
for some sort of tie-off poles. Again, this is not a new
proposal. Whatever the situation that exists has existed
for decades.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about reducing the size of the -- the
original permit called for a 5 by 20 foot "L" on the end.
What's existing there is a 14 by 20, what about reducing the
size of that? Not necessarily to five feet but maybe eight
feet or something.
DR. LICALZI: I might be willing to consider that if the
width of the catwalk remained at five feet, in other words,
19
if you're doing a foot by 80, that's 80 square feet. If I
took four feet off the "L", and four times 20 is 80, so it's
the same reduction in square footage off the bay bottom.
MR. HERMANN: Are you talking about the length or width, Al?
The length of it is 25 feet including the width of the
catwalk, parallel to the shore, perpendicular to the shore
it's 14 feet deep.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The additional 20 by--
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The platform itself.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The platform itself, I'm not counting the 5
feet of catwalk.
MR. HERMANN: It's 20 by 14.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm saying cut that down to say eight.
MR. HERMANN: Eight by 14?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Eight by 20.
TRUSTEE KING: That would shorten the overall length six
feet, right?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Bring it in six feet, and it would still
be an eight foot wide platform at the end. It would be a
substantial decrease in --
TRUSTEE KING: In area and length.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: -- in area and length, and yet it would
still give you the same serviceability as what you have now,
and it would be closer to match your existing permit. Rob,
can you describe it?
MR. HERMANN: Yeah. I need to make sure I'm understanding
what you're saying.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Four foot, now, this is 20
feet, Four foot, and instead of this 14, make it 8, just
take six feet off the end and six feet off here, and it
would still be the same side this way. It would just be a
smaller"L".
MR. HERMANN: That way reduce the overall length and reduce
the size of the "L".
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's a considerable amount of bottom
coverage, and it would really give you the same length.
DR. LICALZI: This length of catwalk, keep that at five feet?
MR. JOHNSTON: The DEC gave him five. All of ours are four.
MR. HERMANN: The problem is he went to your website and
read how the policy said how the bay is six feet.
DR. LICALZI: Now it's open bay. Take out one piling, the
one that's seaward.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right where your father's digging clams in
that picture? We took this picture last week, in February
on field inspections. Actually that's me out there. You
keep this one and this one.
20
DR. LICALZI: Five feet and five feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But you have to show that on the plans.
MR. JOHNSTON: And they stay at five feet, Ken?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What's that?
MR. JOHNSTON: They stay at five feet?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The catwalk would stay at five feet,
that's fine if he's cutting back on the platform. That's
fine.
MR. HERMANN: It would be a uniform five as opposed to where
it goes out a little bit. You would reduce that in excess --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We assume it's going to be a new
structure.
MR. HERMANN: Yes.
MR. JOHNSTON: You're going to pull all these pilings out
and put new ones in, right?
MR. HERMANN: Some are going to be recycled.
MR. JOHNSTON: All the bottoms are being disturbed when
all that stuff comes out?
MR. HERMANN: Yeah.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there's no other comment, I'll make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the
application with the condition that the catwalk be replaced
at a five foot width, and it be a low profile catwalk with
no handrails; that the catwalk and platform be raised by 18
inches; that the platform at the end of the catwalk be 14'
by 8' feet, reducing it 6' on the seaward end.
MR. HERMANN: Al, would you read it again, please?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry, all right, let me say that
again. The catwalk and platform be raised 18 inches with no
handrail; the catwalk width will be 45 feet; the platform to
be 20' by 8' at the end of the catwalk, 20 feet not
including the catwalk width.
TRUSTEE KING: Overall length of the "L"will be 25 feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Overall length of the "L" at the seaward
side will be 25 feet, inward side of the "L" will be 20
feet.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Overall length?
TRUSTEE.KRUPSKI: Overall length of the catwalk will be --
MR. HERMANN: 111.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 111. As attached to the 8' deck on that
exterior of the beach cottage.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would you like to put the existing
pilings on that?
21
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Two pilings will be included in the plan,
one on the south side, one on the north side of the dock.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Should stipulate --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How high are the pilings?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Two of them now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, on the dock, three feet? The pilings
should be no more than three feet above the decking of the
dock.
MR. HERMANN: That's fine.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Preferably cut right off.
MR. JOHNSTON: How much were you proposing the pilings?
MR. HERMANN: 36 inches.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's a motion. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken, did you take the next one?
8. En Consultants on behalf of MADELINE AND RONALD RIBAUDO
request a Wetland Permit to construct a set of 4' by 90'
timber stairs and platforms down bluff to the beach.
Located: 1920 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM # 30-2-56.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment
on this application?
MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicants, Ronald Ribaudo.
Certainly a more straightforward application than
the last. It's just a standard proposal for an access
stairway down the bluff from the applicant's upland to the
beach (handing). That's it.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Anybody else like to comment on this
application? As far as the Board, I've looked at this,
it's a shame they can't just make a walking path over to the
neighbor and walk down the stairs they created. It's not
very far away, but apparently everyone wants their own set
of stairs. It's a very well vegetated bluff as you've
seen.
MR. HERMANN: He's helped keep it that way, yeah.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Looks very nice. I don't know how the
Board feels, but I couldn't see a reason in denying this.
Apparently we approve pretty much every set of stairs going
down to the Sound. Do any members of the Board have any
other comment? If not, I'll make a motion to close the
public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland
22
Permit on behalf of Madeline and Ronald Ribaudo for the set
of stairs going down to the Sound as depicted.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MR. HERMANN: Kenny, you may remember-- although it might
have been before you were on the Board -- we had an
application that was litigated for almost 10 years because
two neighbors had once decided to share a dock.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I know how that works. Just a shame the
stairs are right there, goes down to the beach.
9. En Consultants on behalf of PATRICE AND JOHN KEITT
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 24' X 26' wood
trellis. Located: 280 Basin Road, Southold.
TRUSTEE KING: Anyone here that wishes to comment on this
project?
MR. HERMANN: Ron Hermann of En Consultants on behalf of the
Keitts. This I looked at in the field actually with Jim,
very straightforward proposal for a wood trellis and a
gravel patio area. This would be a good candidate for a new
administrative Wetlands Permit, but I don't know if Brownell
has gotten that application together yet, so we're here
before the Board for a full permit.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments on this project? I'll
make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: I looked at this, I agree it will be a good
administrative permit. I'll recommend approval.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Next application John Betsch has been
postponed until April. I'm going to call for a brief five
minute break.
(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
11. Harvey Arnoff on behalf of JEFFREY HALLOCK requests a
Wetland Permit to cut into ground of right-of-way for
installation of underground utilities, permission to cut
base of existing dirt roadway to upgrade with stone
materials, and for the proposed driveway landward of the
right-of-way. Located: Diachun Road in Laurel.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anybody like to speak on behalf of
applicant?
MR. HALLOCK: I'm Jeff Hallock. Harvey couldn't be here
23
tonight, I'm representing myself. I wish I was Harvey, I'd
be getting paid for my time, but unfortunately -- I think
we've gone through everything we could go through on this
application. It's been about a year and a half, and if you
have any questions I'd be more than happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Would anybody else like to
speak in favor of or against the application?
MR. ATKINSON: My name's Matthew Atkinson, an attorney
residing in Laurel, New York, and I'm representing members
of the community opposing this.
On a point, the Board found that it would like a
long form EAF filed with it, and that form hasn't been
completed yet, and that's a requirement under SEQRA. If
you're going to go ahead and decide you need additional
information on a project to request a long form, and until
that's submitted, part of this application -- the application
is not really complete. But if the Board wants to go
forward and make a determination to deny this permit, of
course, it need not have that long form EAF. However, if
you tell me what you do, I'll reserve my other comments. If
you're going to require the long form EAF to be completed,
I'd like an opportunity to review it and comment on it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Excuse me, in what way is it not complete?
MR. ATKINSON: What was submitted was Part I of this long
form. The entire Part II, which is project impacts and
their magnitude, which is what you need in order to assess
the impacts of the project is blank; and the determination
of the evaluation of this impact, Part III is blank.
There's no visual EAF addendum, which would be typically
required in a project like this. So it's not done. There's
no basis here to make a determination of significance.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment? We did
get -- I'm sorry, I didn't see you standing up.
MR. HOUSER: Jim Houser, live on North Oakwood Road in
Laurel.
Just comment before, I don't want to repeat that,
but I see here it's a permit to cut into the ground of the
right-of-way. Now cutting into the ground of the
right-of-way I would imagine is right along that strip of
wetlands, which is a protected area. Cutting into the
ground for utilities I think would entail significant root
damage of the trees or the bushes that send their roots in
from the wetlands, and just another thought that occurred to
me on the way out, which is I've been driving around the
north fork for 35 years, ever since I had a license, and I
24
can't recall any of the wetlands that have a road that run
right along the edge of it, so this seems to be somewhat of
an unprecedented situation for a road. Also I know that
there's a fellow up at the way at the far ends of that road,
although the road might not be proposed to go through there,
who has, I believe is trying to get a permit for a bed and
breakfast. This fellow's already been able to put a bridge
over the head of the creek. I remember when I heard he was
thinking of doing that, I didn't believe he would get the
permission to do that, but he did, and I don't know for the
facts of the case, someone said he worked in the water
department somewhere and has some kind of in, who knows.
But I would think he would have a motivation to try to punch
a little extra right-of-way for the road, so if he gets his
permit for the bed and breakfast then he'd get easier access
up this new road along the wetlands to have cars go into his
bed and breakfast house.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's interesting but I hadn't heard
that.
MR. HOUSER: Heard what?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That this was in any way related to the
bed and breakfast.
MR. HOUSER: I'm not saying it is. I'm just saying I know
that this fellow was trying to get a bed and breakfast,
that's what I heard, and the road leads directly up to his
house because his house is the old Diachun house, so it
would seem to be in his interest. I mean, if I was him I
would certainly want some way to punch a hole through that
road, which was one of the reasons why the guy put the
bridge over the creek in the first place was so that he
could get access to his house through Laurel Wood Estates.
So it seemed to benefit him, and I'm sure he would try to
start making moves about doing that, which you just
increased the traffic.
So those are just my two comments, the possibility
of this happening, and the fact that I don't know of any
other roads that run along the wetlands here on the north
fork, and the fact that this cutting in for utilities, which
is trench cutting, which of course, kills all the vegetation
along the way and since this is a protected area, I think
that would be of significant interest.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Actually, there's a lot of
roads that go right through the wetlands, town roads.
MR. HOUSER: Well, they cut through.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They cut right through it. Wetlands were
filled, and the roads go right through it in a lot of
25
places. For the record, this has nothing to do with the bed
and breakfast at all.
MR. HOUSER: I didn't say it did, I'm just looking down the
future.
MR. JOHNSTON: Can I ask Matthew whether he thinks it's
unlisted or whatever? Matthew, can I ask a question
relating to your March 24th letter? Am I understanding it
right that you feel there should be a SEQRA review, and in
part that it's because it is your position that this is not
a Type 2 SEQRA situation?
MR. ATKINSON: That's correct.
MR. JOHNSTON: And that it would be either a Type 1 then or
an Unlisted, and can I assume it's your position that it's
an Unlisted?
MR. ATKINSON: That's correct.
MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you. I wanted to make sure I
understood your letter.
