HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-05/26/2004 oSUFFot,��,
Albert J.Krupski,President Town Hall
James King,Vice-President 53095 Route 25
Artie Foster y - P.O.Box 1179
Ken Poliwoda Southold,New York 11971-0959
Peggy A.Dickerson y ��� Telephone(631) 765-1892
��.( `1►a Fax(631) 765-1366
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MINUTES
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
7:00 PM
Present were: 'Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President, Trustee
James King, Vice-President, Trustee
Artie Foster, Trustee
Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee
Peggy Dickerson, Secretary,Trustee
E. Brownell Johnston, Esq. -Assistant Town Attorney for Trustees
Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Thursday June 24, 2004 at 7:00 PM
WORK SESSION: 6:00 PM
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve minutes of April 21, 2004.
I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for April
2004. A check for $6,737.91 was forwarded to the
Supervisor's Office for the general fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public notices are posted on.the Town
Clerk's Bulletin Board for review.
III. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Skip to the back, skip to the
administrative permits on the back, Page 6.
Board of Trustees 2 May 26, 2004
VI: RESOLUTIONS:
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes, I looked at this.
1. En-Consultants on behalf of CLAIRE AND THOMAS DRENNAN
requests an Administrative Permit to construct a second
story dormer addition over an existing one-family dwelling.
Located: 1265 Calves Neck Road, Southold.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I have looked at this, found there to be
negligible environmental impact and have no problem
approving it. Make that motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Peggy, do the next one.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Trimble's Nursery on behalf of BERNARD
TELSEY requests an Administrative Permit to re-plant the
bluff with native plantings. Located: 465 Old Harbor Road,
New Suffolk. I looked at this, and I looked at the planting
plan, and it looked good to me. I'll make a motion to
approve.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES
3. MICHAEL CIRRITO requests an Administrative Permit to
repair the existing stairs from house to bulkhead,
inkind/inplace. Located: 7625 Nassau Point Road,
Cutchogue. SCTM #118-4-4
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I also looked at this, it is minor,
replacing deck with stairs. I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll do the next one. Last month's
meeting we made a mistake on the size of the float Permit
5898 issued to JAMES GIBBONS reduced the size of the
floating dock from 10 by 20 to 6 by 20 when the float is
replaced, so they can use the float as-is until the float is
actually going to be replaced, and that it should be
replaced by a 6 by 20. I'll make that motion.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now we can go to Page 1 for Amendments,
Waivers and Changes. Ken, you looked at that one, right?
Ill. APPLICATIONS FORAMEN DMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES:
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes, once again.
1. JOHN LEHNER requests an amendment to Permit Number 5371
Board of Trustees 3 May 26, 2004
to include the existing deck located on the front of the
house. Located: 505 Lake Drive, Southold. SCTM #59-5-20.
1 looked at that, I didn't have a problem. It was existing
and it's behind a concrete retaining wall.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want to see the plans again?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I was just there two hours ago. I'll
make the motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES
2. En-Consultants on behalf of SANDRA AND FRANK CURRAN
requests an amendment to Permit 4666 to install a 3' by 12'
double hinged ramp and a 5' by 12' low-profile kayak float
off existing fixed dock. Located 560 Fishers Beach Road,
Cutchogue. SCTM # 111-1-16.
MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicants. What I did, Al, was prepare just a preliminary
sketch that I'm going to walk up and show you to make sure
it's consistent with what you discussed with the applicant
during your field inspection. Presuming it is, you'd go to
resolution just pending a formalized plan, which I would
then submit to you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. HERMANN: This would be a 6' by 12' float over in this
area, which on cross would be attached to the existing
bulkhead pilings with a chain around a pipe that would
simply be attached to one of those pilings.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we talked about a ramp from here to
there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would approve a ramp if they wanted a
ramp.
MR. HERMANN: Tom Samuels said, this was what he had given
to me, if we want to show a ramp here, you want to approve
it with a ramp or--
TRUSTEE FOSTER: He was worried about it being too steep, so
we told him to put three steps down.
MR. HERMANN: There's an existing ladder there.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Not a ladder, regular steps down to the
ramp. So that the ramp would be lower, and it wouldn't be
quite as steep.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Three steps down here, then a ramp down to
the float.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We'll approve it all, you can do less.
MR. HERMANN: I don't know what dimensions would give you
without scaling the side. If you just want to approve the
6' by 12' float with access steps and ramp, we'll either
Board of Trustees 4 May 26, 2004
give you that.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's what we discussed out there. He
was concerned because of the steepness. If you drop it
down, that will take you down 24 inches.
MR. HERMANN: Now you think why I just prepared a sketch.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Al, make sure the wording reads it's
affixed to the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to approve the application
to amend application 4666 for a 5' by 12' low profile kayak
dock attached to the bulkhead with access stairs and/or
ramp.
MR. HERMANN: 6' by 12', Al, because that original proposal
was for 5' by 12' but on the balance that's what Tom brought
up since it's just being affixed to the bulkhead, he said
you had discussed 6 feet for stability since it's not going
to be secured by pilings.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Fine. 6' by 12'.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MR. HERMANN: Thank you.
3. LINDA S. SANFORD requests a One-year extension.
Demolish and construct a new dwelling and renovate the
existing garage. Located: 780 Private Road 17,
Southold. SCTM # 81-3-27.1.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Permit states stipulation that gutters and
dry wells to new house to retain runoff, stake road with hay
bales during demolish and construction. I'll make motion to
approve the one year extension.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to go off the regular
meeting.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have a number of public hearings
tonight. There are a few that were postponed. I'm going to
read them off first so nobody sits here until 11:30 and
realizes we're not going to open the hearing. Number 4
Michael Liegey has been postponed until June. Number 6
Ernest Schneider has been postponed until June. Number 18,
John Betsch has been postponed.
If anyone would like to comment during the public
hearing, please come up and use the microphones and identify
yourself for the record, and we'll start with Ken, could you
start.
Board of Trustees 5 May 26, 2004
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 TRAVELER WATCHMAN. PERTINENT
CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS
FROM THE PUBLIC.
PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF.
FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS IF POSSIBLE.
1. ANN D. CLEMENTS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
300 square foot ground-level deck. Located: 560 Ruch Lane,
Southold. SCTM #52-2-25.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment
on this application? If not, I'll make a comment that I
inspected the site, I found that the deck was going to be
alongside the home, not encroaching on to the wetlands. It
was probably 30 feet from the top of the bank. The only
recommendation I would make that there be a porous surface
underneath and have quarter-inch spaces between the deck
boards. Any other public comments or board comments? 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
Permit on behalf of Ann D. Clements with the stipulation I
requested. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Quarter-inch spacing between the decking
and porous surface such as sand underneath.
2. LOUISE MOYLE requests a Wetland Permit to repair the
existing dock and to construct a 9' by 10' storage
out-building. Located: 1920 Minnehaha Boulevard,
Southold. SCTM # 87-3-63.1.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in
favor of or against the application? The Board visited this
site last month, then I met with the applicant when he came
up from Florida after that. And remember our
recommendations were to take the one float away and to
replace it with a 6' by 20' and to extend the catwalk 8 feet
Board of Trustees 6 May 26, 2004
out, so he would have the same amount of water, and he was
really reluctant to do that because he didn't want to spend
any money on the dock, he just wanted to repair it. I said
put your comments in writing. We had a long discussion about
it, and he wasn't real happy with the solution. First, he
wanted to retain the present size, location and
configuration of the dock, make necessary repairs in
compliance with requirements for materials at a minimum
cost. B, if and when the dock is replaced it would be in
compliance with the rules and requirements in effect at the
time of replacement, which is what we just did on a
different dock.
We have been owners since 1960. Our dock was built
'68 and '70. It was designed for two boats. Our concern
indicated is that the landward side of the dock rests on the
bottom at low tide. This has developed through the
sedimentation that did not exist for many years after the
dock was built. It could be resolved by moving the dock out
about 5 feet, which is what we all decided at the field
inspection.
So, if there's no other comments, if the Board has no
problem, I will make a motion, once I close the hearing, to
grant him -- right now he's got a 3 and-a-half by 40 foot
structure, that includes the ramp. We wanted to make that it will be 3 and a half by 48 feet. Make it eight feet
longer including the ramp, then a 6' by 20' float. Is that
right? I want to make sure it's worded properly.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's fine.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to approve the application
of Louise Moyle for a 9 by 10 storage out-building and to
approve a 3 and-a-half foot wide by 48 foot catwalk and ramp
with a 6' by 20' float and an "L" configuration at the end of
that, and he'll need to submit a sketch drawing showing
that.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Once he goes to replace the
float, he's going to bring it to conformity. He can use
what he has now. That's what he asked for, to be able to
use what he has now, but when that float needs to be
replaced, then he's got to replace it.
MS. STANDISH: He can't repair it?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, he can repair it, he can't replace
Board of Trustees 7 May 26, 2004
the floats. The floats are going to have to be replaced.
3. MIRO RADOVICH requests a Wetland Permit to replace the
existing bulkhead within 18 inches using vinyl sheathing and
pilings of CCA material. Located: 400 Budd's Pond Road,
Southold. SCTM # 56-5-18.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What did we decide here? Jim, do you have
the field notes?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Put the sheathing in front of and take
the pilings out and put them back in place.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sorry, Peg, should have let Ken read that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to
comment? Any Board comments? I'll make a motion to close
the hearing. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Make a motion to approve the Wetland
Permit to replace the existing bulkhead within 18 inches
using vinyl sheathing but not the pilings?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: During construction remove the pilings,
install the sheathing, and install the whalers, and
reinstall the pilings.
MR. RADOVICH: Why can't I leave it as it is?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you the applicant?
MR. RADOVICH: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you come up to the microphone and
identify yourself? I'll explain what we did here.
You applied to go within 18 inches, what we try to do
is minimize the amount of encroachment into the water. So
as your contractor, as he's doing the work as he pulls the
piling, he puts the sheathing right up tight against your
old bulkhead, against the whalers, and takes out about eight
or 10 inches extra, basically it keeps it tighter to your
bulkhead. It's a different construction process that
eliminates the encroachment into the water.
MR. RADOVICH: It won't be as strong as it is now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Depends who does the work. It should be
just as strong. It's like a new -- they can put -- they put new
dead men in, it should be just as strong.
MR. RADOVICH: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It shouldn't affect the integrity of the
structure at all. This is a requirement that we used in
tight areas pretty consistently.
MR. RADOVICH: 18 inches.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually, it will be 18 inches once you're
done. By the time you put the sheathing and the whaler and
Board of Trustees 8 May 26, 2004
the new pilings, it's going to be 18 inches.
MR. RADOVICH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Jim?
5. ANNA ACKER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'
by 4' deck and a 4' X 88' fixed catwalk with a ladder at the
seaward end. Located: 855 Pine Neck Road, Southold.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here who would like to
comment on this project?
MS. ACKER: I'm Anna Acker, I'm here, if you have any
questions.
TRUSTEE KING: My notes were we issued a permit in '78. We
didn't have a problem with it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were fortunate to see it in low water.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's okay, I just had a note on it.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? I'll make a motion to
close the hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application
for 4' by 4' deck and 4' by 88' fixed catwalk.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All if in favor. ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mr. Radovich, just give us a different
sketch showing that the bulkhead will be, you'll take the
old pilings out and put the bulkhead up against the old
one. Thank you.
7. HOWARD SAFIR requests a Wetland Permit to install a
water line over the driveway utility easement for county
water. Located. 3121 Oaklawn Avenue, Southold. SCTM #
70-6-10.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of
the application?
MR. SAFIR: Howard Safir here. This is to connect county
water down the driveway that I have and to replace a well
which we have a filter system on and the water is still not
very good.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Anybody else like to comment
on this application? The only question we had, the CAC
recommended to restore the driveway to its previous
condition. I think we're familiar with that driveway.
MR. SAFIR: It's a dirt driveway and I've spoken to the
Board of Trustees 9 May 26, 2004
contractor, and the contractor said he will and I will
insure that he restores it to the smooth condition that it
was before.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Do I have a motion to close
the hearing?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the
application.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MR. JOHNSTON: That was an as-built?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
8. RUDOLPH AND VIRGINIA BRUER request a Wetland Permit for
the existing 4' by 56' dock. Located: 3693 Pine Neck Road,
Southold. SCTM # 70-6-25.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Anyone here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. BRUER: Yes. Rudolph Bruer, one of the applicants. My
wife is here. Obviously, I'd like the Board to grant the
application, but also included in the application, I
believe, was the request to be able to repair the dock and
replace the outer piling. I'd like to put it back the way
it was, as the dock that was built in 1959.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: We went and looked at that and I don't
think the Board had any problem with that; am I correct?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No.
MR. JOHNSTON: Once he gets the permit, it is expected to do the repair.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'd like to see a sketch when you come in
to get the permit, we'd like to see a sketch of the dock
with the piling. A sketch of the dock, then measure off how
many feet you want the piling, was there piling there?