MR. ATKINSON: I just wanted to note that this EAF, the
long form that was submitted, is riddled with errors, and I
was waiting for a completed EAF to make comments on it, but
if you're going to consider this application tonight on the
strength of what's been submitted, I would like to point out
what's wrong with this EAF that you do have.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before you start into that, we have a
comment after last month's meeting, we sent the EAF
submitted by the applicant to Mark Terry, who is the Senior
Environmental Planner for the Town for his review and his
comments. Today we received comments from him. I suppose
I'll read them. It's in the record. "Applicant needs to
amend application and specifically state improvements.
Current application references the ZBA decision. It is my
understanding that this action is not consistent with that
shown on the survey dated as received on February 20,
2004. The Data in the application must match the survey
received on February 20, 2004." And this is the latest
survey received last month. "I recommend no action be taken
tonight until the application is amended or conditions are
noted into the record. Improvements indicated on the long
environmental assessment form and the survey need to be
clarified. The standard stone blend road cross-section is
inconsistent with eight foot road shown on the survey; it
shows a 16 foot wide road section with an eight foot wide
section on the east side in order to be cleared. I
recommend the Trustees request actual proposed improvements
including courses, trees to be cleared, et cetera. I cannot
issue a SEQRA determination or classification until the
26
proposed action is consistent with the survey." Now, in
order to have him review this, he's got to have the survey
match the application. So you're going to have to get those
exactly in line, including and one of the major
inconsistencies is it shows as discussed in the field shows
the eight foot wide -- and I'm referring to the survey of
February 20, 2004 -- it shows the eight foot wide current
roadway with the two areas that were approved, proposed to
be improved, in other words, moved away from the wetlands,
but then on the side, on the drainage plans it shows a 16
foot wide road bed. So those inconsistencies have to be
cleared up before the Town's Senior Environmental Planner
will review it. So please contact him directly and he can
give you exactly what he wants to see before he will issue a
SEQRA determination.
MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Hallock, is that clear?
MR. HALLOCK: I think so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In regard to the ZBA letter, this Board
has been advised that we can issue a decision irregardless
of what any other Town agency or any state agency issues a
determination for. In other words, if the ZBA has on record
that the roadway should be 16 feet wide for whatever reason,
for whatever legal reason, this Board is not bound by their
decision. This Board can issue a permit based on our
decision and our determination based on what we find on our
code. So we're not bound by the ZBA code. We're certainly
not bound by the DEC. They have to issue a permit, but if
they did we wouldn't be bound by that either. Just want to
make that clear.
Is there any other comment?
MR. ATKINSON: Well, I've submitted written comments since,
I won't bother to summarize since you have them. I'd just
like to point out over a quarter mile long, it's now 22 feet
they're talking about clearing, regrading 16 feet, which is
a foot wider than the ZBA even asked for. Then the three
foot shoulder on either side to re-do the slope, and it's
being done as a trench. I mean, typically roads have a
crown and they drain off. This is designed to drain in, and
it's being dealt with with a couple of catch basins.
There's no calculations on this. You know, what kind of
water is going to be coming down the slopes, the existing
slopes from the developed properties and onto the road
itself. This is like not engineered at all and the impacts
of it are not being looked at.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually we are looking at it. That's why
we're still here.
27
MR. ATKINSON: Well, you know, they're not being quantified,
the alteration of the storm water runoff. There's been no
inventory of any plant or animal species here.
This is a good example of a project right up against
a critical environmental area which we see has heightened
scrutiny under the new wetlands law. This isn't like a 15
foot encroachment on that. This is a quarter mile
encroachment on a wetland buffer right up against the
wetlands in certain spots. This is a classic case of where
you might want to have an expert, and I'd make an offer
here. You know, we'll be happy not to have Jeff pay for
this expert, we'll pay for it. We can get an impartial
third-party to do another assessment of this property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're more than welcome to submit
anything certainly.
MR. ATKINSON: I'd like permission to have a bonded licensed
person to go on the property for that purpose.
MR. HALLOCK: I can't give him permission. My attorney
isn't present, and that's not something I would like to do.
These people have been trespassing on my property and the
Diachun property since this meeting started. They say
things; they know things about the property. They've been
on the property without permission. They've trespassed,
they've violated the law. We all know that for a fact you
have been there. You know that that road is existing, that
nothing I am going to do is going to encroach or damage the
environment or be any more detrimental than the way it is
and has been for the last hundred years. We all have been
there and walked the road and agreed to that. I'm not doing
anything. I would be happy to leave the road exactly the
way it is and do nothing. What's going to change whether I
build a house or not, that road is there and has been there
for a hundred years. I'm not asking to do anything. I'm
happy to go up and down a dirt road. I'm not looking to
build a highway.
The references to the bed and breakfast are totally
irrelevant because I looked into that when these hearings
first started and the properties aren't even adjacent. They
already have access from Route 25. 1 tried to gain access,
I looked into that to see if I could gain access from Route
25 so I wouldn't be here. This is my only alternative. I'm
an American. I'm a property owner. It's my dream, and I
think it's important that you guys look into dreams a little
more and not so much into the law. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. ATKINSON: I'm going to make no comment about the
28
personal attack on my clients. I would like to say that
nothing prevents Mr. --
MR. HALLOCK: They have trespassed.
MR. ATKINSON: Whatever. That Mr. Hallock is entitled to go
up and down this dirt road all he wants. That's not why
he's before you. He's before you to get you to ratify the
ZBA application and that's what his application states and
requests. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Again, in reference to the ZBA, the ZBA
decision does not have any bearing on our decision.
MR. ATKINSON: I realize you can make a completely
independent decision. I'm saying the application before
you, the way it's submitted asks you to ratify the ZBA
decision; that's part of this application; that's how it's
written up; that's how it's in your file. I'm not
saying you need to approve that, but that's the application
before this Board. He has never amended it in any regard
that would make it less than what the ZBA has asked for.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment? Do you
understand what Mark Terry requested, that you make it
consistent with the survey?
MR. HALLOCK: Yes.
MR. JOHNSTON: Can we ask that your counsel make a comment
on what type of a SEQRA situation this is without going into
all the legal mumbo-jumbo without him. I'm sure he wants to
respond to what Mr. Atkinson said, so.
MR. HALLOCK: Could I request a copy of these minutes sent
to Harvey so he knows what went on since he couldn't be
here?
MR. JOHNSTON: He can feel free to call me if he wants to.
When the minutes are available, we would make all minutes
available to everybody.
MR. HALLOCK: I would just like to reiterate that I am in no
way giving them permission to trespass on my property,
which they have in the past. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to table the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
12. Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of JOHN
NICKLES c/o BEIXEDON ESTATE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION
requests a Wetland Permit to replace in-kind/in-place
approximately 1,154 linear feet of existing timber
bulkheading and 775 linear feet of proposed fiberglass
bulkheading installed in-kind/in-place the existing
bulkheading, located along the properties both north and
29
south sides of Petty's Pond. Located: Arshamomague Avenue
and Petty's Pond, Southold.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anybody who would like to speak
in favor of the application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson of Suffolk Environmental
Consulting for the applicant.
I'm going to hand up a copy of a short letter that
I've written concerning this application for your
information (handing).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Bruce, before you even start what you've
submitted here, is that consistent with the original
request?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. What I seek to do today, I want
everyone clear on the aspects of this project that are
disputed by neighbors who live in this area. I think that's
very important.
As you know, given we've given a pretty good history
of the jetties at Beixedon, the inlet, et cetera, that's all
part of your record. I want to keep you on focus as to what
seems to be contested in this application, and the first
part is what seems to be contested is the eastern
jetty. You must realize this is a box jetty type. The
western face of that box jetty measures 308 feet, and that
extends from the mouth of the inlet out to its southern
terminus. That stretch of jetty, which is shown here, it's
our proposal to replace in-kind/in-place.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry. In vinyl, right?
MR. ANDERSON: No. It's going to be in fiberglass
sheathing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not in-kind.
MR. ANDERSON: The eastern face of the eastern jetty, if you
will, is this 215 section that is going to be removed as
will the 16 or 17 foot connecting portion of the box jetty.
So these entire sections are going to be removed
(indicating). So we're talking about a single jetty
system extending out, replacing the western wall of the
eastern jetty in-kind/in-place.
The second thing that we need to understand is that
the jetty -- as a jetty, the eastern jetty is functional,
and by that we mean that if you look at the surveys and the
topographic maps that we have provided with you, you will
note that the water depths that are to the east of the
eastern jetty are significantly shallower than within the
mouth of the channel, which is that area between the eastern
and western jetties and those depths are deeper there.
Then, when you go to the west of the western jetty,
30
particularly near shore, you will find that those water
depths are again shallower. That means that this jetty does
indeed function because it traps sand and because it does
maintain a navigable channel. That leaves us with a
functional jetty.
Now, there has been some discussion as to the
terminus of this eastern jetty. We
have provided you with a photograph a panoramic photograph
that shows you the full breadth of that eastern jetty. And
it's important to note that even at its end, where there are
holes in the sheathing, and the photos show that, that the
jetty does function because again, the water depths inside
the jetty are greater than the water depths that are outside
the jetty.
When we measure the section of timber bulkhead that
constituting the western face of the eastern jetty, we've
determined that 238 feet of that section is fully intact and
the photo that I've handed up demonstrates that. The
remaining 70 feet, while still serving to trap sand,
contains holes in the sheathing. What that means is more
than 75 percent of this jetty is completely intact and
completely functional, and that the previous code and the
current code provide the replacements of that jetty
in-kind/in-place as of right.
It is important to note that the southern section of
the western jetty, that we have no plans to replace that,
that is not part of this application. I think when the day
is done, this Board should find appropriately that the
applicant has an absolute right to do what they're doing.
And that in our bringing this application to you, we have
applied the old standards under old law and the new
standards under the new law, and what we find is we comply
with both. And therefore it's our position that the
application should be granted as applied for.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: I am here, the applicant's here, the
applicant's attorney is here. We're all here willing to
answer any questions that you have.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I think we're going to reserve
questions, comments from the Board until we hear, see if
anybody else has any comments.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments in favor of the
application?
MR. BAIZE: Chairman Krupski, Members of the Board, our Town
Trustees, my name is Chris Baize. My wife and I reside in
31
the east end of Southold, 59600 Main Road, and we are the
adjacent property owners to the east of the Beixedon
property. And at this time, we have no objection to the
applicant's request. In fact, we think it is a useful and
functional aspect to be considered.
My great grandmother first purchased her parcel of
land there to the east of the property under consideration
back at the end of World War I; shortly thereafter, her son,
my grandfather chose to help control some of the landward
erosion that had been occurring, and he installed a low
lying concrete seawall running the length of our waterfront
property, which was about 600 feet. At the time that that
foundation for that low lying concrete seawall was dug, they
came across an old water well with curved round brick lining
it. And based on records and anecdotal evidence, it was
determined that that brick well probably in the mid 1860s
was approximately 200 feet back from the then shoreline in
the mid 1860s. And at the time of the construction of the
concrete seawall on my grandfather's property was probably
about 30 feet back.
So, historically there had been a tremendous amount
of erosion in that area, and it's virtually all out in front
of us in the shoals that are offshore there. It's not to
the left of us. It's not to the right of us. It's all out
in front of us. And our experience has been that the
erosional cycles take place usually in the wintertime with
the nor'easters that are prevalent; and certainly over the
last few years, certainly this winter and last winter, we
have had at least normal to above normal levels of
nor'easters coming in here which just wreak havoc on that
shoreline. The best beach building events are basically
hurricanes, with the low pressure area of the hurricane
passing over central or western Long Island, which is to
mean that we are in the northeast quadrant, that whole
shoreline is southeast facing, and the best times I've ever
seen beach building is when we are in the northeast quadrant
of a hurricane that has a southeast wind blowing directly on
shore, and we have had tremendous beach building when that
occurs. The only problem is the last time we had a
hurricane of that order was 19 years ago in September of
1985, with Hurricane Gloria. So we have had very limited
opportunity for new beach building.
The other thing I would comment on is that low
pressure areas, high pressure areas create wind, they create
waves; in turn, waves are that energy from the wind, and
when that energy hits a lured shoreline, that energy has to
32
be dissipated, and typically unfettered shores
that have a long running beach are that energy dissipating
curve. That whole cross-section profile of the slope of the
beach is what dissipates the energy, and when you interrupt
that curve with obstructions or vertical walls, you in
effect block the ability or reduce the ability of that
shoreline curve to dissipate the energy. You have much
higher velocity of water hitting the obstruction, which then
carries the finer particle material away leaving stonier,
leaner beaches in front of it.
So I think it's more an issue of understanding the
need to dissipate wave energy and how you do it or do you
choose to protect the property up front all the way to the
water's edge. In my grandfather's case, he chose to do a
little bit of each, and we have had 80 years of a very happy
medium there. We have had properties to the left us that
were all stone revetted, long before I can remember, and
I've been around about 60 years to see this. And those
shorelines to the east of us towards Bud's Pond have never
had beaches, and the way they're structured right now, they
won't.
So anyway, I have no objection to the request of the
applicant to do what they want to do. I think it's a good
idea. I think that additionally a consideration should be
given to some kind of navigation aide. Those waters are so
shoal out there and I see people in the summertime coming
out and trying to water ski in 30 of inches of water, and
somebody's going to break a neck someday when they fall off
their skis and hit that shoal water that's out there. We
have an unusual condition on this shoreline that really
needs to have attention paid to it. You can walk out 400
feet at low tide and you're not still not up to your waist
in water. It's been that way forever. Thanks.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mr. Baize?
MR. BAIZE: Yes?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In what way are you qualified to speak
about coastal erosion processes?
MR. BAIZE: Well, I studied as a geology major at Columbia
University with a minor in oceanography. I also taught a
seminar there on coastal geomorphology, to put it another
way, coastal erosion, and basically that plus my engineering
background. I'm also a mining engineer and one of the great
practices of mining engineers is how do you separate
particle size by the velocity of water and using water as
your energy source, and we know that the more rapid the
water velocity, the quicker very fine particles can be
33
transported away from a source, i.e. beach sand, and leave
behind gravel.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In your opinion -- could I ask you?
MR. BAIZE: Sure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you consider this jetty to be
functional?
MR. BAIZE: Yes, it is. And it still is even though it's
been badly damaged this winter from the ice flows.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Would anybody else like to
speak on behalf of the application?
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Dave Cichanowicz, Southold. Just to add
my own input that as far as the jetty, which seems to be of
concern, taking the jetty away, I do not believe is going to
help incur increase any beach front that has eroded. It's
already been discussed about how over the years when there
was an existing marina out in front, and the dredging from
that, and the spoils from the dredging were placed, and then
allowed to maintain a nice beach front. So eliminating or
cutting back dramatically this jetty doesn't seem to make
much of a difference, from what I can see, in maintaining
that beach. Dredging and putting the spoils there does seem
to be what's been maintaining what's there now, which
the people who live on the canal have been doing over the
years and happily putting the spoils there and maintaining
the beach that exists today. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. JOHNSTON: Dave, could you spell your last name and give
address?
MR. CICHANOWICZ: C-1-C-H-A-N-0-W-1-C-Z, 1425 Arshamomague
Avenue.
MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Dave.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone else in favor of the application?
MR. RIZZI: My name's Rich Rizzi. I live at 1805
Arshamomague Avenue. I submitted a letter to you which I'm
sure you all read. I just want to go on record I am and my
entire family is in favor of this proposal. I have lived
there for 40 years, and what we have noticed is when the
bulkheading and jetty was there, the beach was there. As
it's disappeared, the beach has disappeared. I'm not a
rocket scientist or anything like that, but walking a dog on
a beach every day, you start to see what happens. When the
jetty disappeared that's when the beach disappeared.
I want to go on record to be in favor of the work
that Mr. Nickles proposes to do. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Anyone else in favor of the
application? Anyone else like to comment on the
34
application?
MR. BRESSLER: Members of the Board, you're back for our
third iteration. It seems to me that where we are now can
be simply summarized. The applicant has come before you
asking for what generously can be categorized as the largest
and most intrusive jetty system in our portion of the bay
with virtually no science behind them. That is where you
are with the applicant.
The Board inquired last time would the applicant be
willing to spring for an expert. I think the Board is now
in a position to insist that that be done. Under the new
regulations, which I understand the president announced
earlier we're operating under, the Board has the power to do
that. Didn't have the last time we were here, has the power
now. As I have so often appeared before the Board and
stated in different contexts, the actions of the Board --
and sometimes I've been more critical than others -- but the
general thrust of my comments were how are you, Members of
the Board, going to decide this? Where are you getting your
standards and procedures from? Are you just making them up
or are they based upon science? Now you have the
opportunity to answer that question. And the new code
properly gives the Board the authority to reach out and to
employ, at applicant's expense, those experts who can give
the Board advice and guidance.
With all due respect to the knowledge and experience
of the Members of the Board, those types of expert opinions
and studies are necessary for the Board to render an
intelligent decision as to the scientific issues. As I said
before, unfortunately, the applicant has given you nothing
in that regard, and has refused the invitation. Whether the
Board chooses to make that invitation somewhat more formal
and insistent under the code is up to the Board. We'll see
at the end of the evening whether that's so or not.
I think that it's also worth noting that after the
last meeting of the Board, the objectants were so concerned
by the dearth of scientific evidence that they went out and
they hired coastal engineers, and we have tonight those
coastal engineers here. They've prepared a report, Ocean
and Coastal Consultants, Inc., and we have Brian Jones,
Engineer and Project Manager here to speak to that issue,
and he has a submission that he's going to hand up. They
went out in the short time between the last two meetings,
they went out, they surveyed the information, they did some
field studies, and they've arrived at some intermediate --
not final -- conclusions and you'll hear what they are. Not
35
meaning to steal his thunder. The answer to the question is
a study needs to be done. As the President correctly
pointed out last time we were here, these complex issues.
And every area of the coastline is somewhat different, and
the Board has not been blessed with any coastal engineering
studies based on any evidence whatsoever or any field
studies as to what actually is going on out there, or how
this thing ought to be properly engineered. Now, whose
nickel it is a question for the Board to decide, but the
engineers are here, and they have done their preliminary
work, and they're prepared to speak to that.
I think now I have to disabuse the
Board -- I hope it isn't necessary, but I will do it anyway
-- of the notion that there is somehow a right on the part
of the applicant to what they're requesting. There is no
right on the part of the applicant, either under the old
code or the new code. It just doesn't exist. There are
no exemptions from the permit requirement for what is being
proposed here. They're here before you asking for a permit
because they need one. If they didn't need one, trust me,
they wouldn't be here. They need one, they're not exempt
and they have to show you just what the justification for
this structure is, and that they have failed to do.
Now, before I turn it over to Mr. Jones, I would
like to make one other comment. I see that there is a
submission here tonight. At what hopefully is not the 12th
hour, we'd like an opportunity to comment on it. And also,
I would like to say last time I was here the Board made the
remark that, well, you didn't get a copy of the letter, the
files are open to you come on down and look any time. I
take it that that invitation is now qualified by the rule
that you can't come down and look on the day of a hearing,
because that's what happened to us today. Out of an
abundance of caution we went down and said we want to look
and make sure that there's nothing else that's come in that
we should address tonight and the answer was you can't do
it. So whether that's an official policy or not, I don't
know, but you need to know that that's what happened,
and if that's the case, then we'll be guided accordingly
Whether anything else came in that we're not aware of, I
don't know but we do know that at least this letter has come
in, and we'd like an opportunity to comment on it whatever
it may say.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you commenting on the letter that
Bruce Anderson delivered to us this evening?
MR. BRESSLER: I don't know that we've ever been made privy
36
to it. I presume this is a new submission.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We've just received it this evening.
MR. BRESSLER: That's right. I'd certainly like a
opportunity to comment on that. But what I'm saying --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually for the record, his presentation
this evening was I think word for word -- virtually word for
word from the letter that he's submitted. So, you can
comment on his submission, verbal submission this evening.
MR. BRESSLER: The reason for my comment is we went down
there, and if there's anything else in the file, we don't
know whether anything else came in. And if the Board has a
policy, then in the future we'll be guided accordingly, and
we'll have to come down the day before the day before and
look and then ask the Board the day of the hearing if
anything came in the day before or the day of but that was
not my understanding of what the Board's procedure was.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You came in today to look at the file?
What time did you come in, sir?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Approximately 1:30, 2:00.
MR. JOHNSTON: Eric, in the newspaper, to the best my
knowledge, it says an opportunity to be heard may be
reviewed, comments submitted in writing up to 24 hours prior
to the hearing. That's published in the newspaper every
month.
MR. BRESSLER: However, when somebody comes in and asks if
there's anything new in the file, I don't want to be put in
a position of having to come to you and say, look, we
couldn't come in there, we're going to have to take a look
now. That deprives someone of the opportunity to be aware
of what's been submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On the other hand, if you came in this
evening at 3:59 and you wanted to submit something to the
file, I don't think you would be denied. And that wouldn't
give the applicant a chance to review it today.
MR. BRESSLER: No.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's why we try to limit it to 24 hours
before the date of the hearing, then at least that gives
people time to review it.
MR. BRESSLER: All I'm suggesting is we don't know. So if
the Board is inclined to close the hearing, which I think
they will not be, that's my request. That having been said,
I'd like to turn it over to our coastal engineer.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Eric, I got this at 7:00 tonight.
MR. BRESSLER: I'm not objecting to that because I know you
guys got that just now. I'm saying if there's anything else
in there, I'm going to have to find out because I tried in
37
good faith to address everything I thought might be in
there.
MR. JOHNSTON: It's not a new procedure, Al.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You want to outline that for the record?
MR. JOHNSTON: Eric, for the record it's not a new
procedure. The files are packed up in
Lauren's car to bring over here. They're closed for
everybody.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a mechanical procedure.
MR. JOHNSTON: They're in her car to bring over here.
MR. BRESSLER: My comment was, I was not made privy to a
letter, and the comment to me was, are our files are open,
come look. I just want to make clear that if there's some
limitation on that invitation, what it is. That's all.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's published in the newspaper. We want
to make that clear for the record, that that limitation is
published record.
MR. BRESSLER: That's okay.
MR. JOHNSTON: It's also a requirement that you FOIA it too,
but come on.
MR. BRESSLER: Look, all I'm telling you is based upon what
happened last time and what the Board said, I had an
expectation, and I went down attempting to avoid that which
happened last time, so I wouldn't be put in that situation,
_ that's all.