MR. BRUER: There was one laying --
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It came out in the winter.
MR. BRUER: A 44 year old piling was sitting there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Show us on the sketch where you want that.
MR. BRUER: Like a hand drawing? I'm not very good at
that. I will. Thank you.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Make a motion to approve the application of
Rudolph and Virginia Bruer as requested.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
Board of Trustees 10 May 26, 2004
TRUSTEE FOSTER: With the condition that a sketch is brought
in noting the dock in its existence and piling location.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES.
9. SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY requests a Wetland Permit
to install a 12 inch HDPE water main parallel to north
Bayview Road under Goose Creek to support the increased fire
protection and domestic flow. Located: North/south of
North Bayview Road under Goose Creek.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here to comment on this
application? I looked at this. I don't think anyone had a
problem. I make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland
Permit on behalf of Suffolk County Water Authority for the
permit as read. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES
10. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of
CHRISTOPHER MILLIKEN requests a Wetland Permit to construct
a 28' by 18' deck with pergola. Located: East End Road,
Fishers Island. SCTM # 1-1-3.15 and 3.16.
MR. JUST: Glenn Just on behalf of the Millikens. Here's
some additional photographs, Jimmy. I think you were here
before. Mr. Foster and I, 1 think had been there April
20th, 19th, this is the one all the way on the east end of
Fishers Island.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I remember the one, I questioned -- it's
high up above the 10 foot contour. I didn't see a problem
with that to be honest. Any other comments? I'll make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to approve the
application of Christopher Milliken as requested.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: So carried.
11. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of BASIN ROAD REALTY
TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace
(inplace) existing 32', 34' and 48' timber groins with
low-profile vinyl groins. Located: 450 Basin Road,
Board of Trustees 11 May 26, 2004
Southold. SCTM # 81-1-17 & 18.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak on this application?
MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann, En-Consultants. This is a plan
for the removal and replacement in place of three existing
timber groins with low profile vinyl groins. I had met with
Jim King at the property prior to submitting the
application in order to assess the site for the low profile
elevation which Jim had recommended and I agreed with, and
that elevation is shown on Sheet 2 of 2 on the cross
section.
If the Board has any questions, I'd be happy to
address them.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We all looked at this in the field. We'd
like to shorten the southernmost groin to 28 feet. We found
that the groin was --
MR. HERMANN: You're saying southern?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Southern, eastern, southeastern.
MR. HERMANN: Looking all the way to the water to the right,
easternmost.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right. We found it was nonfunctional at
28 feet.
MR. HERMANN: So 28 instead of 32?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right. And make the low profile top of
the groin to be five feet below the top of the bulkhead,
that's the starting height of the low profile groin.
MR. HERMANN: Jim, is that the same mark that we set; do you
recall?
TRUSTEE KING: I'm not sure.
MR. HERMANN: Let me scale it. It's going to vary, Jim,
because the numbers that we had were one and-a-half feet max
above grade, and, of course, the number that Kenny's giving
is basically the distance from the top of bulkhead. There
were different beach elevations where you and I were, the
top of the bulkhead was only four and-a-half feet above
grade. So if we went five feet down from there, the groin
would be under the sand.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We used the higher of the two grades. I
stood on the higher which was the northwestern side.
MR. HERMANN: Right. But for each groin the beach elevation
referenced to the top of the bulkhead is going to
vary. Your measurement is for that specific groin.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Correct. We'll go groin by groin. We'll
move to the center next.
MR. HERMANN: So the easterly you're saying 28 length five
feet from the top of bulkhead.
Board of Trustees 12 May 26, 2004
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's right. The center one we found 34
feet which I believe is what you're asking for. And again,
top of groin five feet below top of bulkhead. And the
northwestern third one, make 32 feet. Is that what you're
asking for?
MR. HERMANN: We're asking for 48.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There was a lot of holes in it. It was
nonfunctional at 32 feet?
MR. HERMANN: At 32, this is the one Jim and I measured.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Top of groin should be two and-a-half
from top of bulkhead.
MR. HERMANN: That's what I had, three. So about the same,
two and-a-half from top. I don't really have any
disagreement with those numbers. So, I mean, I could give
you a revised plan that shows that. I'm not going to give a
separate cross for each one. We'll have to notate in some
way those numbers. Because as I say, the cross I gave you
is based on the westerly-most groin, the longest one.
That's the one Jim and I measured, and that's the one the
cross reflects, so I'll just indicate that in some way and
otherwise I would say that's fine.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Good, glad you're happy with it. Just a
comment, the CAC, Southold Town Conservation Advisory
Council recommended disapproval of the Wetland Permit
application Basin Road Realty Trust to remove and replace
existing 32', 34' and 48' timber groins with low profile
groins. They denied it because denying the application
because the groins should be left to expire on their own and
allow the beach to revert to its original state. That's
just our advisory council.
MR. HERMANN: I can respond to that, if you wish; otherwise,
if you're happy with your recommendation I am.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I believe the Board's happy with their
recommendation. We did find they're functional and
established the beach.
MR. HERMANN: Especially along this area of the beach.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comment on this application?
If not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Make a motion to approve Wetland Permit
on behalf of Basin Road Realty Trust. To reiterate, the
three groins, for the record, the southeastern groin shall
be shortened to 28 feet, and the top of the groin will be
will begin 5 feet below the top of the bulkhead. The center
groin will remain 34 feet and again the top of the groin
Board of Trustees 13 May 26, 2004
will be 5 feet from the below the top of the bulkhead; and
the northwestern groin will be shortened from 48 feet down
to 32 feet and the top of the groin will begin two
and-a-half feet below the top of the bulkhead. Do I have a
second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Motion carried.
12. En-Consultants on behalf of GREGORY AND MIKAL-ANN TYRER
requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace (in-place)
approximately 113 linear feet of existing concrete seawall
with vinyl bulkhead. Dredge up to 8' off new bulkhead to a
maximum depth of-3' average low water to recover and remove
remnants of concrete structure and footings and enable safe
and adequate boat dockage. Approximately 50 cubic yards of
sand/silt spoil to be used as backfill. Located: 1490
Smith Drive South, Southold. SCTM #76-3-6.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this
application?
MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicants Gregory and Mikal-Ann Tyrer.
This application -- I'm sure the Board has looked at the
condition of the existing concrete seawall. The seawall --
actually the original construction of this concrete
seawall predates the Trustees jurisdiction over this area,
so it is without benefit of a permit but legally
preexisting. As you're surely aware, this property was
created in the map of Goose Creek. This is privately owned
bottom. The main portion of the creek is privately owned by
Thomas O'Neill, and the filed map line extends out about
eight to 10 feet, which is an underwater portion owned by
the Tyrers. The application is essentially to completely
eliminate the existing concrete seawall, which is 3 to 4
feet wide, and replace it with vinyl bulkheading at the
landward-most location of the seawall, also to add 10 foot
returns on either side to maintain the upland. There is a
proposal to dredge up to eight feet off the proposed vinyl
bulkhead, in order primarily to recapture lost backfill and
rubble associated with the footing of the seawall so that
the boat could be moored against the new bulkhead rather
than having to propose a floating dock that would extend the
structure and the boat farther into the canal.
This is privately owned bottom up until at least the
late '70s, the Trustees had determined that they didn't have
ownership or jurisdiction over this land. It is still
Board of Trustees 14 May 26, 2004
privately owned though the Trustees now have regulatory
jurisdiction over the area. If there is an objection at all
to the extent of the dredging, we could reduce the length of
the dredged area so as to just accommodate the potential
area where boats could be moored against the bulkhead. But
it is a very rocky bottom immediately at the seaward toe of
the seawall, and there is no vegetated marsh present at the
site.
The Tyrers are both here, if the Board has any
questions, I would be happy to address them.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments on this application?
Comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I have one comment. I don't know who the
Tyrers are.
MR. TYRER: Hi.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Well, in front of your property I know
it's privately owned, but there is one incredible shellfish
bed, literally paved with hard clams and soft clams. It's
something you might want to cherish, leave intact whether
it's for personal used or whatever, basically go from the
concrete right down to the bottom.
MR. HERMANN: Which portion of the property is it?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Pretty much the entire length of their
property. It's one massive amount of shellfish. As the
Board, we looked at the site and came up with a
recommendation. Instead of bulkheading it all, dredging it
out possibly down to the west, cut into your property 20
feet, actually just excavate your property and you can park
your boat within a basin of the property. Am I correct?
Cut in a 20 foot basin, this way your boat's not in the
navigable waters of your neighbors, because I know there's
quite a few boats, then you would have your boat within your
own little basin where it's easy access for yourself. I'm a
boater myself and I know if I had that property that's
probably exactly what I'd do.
MR. HERMANN: The only difference between that proposal and
this, Ken, is basically the proposed eight foot wide dredge
area would be replaced by a boat slip that cuts into the
lot?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Correct. You could probably save quite a
bit by not having to dredge all that material.
MR. TYRER: Most of that spoil is laying in front of the
existing seawall now, is just rock and spoil from the wall
collapsing. I mean, I'm not sure if there's that much
shellfish in there.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's a lot.
Board of Trustees 15 May 26, 2004
MR. TYRER: That's all from the sea gulls dropping it on
the seawall and breaking it.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No. That's one area that's set up year
after year after year, if you went in there with a clammer,
you'd probably fill it right to the top because I don't
know anybody's that's clammed there in the last five years.
MR. HERMANN: Ken, you're talking about the seaward toe of
that seawall, which is rubble and stone, you're saying that
that's a shellfish bed?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's all intertidal land, and the
shellfish basically exist probably from the low tide mark
right down to the bottom. It's just something that as a
homeowner you might want in front of your home.
MR. TYRER: Digging out to the basin it turns it in from a
remove and replace into a major project. It's going to have
to be 30 feet in.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: How large is your vessel?
MR. TYRER: 27 feet plus the engine's on a bracket, so it's
another four or five feet behind that. So in order to get
it out of the canal, it's probably going to have to be
probably 30 feet deep and 20 feet wide.
MR. HERMANN: And you'd still have to dredge to get out and
all of that— see, the only thing I'm not certain of is the
dredging is really -- I mean, half of the area that's to be
dredged is currently seawall. So in other words, it's not
like the eight feet is starting out from the seaward toe of
the seawall; it's starting the landward most edge of the
seawall. So you're talking four feet from the existing toe
and that area is going to have to be excavated to remove the
seawall. So it's not like we're proposing dredging that
won't occur or, I mean if you want to use the term
excavation, we're not proposing any activity that isn't
going to occur to remove the seawall, whether they dock the
boat in front or not. So you're not really preventing any
activity. I mean, the seawall has to be excavated out and
that thing is going to slope down in and there's going to be
a footing underneath it, presumably, so we're really not
asking for-=
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I think the difference between what I
recommended and what really will happen is that right now at
the bottom of the basin is mud, and it comes up on a harder
slope, so if you dredge that entire length you'd basically
be taking out the hard slope, which has all your shellfish
in it. Maybe we can work it out that you only dredge a
certain area; instead of dredging 115 feet, maybe dredge 30,
40 feet. So as a homeowner you'd have the shellfish still
Board of Trustees 16 May 26, 2004
intact.
MR. HERMANN: If that's a concern, and I don't know, Greg,
you can tell me, I would be happy to --we could meet out
there and actually stake out an area that would be the
minimum area both widthwise and lengthwise that would be
dredged. I haven't actually done soundings at low tide
all the way out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were there at low water three weeks ago, it
looks like a pretty consistent slope across the whole front
of the property.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What was the width of that canal?
MR. TYRER: 70, 75 feet.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: From the edge of the bank to you.
MR. TYRER: I think I took it at low water.
MR. HERMANN: It's 113 feet proposed, you could probably cut
that in half and still be adequate. So, would that be a
reasonable compromise? Just wipe out half that area?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Leave the seawall in?
MR. HERMANN: No, that's got to be excavated.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Then it's going to get excavated when you
take the seawall out.
MR. HERMANN: That's what I'm arguing. A significant portion
of that area is going to be excavated no matter what. The
difference is in one area we'd be limiting the excavation to
the four to six feet that's got to be pulled out, then the
other area you'd actually be extending out another two feet
to smooth it out. I don't disagree with you, Artie. The
argument I'm making to Kenny is I don't think, given this
thing needs to be excavated, that approving a larger or
smaller dredge area is going to make that much difference or
impact on what's really going to happen. I mean he doesn't
need 115 feet worth of boats, so if it would help the
Board's approval, if it would be some movement trying to
preserve as much of the resource Kenny's describing, then I
think it's a reasonable compromise.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's extremely difficult unless you
eliminate removing the concrete wall for a certain portion.
MR. HERMANN: That we can't do.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: If you can take the whole thing out, my
experience is pieces are going to fall seaward and you're
going to have to go out and get them, it's going to be dug
out, no way to get around it.
MR. HERMANN: That's why I proposed the entire length as
opposed to just a section of it. Because another
application, if it's 100 foot section of bulkhead and the
owner needs 40, 50 foot area for navigation for mooring,
Board of Trustees 17 May 26, 2004
that's what we propose. Here we're proposing what we're
proposing because of what you're stating. I would like the
application to be approved as we proposed it because I think
that in reality is what's going to happen.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think it's unavoidable actually.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Even down to three feet? I mean, I can see
Ken's point.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: At low tide, you've seen the intertidal
lining, it had sand there. If they're just taking out the
concrete, which is pretty much above the intertidal line.
MR. HERMANN: We don't know how deep --
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's a can of worms. Once you get in there
and start digging, you don't know what you're going to find.
You have no idea how deep that is. It could be three, four
feet below the water. Something had to keep it there all
those years. It has to have,a substantial footing or it
wouldn't have been there as long as it has. I understand
Ken's point, it's well taken. I agree with it. I'm just
being a little more realistic, having done that kind of work
for a number of years, I know what you're going to encounter
once you get in there. If you get in the middle of it,
you're in it. You have to finish the job.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think we have a problem with taking
the wall out and the effects of taking the wall out.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think the effect of taking the wall out
is going to be a little more drastic than what we're
proposing here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I agree also with what Rob said in a case
like this normally, we would allow only for a limited scope
of dredging to get --
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Absolutely, and I agree with that. But I
think the limited amount is going to be a little bit more
than what you're anticipating, just as a result of the scope
of the job. That's all I'm saying. Be prepared.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I agree.
MR. HERMANN: The only thing I could say is if it could be
approved as it's proposed with the condition in the area we --
for some half of the site, if the dredging can be minimized
and can be minimized down, if it only requires us going down
to two feet in instead of three feet, we can do that.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'd say knowing the site confine the
dredging to the west because to the east you have the point
with the marsh, you don't really want to take that out, then
have undermining of the marsh to the east of the property.
MR. HERMANN: The westerly portion?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The western side of the property.
Board of Trustees 18 May 26, 2004
MR. HERMANN: I don't know how you want to write that up.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not too far to the west that you
destabilize the neighbor's property.
MR. HERMANN: There's another bulkhead to the west. That's
the O'Neill bulkhead, I think.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I don't know the age of the bulkhead. You
might want to be careful there also. If you go right up to
the property line you might undermine his.
MR. HERMANN: We have proposed a return within the confines
of this property, that can just be jetted in.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, all right, Ken?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's fine. How many feet are we
speaking about? 50?
MR. HERMANN: I would say half of what's proposed, so half
of 112 is what?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 56.
MR. HERMANN: Is that 56 feet? Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Round is off to 60.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments?
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments?
MS. MOORE: Pat Moore, I represent Mr. O'Neill next door.
We're in support of this project. We have no opposition to
it. The concern that I think what the Board is aware of is
that we do have riprap of our own, and we also have a
bulkhead and retaining a wood retaining wall that runs along
the common property line. And it was built many, many years
ago, and it could very easily be undermined just with the
construction process because you're using new materials and
putting up against very old materials, very antiquated
materials. One thought that we had.was Mr. O'Neill has a
long term plan that he would also like to have a similar
repair and reconstruction of what he's got in such a way
that it brings it up to current standards and it may be
something where maybe it's best for him to come in now
versus later, so that we do kind of a comprehensive plan
that protects both properties at the same time.
I anticipate from being there that the property on
the other side of O'Neill, to the easterly, they just built
a brand new house. It's a beautiful house and --wrong
side, the other side on the other side, away from Tyrer, on
the other side -- Haliwell has a house that was just
constructed that you issued permits for. They look like
their ground is sloping down, and I think eventually they're
also going to find that they're going to be in need of some
kind of a bulkhead as well. That area there is a lot of
spoil and a lot of very old structures because it's one of
Board of Trustees 19 May 26, 2004
the oldest communities that we have out here as a
subdivision goes. So, if you would like us to start
thinking about designing something and submit it to the
Board, we certainly would do that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's timely to talk about it.
MS. MOORE: It would seem to me it would make sense to talk
about it now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's not if Mr. O'Neill wants to do the
same project, and have the dredging next to one another so
there's one area, instead of segmenting little holes. So we
would put -- if I could get the applicants -- so we put your
dredged area towards Mr. O'Neill's side of the property,
then he would put his next to yours.
MS. MOORE: I think the O'Neill side may be the most
difficult side for you to match up during
construction. O'Neill does stick out a little bit further
but we have both riprap and bulkhead there; so we're going
to have to sit down and do some kind of a plan, but if the
Board is starting to think about this area, certainly we
don't want to hold up Mr. Tyrer, but I think if we could
move this process, we could certainly try to put something
together and try to move this process along. If that's
acceptable with the Board.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure, I don't see why not and if we keep
it with adjacent property lines, I think it would be
consistent.
MS. MOORE: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Pat, is there any plans to replace the
bulkhead?
MS. MOORE: There's a bulkhead there that's in a better
condition but there's some riprap -- I'm not a designer of
the bulkhead. I think he needs to talk to somebody like
John Costello or someone in the business.
TRUSTEE KING: I was just curious if that included a
bulkhead replacement or not.
MS. MOORE: I think there's a lot that needs to be worked
on. We have to figure out how to do it in such a way that
we protect our property. We don't want to give up any
property, obviously. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? If not I'll make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KING: Make a motion to approve the application as
we discussed and Conservation Advisory Council recommended
approval, and they'd like a condition with the 10 foot
Board of Trustees 20 May 26, 2004
non-turf buffer, which I think is appropriate. Other than
that, I guess we --
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: For the record, that would be 60 feet of
dredging for the western portion of the property.
TRUSTEE KING: Correct. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
13. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of DEBRA VICTOROFF
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single family
dwelling with onsite sewage disposal system. Located: 445
and 505 Dogwood Lane, Southold. SCTM # 54-5-29.1 & 55.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: And to comment on this application?
MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald, for the applicant. Miss
Victoroff has retained Rob Hermann to investigate the site
and prepare a report, and I think he would like to share
that with us now.
MR. HERMANN: For the record, Rob Hermann of En-Consultants.
Thank you, Jim.
As the Board is aware, Miss Victoroff had retained
En-Consultants last October to delineate the freshwater
wetland present in the northwestern corner of this property
as after having been told by the New York State DEC and
receiving a nonjurisdiction letter therefrom that there were
no state regulated wetlands present on the property, it was
brought up at the Zoning Board hearing that there were
possibly wetlands present on the property. And so I was
asked to delineate them. I have not participated in the
representation of the application, but I do understand from
Miss Victoroff and from Mr. Fitzgerald that over the past
several hearings there has been a lot of additional
information brought to the Board both by some of the
adjoining property owners and also by the Southold CAC,
which has brought into question the extent of wetlands on
the property and my wetland boundary delineation in
particular. So Miss Victoroff asked me again to revisit the
property and prepare a quantitative wetland analysis
pursuant to the newly adopted Chapter 97 of the Town Code in
order to see if I would be able to present the Board with
confirmation of my delineation.
To take the form of testimony before the Board, what
I'd like to do simply is to read into the record a letter
dated today, May 26, 2004 addressed to Albert Krupski,
Chairman, that will summarize as briefly as possible what
can be the complicated issue of determining what is a
wetland and what is not a wetland. So without further ado,
Board of Trustees 21 May 26, 2004
I'll do so. The letter dated May 26, 2004:
"Dear Mr. Krupski, For the purpose of
responding to a number of issues raised during the
last public hearing held on the captioned
application, Debra Victoroff further retained
En-Consultants, Incorporated to provide a
quantitative analysis of the wetlands present on the
captioned properties, which may be viewed in
conjunction with the brief qualitative analysis that
I prepared on October 21, 2003. Specifically, Miss
Victoroff asked us to prepare this analysis in light
of(1) the 13 April 2004 resolution by the Town of
Southold Conservation Advisory Counsel which states
that the, quote, CAC recommends disapproval of the
application because the entire parcel contains
wetlands and spatterdock was found along the road,
end quote; and (2) the 20 April 2004 letter from
Ann and Thomas Rosakis which champions the,
quote/unquote naturalness of the subject property
and asserts that, quote, by all accounts the parcel
is indeed a freshwater wetland as defined by
New York State law, end quote.
"Indeed without an objective and fact-based
analysis of whether this entire parcel exists in a
naturally occurring condition and is comprised
entirely wetlands, the Trustees cannot render a
sound judgment of as to whether and how development
of this site should be authorized. Therefore, on
May 5, 2004 1 visited this property again for the
purpose of reassessing my wetlands boundaries
determination which limits the extent of wetlands to
the northwest corner of the parcel and contrasts
sharply with the above-referenced determinations
made by the CAC and by Mr. and Mrs. Rosakis.
"Specifically, pursuant to Section 11 of the
Town's newly adopted Chapter 97 of the Town Code, I
inventoried all identifiable vegetation present at
the site and recorded the regional wetland indicator
associated with each species as indicated by the
national list of plant species that occur in
wetlands provided by the U.S. Department of
Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service. According to
the Town Code, the Wetland boundary is, quote, to be
defined at the point where existing wetland
indicator species no longer have a competitive
advantage over wetland species, end quote. And
Board of Trustees 22 May 26, 2004
methodology used to determine same should be that
utilized in the New York State DEC technical method
statement relating to the Freshwater Wetlands Act,
otherwise known as Part 1 Technical Criteria for New
York State Wetland Delineation of the NYSDEC
Freshwater Wetlands Delineation manual.
"The state's delineation manual states that
the most reliable vegetation field indicator of a
wetland area is when, quote, facultative wetland or
wetter species comprise more than 50 percent of the
dominant species of the plant community and of the
and no facultative upland or upland species are
dominant, end quote. For your reference, a species
designated as facultative wetland has an estimated
67 to 99 percent probability of occurring in
wetlands.
"As summarized in the tables attached hereto,
and I've included as Page 2 a series of tables, 75
percent or three of the four species present within
the area I have delineated as a wetland have an
indicator status of facultative wetlands or wetter,
a result that confirms this area as wetland.
However, only nine percent or one of the 11 species
present outside of the area delineated as a wetland
has an indicator status of facultative wetland or
wetter, a result that confirms this area as
non-wetland or upland.
"The sole wetland indicator species is
represented by the single, large black willow
specimen located in the center of the parcel. The
roadside species referred to by the CAC as
spatterdock, which is a floating aquatic wetland
species, is in fact, and lesser celandine a
non-native and aggressively invasive upland weed.
Therefore, according to objective methodology
mandated by both Town and New York State law, the
entire parcel is not, in fact, comprised of
wetlands. As for the naturalness of the parcel, I
have also provided an assessment of the on-site
vegetation as to whether each species is a
naturally occurring native species. While three of
the four species present in the wetland are native,
the dominant one, phragmite, is invasive, and the
11 of the 13 upland species are non-native or
ornamental and/or invasive species, including rosa
multiflora, which dominates almost the entire site.
Board of Trustees 23 May 26, 2004
"Therefore, the site is hardly in a natural
condition by any ecological standard, a conclusion
supported by the presence of ornamental species such
as lesser celandine, daffodil and common day lily,
which are commonly dispersed from nearby developed
land. The soils, hedge clippings and brush dumped
along the roadside edge of the parcel provide some
evidence as to how these species have been so
dispersed.
"I do not disagree with the Rosakis's
assertion that the low elevations and shallow depth
of groundwater present on this property are
naturally occurring land features, and I have not
researched when the adjoining properties were
developed. Regardless, the conclusion I
articulated in my 21 October 2003 evaluation was
not that the onsite groundwater elevation or
topography were unnaturally created by landscaping
and home building, but rather that the currently
existing and nearly linear westerly and southerly
boundaries of the subject wetland were unnaturally
defined by the development of adjacent lands, and
whether those lands were developed five or 35 years
ago is immaterial. The point is that whatever
larger scale topographical patterns and vegetation
community this parcel may have been associated with
decades ago, has long since been impacted and
altered severely by the developments that surround
this property on all sides. The circumstantial
evidence of this conclusion is, in my opinion,
incontrovertible.
"In short, this is an extremely disturbed and
highly denaturalized site, and while I would
recommend from a planner's perspective the
preservation of the wetland itself and some kind of
buffer area adjacent thereto, the development of the
upland portion of the site would not constitute the
filling, destruction or loss of Town wetland or
other valuable habitat in any way.
"Whether and how Miss Victoroff should be
allowed to develop that portion of the site, is, of
course, a decision to be rendered by the Board of
Trustees. Thus, it is my hope that the information
I have provided herein will aid her ability to make
such a decision.
"Respectfully yours, Robert D. Hermann,
Board of Trustees 24 May 26, 2004
Coastal Management Specialist."