MR. JONES: Good evening. My name is Brian Jones I am a
registered professional engineer, State of New York, and a
coastal engineer. I have a Master's degree in coastal
engineering from Old Dominion University in Norfolk,
Virginia, I represent Ersten Coastal Consultants tonight and
on behalf of our client, Mr. Tom Ball, who has previously
stated has retained us to do a review of the proposed
project. Over the last couple weeks we did that review. With
all the available information I reviewed some aerial
photographs and also performed a limited site survey to get
a handle on what was being proposed, and what the likely
outcome was. Again, stress this is a qualitative assessment
of the project, and not quantitative. I'd like to bring
some of those points to light. We do have a written report
we'll be submitting.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. JONES: I apologize that wasn't made 24 hours in
advance. The points that we want to make is, what it boils
down to is again, the proper engineering studies, the
scientific studies haven't been done for this project. We
believe it could have a very serious impact, in fact, the
38
over the last several decades has had a very serious impact
on the down drift beaches.
We are arguing that this is not going to constitute
an ordinary maintenance and repair project, and it's
arguable that it's 75 percent intact as originally intended.
We believe that the limited amount of information that we
collected supports that. This is basically going to
constitute a major rehabilitation effort. And we'd like to
present a few things to show that.
First off, we took a look at several aerial photographs, just to
demonstrate the decrease in the beach width down drift.
From these photographs, you can see that on the eastern end
of the jetty the beach appears to be very stable or at least
much more stability. These photographs were taken, this is
April 2001, April 1994, then April 1976. These have all
been geo-referenced, and are all at the same scale. So
essentially identical configuration there. We wanted to
demonstrate that 1976 you can see the beach width here on
the western side of the jetty, it's just showing a
progressive thinning of the beach, constituting a long term
erosion rate down drift of the jetty. Updrift of the jetty
you can see the beach width appears to be relatively stable.
So we're bringing that out to basically say our conclusion from
this is that there is some detriment to that jetty being
there on the down drift to the beaches, it's causing erosion
as it is.
We think it's arguable the 75 percent intact. We
would certainly contest that. Just looking at the pictures
of the site, several pieces are gone, they're missing. The
applicant is trying to convince you that 100 percent of the
structure would be just down to the 300 foot range. There's
an additional 100, 160 foot bunch of remnants out there;
that's part of the original structure. So you really got to
look at the whole structure as a whole, we believe, if
you're going to claim 75 percent intact.
Furthermore, the original structure was filled with
sediment up to the top. As we understand it, that is not the
case anymore, photographs show this. The original design of
the structure was to provide a boat basin, an anchorage,
that is clearly no longer the case. It's now being used as
a jetty structure.
All we're trying to say is there needs to be
engineering studies done. Why does the jetty need to be 300
feet out? From the studies we're showing on the survey that
we did, we can definitely say we are not able to quantify it
at this point, but we can definitely say given the contours
39
-- we can bring it up a little closer-- the contours are
showing the existing structure is definitely porous, it's
permeable, sand is diffusing through the structure as it
is. If the applicant is allowed to restore that structure,
rebuild it, then that's going to block off, we estimate,
another 3,000 cubic yards of sand above this jetty here on
the eastern side; that's going to interrupt the littoral
drift, the sediment transport to the south, which is going
to increase the erosion along the down drift side. We would
maintain that this jetty is a porous structure. If they
make it an impervious structure by restoring it, it's
actually going to harm the beaches greater down drift. And
there's really no basis for the jetty to be out as far as it
is. We're just maintaining that a proper engineering study
needs to be done to optimize the length of the jetty, which
would also serve to reduce the construction costs to the
applicant, to not have the jetty go out as far, yet still
maintaining a stable beach up strip. By shortening the
jetty, you're going to allow more sediment transport to go
down drift and mitigating the damage, potential damage to
the down drift beaches and by redesigning the inlet here,
and maybe even looking at the western side of the bulkhead
there, making it parallel, you can actually improve the
situation, reducing the amount of dredging that's required
on the basis there.
Are there any questions?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How long will it take?
MR. JONES: To do the study? It will take maybe a few weeks
to do the studies. Really what we're talking about, the
kinds of studies that need to happen out here, the sediment
budget needs to be developed, a wave study to determine how
much sand, and we believe from looking at the aerial
photographs, from looking at the survey data that we have
here, that the net sediment transport is heading down this
way. The sand is being trapped in the jetty here. That's
why the beaches on the eastern side are stable and the sand
is not allowed to come down here. As this transport
continues to move down this way, these beaches
are being starved.
MR. BRESSLER: To the west?
MR. JONES: --to the west. These beaches are being starved
of the sediment. So we need to develop a sediment transport
budget to figure how much sand is coming, to determine what
the shoaling rates are going to be within the inlet, and
really optimize what's the trade off between a suitable
jetty length to minimize the dredging requirements, and
40
still allow as much sand as possible to get drown drift on
these beaches and feed these beaches.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have a question. If you're saying
that looking back to the past, the earliest one I have up
here is 1966, 1976, so years ago when the jetty was
functioning there was more beach, and as it became
nonfunctioning it's eroded away?
MR. JONES: No.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what he said.
MR. JOHNSTON: I thought that's what he said.
MR. JONES: Let me explain.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You're saying it's nonfunctioning now.
MR. JONES: I'm saying there is some functionality. There
is still some performance of the jetty because there are
still structures in place, and they are still holding sand.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You're debating saying it's arguable
saying whether it's 75 percent functioning. My confusion is
if the jetty's not functioning and the beach has been
eroding, then wouldn't the replacement of that jetty not
create --
MR. JONES: This is a study in time. This offset between
the jetty, updrift and down drift, this is a classic offset
for long-term beach erosion in the face of a jetty
structure. What's happening is the net sediment transport
over the course of the year or years is heading down this
direction. The sand is building up here (indicating). The
beach is stable maintaining because some of the sand is
diffusing through the structure at this point. So some is
getting by. This is generally stable because the net
sediment transport is this way. What's happening is the
sediment will come out around this jetty, you see it is
deeper inside because that's what the jetty's -- so in that
sense, the jetty is performing in the sense that it's deeper
on one side than the other, but you can see the sand is
diffusing through the jetty. It's become a permeable
structure. Some transport is going through there, and the
beach is perhaps slowing the erosion here. But this is a
long term problem. This has happened ever since the
structure has been here. To say in 1965 the pictures
showing a lot of beach here that no erosion is occurring is
false.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm not saying none. I'm saying there
was more beach.
MR. JONES: There was more beach when the jetty was young
because this is a long term phenomenon.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could you hold up the previous picture
41
with the three pictures on it, three areas on it?
MR. JONES: Yes. 'Cause, in fact, the picture from the
1960s shows the beach all the way out here to the end of
that dog leg structure. So, we're maintaining that over
time, the system response has been that this beach is
continuously eroding.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What date, could you go over the date
again? We can't read the dates from here.
MR. JONES: This is 1976, 1994, and 2001.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: From here, now we reviewed a number of
aerial photographs throughout the last three months on this
project, and what Peggy, the question Peggy raised is that
when the earlier structure -- and this structure was built
when, what year?
MR. ANDERSON: This was built in the '20s.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So this is 40 years in existence.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Excuse me, Eric, I've got a question for
Mr. Jones. The question that we had is that what we
observed after reviewing all the photographs, over the '60s,
to the '70s, to the '90s, to 2000 is the most current that
we have, is that when the structure was functioning 100
percent, the beach was protected.
MR. BRESSLER: Which beach?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The beach to the west, thank you. And
that it was maintained.
MR. JONES: That is incorrect. There was a beach there, but
over time the net transport, which is being blocked by the
jetty, starving the beach down drift, and this is what the
shoreline is doing. It's been retreating for decades. And
we're maintaining it's been retreating for decades as a
result of this structure, which is impounding the sand.
The original structure was built to the original
dimensions 700, 800 feet out because there was a mooring
anchorage here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Correct.
MR. JONES: These structures are still visible, remnants of
the structures there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Correct.
MR. JONES: Those are all interrupting the littoral
transport to some degree.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure.
MR. JONES: But that structure, we're maintaining, doesn't
need to be this long anymore to serve that function.
42
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is your estimate of effective length
of the jetty?
MR. JONES: That's what we're saying needs to be studied.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is your business, your education,
what is your estimate on the effective length of the jetty?
MR. JONES: That's the question I'm saying needs to be
quantified. If the applicant wants to restore this jetty
and maintain the inlet, which our clients are saying they're
all for that project, then that needs to be determined what
an effective length of that jetty is going to be such that
no additional harmful impact would occur to the down drift
beaches.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What was that effective length included
restoring that jetty to the original length?
MR. JONES: If you restore the jetty to its original length,
which they're maintaining to the 300 feet?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. I think they're 150 feet beyond that.
MR. BRESSLER: Like 450 or 500 feet.
MR. JONES: What was that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Suppose it included in the original the
additional 450 -- 150 feet?
MR. JONES: The way that the systems work and what the jetty
and groins, the exact same way and why they're regulated so
heavily, is that they impact the sand. They interrupt the
flow of long shore transport of sediment to the down drift
beaches. This will continue to accrete until it reaches 100
percent capacity then the sand can move around the edge of
the jetty.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: At what --
MR. JONES: At what point is that? That is what needs to be
studied. That is what needs to be determined.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This jetty has been there for over 80
years, and it's never accreted anywhere near the end of
that jetty.
MR. JONES: That's correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're saying that at some point in time
that sand will accrete to the end of the jetty?
MR. JONES: No. Most of the sediment transport is going to
occur in the surf zone. That's where the wave action stirs
up the sand, suspends it. Moves it down drift and settles
back out again systematically over the course. So different
wave conditions overtime that's what generates the sediment
transport. This area here, there's no breaking waves.
There's not going to be much sediment transport.
MR. BRESSLER: When you say out here, you mean from this out
(indicating)?
43
MR. JOHNSTON: So, if you add another 150 it doesn't make
any difference?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you hear that? If there's another 150
feet jetty, it wouldn't make any difference?
MR. JONES: It makes a huge amount of difference. It's
going to continue to impound up here and collect sand here.
The beach is going to continue to accrete. As the beach
moves out, that surf zone is also going to move out and more
sand will come in and do that. But at some point it will
reach an equilibrium. Why does it need to be that far out?
Why do they need to maintain that much dry beach?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I thought you were going to provide us
with that answer tonight.
MR. JONES: We're saying that the studies haven't been done,
and that it would be, quite frankly, irresponsible to
approve the project as it's stated without having that
impact known.
MR. BRESSLER: The upshot of the study, as I said earlier,
is that they went out there, they studied the field
conditions and have made a proposal that the following work
has to be done in order to quantify and give you the answer
that you want, and you don't have that answer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But that's kind of a nebulous statement,
that, well, if we study it long enough we'll find out the
answer. I mean, I'm kind of looking for a recommendation
based on what you reviewed.
MR. BRESSLER: That's not a fair statement, if you study it
long enough. What he said was there are specific types of
studies that he's proposing to be done within a particular
time frame to give you the answers to the questions that you
have just put in the time that was allotted since the Board
expressed a desire to hear from a coastal engineer, the
point we've reached is this. If you want the answers to
those questions, he has told you the nature of the studies
that can be performed, what will be measured and what
quantifiable results will flow there from. I don't see how
the Board can say no to that. My questions is. Whose
nickel is it going to be to go forward? And is it going to
be these people who perform those quantitative analyses on
the sand transport to answer those questions.