The attachments that I've included, one, I will not
go into, it is just for the record, which is again the
tables with the wetland assessment of the site; and the
third is the inventory of onsite vegetation in which I list
in one column the native and non-invasive species which
consist of black willow, red maple and eastern red cedar and
in the other column I list what are invasive and/or
non-native or ornamental species, which consists of the
following species on the site: Wild crab apple, Japanese
honeysuckle, privet, creeping euonymus, multiflora rose,
bittersweet, common reed or phragmities lesser celandine,
common day lily and daffodil.
What l was also asked to do by Mr. Fitzgerald and by
Ms. Victoroff was to work with them to craft a revised site
plan that would take this information into account and
provide a better layout and one that would guarantee the
preservation both of the wetland area and of at least a 10
foot non-disturbance buffer adjacent thereto. The Board may
have noticed during its site inspection, there are two red
maple trees, these are two of the few native specimens on
the site that are present immediately at or beyond or I
should say landward of the wetlands boundary. These two
trees, though being wetland indicator species, were not
included entirely within my delineation because immediately
on the wetland side of them is an unnaturally created
berm. How that berm was placed on the lot, I don't know,
but either way those red maples are certainly worthy of
preservation. They would have to be included within this
non-disturbance buffer area.
Landward of that still would be a non-turf buffer
that would extend a minimum of five feet landward of the
wetlands boundary up to the corner of the house, and then
extend and encompass the entire area that's on the other
side of the house, and the retaining wall that contains a
sanitary system.
The house and deck have both been reconfigured. The
house is reconfigured in a way that it just barely meets the
requirement of the Town of Southold for a minimum footprint of
850 square feet. It's been realigned in a way that would
allow at least the maximization of the setback of the
house from the wetlands without encroaching any further than
they already proposed 10 feet from the road.
And I had Miss Victoroff speak to a builder who
confirmed that not only for environmental concerns, the
house would have to be constructed on a piling foundation as
Board of Trustees 25 May 26, 2004
there simply is just no way to truck in dump and grade
enough fill to increase your site elevation from five feet
to the FEMA required elevation of 11 feet. So the house
would be proposed on pilings so that there would be no fill
associated with the foundation of the house. And the only
fill that would be brought in would be contained
within the retaining wall that supports the elevated
sanitary system, which, as the Board knows, is consistent
with the Suffolk County Health Department.
That was my participation in this revision. If the
Board has any questions regarding my testimony, I'd be happy
to answer them. Otherwise, I'll turn it back over to the
agent for the application, Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there any other comments?
MR. FITZGERALD: If I may add that the changes that
have been made in the site plan are all of those things
which we discussed with the Trustees during the last
inspection.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there any other comments?
MS. ROSENBLUM: Good evening, my name is Helen Rosenblum, I
represent the adjacent landowners. I assume you have copies
of Mr. Bowman's report dated October 9, 2003.
1 am not going to get into a debate with Mr. Hermann,
because frankly, he knows a lot more and Mr. Bowman knows a
lot more about wetlands. So does the CAC, so I will leave
that to your judgment as to what kind of wetlands they are.
I had written a letter to the Building Department
with a copy to you raising some issues concerning the
viability of this lot as a legal building lot. I believe
there may be some people here tonight on Miss Victoroffs
behalf who could shed some light on that. I recently became
aware, because we have been doing some appraisals of the
property, that there may be a real question as to whether
it's a legal building lot at all.
Mr. Verity responded to my letter. He telephoned me
today, and we spoke of it. While he did not make a
determination one way or the other, he understood where I
was coming from. He felt that this property might need to
go back to the Board of Appeals. I don't know if it does,
if you have the revised site plan, which I haven't seen, but
whether it does or doesn't, it is a matter that I think
should take a priority of the issuance of any permits by any
board, whether or not this is a legal lot, and I don't want
to bore you, unless it's brought up by others, I won't bore
you with my feeling about whether or not it is a legal lot,
unless you want to hear it.
Board of Trustees 26 May 26, 2004
1 have requested that Mr. Verity take a look at it.
I think it's the most fundamental thing, and it shouldn't
even be before you, if there's any question of it being a
lot. Therefore no permit should be issued, no disapproval
should be issued. Mr. and Mrs. Rosakis are here. They have a
letter for you from the North Fork Environmental Council,
and I'm going to turn it over to them. Mrs. Rosakis?
MS. ROSAKIS: Good evening, Ann Rosakis, I have a letter to
the Trustees.
"We stood in opposition to this Wetlands Application
at last month's public hearing. Since then we have learned
more about wetlands, the Town's commitment, and other
relevant and convincing information that has strengthened
our resolve in this matter. We would like to share our
findings with you.
"In two separate reports, which the Town Board
commissioned, accepted and published, it was recommended
that the Town inventory and map its freshwater wetlands.
Although this was never done, a map was published with the
May 2003 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comprehensive
Implementation Strategy. This map shows the general
vicinity of the subject parcel as being in one of the most
intensive freshwater wetland areas in Southold. It also
shows an area of wetlands running from Great Pond east to
Little Pond consistent with the Bowman report and aerial
photograph.
"In their field inspection, the CAC concurred with
this analysis and stated that the entire parcel was wetland,
and therefore recommended disapproval.
"Number 2, since the late 1990s at least four
consultant reports including the local waterfront
revitalization program and the Peconic Estuary Comprehensive
Management Plan identified Southold's wetlands as one of its
most valuable resources for recreation, scenic beauty, flood
control and drinking water quality.
"Each report recommended controlled development near
and restoration of impacted wetlands. Based on these
reports, as well as public outcry, the Town Board declared a
one-year moratorium on Wetland applications and then rewrote
a stronger Wetland Code. This code requires, among other
things, a 100 foot buffer from wetland to residential
buildings.
"Number 3, the area of this parcel known as Reach 2
in the Waterfront Revitalization Program is identified as
important for its contribution to the groundwater supply.
Three years earlier in 2000, this was also stated in the
Board of Trustees 27 May 26, 2004
water supply management and waterfront protection strategy
commissioned by the Town Planning Board and Department.
Known in this report is Zone 110. Is, quote, or
considerable importance to the protection of future
groundwater resources. Further, the section of this
subwater shed area lined within the environmentally
sensitive groundwater area is largely undeveloped, end
quote.
"In accordance with the provision of the Peconic Bay
Regional Community Preservation Act of 1998, this parcel
would be eligible for purchase as an aquifer recharge area
through the Community Preservation Project Plan. A smaller
parcel, just one lot, 120 feet to the northeast, is already
owned by the Town for this purpose. It is shown on Map 7
Community Preservation Fund included in the 2004 watershed
strategy cited above.
"Number 4, as habitat, this area is well-regarded and
mentioned in the local waterfront revitalization program and
in the scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan of 2001. In
the latter, the Sound View Avenue corridor is especially
singled out for its diversity of flora, fauna and habitat.
This parcel is less than 270 feet north of Sound View. It
provides habitat for a multitude of migrating and resident
birds and mammals. Last week we had a number of American
red starts and Baltimore Orioles and king birds feeding. A
sharp shinned hawk passes through often. We have warblers,
cedar wax wings, rose breasted gross beaks, resident
migrating humming birds and bats. We have seen a Virginia
rail and American woodcock and an indigo bunting, and we see
regular visits from screech owls and occasionally from barn
owls, and twice daily visits of green heron traveling from
Great to Little Pond. A fox forages the area often as well
as muskrats and snapping turtles. It is an extremely rich
and persistent habitat as the Trustees who walked the property
on May 12th know from the raucous and inhospitable reception
given them by nesting red winged black birds. It must not be lost
forever to the bulldozer.
"In our research this past month we did not find a
mere preponderance of evidence or opinion that would support
the preservation of this lot. 1ndeed, we discovered an out
and out unanimity of science, conviction and policy, all of
which as been endorsed by the Town Board and reflected in
the Town Code. In its January 2003 SEQRA resolution, the
Town Board stated its goals, quote, to preserve the natural
environment, to prevent further deterioration of resources,
and to restore degraded resources back to pristine or near
Board of Trustees 28 May 26, 2004
pristine quality, end quote.
"If this nonconforming wetland parcel does not
qualify for preservation, we question what would. We
therefore again urge, in the strongest possible terms that
this Wetland application be denied. We don't expect the
applicant's property to be confiscated. And we don't expect
the government subsidy or buyout to make this preservation
possible, although this is often done on other towns on Long
Island, and has been made feasible by law by Southold's two
percent CPP fund, instead we have made the offer of paying
fair market value for this wetland and we are truly pursuing
that so that we can restore it to a more pristine condition.
"In the 15 years that we have lived in Southold, we
have contributed thousands of dollars to the Audubon
Society, the NFEC and other open space advocacy groups. In
furtherance of our commitment to preservation, we would much
prefer to spend our resources to preserve the property in
question rather than to finance further litigation. We
would like to become one of the first participants in the
rather optimistic voluntary preservation plan recently
adopted by the Town. If we do so, no one will be hurt
except perhaps the excavation, drainage and building
contractors lined up to build this one house. With all due
respect, we're not worried about them. Despite our
extensive research this month, we failed to find them on any of
the endangered lists."
I just want to read one paragraph from the NFEC
letter. They're recommending disapproval also. I think the
pertinent paragraph is, "As development pressures continue
to increase in Southold, more substandard lots will continue
to come before the various boards of the Town. If permits
are issued for construction on such lots, our environment
will continue to be degraded. We speak of maintaining,
quote, Southold's rural quality, end quote, but if
development such as is proposed in this application is
allowed, we are only giving lip service to our stated goals
of environmental protection."
I thank for your time.
MR. JOHNSTON: Could you submit the letter?
MS. ROSAKIS: Sure.
MR. JOHNSTON: Do you stipulate that the letter that you
read is the same thing that you're giving?
MS. ROSAKIS: I do.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Are there any other comments?
MR. ROSAKIS: Yes, sir, my name is Thomas Rosakis. I've
been asked by my wife and my neighbors to make some
Board of Trustees 29 May 26, 2004
technical comments on the application. We don't know what's
in the file. Monday, the only thing that was there was a
letter by the applicant. This is the first time we've seen
this plan. We don't know what else has been
submitted. However, we do know that photos are required to
be submitted. We don't know if there are any photos in the
file other than ones taken by me.
There's a problem I see in the retaining wall
proposed, the footing encroaches on my property by one foot
as well as on the Southold Town land. If you notice the
cross-section, we assume that it's facing us, the lower end
is on my property or on town land. It's shown on the
property line, however, the footing encroaches one foot. I
believe that's illegal. There's a problem with the test
hole. At the ZBA, the applicant submitted a survey showing
the same test hole dated 1987. On the new survey, the same
test hole is shown, however it's plotted 30 feet to the
south. It is still dated 1987. What I question is: Where
is the test hole? When was it dug? I will submit their
previous survey, which was given to the ZBA.
Another question is: What is the level of
groundwater? If one does the math on the present survey,
the top of the test hole is shown as 5.4. The water and
sand is 1.4 below. If you subtract 1.4 from 5, one gets 4,
which is the level of the wetland water in the corner.
However, if one looks at the profile of the septic system,
one sees groundwater shown as elevation 3, not 4. That
would effect the height of the retaining wall, perhaps the
height of the first floor and therefore, I would say much of
the information is questionable on this.
There is a willow and a white swamp oak also shown in
the proposed septic system. I have not seen Mr. Hermann's
list of plants, therefore, I don't know if they are on that.
Perhaps this is an impacted area. However, if one was there
about a month ago, one would have seen a strain of red maple
going along from Kenny's Road directly to this property,
through the back, along our property line to a wetland that
is owned by the Town of Southold as a recharge area, which
continues on to Little Pond. This is a wetland area as
shown on maps, as shown on aerial maps.
I have no further comments.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Thank you. Does anybody else have anything
to say about this? Okay, we looked at it as a Board last
month.
MS. RAVE: We were the previous owners.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Step up to the microphone and identify
Board of Trustees 30 May 26, 2004
yourself, please.
MS. RAVE: Sandra Rave. I live in Peconic. The
Town itself combined two lots. There were four lots there,
one that these people owned, and we added an additional lot
to the home when we sold it, and there were two smaller
lots, this is the lots in question, which were combined by
the Town. We agreed to it, we didn't change the names so
that it made one buildable lot. We assumed it was a
buildable lot. We talked about it with the Building Department. We
talked with the Suffolk County Department of Health. It
might not be the right jurisdiction, but one of the
attorneys alluded it was not a buildable lot; to our
knowledge, it was.
Other homes were granted building permits, both to
the left and DiCarlos on the end put on an addition into the
same wetland. This lot was up for sale and it's our feeling
that if these people wanted to keep the open space, which we
all love, they should have purchased the lot. So as long as
this is a building lot, it's not fair that this woman has
been working for an entire year with all of you to have
these people come in now and say they'd like to keep this
open space. We all would. So that's my only comment.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Thank you. As I started to say, we looked
at the lot, the subject property, as a Board, and after we
waded through junk and debris and metal and crap that
everybody's been dumping there for years, we were finally
able to get to the inside and see what was there. And I
think the Board's feeling was that the entire area's been
impacted such that it isn't going to affect this lot to put
a house on it under the methods which have been described
here. And I'm pretty sure that was the Board's feeling; was
it not? As far as purchasing the property, that's something
you have to take up with the present owner. That's not our
issue, really, our issue really is just the impact to the
wetlands. You heard Mr. Hermann's report. We kind of
agreed with that, and I think that's pretty much where the
Board stands on it.
MS. ROSENBLUM: I don't want to, again, get into why we feel
it isn't a buildable or legal lot, because I don't think
that's your issue.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: No, absolutely not. That should be
determined by the Building Department and Zoning Board.
MS. ROSENBLUM: As I said, I have contacted them and I will be
talking to them again. I can only say that it's common in
every town that a lot of lots that appear to be buildable
because they're old lots, either they slip through and some
Board of Trustees 31 May 26, 2004
way by some kind of defacto process are validated. When you
look at the origin and you look at your town code, then
there are some real questions that come up and sometimes the
building department has to take a second look. That's what
I'm asking them to do. It's only something that I only
recently became aware of, or I would have brought it up a
long time ago, and I just think it's a very fundamental
thing that has to be determined before permits should be
issued because if permits are issued on a lot that is not a
viable lot, then the permit itself is null and void. But I
think Mrs. Rosakis wanted to speak again.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to answer your comments, ma'am.
You're absolutely correct. If, in fact, we issue a permit
on this, whether it's tonight or whatever, and it's not a
legal building lot and doesn't meet any other part of the
Town code then absolutely our permit is not valid.
MS. ROSAKIS: One brief comment. Just for the record, I
think Miss Rave forgot an encounter we had not so many years
ago where we asked that if the lot was ever up for sale, to
please contact us because we did want to buy it. So we felt
we were on the record with that. I just don't want you to
think we're Johnny come lately and we woke up one morning
and said, oh, we can't have this. I'm sorry that wasn't
fair.
MS. RAVE: There were signs on it. Signs on it.
MS. ROSAKIS: We haven't seen a sign in 12 years.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes, ma'am?
MS. VICTOROFF: I'm Debra Victoroff, the owner. One of the
things I want, related to Helen's letter that she had sent
copies of which to you and also to Mike Verity. I spoke
with Mike Verity this afternoon, and I brought him my single
and separate search, my deed, the plans from the house, and
the original disapproval letter from the Building Department
and he looked it over. We looked through the tax documents,
and he felt that it was a legal building lot, but also said
that he would go, when the application came before them
again, they would reevaluate all of my paperwork that I have
done since I got the original disapproval lot. So I did
speak to Mike Verity about this.
Secondly, Helen mentioned that she had just found
this issue recently, and the last time we were before the
Zoning Board, I think it was last year, the issue was
brought up about the defect in the single and separate title
search, and in October of 2003, we asked for that
information along with the pictures that the neighbors had
taken, and we never received a response on that. I have a
Board of Trustees 32 May 26, 2004
copy of the letter that was sent to Helen Rosenblum. So
it's just it's too bad that it's all coming up the night of
or the night before this hearing. That's all I wanted to
say.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Thank you. Any other comments?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'd like to make a comment. The Board's
visited this site twice. It is a heavily impacted site.
We're familiar with the area. It's got houses on really all
four sides of it; it's really a tiny parcel. That's .21
acres, it's less than a quarter of an acre in its
entirety. It's got residential development completely
surrounding it. I'm looking at Mr. Hermann's report which
he presented to us tonight. I have to say that I agree with
what he submitted to us. We did have to get through a lot
of the species that he found, there's some daffodils, some
day lily, celandine along the road. The phragmities would
be found in the back. Basically what I saw was mostly the
multi flora rose, the honeysuckle and the bittersweet
that really predominated on the site.
So in my opinion, in what was submitted in the file
by Mr. Fitzgerald earlier, this probably was part of a really
nice freshwater wetland system originally that extended both
east and west for quite a distance, but after 300 years of
residential development surrounded it, this is just a small
portion of it that's left, and what I saw, the integrity of
that portion that's left wasn't much because it's really
been compromised because of the development around it and
the amount of construction and human activity. That's what
I saw. I don't know what the other Board members --
TRUSTEE KING: I agree.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I agree.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Well said.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any other Board comments? I'll make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to approve the
application of Debra Victoroff as requested with a recent
survey and its change of design elevations and so
forth. Second?
TRUSTEE KING: I'll second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: So carried.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In no way does our approval give it any
rights in any kind of Zoning form at all.
Board of Trustees 33 May 26, 2004
14. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of SALVATORE
GUERRERA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single
family dwelling with on-site sewage disposal system and
public water, and construct a walkway and fixed dock 220'
overall, and one mooring pile 20 feet from end of the fixed
dock. Located: 1450 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck.
MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald for Mr. Guerrera. We have
nothing new to report except a willingness on the part of
the applicant to agree with the Board's suggestion that the
house and the dock be separated as far as the application
process is concerned. And we would ask that you consider
the house as a separate entity, and we'd like to get that
approved and we will then, with the Board's approval on it,
we talked about this, submit or continue to pursue the
application for the dock as an amendment to -- presumably--
the original permit. The new survey which would include the
required 50 foot buffer that the Board requested and the
standard gutters and leaders and dry wells sort of thing was
not available, however, we'd be happy to have a finding
contingent upon the submission of such a survey.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any other comments? Board have any
comments?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For the record, the CAC recommended
disapproval because the proposed project requires at least a
50 foot non-disturbance buffer which the applicant now has
proposed.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: My comment is we should act on the house,
not the dock tonight.
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, please.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any other comments?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we've been to the site about 12
times.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to approve the
application as amended by Mr. Fitzgerald and act on the
house only at this hearing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: House would include 50 foot
non-disturbance buffer, hay bales during construction, and
dry wells and gutters for the roof run off.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Call for a brief recess.
(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
Board of Trustees 34 May 26, 2004
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Back on the record.
15. Patricia C. Moore on behalf of LISA EDSON requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling on
piles, swimming pool, pervious driveway, sanitary system
with concrete retaining wall, 450 cubic yards of fill, dry
wells, a 50 foot non-disturbance buffer, and connection to
public water and utilities. Located: 9326 Main Bayview
Road, Southold. SCTM # 87-5-25.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in
favor of the application?
MS. MOORE: Good evening, Patricia Moore. This application
should also look familiar to you. In fact, originally was
designed prior to your 100 foot jurisdiction we started with
the DEC and got a permit from them, then you changed your
jurisdiction to the 100 feet, came to you. At that time, we
incorporated all of your policies, which have now become
legislation, and we had incorporated at that time and
continue to incorporate into the permit the limit of
non-fertilizer, non-disturbance, 50 foot non-disturbance
area. We also have the structures 75 feet from the flagged
wetlands, and the house and structures do have to be
elevated due to FEMA standards, so that the house is going
to be on piles. There's going to be limited amount of fill
only to the extent necessary for the sanitary system, which
similar to the another application, I think one or two before
this one, the sanitary system has to meet Health Department
standards with the retaining wall and the clean fill.
All of this was reviewed by you and unfortunately
when you first issued the client in 10/01, they had to come
back because the Zoning Board, which gave their approval in
'02 and the Health Department had us change the
configuration of some of the dry wells along the right of
way. We came back to this Board and my client thought that
the reissued permit and the revisions that you granted us in
April of'01 extended the permit, and unfortunately that was
not the case. So right when she had completed all her
construction plans, was ready with all her permits in hand
to go to the Building Department, your permit was expiring
and the moratorium then kicked in. So she's had to wait
this whole time, just about the entire period that your
moratorium was in place to come back to the Board because
unfortunately she had not started construction, even though
the permit had been thoroughly reviewed by this Board. We
had to wait out and wait out the adoption of your revised
regulations and the end of the moratorium.
Board of Trustees 35 May 26, 2004
So now we are before you again with the identical
plan with all of our permits poised to act. We've made sure
all our existing permits have been extended and can be
submitted to the Building Department, and we ask for your
mercy because we want to move forward now.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: She should have dug the hole.
MS. MOORE: Had she asked me -- certainly she had spent
serious bucks getting to that point, including the
architectural plans. But unfortunately when asked had she
started construction, what could you say?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I have a question for the record. Were we
not able to renew that permit under the moratorium?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think it was applied for.
MS. MOORE: No, it was not one of your provisions, if
construction had not been initiated, the way I read it, you
couldn't get an extension.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is that correct? I mean, the moratorium,
in other words, anybody that had a two year permit that
didn't start construction and the moratorium was imposed,
they didn't have their relief to extend their permit.
MR. JOHNSTON: In the beginning it was that way, then I
think we modified it to say that you could have extensions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think that's the case. I don't
think it was applied for.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: If that is the case we got a faulty
mechanism here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think that was the case.
MS. MOORE: It's passed anyway. So here we are with the
application that's identical to the last.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any other comments?
MS. KIRSCH: I am Mary Kirsch, I'm the adjacent neighbor to
the Edson project, and I'll make this very brief. I just
respectfully request that the Board of Trustees review the
proposed building envelope of the Edsons and have them
comply with the Southold code of 100 foot setbacks from the
wetlands. The Edson building package consists of 3.4 acres
and maintaining a 100 foot setback in order to have less of
an impact on the wetlands does not seem unfair or
unreasonable to my husband and me. The Zoning Board
decision was extremely forgiving with zero side yard, above
ground septic in the front yard with nine foot high
retaining walls and minimal front yard. The issue at hand
is not to build or to build. We welcome the Edsons as
neighbors, but meeting the code of 100 feet is very possible
and appropriate especially with a 3.4 acreage lot. The
Edsons will still be able to build a lovely home in a
Board of Trustees 36 May 26, 2004
beautiful setting. So this, again, is a perfect example of
the need for that recent moratorium regarding wetlands and
building packages on the north fork.
If we're talking seriously about keeping some kind of
integrity regarding the sensitive wetlands and environment
here in Southold Town, then my request for a 100 foot
setback is justified, fair and environmentally sound. Thank
you very much.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MS. MOORE: For the record, we had about four public
hearings prior to the development of this plan, two with the
Trustees, I think we had two or three at the Zoning Board
hearing and Miss Kirsch. We had several, as I recall, but
she had an opportunity to object each and every time, and
again, the process took a very long time. The road was
proposed with much greater design because of her objections.
And this road with the drainage structure that is being
proposed is probably, Artie, I don't know the cost, but it's
significant cost compared to the driveway which Miss Kirsch
enjoys.
MS. KIRSCH: I don't want a developed driveway.
MS. MOORE: She similarly has a permit for the house that
was constructed, and this property, while it is 3.4 acres,
you can see from the survey that most of it is a dredged
canal and that the upland area is up towards the north end
of the property. The house was designed very carefully with
recognizing the limitations of the wetlands, and it was,
again, reviewed thoroughly by the DEC, reviewed thoroughly
by the Health Department, reviewed very thoroughly by this
Board. And at this point, we are here because we cannot
meet the 100 foot setback. We have variances, this property has
a front yard setback that was granted from the Zoning Board.
The Zoning Board, because of the right of way, considered
the right of way that runs, the 20 foot right of way that
runs down to the canal a front yard setback and that is why
the Zoning Board granted what would be equivalent of a zero
lot line. They recognized that this access is purely for
boats or pedestrian use. It is not for a road. This lot is
at the end, it is double the size of Mary Kirsch's property.
It has setbacks that are almost equal to Mary Kirsch, and we
have three acres and she has one acre.
MS. KIRSCH: Wait a minute.
MS. MOORE: At this point, my client has been extremely
Patient, has honored Ms. Kirsch's objections and opinions
all throughout, and she has had every opportunity to express
her viewpoint throughout the four years that this project
Board of Trustees 37 May 26, 2004
was reviewed originally. So at this point I think it's a
fair application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Just briefly, Mary.
MS. KIRSCH: I'm sorry, but their permit expired, things are
different now and somebody explain to me why they can't
reach 100 foot setback. It's very possible and they can
still have a very nice sized home in a beautiful setting.
It's not that I don't want them to build down there. It's
fine, but build the appropriate size building. That's all.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For the record, the original -- I'm
looking through the file here, which is getting thicker
every day --the original application came in in October of
'99, and the Board issued a permit two years later 2001, so
it wasn't, and I mean --
MS. KIRSCH: But it lapsed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I know. This Board was on this site
numerous times and I thought myself pretty familiar with
this site because I don't know how many times we have been
out here through the past four years.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It was a diligent process.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We went through there two weeks ago, and
there were four Board members, and we started walking
around, and I'll be honest with you, we got turned around,
and we weren't really sure where the project was.