MR. JONES: We're maintaining the existing structure, all
we're saying is with proper studies, the existing structure
does not have to be as long as it is, in our opinion.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: May I ask how many nickels it would cost
to have your study completed?
MR. JONES: Round figures it would really depend on the
44
scope, but on the order of tens of thousands, $10,000,
$20,000 to be a proper modeling.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's a three week period?
MR. JONES: Three, four weeks probably.
MR. BRESSLER: That's what he said.
MR. JONES: Allow me to finish. What we're trying to say is
that there's an optimal design for this inlet. We don't
believe it's a repair project; it's a major rehabilitation.
If you're going to do that, instead of just putting it out
to where it was for no reason, there's no reason it needs to
be 300 feet long. They haven't demonstrated a need for it
to be 300 feet long, other than that's just where it is
right now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can I ask you a question?
MR. JONES: Sure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mr. Bressler proposes you spend three
weeks to do this survey. The applicant proposes to rebuild
it at 308 feet. You come back after three weeks and you
say, no, the optimum length is 304 feet. Is it possible
that another coastal engineer could look at this and say
after studying it for another three weeks and say, no, the
optimum length is 306 feet; is that possible?
In other words, a different number than yours?
MR. JONES: Yes. And the reason for that would be, quite
frankly, could be different assumptions based on their
analysis versus our analysis, different factors of safety.
It depends on how the analysis is done. But I don't argue
that there could be different answers.
MR. BRESSLER: But you have none.
MR. JONES: But there are no answers right now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I've got another question. There was
bulkheading put to the west side of this inlet about 10
years ago that contributed, we feel greatly, to the loss of
beach and beach elevation; can you address that?
MR. JONES: What basis do you have for that contribution?
What is making you feel that that is --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because when you place a hard structure
on a shoreline area, when the wave energy hits that hard
structure, it has no area to dissipate, and it scours out
the beach in front of it. It brings the beach material out
into deeper water where it can't be replenished because
there's no way the wave energy can bring it back in.
MR. JONES: I would maintain that's probably only half the
story. These people didn't put bulkheads there --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that a valid theory of coastal erosion?
MR. JONES: You've just described scour at a bulkhead. But
45
1 don't think that's what's happening.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You don't think the bulkhead scoured the
beach there?
MR. JONES: No. I think these people built the bulkheads in
order to protect their upland area because the beach was
disappearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I was on the Board, I think it was late
'80s when we got a request from Mr. Ball -- in March of'87 —
to inspect. He wanted to put in a bulkhead. At the time there
was about 35 feet of beach in front of his property. We
cautioned Mr. Ball that he would, in all likelihood, lose his
beach and beach elevation, as a result of this bulkhead, which
we have seen throughout the course of years on the bay,
when you place a bulkhead, a hard structure on the shoreline,
you generally lose through storm events, your beach elevation.
This, in fact, seems to have been what happened.
MR. JONES: I maintain that the net sand transport is down
drift. These bulkheads were constructed as a direct result
of this long term erosion. The destruction of the dry beach
width in front of their property, you can see it especially
well between the 1960 photograph and these of today. This
was the large duning of the beach, there was no bulkhead
ever constructed in front of that beach, and now the waters
during storm surge I'm sure are going behind existing dog
leg structure cutting through the inlet on the other side.
That seawall versus beach fight is a classic
one. We get it all the time. My Master's research was
dealing with a similar topic and by fixing the shoreline
with the bulkhead, you're not increasing the erosion rate in
front of that bulkhead. Something else is causing that
erosion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what we've seen in the field.
MR. JONES: I know that it appears that way. And you are to
some extent holding back sand upland, but the disappearance
of the dry beach width is not because they put up a
bulkhead.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Excuse me, are you saying that in all
cases --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sir, you have to come up to the
microphone.
MR. LUSACK: Tom Lusack. My question is, is it your
professional opinion that a bulkhead that is parallel to the
shoreline does not contribute to any beach scouring
whatsoever?
MR. JONES: It can contribute to beach scouring, but it does
not contribute to the beach erosion, the long term erosion
46
rate. What we're maintaining here is this is over the long
term. This has been happening before the bulkheads were
there. The bulkheads were put there as a result of the long
term erosion, not the cause of it. But this is really
irrelevant. The down drift bulkhead is not --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's not -- one moment Mr. Baize. It's
very relevant because the issue here isn't the
reconstruction of the jetty, the issue here seems to be the
cause of erosion on the west side of the inlet. So it's
very relevant. I'm sorry, Mr. Baize.
MR. BAIZE: Couple of things. If you go back to the 1960
aerial photograph and earlier on the west side of that
inlet, there used to be above water level superstructure of
a couple of old barges, wooden barges that had been put in
there who knows when, but, in fact, that's what helped
retain so much of the beach that used to be there. And
those barges, their wooden superstructure deteriorated over
the years. Now, the drift-- I mean that whole shoreline
from Town Creek down to Port of Egypt is fairly well
balanced between winter and summer drift. We don't have a
lot of shoreline there and sources for replenishment from
other areas. It's not like a Montauk Point. And
geologically Montauk used to be an island. After the
glaciation, 11,000, 12,000 years ago. And over the
intervening 10,000 or 11,000 years, the summertime drift
from the southwest and the southwest trade winds, then the
wintertime nor'easters, they kept feeding from the island.
And what is the promontory in Amagansett, when you come down
off the hill in Amagansett to cross the road going out to
Montauk you drop about 30 to 40 feet in elevation. But
those two points were the sources for sand that ultimately
filled in and connected Montauk Island to the east end of
East Hampton. It had tremendous volumes of sand. On our
shoreline from Town Creek entrance at Founder's Landing to
down to Port of Egypt, there is not a lot of source material
for sand. So to say the deposition in Brian's photograph,
if you move from, if we're looking at it from this
direction, looking from left on right or northeast to
southwest, shall we say, or north to south, there is not a
lot of source material to keep replenishing those beaches.
And my experience just of living there for almost 60 years
has been that most of our beaches are out in the water in
front of us. When we don't have regular replenishment
storms and wave action that drive it on the beach. And we
haven't had that for about 18 or 19 years. We've had to
rely on hurricanes to do that.
47
Now we have had some nice sou'easters back in '96,
'97, we had about 18 nor'easters or storms that winter, a
dozen of them being nor'easters and another six with low
pressure area over central Long Island that put us in that
northeast quadrant so that we would have 50 mile per hour
winds straight in our face on that shoreline, and we got
nice beach building from those winter storms, not the
nor'easters. And I'd also argue that when that jetty was
its full length, it created a beautiful wave shadow for the
downwind beaches or the westerly beaches in the wintertime
protecting them from the winter erosion of the
-nor'easters. And you've lost that by 150 feet in part, and
you've also lost the old wooden barge superstructures that
used to be on the west side of that channel that are no longer
there. I remember those as a teenager, and I know, they
looked like an old wooden barge sitting up against the beach
holding the sand, behind it: I've said enough.
MR. JONES: If I could sort of rebut that. The sediment
source for the down drift beaches are updrift of the coast.
That jetty structure is what's interrupting that flow of
sand. In the absence of that natural littoral transport
flow of sand down the beach which is being interrupted, then
the upland is where the next source of sand comes from, from
the waves attacking the beach upland. We have photographs
in our report showing that what is happening there is the
bank is in fact eroding. Trees are falling down and that's
where the sand is coming from because it's not coming from
the other side of the inlet.
All we're suggesting is proper engineering done
could minimize the length of the jetty while still serving
the purpose of maintaining a stable beach to the east,
minimizing the dredging requirements within the inlets
itself. It should look at reconfiguring the inlet, perhaps
with two parallel structures instead of the one dog leg
structure, which might also be harming the flow of
sand. That's all we're saying is that proper engineering
should go into doing this, and not just an arbitrary -- build
it back the way it was because, why? There's no support as
to why it needs to be 300 feet long.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Anyone else?
MR. BRESSLER: Those are yours, the exhibits.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Anyone else?
MR. ANDERSON: I'd like to respond to what I've heard
briefly, and I'm going to ask you to close the record.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Go ahead.
MR. ANDERSON: I have looked at this for about 14 months.
48
This fellow Mr. Jones has looked at it as a coastal
engineer. I can show you with what we've put in and what he
put in that the application before you is entirely proper.
First thing you got to understand is, we're not
going back to 1965 in this application. We never have
done that. We went back to 1932. We provided you with
survey information that showed you the existing jetty, that
existing beach profile, there it is. It's in your record.
We went from there, fast forward to 1946, and we see a
similar situation here. These are surveys done in
connection with the subdivision. Mr. Ball owns one of those
subdivision lots today.
We have aerials that go back to 1965, and they have
been brought up all to date, and they all show the same
thing, and what Mr. Jones says is quite interesting too,
because what he says is well, we're not really replacing 75
percent because there's another 160 feet that is submerged.
They are literally individual piles extending out 160 feet
that were there 50 years ago. They are not part of this
application. We are not seeking to replace them. They
don't calculate into the 75 percent of anything. He's also
said something very interesting too, and that is that if
this jetty had extended out to its original point, that the
entire -- that the beach would grow to the terminus of the
jetty, and then at that point be transported to the west of
the jetty. That's fine, except every piece of information
in front of you has not shown that impact. In fact, his own
photos and his own statements say that that portion of the
beach appears to be the same. It certainly looks that way
when I look at that.
So, this point that this jetty is somehow going to
cause this problem is not supported by anything that has
been put into the record, and in fact, what is part of the
record supports the in-kind/in-place replacement of this
eastern jetty. Everything before you supports that. Even
the contour map that he showed you supports my underlying
finding that it is functional, and if you look at the
contour lines that Mr. Jones has just put into the record,
he will show you, confirm once again that the depths inside
the jetty system are, in fact, deeper than outside the
jetty. That means it's functional. That means sand is
being trapped. Under your new code this would be treated as
an administrative permit. There is no doubt that everything
shown here with the jetty being maintained as it was all the
way back to the 1930s, that there was a beach in front of
these homes to the west. And the only thing this record has
49
demonstrated to us or anyone else who wants to look at this
thing objectively, is that those beaches, the loss of those
beaches coincide with the construction of those bulkheads
for those properties.
The reality is, I don't believe as an applicant we
have any obligation to put a beach in front of Mr. Ball and
his neighbor's house at all; nor do I think you have an
obligation to do that. I think what happened here was a
simple choice was made when these people bought their
properties. They put the largest houses they could put
up. They put it as close to the water as the regulations
would permit. The surveys Mr. Ball had already put in and
the other ones demonstrate that. They maximize their side
yards, their front yards, their rear yards. They
experienced some erosion. The moment any erosion occurred,
we don't know if it was a short term event, a long term
event, we don't know. But we do know that the moment that
those bulkheads were put in, coincide with the loss of that
beach. So to say the bulkheads have nothing to do with
beach erosion west of this inlet is completely
unsupported. In fact, it's contradicted by the record
before you. Therefore, this application should be approved.
Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. HREN: Thank you. I'm John Hren, I've been a resident
of Beixedon Estates since 1947. I've spent a lot of time on
the water and a lot of time observing the bulkheads,
climbing on them, walking on them, water skiing around
them, doing all the things you do around the water. I think
something that they're failing to mention here is very
important. It's in answer to your question, really. If you
just take photographs from the air since 1930, whatever,
you'll see what they're stating seems to be true. That
bulkhead is up, and the beaches seem to be fine. As the
bulkhead breaks down, the beaches seems to go away. But
what is not being mentioned, you wouldn't know this by the
photographs, is how much dredging was done there, and with
all the sand that was dredged out of that huge basin was put
up on the beach. And we as kids used to climb in those
piles of sand. And that sand was just working its way down
constantly as it was eroding. But it was keeping the
beaches plenished on the western side.
Now the dredging, that huge dredging hasn't been
done for a long, long time, and therefore, the beaches could
not be replenished. So the bulkheading that was there and
always been there, has been constantly eroding the down
50
drift side as obviously the engineers are saying. It's very
obvious. If you didn't know all that sand was put there,
you would certainly come to the conclusion that the
bulkheading isn't the cause. But by reason of the fact that
there is no sand being put there, the erosion is more
evident than happening constantly since I was a little kid,
and since I was playing around on there. And I used to
watch it and observe it constantly from the day we started
there. So the real problem is the bulkheading, the jetty.
The other point that seems to be clear to me, and I
hope you would look at this is, if you make a decision that
they can put this large bulkhead out there, this large jetty
and you're wrong, the damage is done and there's nothing we
can do about it. On the other hand, if you allow them to
put a short bulkhead in that would just retain the eastern
beach, and maintain their waterway, you've done two things:
You're going to do what they want and we all agree to
keep that canal open, and you're going to give a chance to
see if our side is right. And if we're wrong, then there's
no damage that's going to be irreparable. It can always
be fixed if the answer really is extending the jetty. But
by reason of immediately saying, okay, you can rebuild this
jetty, our damage is going to be done. We will lose the
rest of our beach, and we will have no beach.
MR. BALL: Tom Ball. Dr. Friedman and I got together on
this. We wanted to do that in an intelligent way. When
Peggy recommended go to an engineer, I thought that was and
intelligent way to do it. And my directive to the engineer
was, I said just come up with a solution that will allow
them to get their boats out of this private marina. This is
public land where this jetty is on, allow them to get their
boat out, and that would be the point where we can shorten
the jetty. I tried to say, could you do it quickly. So
they were out there for eight hours, nine hours in the water
one day doing the hydrographic surveys. In the short period
of time we've had we haven't been able to complete the work,
but they were able to tell you basically the velocity of the
sand, the 3,000 cubic yards, whatever it was, I don't follow
that. But the point was, I tried to get from him a number,
and he was very, very honest. He said I can't give you that
number, and I won't give you that number until I'm
absolutely sure we do the wave studies. And I believe him.
Cause he's honest. You're pushing him. You're saying,
well, what about more studies. It's just going to be three
feet, okay. He told me a length, and I said don't give
lengths. Right away he said, well, there's 70 feet missing
51
Mr. Nickles said. Obviously there's no jetty there,
obviously that's not stopping it. He was going to base it
on that. I said don't do any of that. Wait until we do the
complete study, until we can get a length that will keep the
creek open in a satisfactory manner, and still mitigate the
erosion to the west as best we can.
I also asked him to consider the damage that would
happen to Mr. Nickles property. I said is there any damage
that's been done. He said absolutely none, from all the
studies that have been done. I said make sure of that. I
said, I don't want to put my neighbors at risk. I don't
want to live with that responsibility. And this whole idea
of going after personal attacks because I want to have a
nice house, that's ridiculous. You know, clean hands and
all that nonsense can go the other way. I'm getting very
disappointed with you. You're supposed to be a
professional. Let me finish. I'm still speaking. You can
speak in a minute. Okay. The point is, what we want is a
fair study. Under the new 97 rules, we have a chance to
study this and do it intelligently and fairly. And there's
nothing wrong with going ahead and letting them do the
research and get a recommended length. To ask him to say
can you chop 70 feet off, he could throw numbers out, but he,
wouldn't and I respect him for that. He said you honestly
have to do the wave studies, and you have to finish the
different studies. I said fine, I don't fully understand
that, but I do trust the scientific methods that they were
using. You can't just disregard that. You have a
responsibility, like Mr. Hren had said, to meet the needs of
this community. This is public property that you're trying
to protect. It's a private creek, only for private
use. There's no other people that can use
that. Mr. Nickles can use that and the private citizens on
that creek can use it. There's no fight here about them
getting their boats out. That was always our primary
objective when we were in committee. That was our number
one objective. What can we do to get the boats out and
then the final selection was on get John Nickles protected.
I asked John Nickles, what can we do as a committee?
Can we get in a coastal engineer? Time and time again,
every time we would try to get facts, he would fight me on
that. He said, no, they're not going to study it. Now, we have
a chance under the new rules we can get this study. I'll even
share some of the costs on it. I honestly believe that the
Trustees determine one year, two years, whatever the number.
I thought we could minimize it, do annual maintenance dredging,
52
so that we get it down to a minimal length to minimize the
damage. To say these bulkheads are causing the damage
is totally disregarding the 240 feet now of erosion,
it's now behind my bulkhead. It's now cut out.
I have a picture. I showed it at the last meeting. The
trees are all knocked out. If you walk out on
the full moon, flood tide on the low tide of that, you will
walk that jetty and see it's totally porous. That
underside, sand flows readily throughout. If you look at
this situation, disregard the 240 feet of land that disappeared,
and say, okay we put our bulkheads in '88, what about all
the years prior to that? What accounted for all this sand
disappearing? It didn't just disappear. The jetty slowly
broke apart basically in the '60s and rightfully so, the
state said no more dredging, no more taking the bay bottom
and throwing it back, and no more landfills, okay. That was
a good decision but that's also what affected this. They
weren't feeding it anymore. This didn't disappear because of
my bulkhead. Bulkheads came in long after that and there is
possible truth to the deflected energy because of the
bulkheads. But trust me, I didn't want to spend the money
for that, nor did I want the bulkhead. I only did it out of
desperation because I could see what was happening. I'd
much rather have a beach in front of my house. I hate the
bulkhead. I'm afraid of somebody getting hurt and getting
the liability and falling on the rocks. I hate it. But I
have to have it because of the tremendous erosion that's
happening.
I asked Mr. Jones they're doing work for the Coast
Guard over at Jones Beach. They're doing work over at
Westhampton. He's not a fly by night outfit. This is a
very established outfit. He had a brochure. He's very
modest. He's a very polite guy. They had the brochure, and
they're very highly qualified people. This is not a fly by
night outfit. They do major work throughout the country.
They study bridge abutments in New York City. They do a lot
of major work. This is not a company that you can just say
this is just smoke and mirrors. It's not. I really believe
what they're doing is true. When they go study the bridge
abutments to see if it's safe, the city trusts them. Why
can't we at this stage with the Article 97 go the extra
distance and say why not, Mr. Ball, would you work with
Mr. Nickles? Sure I would. We want to come out and the
community does too. I can't believe the community has stood
behind, said, Mr. Ball, we're going to support you. At the
last minute they finally came -- most of the community
53
members came forward and said we're in favor trying to get
this thing shortened. It's ridiculously long. All we're
trying to say is shorten it. It doesn't have to be 308
feet. Certainly at some distance less than that. 70 feet
is obviously gone, but some distance less than that. I
don't want to affect them so they can't get their boats
out, but there has to be a tradeoff and that's all we're
asking.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Anyone else?
MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Ball, can I ask you a question?
MR. BALL: Mr. Jones, I took -- I was reading it tonight
over coffee. I took out his personal information. If you'd
like I can get that to you, his qualifications.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure.
MR. BALL: I can get that to you. I'm sorry.
MR. JOHNSTON: I would like to ask you does your expert or
you feel that this jetty is a functional jetty?
MR. BALL: This is interesting because you know when we were
in committee, we had a company from Woods Hole come in.
They are also coastal engineers and coastal geologists as
well. Leslie Fields, they happen to know her also on the
environmentalists. I guess they know each other. She came
up with the same conclusion. She said we have to study
it. Ironically enough, if you change the width of the
opening, that will affect it. There's a lot of things that
have to be redesigned that will maximize their ability to
get their boats out, it will also cost less maintenance for
them, and also minimize the dredging, and also minimize the
deflected energy. In other words, the sand will be able to
get by on a shortened jetty. That's all we're saying.
MR. BRESSLER: That's a legal question, Mr. Johnston, and
I'll answer that. For the purposes of your code the answer
is no, we don't believe it is.
MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Jones, do you agree with that?
MR. JONES: I'm sorry, could you repeat the question?
MR. JOHNSTON: Do you feel that this jetty is at least 75
percent physically intact and serving the purpose for which
it's designed?
MR. JONES: No, I do not.
MR. JOHNSTON: I didn't hear him say yes or no on that
during any of his conversations, I think it's an important
point.
MR. ANDERSON: If I may, he previously stated that it was
functional, and his own contour information demonstrates
that it does trap sand. The purpose of that jetty is to
54
trap sand therefore it is functional. There is no doubt
about that.
One other comment I want to make that I heard that
was interesting, and that is something that was the question
as to give us a half a jetty or some fraction of what we
feel we're entitled to, and if it doesn't work out we can
come back sometime in the future. You all must understand
that the ability, the right to rebuild that jetty depends on
its being functional. While we have been in the application
process, some 14 months, that jetty, particularly at its
ends has incurred significant damage. So we walk away with
a half a jetty or whatever number, by the time we figure out
whether it's sufficient or not, there will be no ability
to replace it back to its original length, and I mean the
length that's being applied for not the 160 feet that we're
not even applying for.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. JOHNSTON: Anthony, could I ask you, because of your
letter of March 21 st, spelling out, could you answer the
same question I asked Mr. Jones, Mr. Ball and Mr. Bressler?
MR. PASCA: Whether it's functional or not?
MR. JOHNSTON: What is your comment on whether it's
functional; is the jetty at least 75 percent intact?
MR. PASCA: Our answer is that the portion of the jetty
we're asking to replace is 75 percent physically intact.
There are portions that we're and not asking to replaced,
and they may or may not be partially intact, but we're not
asking to replace them, so we're not going to calculate them
into our-- the second part of that, whether it's physically
intact, there's no question about it; 238 feet is physically
intact out of the 308. That makes 77 percent. The second
part is whether it serves the function for which it was
designed, and I think everybody has agreed that it's serving
the function for which it's designed, which is to maintain
the depths in between the channel. That's the simple answer
to the question.
MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have a question for Mr. Jones.
MR. JONES: If I could respond real quick to the comment.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely.
MR. JONES: I have yet to see any certification from a
structural engineer as to what their opinion on the
intactness of the structure is. Just looking at the
photographs, and we didn't do that assessment either, it
wasn't in our scope. We're arguing over the functionality
55
or intactness of a structure without it being defined of
what constitutes a full functionality, what constitutes the
full intactness of the structure. If the structure in its
original condition was filled with sand, that whole crib
structure, now it's down and there's water inside there, if
you look at porosity of the structure, gaps in between each
individual plank, count up the number of planks; are the tie
backs functional? There are several tie backs shown in the
photographs. You know what point, where is the definition
of functionality, and how much of the function and what is
the performance and what is the definition? Clearly you can
see two opposing sides, there side says that it is. Our
side believes that it's not.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Were you just stating that who's to
decide the definition of functional?