MS. MOORE: We had it flagged at that point.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We didn't see the house stakes, we saw the
septic stakes, we saw the right of way stakes.
MS. MOORE: The surveyor was out there and has flagged it.
He swears to me he flagged it.
MS. KIRSCH: I don't touch flags. I promise you. It's just
that it's so overgrown, you can't find them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think all of us agree that it was really
a mystery.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Try to re-familiarize yourself with it, but
it's just so overgrown.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Have the surveyor hand-cut paths three or
four paths, stake it so we could see the site. We were
honestly unable to identify the location of the house or the
pool.
MS. MOORE: This is why it took two years because we had the
same problem the first time, and you spent an enormous
amount of time reviewing it. If you review your files, the
house size was larger. We shrunk the size of the house
through your process.
MS. KIRSCH: Not really, you just switched things around.
MS. MOORE: Keep in mind, this house, because it's elevated
Board of Trustees 38 May 26, 2004
at 11 foot elevation, the only living area is what is above
where the piles are. The rest of the property is in a
natural state and will be left in a natural state because of
your non-disturbance buffers and because of the wetland
setbacks. This property has about 90 percent preservation
compared to the lots to the north, Miss Kirsch's property
alone has the house covering much more of the lot coverage
than our property. It seems extremely unfair for my client
to continue to pay for staking and surveying and clearing,
the surveyor doesn't clear, I have to get an excavator in
there to clear. This has just been an endless process to
the owner.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I understand, Pat, and I expected you to
feel that way, believe me. But the four of us were out
there, and I think we're all in agreement, we walked around
and we walked and pushed through the brush, and we couldn't
make heads or tails.
MS. MOORE: So in fact you're in the high land.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Pat, there was a stake that said corner,
I don't know if it was an accurate stake, if it was part of
the house project, it was literally 10 to 12 feet away from
the back, true wetlands, with an actual bog type of wetland
there. So I don't know.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It was an old stake.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It was an old stake but it was orange.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It was an old stake anyway which made it
unclear.
MS. MOORE: I don't know what stakes the old stakes were.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The project's changed throughout the
review process.
MS. MOORE: Your regulations have not changed with the way
you reviewed it originally.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We couldn't go by something that's an old
stake. We don't want to use that as a determination. So,
we'd really need to see.
MS. MOORE: I'll ask Joe Ingegno to go back out there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm not saying it wasn't done.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Maybe hand-cut the parameter of the
house.
MS. KIRSCH: Yeah, maybe they should like they said.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The perimeter of the project so we can
see.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Hand-cut the perimeter.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's four of us and we're not afraid to
get our feet wet.
MS. MOORE: Just understand that I've been dealing with Mary
Board of Trustees 39 May 26, 2004
Kirsch since 2000 and all her objections, and it has been
the same objection over and over, and the reason we're here
is that we can't make 100 foot setback.
MS. KIRSCH: Why is that?
MS. MOORE: She wants the house that has been proposed, just
like you wanted the house you proposed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let's get into this later. You two can
meet later on that.
MS. MOORE: We'll have the wrestling activities outside.
It's frustrating to have one neighbor continually block the
progress of the project.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's got nothing to do with her
objection.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: This is an environmental review.
MS. MOORE: I will ask Joe to go out again and stake and do
a better job this time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm not saying that he that he didn't
stake it, we couldn't find it. Maybe he can pull up the old
ones.
MS. MOORE: I would have expected that he would have removed
the old ones. As long as I have no violations for getting
somebody in there to do some clearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Hand trimming to make paths up to three
foot wide to get through. Make a motion to table the
application.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES.
16. Jeffrey T. Butler, P.E. on behalf of EDWARD L. KAVANAGH
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two story, single
family dwelling with related improvements. Located: 2000
Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM #78-2-37.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to make a comment on
this application?
MR. BUTLER: Jeffrey T. Butler, Professional Engineer, on
behalf of the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Kavanagh, who are
here as well, to answer any questions. We have received DEC
approval and our Suffolk County Health Department
application is pending Trustees approval.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have the DEC permit?
MR. BUTLER: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh, we have it here. Are there any other
comments on this application? Does the Board have any
comments? Then if there's no other comment, do I have a
motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: So moved.
Board of Trustees 40 May 26, 2004
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve the
application.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
17. Steven Cataldo, AIA on behalf of JACK DA SILVA requests
a Wetland Permit to construct a new 3,500 square foot
single-family dwelling. Located: 470 Tarpon Drive,
Southold. SCTM #57-1-4.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anybody here who would like to
speak in favor of this application?
MR. CATALDO: I'm Steve Cataldo, the architect for the
applicant. We have DEC approval, Health Department, so
on. We were here last month, but we didn't send out the
certified mail, we have done that. And we'd like to ask
your favorable consideration.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Anybody else have any comment?
Does the Board have any comment?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Was this last month?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Tarpon Drive, it was held up due to
moratorium. There's a wetland off the site, they have got
hay bales buffer in the back as well.
(Conversation)
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Place a 50 foot non-disturbance setback,
that's it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there's no other comment, I'll make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the
application with the condition that the non-disturbance
setback shall be at the line of hay bales so marked on the
survey.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
19. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc., on behalf of SKUNK
LANE TRUST C/O BRADLEY AND MARY KRAUSE requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a 4' by 34' fixed timber catwalk, 3' by
18' ramp and 6' by 20' float. Located: 9105 Skunk Lane,
Cutchogue, SCTM 104-3-18.1.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment
on this application?
MS. CANTARA: Hi, Kelly Cantara for Land Use Ecological
Board of Trustees 41 May 26, 2004
Services here to answer any questions you might have.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Which one is this?
MS. CANTARA: 9105, the lot to the left.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I was out there today to take a look. The
only thing I'd like to see, and I hate to postpone if for
another month, I'd like to see just the end the dock staked.
MS. CANTARA' The seaward end?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The seaward end.
MS. CANTARA: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think I have a problem with this.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'd like to see this downsized a little
bit. It's five steps up over some wetlands, then you're seven,
eight feet high, plus the hand rail, you're nine feet in the air. It's
a monstrosity. I'd rather see it a three foot wide catwalk. Three
feet high, cut down the steps, and one handrail.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken's right. By the time you get to the
low water, the dock's going to be this high (indicating).
MS. CANTARA: We were trying to maintain four feet between
the wetlands and the dock.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The DEC will relax that if you go to a
three foot wide dock.
MS. CANTARA: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is a lot for that area. It's a lot
of structure.
MS. CANTARA: Okay, we can modify that. That's not a
problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then we can see both of them staked?
MS. CANTARA: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments?
MR. LARSEN: I'm Peter Larsen, the adjacent landowner. I
just want to get a clarification on the description of the
application because it was my understanding that there was
no longer going to be a floating dock or ramp, yet the
description on the agenda shows there is.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Two locations. The more westerly lot has --
there's a proposed catwalk and the lot with the house shows
a ramp involved.
MR. LARSEN: That's not the way it's described on the
agenda, 19 is 9105, which is the westerly lot.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's basically just an artifact. That
description just keeps running.
MR. LARSEN: Is just ends with tie off pilings?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I thought this was the eastern.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, here's the other one.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The one that's existing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Here's the one existing. The other little
Board of Trustees 42 May 26, 2004
bulkhead, this is the proposal for this one.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Stake it at the end for navigation
purposes.
MR. LARSEN: With the modifications that the Board
recommended, I would have no objections.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On both applications?
MR. LARSEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other public comments on number 19?
If not, I'll make a motion to table.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Move on to 20.
20. Land Use Ecological Services on behalf of KRAUSE FAMILY
TRUST C/O BRADLEY AND MARY KRAUSE requests a Wetland Permit
to construct a dock facility consisting of 4' by 36.2' fixed
timber catwalk, 3' by 15' ramp and a 6' by 20' float.
Located: 9205 Skunk Lane in Cutchogue.
MS. CANTARA: Kelly Cantara for Land Use Ecological
Services. We actually modified the plans on this dock to
match what the other one is with the ladder and tie off
pilings; so there's no longer a ramp and float. But we'll
do the same thing with this one as we did with the other
one.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know, you might want to approve
this one.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We're going to be out there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This one here you're not, this is the end
of the old channel, so you're not blocking anyone.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's the last one, right?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. This one's a little different,
there's no navigation issue. Did you see this one, Artie?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I haven't seen the new plan.
MS. CANTARA: With this one we don't have any stairs coming
up. It's coming off the existing bulkhead. That's where we
got the height from.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The applicant could also, if they wanted,
they could ramp it down, once they get to the seaward end,
they don't have that drop.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: At high water they have got a 6 foot drop,
at low water they have nine, ten foot drop. They might want
to consider somehow ramping that down to --
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: -- to about a foot above high water.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think the state allows two and-a-half
feet above high water. This is 6 feet. I think they could
come off the bulkhead and either angle it down gradually
Board of Trustees 43 May 26, 2004
then come out level with the water. It would be a lot
better to use it.
MS. CANTARA: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would you like us to approve this with new
plans tonight?
MS. CANTARA: That would be great.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other public comment? Any other
Board comments? If not, I'll make a motion to close the
public hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland
Permit for number 20, Krause Family Trust, Brad and Mary
Krause, for their request for a 4' by 30' fixed dock with
one tie up pile, and that dock shall be ramped down so that
it finishes approximately one foot above the mean high
tide.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think the state's going to approve
that.
MS. CANTARA: So it ends where it ends now, just ramp it
from that basically, no further out?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just put ramped down. Ramp down as far as
the state will allow you. We'll allow you to go farther
than the state, ramp it down so it makes it easier to use.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Are there any stipulations as far as the
state is concerned where your fixed dock ends in relation to
the high water?
MR. COSTELLO: Depth of water.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So you can ramp it right down into the
Water?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes. As a matter of fact, we've done a
couple by ramping it into the water.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'd say no higher than one foot above
mean high water. Do I have a Second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
21. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of GEERT
MARTENS AND RAY MURRAY requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 4' by 83' fixed timber catwalk, a 3' by 20' ramp
and a 6' by 20' float. Located: 5028 New Suffolk Avenue,
Mattituck. SCTM # 115-10-2.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone who would like to speak
on behalf of this application?
MS. CANTARA: Kelly Cantara, Land Use Ecological Services.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anybody else here with
Board of Trustees 44 May 26, 2004
comments on this application? I was there in April then the
guys went out in May.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were fortunate to go out at low water
and where we suggested, we originally suggested by the
oak tree to go straight out, there was about that much water
as far out as you could see. So we realized that wasn't a
very good location. Our only concern was navigation
adjacent to the other dock. I don't know, Artie, do you
have any suggestions here?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: The only thing I can tell you we all agreed
that you have to change the location.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But you can't, there's no water to the
north. It's tough.
MS. CANTARA: I see on the new plans the measurement between
isn't there, but on the old plans it was about 28 feet
between the other docks.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 28 feet?
MS. CANTARA: 28 feet between the two docks.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Again, we're looking at a structure, the
profile is so high up in the air we'd rather see it three
feet wide. So they can bring it down a foot at least.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is this for a kayak or a motor boat?
MS. CANTARA: It's for a motor boat. I don't know what
size.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Why does it have to be that high?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: DEC.
MS. CANTARA: It's generally just four feet above the
wetlands that they like to see.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: We don't have a lot of wetlands there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a pretty sandy beach, but --
MS. CANTARA: The area that the dock is in actually has more
wetland vegetation than the area to the north, and I
believe, I'd have to look through the file, I think the Army
Corps had asked us to raise it up as a protection to the
wetlands because we couldn't move the dock.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No other comments, I'll close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Don't close it yet. Make a suggestion.
Is everyone comfortable with the length and location?
TRUSTEE KING: That's the only spot, I'd be more comfortable
if it was three feet wide and three feet elevation.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I agree.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Again, once it's over the marsh, then ramp
it down to one foot over the water.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It only had 8, 10, 12 feet of marsh.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a very narrow marsh. Drop it down,
Board of Trustees 45 May 26, 2004
then go straight out.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Foot above high water.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If there's no other comments, I'll make
a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I make a motion to approve Martens and
Murray request for a wetland permit to construct a 3' by 83'
fixed timber catwalk, 3' by 20' ramp and 6' by 20' float,
with the elevation starting out at three feet then going
down to one foot above high water.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We need new plans for that. But I guess
you would have to go to the DEC first and make sure you're
square with them before you submit new plans.
MS. CANTARA: Okay.
22. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc., on behalf of JOHN
HURTADO, SENIOR, requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'
by 135' plus/minus CCA timber beach access stairs with an 8'
by 6' platform. Located: 3400 Lighthouse Road,
Southold. SCTM # 50-2-2.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anybody here who would like to
speak on behalf of this application? I'm looking at the
plans, doesn't seem like a problem, beach access down the
sound.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any comments?