MR. JONES: Yes. The statement in the clause in there is
saying 75 percent intact or performing to the extent that it
was possible, but what is intact? The fact that there are
boards sticking up out there, 75 percent of those boards, is
that structurally intact? Or is structurally intact more of
its original conditions with the full sediment inside the
structure intact, tie backs, corrosion on the tie backs.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I was just going to read that our new
code and our definition for actual jetty is a jetty or groin
that is at least 75 percent physically intact and serving
the purposes it was designed for. And I think that's what
we have been addressing tonight.
MR. BRESSLER: The problem with this particular definition
is that it doesn't contain definitions to the definitions.
That's what we're trying to point out. I think the first
argument the applicant makes is a jetty or groin that's at
least 75 percent intact, well, that encompasses two notions:
75 percent of what? 75 percent of what? You, I mean, you
could engage in an argument to the point of absurdity and
say well, I only want to replace 10 feet and all of it is
100 percent intact. So the Board first has to address what
is it that is 75 percent intact?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think we've mentioned that the 75
percent would be of the 300 feet that they're applying for.
MR. BRESSLER: The original jetty was 500 feet.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But that's not what they're applying for,
they're applying for the 300 feet.
MR. BALL: It's not an in-kind/in-place application then.
MR. BRESSLER: A jetty that is at least 75 -- they want to
replace a portion of the jetty. Your code doesn't say that.
Now it goes on to physically intact. What does that mean?
56
1 don't know what physically intact means. And you have no
evidence except a conclusory assertion that something is
physically intact.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have documentary submissions by many
people.
MR. JOHNSTON: What about Mark's comments?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I was going to let Mr. Bressler finish.
Then I was going to read that in for the records.
MR. BRESSLER: Are there gaps? I don't know. How do you
measure it? We have 238 feet. Is it in the identical
condition that it was before? They're saying it's 77
percent, which is a hair over 75. What is the measure that
you're going to apply to that? And serving the purposes it
was designed for. It was -- originally it was a box
jetty. The jetty is now empty. One side is completely
destroyed. Is it blocking the passage, the sand? It was
designed to be impervious. Everybody agrees it's no longer
impervious. Does your code say in serving the purpose for
it was designed for? Does it say all of the purpose, any of
the purpose, two percent of the purpose? This is not doing
what it was designed to do, which was to stop the flow of
sand.
So, like I said, you got to engraph definitions upon
definition. And I don't see that as a matter of law, that
it meets any of those tests, and we don't think that it's
functional.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think I disagree with you on what the
code is. I think the code is pretty clear, and I think it's
easy enough to see whether or not, in fact, this Board has
made over the years, has made many decisions on whether a
structure is or is not functional based on the physical
structure itself.
MR. BRESSLER: To be functional does it have to perform all
of the purposes for which it was designed, some of them, 50
percent? Are you going to do a sand transport study? If
it's less than 50 percent, can we conclude that it's not
performing the job that it was originally designed to do?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think I can put a number on it.
MR. BRESSLER: How do you decide then? How do you decide
on a jetty--
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually, in this case we have the
environmental planner of the Town actually gave us his
opinion, and he's of the opinion that this structure, in
fact, is functional.
MR. BRESSLER: Based on what?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Based on his experience and his education.
57
MR. BRESSLER: Based on what facts?
MR. JOHNSTON: His review of the aerial photos, his visiting
of the site, his --
MR. BRESSLER: But those are not facts. Those are things he
looked at. Based upon what factual basis is he making that
determination?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Based upon anyone looking at it. They
look at the aerial photos, they look at the site
inspections, they take some measurements and that would be
all --
MR. BRESSLER: There have to be factual findings, and there
have to be conclusions. And in the absence of factual
findings and conclusions, no determination can be
rational. We all know that. That's the standard. And in
the absence of those two things for someone to say I looked
at it and that's what I think, we all know that that doesn't
make it.
So the long and the short of it is, if you folks
want to make an informed decision under new Article 97
taking into account the preamble, the new Article 97, the
old code wasn't making it. We're missing a lot of
opportunities for preservation, we want to do the right
thing. This is a no-brainer for you. You invited people to
get expert advice, my invitation is go for it. You need the
facts. Nobody's going to be hurt by it. There is no
emergency here. The applicant's given you absolutely
nothing in that regard, has refused your invitation to do
it. We've stepped up. You've got nothing to lose and
everything to gain. And you say what happens if the expert
comes back, does his studies and says 300 feet, so be it.
You ask the question, well, can't experts have two
different opinions, sure they can but you got none. One is
better than none. And if they don't like the expert
opinion, they can go out and get one too, and you can have
the typical battle of the experts. But what you can't have
is nothing and that's what you have now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, Mr. Ball.
MR. BALL: Right from the beginning this has become is it
fair to grandfather in a structure that was originally
almost 500 feet long, that had a boat basin, that had this
whole -- now, oh, we're just going to do a part of
it. That's ridiculous also, that argument. But okay, if you
want to accept that, the application itself is flawed. The
survey is more than three years old. The survey does not do
an environmental impact. Obviously it's been tremendous
environmental damage, probably the greatest environmental
58
damage on the shoreline in decades in the Town of Southold.
This is ridiculous that this has gone on this far. The
application itself never should have been accepted because
that's how much environmental damage has been done.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How can you prove that? That's just a
statement.
MR. BALL: We've lost almost 240 feet of land over the
years.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Someone said that was dredge spoil that
was placed there.
MR. BALL: That's ridiculous. You look at the survey and it
shows a lot there. That's not spoils, yeah, they kept
filling the lot back in, right. But that lot was a lot at
one point. Yes, they tried to maintain it and eventually
they couldn't fill it in anymore, so they lost a lot. But
to say that that wasn't -- there was actually farm fields
here years ago, and then what happened over the years it got
washed away. That defined subdivision is gone. That wasn't
fill when it started out, they tried to maintain it that
way. As soon as they stopped trying to maintain it, it's
gone. There's a huge environmental impact here. The
application itself is heavily flawed. The survey is dated,
it says one year old surveys, on the application; this
survey's three years old. The hydrographic studies are
dated, nothing's accurate about this survey. Probably the
biggest one is the environmental impact. And it is huge,
and to just ignore that, to just totally say the Article 97
only applies to certain individuals, that's how bad this
gets.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're not ignoring it. We're still here.
We have been here for months. That's not ignoring it.
MR. BALL: What's happening is you have some very honest
people here. They don't want to go out as an established
firm and say, make statements. They'd rather study it. Why
don't you err on side of caution. Why do we want to allow a
ridiculously long structure? Why not allow it to be
shortened and lessen the environmental impact? You're in a
position to do that. We've offered to share the cost with
Mr. Nickles. Where is the problem? Why does he need it 300
feet long? Why can't we try to come up with a solution, a
compromise to try to mitigate the erosion? What is wrong
with trying to do that? That's the environmental correct
things to do. That's why we're all here. At least that's
why you're here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I've got a question for Mr. Jones, finally
getting around to it. Is it possible to shorten the jetty
59
to such a length that it would not effect the, erosion to the
properties to the west at all?
MR. JONES: The down drift erosion side that you're saying
can we get the jetty to a length such that everything's
equal?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mitigate the jetty length?
MR. JONES: Yes. You can design the system, I believe --
this would all come out in the proper engineering studies.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I know. That's something that's not
here. So we can't say this could happen, it could not
happen. I'm asking you today, right now, could a jetty
system be designed, this jetty or another jetty, that would
not cause erosion down drift?
MR. JONES: That would be difficult. What you can do is
mitigate the erosion.
MR. JOHNSTON: So the answer's no?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Your opinion is if you shorten the jetty,
you would mitigate or lessen the amount of erosion?
MR. JONES: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone else here? We're looking through
the file here, we're looking for the DEC permit.
MR. BRESSLER: It's going to give you no input. Nor is that
file privy to us. We're going to offer up these
photographs,just recently taken some of which show the
portion of the jetty that's claimed to be totally intact,
which is not.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Bruce, could you come up here, we'd like
to ask a question for clarification, here. Looking at the
DEC permit -- anyone is welcome to come up and take a
look. Looking at the DEC permit.
MR. ANDERSON: What was your question?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I see a height of four feet that looks
from at apparent low water, upper the height in this
bulkhead. So I imagine at high tide you're going to have
about a foot above the water?
MR. ANDERSON: About two feet above it to low tide.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What exists now, how many feet?
MR. ANDERSON: Existing showing it -- I don't know the
answer. I don't know. If you look at the photograph, try
and figure out how high above the high tide mark.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Many of the groins which we have given
out replacements, which have looked like this in the past,
we're actually going with what you know as a low profile.
DR. FRIEDMAN: May I explain how those photographs were
taken and where they are?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: With a low profile jetty.
60
MR. ANDERSON: You don't want to make it any lower.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're saying you want a jetty that's
going to be above high water at all times?
MR. NICKLES: I think it would be a serious hazard if it was
below the water.
MR. ANDERSON: I wouldn't want to be responsible.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The question was about the height of the
groin that was approved by the DEC versus the height of the
currently existing groin, and it would seem from the
photographs -- and I'm not sure if these photographs were
referring to here.
DR. FRIEDMAN: Those are the ones that have not been
commented on yet. They are not part of the file.
MR. BRESSLER: I'm offering them up, they're dated 3/22, 1
believe.
DR. FRIEDMAN: They're dated 3/22. They were in order, and
I have to explain what you're looking at.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Please do. Go ahead.
DR. FRIEDMAN: My name's Howard Friedman. I live to the
west of the jetty. For comparison, may we see the pictures
that was submitted indicating that the western -- that the
jetty is intact. It was said that they submitted
photographs indicating that the jetty was intact
tonight. May I see those?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That the applicant submitted?
DR. FRIEDMAN: Yes. The ones you received tonight.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The ones I received here are from Mr.
Bressler.
DR. FRIEDMAN: No, the ones you received from the applicant
that claimed to show that the jetty was intact.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Be patient here, I've shuffled everything
around.
TRUSTEE KING: This is what we got tonight.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's Exhibit B, for the record. And I
believe they used this as a basis for their calculations of
77 percent.
DR. FRIEDMAN: They stated that the jetty was intact.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know, did they state that, that
it's intact?
DR. FRIEDMAN: Yes, they stated that 250 feet or so was
intact; am I correct?
MR. ANDERSON: That's correct.
MR. BRESSLER: 238.
MR. ANDERSON: 238.
DR. FRIEDMAN: As I recall, they submitted this
photograph. This is a photograph taken so far away that it
61
could be a straight line drawn with a piece of
charcoal. These are photographs that I took 3/22. They are
the west face of the jetty that is being asked to replace,
which the applicant has stated is intact or 230 feet are
intact. These are photographs of the west face of that
jetty. And they were in order from landside to waterside
when I handed them in. I don't know what order they're in
now. But if you examine these photographs, these are simply
telephotos and enlargements, and I would like to point out
to you that looking from the side, directly at them, you
will see in this one, all of these are fenestrations,
they're all fenestrations which can't be seen, they can't be
seen, not at all. Here's another one. These are
fenestrations in this wall that they say is intact. Now,
this would be the bay. This is the bay end. As I said, if
you string them together, they are continuous. Well, if you
look at these, this is the most landward one, it has the
grass on the beach. You see?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
DR. FRIEDMAN: This is the most, till it goes on this
side.