MS. CANTARA: Kelly Cantara, Land Use Ecological Services on
behalf of the applicant. Do you have any questions?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Anybody else like to comment on this
application? If not, any Board members?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just was wondering about the size of the
platform.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 6' by 8'. Is that beyond the coastal
erosion? I'm familiar with the area. I'm down Lighthouse
Road. Almost everywhere there has access stairs.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't have any issue with stairs, it's
just the platform size.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: CAC recommended disapproval mentioning
the platform. They also suggest that the applicant doesn't
use CCA.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They recommended disapproval because of
the platform size?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: They mention the platform. They
Board of Trustees 46 May 26, 2004
disapproved it, suggests the applicant resubmit new plans
with no CCA materials.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: For stairs?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did they make any alternative
recommendations?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No. I don't have a problem with the CCA
because it's upland. It's not in contact with the wetlands
or the water. The only question is that platform, Al.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In the interest of moving this along, make
it an 8' by 4' platform.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I was going to say 4' by 8'.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If there's no other questions, 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
Permit on behalf of John Hurtado, Sr. construct a 4' by 135'
CCA timber beach access stairs with an 8' by 4' foot
platform. Located: 3400 Lighthouse Road, Southold. Do I
have a second?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MS. CANTARA: Thank you very much.
23. Costello Marine Contracting, Corp. on behalf of RENE
PONCET FITZPATRICK requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
new 130' bulkhead with C-lock vinyl sheathing and dredging
the area in front of it to a depth of 4' below AMLW.
Dredged spoils are to be used as backfill behind bulkhead.
Bulkhead to include a 10 foot wide boat launch. Located:
360 Wiggins Lane, Greenport. SCTM #35-4-28.3. .
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. COSTELLO: My name is John Costello. I'm with Costello
Marine Contracting. And we are the agent for Rene Poncet
Fitzpatrick on this application. If this Board has any
questions, I would just like to start off and say that I've
met on site with two members of the DEC, and they made a
recommendation, and they said that they would approve it if
we would minimize the dredging and maintain the dredging
only in the area where they want to put a boat. The south
end of the project they would like to leave undredged. That
is a dredged canal, they own out into the middle of the
canal, and it is slumping in from all sides. It was eight
foot depth when it was originally dredged, and now it's
Board of Trustees 47 May 26, 2004
minimal. I am one of the adjoining property owners, and I
did have at one time eight foot of water at my bulkhead and
now I have about six. It is silting in where there are no
bulkheads in sight. Each and all those canals are owned by
the upland property owners. (Handing plans.)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. COSTELLO: You'll see that they only want that north
end, where the floating dock is going to be the area
dredged, they want the rest left. Somewhere along the line
that canal will require dredging, but it's going to be the
responsibility of the property owners to do it.
If you visited the site, you will also see the beech
trees, and over the years I've probably pulled out 20 or
more beech trees that have fallen into the one canal.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'd just like to see on a house plan,
we'll just write into the permit dry wells and gutters for
the house.
MR. COSTELLO: When is secondary with the DEC. We do not
have an application for the house with the DEC. They wanted
the topo, showing that it's out of their jurisdiction, and
we just received the topo from Sea Level Mapping before
they would approve it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay.
MR. COSTELLO: I'm sure that the house should have the dry
well, I'm sure they will and I'm sure =-
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay.
MR. COSTELLO: I don't know if the hay bales will be
necessary once they have that little rock retaining wall put
in there, but I would probably recommend it anyway.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You might want to have the hay bales, the
retaining wall might come second.
MR. COSTELLO: I'm sure they will make sure the contractors
stay away because the rock retaining wall will not support
any degree of equipment weight.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? Board? I'll make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
24. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of WILLIAM
STANTON requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 3' by 9'
ramp leading to a level 3' by 23.5' dock and ending with a
Board of Trustees 48 May 26, 2004
32" by 12' ramp onto a 6' by 20' float. Located: 1115
Bungalow Lane, Mattituck. SCTM # 123-3-15.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Anyone to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. COSTELLO: Again, John Costello, agent for William
Stanton. As you can see the design of the dock, and
Mr. Stanton only wanted the minimal. He doesn't want to
spend any more money or build any structure larger than is
necessary to support a small boat. That's why it is three
foot. He was getting to the offshore end to meed the DEC's
approval, and that's all I want. He didn't want tie off
piles, that's it. He's trying to minimize it, and I think
this Board has a theory of trying to minimize it, and he
did.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any other comments? Boards comments?
Everybody okay with this? Make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to approve the
application request for Costello Marine on behalf of William
Stanton as requested. Was there any request for a change,
modification? Everything is okay. Get a second on that?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES
MR. COSTELLO: Can I make one other comment that is relevant
to the other applications? Mean high water, Kenny will
certainly verify, mean high water changes daily. And mean
high water one time part of the month is more than a foot
higher than it is at other times of the month. So you want
to try to keep the docks, even if you want to minimize the
height, you certainly want to stay two and-a-half feet above
high water.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Talking in reference to the last one?
MR. COSTELLO: It's going to be dangerous because it will be
under water and it will be slimy and slippery. It's not a
good situation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The one on Skunk Lane is a pretty tame spot.
They had it way in the air, it's the smallest channel you'll
ever permit a dock in. To have it low, you're pretty safe
there.
MR. COSTELLO: Try to keep them two and-a-half, three feet
above high water.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: By you saying that, it's vague.
MR. COSTELLO: I've seen some docks that were never under
water that are presently under water and they're slippery
Board of Trustees 49 May 26, 2004
and they're dangerous.
25. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Incorporated on
behalf of GENEVIEVE MCGRATH requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 295.1 square foot second floor addition; a 377.4
square foot front porch; and a 162 square foot shower
enclosure and ramp facility, all to the existing dwelling.
Located: 640 Daly Lane, Southold. SCTM # 66-1-28.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to speak
on behalf of this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson for Suffolk Environmental
Consulting on behalf of Mrs. McGrath. This is a very
minimal project. I understand the second floor addition,
what it is is a dormer. You'll see on the survey it is a
one and-a-half story frame house. We're talking about
lifting the roof and putting windows in. The shower and the
porch I think speak for themselves. They are one story
structures, not two story structures. So this is a house
that doesn't grow very much in size.
It's on a piece of property that we've always called
the Daly compound. I've spent a lot of time in this area
as a kid. It's literally frozen this time. It's been owned
by the same family since 1916, and it will probably remain
in that same family for the next 100 years. I don't think
there are any special concerns with this property, we'd
simply like to do the minimal things to this house.
Essentially no ground disturbance whatsoever.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Anybody else like to comment on this
application? I looked at this. I found it to be minimal
impact. It's basically putting an addition over 82 feet
away from the wetland 16 foot up in the air on elevation. I
spoke with Mrs. McGrath today, and I just recommend that we
put some drainage on it.
MR. ANDERSON: We're perfectly amenable to that.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Dry wells.
MR. ANDERSON: And I will size and put the appropriate
drainage, and I will return you a sketch.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other Board comments? CAC
recommended approval, and if no other comments, I'll make a
motion to close the public'hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the
application of Genevieve McGrath with the stipulation that
dry wells and gutters be placed on the addition.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
Board of Trustees 50 May 26, 2004
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES
26. 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 to stone material
into the proposed driveway landward of the right of way.
Located: Diachun Road in Laurel.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on
behalf of application?
MR. ARNOFF: Harvey Arnoff, 206 Roanoke Avenue, Riverhead.
Good evening. I don't have much to say that hasn't been
said before. This application is essentially the same
application it was when we first came in. There have been,
I believe, seven modifications of the survey as a result of
input from this Board. The last one was done and submitted
on April 16, 2004. 1 would ask this Board to vote to this
application tonight. I think we have done everything we can
to come into compliance with any request that you have
made. I think we have beat this horse enough. I think
ultimately whatever the Board decides, they certainly will
make a well-reasoned determination. Under the
circumstances, I see no reason to deny the application. We
essentially are governed by our only means of access; this
is the only way to the site, and short of a condemnation,
this particular parcel we're entitled to go forward at some
point. We can't sit here forever. I would ask the Board to
vote on this tonight. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone else like to comment on this
application?
MR. ATKINSON: Good evening, I'm Matthew Atkinson from
Laurel, New York. I'm here to represent members of our
community who are opposing this application.
There isn't much new. I have looked at the newly
submitted DAF and the new survey, and it's basically the
same argument, which is that this Board should only look at
this one-half acre of road that the rest of the activities
that are planned here have been presented to other boards
are beyond this Board's jurisdiction. This Board is not to
consider it. This is an invitation to break the law. SEQRA
requires this Board to look at the consequences of its
decisions, as it usually does. And I don't see why the
Board would except that invitation.
The EAF continuously talks about there just being a
road, therefore, there's no sewage disposal, therefore
there's no improvements from other people, there's going to
Board of Trustees 51 May 26, 2004
be no herbicides or pesticides ever used. It's just wrong.
It's simply wrong. This project involves 288 approval for
30 acres, five tax lots, this road provides that access,
that's what this is all about. Now I realize that all of
that is not in the jurisdiction of the Board, but SEQRA's
very clear. It says that you need to look at all of the
aspects of the action, not just what's under your
jurisdiction. ZBA declined to do any environmental review
with this application, and with this kind of application
missing a Part 2, missing a visual addendum it's
preposterous. They're not asking you to look at the action
at all.
The purported hardship is self-imposed. The only
reason they're routing the road here is because Eleanore
Diachun as stated on the record before you doesn't want the
road moved the other way because it would get too close to
her house. What she wants in this regard should not
determine what's in the public interest of the community,
the protection of the wetlands.
Now the present wetlands law has a presumption
against interfering with a buffer within 50 feet of the
wetlands. This road just cuts right through it, right up
against the wetlands. Where is the waiver? There's no
special conditions of the site, there's no special
environmental conditions. The waiver is simply done because
what Mr. Hallock purchased has a right of way that he's
allowed to use, but he purchased it under those terms
subject to the wetlands law, subject to a presumption that
you don't develop right up against the wetlands. This is
going to create a pattern of development for multiple
housing all draining down right against the wetlands. And
the effort to mitigate this is to create a kind of pond.
This road would never be approved by the Town engineer.
It's a convex road, not a concave road. It's like a big
mud puddle that's going to wash out. It's really kind of
hopeless and it's just trying to push this through. DEC has
denied this. All the experts that have looked at this have
said it's a bad idea, it is a bad idea. I really urge you
to go ahead and vote on it tonight and to deny it. But if
you are going to continue to entertain this, you need to at
least look at the action as it really is and not as they're
saying, that it's just a 15 foot road.
Finally I'd like to point out, in this application
they say that the road itself is all the non-vegetated.
This used to be a very little path a couple years ago. It's
been used by heavy equipment and trucks and cars while this
Board of Trustees 52 May 26, 2004
application has been pending. ZBA noted that fill has been
deposited in this road. This has all happened while this
Board has been watching this. In fact this road is being
developed while we speak, they should be given no advantage
for this, certainly.
I have no further statements unless you have further
questions, thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Anyone else like to speak?
MS. LASKIN: My name is Barbara Laskin, I have a home on the
west side of Brush's Creek. I don't want to beat a dead
horse, like Harvey said, but I would like to make a couple
comments.
This has been an absolutely exhausting 18 months, and
we're always at the last -- Matthew would say save the best
for last, but just once I wish we were at the beginning. It
has been tortuous. And I think as Matthew Atkinson pointed
out, not particularly thorough.
This process seems designed to wear people down not
reach a conclusion. Five people in this community are still
here, there were others but they left. We have been
accused of many things over this year and a half, but here
are the facts. Many have lived on this creek for more than
40 years. They know the history of the creek. There was a
time at which many of these folks could simply walk along
the eastern side of the creek. They have told me many, many
times that the path that is now tramped down and there's so
many more vehicles upon it. At one time, it was like two to
three feet and there was very little that ever went up and
down it. Aerial views, incidentally, that were introduced
more than a year and-a-half ago support that contention.
Under your noses this road has been considerably
widened. We have seen it. It is cars, an orange tractor is
totally visible now. I can tell you that eight years ago
when we first came here, you couldn't see anything. Now,
miraculously, trees have simply disappeared. So what was
once a small little path is no longer. Finally, we believe
this matter is not about the past. It is not about what has
happened 20, 30, 40 years ago. It is about now. It is also
about the future of Southold. It is about what will we do
now and what will our actions or inactions look like.
I would lastly like to point out that a year
and-a-half ago this Board said that it would reach a
decision based upon the expert advice -- and I quote -- of
its appointed environmentalist. Well, we had a report from
Scott Hughes. It wasn't our fault that he left, but he made
a report before he did so, and he said that this road, this
Board of Trustees 53 May 26, 2004
application as it exists, should not go through in his
opinion. Then we had another expert, Terry, he said the
same thing, then we had yet a third environmental expert,
none of whom have a stake in this application, all of whom
have denied that this application should go forth as it now
stands.