MR. BRESSLER: Dr. Friedman, why don't you mark them in
order so that the Board can --
DR. FRIEDMAN: The point that I'm making is that this jetty
that they claim is physically intact isn't intact at all.
It is full of holes, all the way along this. These are best
seen at low tide. At high tide, obviously, you can't see
them. If you walk down there, in the letter that
Mr. Nickles submitted to this Board some time ago, the
last letter-- where is that last letter?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have it here.
DR. FRIEDMAN: The one prior had a photograph. He sent
along some black and white photographs, which claims to
shows an intact jetty. Do you have that? I didn't
anticipate. Do you have that letter that Mr. Nickles sent?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Here it is. There you go.
DR. FRIEDMAN: Yeah. Okay. He shows a photograph here
down the jetty obviously standing on the landward side of
this jetty looking down the jetty. Now, of course this is
solid here. Not only is it in shadow, but if you look
parallel with this, if I look down this thing here, it could
be holy as a fishnet. But you wouldn't know it. It would
look like the straight curtain, but when you look at it on
end, then you can see the hole. Now, here is the other
one.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would you consider this to be high tide?
62
DR. FRIEDMAN: No, it's not high tide, but it's partial
tide. It's not low tide either. That's my guess just from
having been out there a long time. Okay. This photograph
is taken so that the bottom ends of the structure are not
visible, they're covered with water. You can't see the
bottom. You can't see this at this tide. You can't see it.
So, what I did, having seen this, I went out there -- this
isn't even full low tide, it's almost full, but not
completely full -- and as you see it, looking at it head on
as I indicated, this thing is fenestrated so badly all the
way along, the whole thing, all the way along east at the
landward end, it's least, still fenestrated but least, but
when you get out a little bit further, and you look at them,
I submit that this was not intact. It was a very cold day
and I was shivering so this one was blurred. That's the
result of my shivering.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Monday? Cold wind.
DR. FRIEDMAN: I went out there at low tide. Now,
Mr. Nickles in his letter, as I recall, invites the Trustees
to come out and look at the site. I would absolutely --
Eric's going to get madder than hell at me, but I would
welcome a visit from the Trustees at low tide for them to
come and see what the physical structure of that thing
really is, not seen sideways, not seen in shadows, but
actually see what the structure is. Then tell me that this
jetty is intact.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Mr. Jones?
MR. JONES: One more statement about the survey.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually because he contested this, I'd
like after you speak I'd like him to explain why he thinks
you're wrong.
MR. JONES: We're maintaining this is the jetty structure
out to the structure. You can see the contours minus two
contour, coming around the end of the jetty. This is
essentially the same elevation on both sides. Furthermore,
within the jetty here on that bulkhead, you can see a mound
forming right here, indicating the diffusion of the sand
through the barrier, and this is up on the dry beach even
through the cracks and the planking you've seen there. So
again, going back to that functionality question, is it
functional simply because there's a difference in water
depths on either side, or is it nonfunctional because sand
is now escaping through the barrier.
MR. BRESSLER: Do the Trustees have a copy of this?
MR. JONES: I don't believe they have a copy of this but
they can have this.
63
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I just have to ask again, because we
keep going back and forth with the 75 percent, when you
designated nonfunctional is it of the 300 feet of that jetty
or I don't know, what's the other dimension? The 500,
what's the full extent of the original, 500? Or is your
percentage --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The badly deteriorated part.
MR. JONES: This part is virtually disintegrated.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So your 75 percent is of the 300?
MR. JONES: I would argue that, yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That the 75 percent is of the 300?
MR. JONES: Even if you use that problem.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what I'm saying.
MR. ANDERSON: Forget even if, it's 308 feet. Are you
saying that you think less than 75 percent of that is
functioning?
MR. JONES: Yes. And I think --
MR. ANDERSON: And the reason why you're saying is because
you're finding an elevation here; is that right?
MR. JONES: Elevation here, the mound. To this contour
continuing around. To state that there are different
elevations on this side and this side.
MR. ANDERSON: There definitely are, isn't it clear that
this is deeper than this?
MR. JONES: Yes, it's clear, but how do you explain these
mounds, how do you explain the need to dredge?
MR. ANDERSON: You agree that sand builds up on this side?
MR. JONES: Yes.
MR. ANDERSON: You agree this traps sand because it builds
up on this side?
MR. JONES: Yes.
MR. ANDERSON: You agree that it's deeper inside than it is
on either side, which, by the way, would be consistent with
the survey; you agree with that?
MR. JONES: How do you explain this contour here?
MR. BRESSLER: This isn't cross-examination. If it is, I'm
going to start.
MR. ANDERSON: My point is this: You're telling me it traps
here, you're telling me it's deeper here than it is here and
here, what do you know--
MR. BRESSLER: The point is there's a contour and mound on
either side that demonstrates it isn't functioning. Then
it's not holding back.
MR. ANDERSON: Of course it is, then the beach wouldn't be
here. You've already testified to that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else who would like to
64
comment?
MR. BRESSLER: You have your contours, you can see what he's
talking about.
Where all this gets you under the code, I'm not
certain. I've read it very carefully and I think they still
have to meet the permit requirements. And while this is a
very nice, esoteric discussion, they're here, they need a
permit, and they have to meet the Article 97 standards, and
that they haven't done. And we think that their application
is flawed. They haven't met the requirements in terms of
their submissions, in terms of the depths and the surveys,
we think they haven't demonstrated an absence of harm. We
think this Board has to get further information and hear
from the experts as to how this thing should be engineered.
To do anything other than that is not rational. So we ask
that you continue make a determination as to whose nickel
it's going to be. We've offered to contribute, you heard
Mr. Ball, and I think you have the powers on the other side,
and let's find out what the answer is in terms of volume and
velocity of sand transport and what the proper design is
going to be.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. BRESSLER: That was the purpose of some of the
amendments to 97. Let's utilize them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Just to clear everything
up. An offer was made by the neighbor to the applicant to
study this process further.
MR. FREIDMAN: Share.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just want to make it clear the applicant
hasn't responded to that yet. Before we close the hearing I
just want to --
MR. ANDERSON: Our position is we've met our burden under
the permit standards, that we have given you data going back
as early as 1932; that we met our burden of proof, that we
are entitled to the permit, and we ask you to close the
record, please.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They're not interested in the offer I just
wanted to make that clear.
MR. BRESSLER: They're not interested, yet you retain the
power under Chapter 97 to keep this open and you require
that as a condition.
MR. ANDERSON: I would also point out that the Town
environmental apparently agrees with our position.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The Town's environmental planner it was
his opinion that the structure is functional.
MR. BALL: When did he look at it, what time?
65
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He studied the file. I don't know the
hours that he studied it, the time, I don't know the tide
that he looked at it. However, he did look at it and it was
his opinion is that it's functional.
MR. BALL: I tell you what, if you would like to on your
own, the Board, get a structural engineer, say it's intact,
coastal engineer, he's tried to show in an honest way that
it's not functional, but if you want to do a structural
engineer to say it's intact, we'll help pay for that.
That's how convinced I am. You have to see it at low tide.
This thing is porous throughout. If you walk the length of
this, as Dr. Friedman just indicated, you can see gaps
across the base the full-length of it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think there's any question that
the structure is in need of repair. That's why we're here.
If it were 100 percent structurally sound and functioning
100 percent, I don't think the applicant would have bothered
to come in to replace it. That's the whole point of us
being here. We rarely see a bulkhead or a jetty
restructuring application because it's brand new. We always
see one that's starting to fail and at that point in time
the applicant comes in to replace or to repair it. That's
normal.
MR. BALL: They're indicating this is a sudden event. This
is not a sudden event. I have letters, several letters to
the Army Corps of Engineers, to the DEC, I have to submit,
but basically those letters will indicate this has been
falling apart for decades. Since I've been there I've wrote
several letters, one to the bay constable, and basically,
this thing hasn't just happened. This wasn't a bad winter.
The superstructure of this thing was gone years ago.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know if it was gone, but no
question about it, it's been -- I mean, as soon as you build
it starts to decay. It's out in the weather; it's in the
water. That's when people come in to replace things. When
it needs it. They don't come in before it needs it.
MR. BALL: So then you're getting to the point 75 percent
intact if you walk it, you'll see it's not. Also I tried to
point out several times I showed it to Eric, the survey they
submitted is more than a year old. It's Article 97 says it
has to be less than a year old, it's not, it's dated. The
hydrographic part of it is dated. They did not address the
environmental concern. You can't ignore the fact that they
lost a tremendous amount of land that was part of the
subdivision that was not filled. That's just the reality of
it. It's a huge environmental impact here that should be
66
considered.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's why we're considering everything.
MR. BALL: That's why I'm offering it to them. What is so
bad about trying to study it?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They haven't taken your offer. I think
that offers a dead issue. It was officially made so that
it would get closure on that.
MR. BALL: It says in writing they can't submit an
application without a current survey. It's not current.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anybody else briefly? No.
MR. ANDERSON: Close it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion based on all the information
submitted and all the public hearings and all the
information submitted at the public hearing and in between
the public hearings and based on the information submitted
by the Town Environmental Planner and Mr. Jones, that -- I'm
trying to find the exact number-- I'll make a motion -- the
application was for replacing approximately 848 feet of
linear feet of bulkheading. The original application says
the northern timber bulkhead is approximately 848 linear
feet, the southern bulkhead is approximately 159 linear
feet. Does anyone have an issue with the southern bulkhead?
Make a motion that that southern bulkhead be replaced as
requested and consistent with the DEC plan stamped and dated
11/10/03, Permit#1-4738-817/8, if I'm reading that
correctly, that the southern portion including the portion
of 113 feet to be removed, that in the Petty's Pond section
to be replaced as applied for, and that the 308 foot section
of timber bulkhead sticking out into the bay be shortened by
10 percent or 30 feet, and that shortening is based on
everything that I've heard tonight and everything that's in
the file, and that the shortening would in fact allow for
more sand to bypass the jetty, 10 percent shortening.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Put a stipulation to remove all existing
substructure under the surface, the remnants of the old.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll add that all remaining debris should
be removed after construction.
MR. BALL: 70 feet's missing off there. It's not even
there. In his own admission, he says that in the letter.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. We'll need a new set of plans
showing that. Thank you.
67
Make a motion to go back to the regular
meeting.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MOORINGS/DUCK BLINDS:
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Susan Johnson we will table until next
month. So we can make an inspection of the location.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were unable to find the location and
unable to contact her.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
2. MALCOLM H. THOMPSON requests a Mooring Permit in
Broadwaters Cove for a 19' boat, replacing Mooring #42.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Looked at this in the file, didn't have a
problem with it. Make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
3. LEWIS EDSON requests a mooring permit in Corey Creek,
replacing Mooring #103. Access: Private off of 9326 Main
Bayview Road, Southold. Took a look at this, I didn't have
a problem with this just replacement. Motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MS. STANDISH: We have one here. Pass a resolution.
TRUSTEE KING: We looked at this in the field. On PIA
application. We reviewed this and issued a permit and we
looked at a building that wanted to reshingle the roof and
put new windows in, and we didn't have a problem with it,
but we failed to put it on the permit. So I guess we pass a
resolution putting this information on the permit for
reshingling the boathouse and existing -- replace the siding
and replace the windows.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For the record, I'm recusing myself.
That's it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Make a motion to close the regular
meeting.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. RECEIVED
APR 2 7 2004
outhold Town Clerk