I have one simple question for this august body that
is: Why have you not taken the advice of three impartial
environmental experts, why? I mean, why are we still here?
They have given you a road map, and they have said no.
They've given you the reasoning behind your decision.
They've said, it's okay to deny this not because it's
personal but because it's wrong. It's going to impact
negatively on the aesthetic of the north fork and the
environment, the wetlands, your jurisdiction. So I think as
a favor to the people who keep coming here month after month
at great cost, and it is not easy, we demand, and I think
we're owed an explanation as to why. Thanks.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, anybody else?
Who is the third expert, ma'am? You
referenced three experts from the Town that urged us to deny
the application?
MS. RAVE: Scott Hughes, from I believe your department,
Mark Terry from the DEC -- no, from the Town Planning Board
and Randall -- Matthew Penski from the DEC, I spoke to
him.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did he make any comment into our file?
MS. RAVE: He did, in fact, if you go for Freedom of
Information, I went to the DEC headquarters, I don't know
where I went, it was off the L.I.E., I spoke to Nancy
Pinimenti, who is the permit administrator, I took a look at
the file, all three of those decisions are in those files.
I have copies if you would like them, I can easily fax them
to you tomorrow.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just have to answer your comment
somewhat because you said that it is the intent of the Board
is to wear everyone down.
MS. RAVE: It seems so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I disagree with that. If you look at our
agenda. If had been present tonight at our entire meeting,
you would have seen that that was not the case; that we have
almost 30 public hearings that we're hearing, that we have
reviewed in all different stages from granting permits the
first month to this much more extreme condition, where we
are still reviewing this application after many months, and
I think that's our job to review it and not to make a hasty
Board of Trustees 54 May 26, 2004
decision, and, therefore, possibly a bad decision and if we
were not going to try to -- there's no such thing as a
timely decision. It's either a good decision or a bad
decision.
Are there any other comments?
MR. ARNOFF: I have one, if I may, Mr. Chairman. There's a
letter, a notice of incomplete application by Mr. Penski,
it's not a report, and you may or may not have that as part
of your file. If you don't I'll hand it up. It's was a
letter from Mr. Hallock to Mr. Penski. But I think it is, at
very best, a doomsday comment that the future of this Town
will be impacted or affected by the granting of this
application. This is a single application. Perhaps other
people may be affected and they don't like the result, but
ultimately that's what this Board is caused to do. This
Board is appointed or elected; this Board is elected but I'm
talking about boards that serve this community have to make
hard decisions. That's your job. If you didn't want to do
it, you wouldn't be here. You have other choices. You have
families and things you want to do. It's been a frustrating
process for Jeff Hallock, but you know what, we've lived
with it and we're not here to complain. We're just here to
say I think it's time to make a decision. And I respect the
Board and the Board knows me a long time. I commend this
Board for its hard work. But I want to make something
clear. Jeff Hallock has not developed this road. He's
hasn't done a thing to this road. So if somebody in this
room is trying to lay at his feet some kind of sinister
activity, I resent that. It has nothing whatsoever to do
with my client and I want record to be clear on that. And
if somebody has some proof to the contrary, I would demand
that they make that available to this Board tonight.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any Board comment?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I would just like to comment that all
along I have maintained this road, that this road should
remain 50 feet from the tidal wetlands where possible and
it seems possible in some locations on this project site.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sir?
MR. HAUSER: Hi, my name is Jim Hauser. I live on North
Oakwood Road. I don't think there was any implication that
Jeff Hallock was driving the orange tractor, it's Ronnie or
Teddy Diachun who's been doing that. It's been going on for
the last couple of years and I'm very familiar with that
path. It used to go up to the old farm house at the end of
the creek that belonged to --what I always refer to as "old
Mrs. Diachun." As a kid I used to go up and pick punks; she
Board of Trustees 55 May 26, 2004
never minded, just knock on the door, ask permission, and
we'd pick cattails to dry out, use for punks, walk back
along the road, the path, whatever you call it, and it was
very narrow and grassy and leafy on the bottom. It wasn't
something, it may have been a farm track at one time but
hadn't been used all the way through my years growing up
until just the last couple of years, Mr. Diachun's been
driving up and more and more so lately. So that's the
person who's been breaking the road down or building it up,
or however you want to look at it.
I've gone into a couple of environmental sites on the
internet, see what they're talking any wetlands and all and
I just came across a couple for the EPA Region 2, which is
our region for the Federal EPA. They have come up with some
pointers, not points of law, just suggestions on that, and I
thought they were pertinent. One was selecting upland
rather than wetland sites for development projects and avoid
wetland alteration or degradation, maintain wetlands and
adjacent buffer strips as open space.
Now, this proposed road is the buffer strip. It rips
right through it. I hear the saying that it's going to be
15 feet wide and some 1,600 feet long; that's about 25,000
square feet of environmental impact, not a mild action. As
it's been mentioned before, three studies have looked at
this. They didn't say Mr. Hallock can't build a house; they
just said it was not a wise thing, not a good thing, not an
advisable thing to build a road right along the wetlands in
the buffer zone, ripping up 25,000 square feet of
it, trees, plants, natural habitat for animals, birds,
ospreys, as I mentioned before. They all said Mr. Hallock
can build a road on the east part of his property. I have
no problem with that. I don't think anybody on our side of
this issue has any problem with it. It's an open option for
him, rather than ripping up 25,000 square feet of wetland
buffer zone. We're coming up with a presidential election,
and I just noticed that both the president and his opponent
have both come out on the record how much they care about
the wetlands. It's a big deal. It's an important issue.
And I notice that a lot of the cases that were before this
Board tonight had to deal with docks, mostly docks being put
down. This is a totally different issue. And that's the
only point I wanted to make on that. And one final point is
the state EPA, the standards for issuing permits, they talk
about they will not have an undo adverse impact on the
present or potential value of wildlife habitat, open space
and aesthetic appreciation; personally, the aesthetic
Board of Trustees 56 May 26, 2004
appreciation doesn't seem binding to me. Looks like a lot
of legal wiggle room, but wildlife habitat, open space, the
nature of the wetland and the importance of the buffer
zones, these are all important issues, and I don't think
they should be plowed up to be made for a road when there is
an option of putting a road as the three experts who
testified before, putting a road over on the eastern side of
the property. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. HALLOCK: Good evening, Jeff Hallock, the
applicant. I'd just like to reiterate one more time, I
think I've said it a dozen times here over the course of the
last year. We've all met there on the road with the DEC
representative -- the road, not the woodland, not pristine --
you people.have been there, you know what's there. There
is a road there and they admit that it's traveled daily with
dump trucks, bulldozers. It's a road. It's there. I'm not
ripping up 25,000 square feet of anything, and we've amended
our plan to keep the road exactly the way it is. We're
going to keep it an eight foot road. We've gotten approval
to do that. Nothing is changing. If the road moves
anyplace, we do much more damage to the environment than
leaving it the way it is. That's what the DEC said. That's
common sense to me. The road exists the way it right now
is there. We've all walked it, we've all been up and down
it. Heavy equipment goes up and down it daily if it moves
to the east side of the property, away from the wetlands, if
it moves 50 feet from the wetlands. If it moves anyplace, we
do more damage than leaving it the way it is. And that's
where our application sits right now. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment? Does the
Board have any comment? There was some question before
whether the SEQRA form had been reviewed by the Town.
MR. JOHNSTON: Is there something in the file to show that
it's been reviewed?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Presumably there should be.
(Conversation)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have a letter from Mark Terry on March
24th: "The applicant needs to amend application and
specifically state improvement. The 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 February 20,
2004. 1 recommend no action tonight until the application
is amended or conditions are noted into the record."
Board of Trustees 57 May 26, 2004
MR. ARNOFF: That's exactly what happened since that
letter.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just want to finish it. "The
improvements indicated on the LEAF, the Long Environmental
Assessment Form, and the survey need to be clarified. The
standard stone blend road cross section is inconsistent with
the 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 noted 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 clarification until the proposed action is
consistent with the survey."
Your question was has that been reviewed?
MR. JOHNSTON: Has somebody with environmental credentials
reviewed this submission after it was submitted, is what
we're trying to say. Did he have the benefit of their
answers?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're right. I don't see it.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think that was one of the lawyer's
questions. Was the evidence of the review subsequent to the
submission. We may just say yes, it doesn't change my
conclusion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: My answer is no.
MR. JOHNSTON: No what?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I don't believe it has been
reviewed. Is everyone comfortable with that, closing the
hearing and getting a report from Mark, Brownell? If there's no
change with whatever it is, if it's consistent with what he
said before.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Make a decision on that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The Board will reserve decision.
MR. ARNOFF: Thank you Mr. Krupski.
27. Liberty Permit and Research on behalf of BROADWATERS
COVE MARINA requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace
existing 160' of bulkhead and 4' wood walk, remove existing
shrub hedge, restore retaining wall and wood steps as
necessary and install 5' wide by 160' wood walk at parking
lot level. Remove and replace existing 320' of bulkhead and
wood walk 5' wide, and repair plus/minus 3' of retaining
wall with wood steps where necessary. Re-deck existing 4'
by 40' dock and install vinyl sheathing on north side of 4'
Board of Trustees 58 May 26, 2004
by 40' dock to prevent further erosion. Remove and replace
existing 140' of bulkhead and install 5' by 140' wood
walk. Located: 8000 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM #
104-8-2.5.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak in favor of this application?
MR. MCHENRY: Tom McHenry, Liberty Permit and Research for
the applicant.
MR. JOHNSTON: Did you fill out a disclosure form?
MR. MCHENRY: Yes. There are two items that we would like
to remove from our application after discussing with the
DEC. We got an indication from them that they're ready to
give our final approval, but they would like two things
omitted from our application. Line 7 of the calendar
listing it says, Install vinyl sheathing on north side of 4'
by 40' foot dock to prevent further erosion, there's a bed
of mussels in there, so they would rather we didn't do
that. The other thing at the end of Line 9 is a 5' by 140'
wood walk that's going to be omitted also; that's over on
the west side of the marina where there is no walk now.
I also ask if the Board would consider the fact that
we're not proposing anything new. We're only refacing and
repairing what's existing. Perhaps the Board could waive
the condition of a new site plan we could work with the
old site plan that we have.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You mean survey?
MR. MCHENRY: Yes. The necessity of getting a new survey.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any comment, is there any other comment?
Does the Board have any comment?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What DEC recommended, we recommended on
site.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Those were our recommendations.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You know one thing I was going to
recommend, you put spotlights up, if you shield them down
onto the docks themselves. Whether you put a cover on them
so they hit down on the dock.
MR. MCHENRY: They're sensors, they only stay on for five
minutes, only if someone forgets their keys, or their
wallet, to walk down the dock. .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure, great idea. Make a motion to close
the hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to approve the amended
application.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
Board of Trustees 59 May 26, 2004
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MR. JOHNSTON: Could you fill out -- not tonight, but can
you make sure that Lauren gets the transaction disclosure
form from you as an agent for them. He filled one out as a
principal. We received that one yesterday, correct?
MR. MCHENRY: Yes, sir.
28. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of MARY S. ZUPA
requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge
approximately 190 cubic yards of shoaled material from the
mouth of the canal at Paradise Point to maintain 4' MLW at a
maximum of 1 on 2 slope. The dredge activity is proposed to
be conducted hydraulically. Place dredged materials along
plus/minus 100 of shoreline (+MHW) of property owned by Mary
Zupa for beach renourishment. Containment of excess dredge
material in plus/minus 75' Geotube placed at toe of westerly
section of bulkhead for temporary bulkhead
fortification. Located: 580 Basin Road, Southold. SCTM
81-1-16.7.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on
behalf of the application?
MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the
application. At the site inspection you asked me for
additional material which I would like to present to you.
Here's the soundings. Here's the revised plan because we
talked to the DEC.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you could just read it into the record,
the proposed activity, the revised application.
MS. MESIANO: Maintenance dredging of approximately 190 cubic
yards of shoaled material from the mouth of the canal to Paradise
Point to maintain 4' below mean low water at a maximum of 1 on 2
slope. The dredged activity is proposed to be conducted
hydraulically. Placement of 50 cubic yards dredged material
along 100 foot of shoreline above mean high water of
property owned by Mary Zupa. Dredged material to be used
for beach renourishment containment of excess dredge
material in a temporary upland drawing site. All proposed
activity as shown on the attached plan prepared by Sea Level
Mapping dated 4/23/04. The purpose of the proposed activity
to -- maintenance dredging is proposed because the mouth of
the canal into the basin at Paradise Point is severely
shoaled. The purpose of the dredging operation is to
maintain a channel depth of 4' below mean low water to
provide for navigational safety and to prevent disturbance
of the bottom by boat traffic. New York State DEC supports
use of dredge material for beach renourishment because the
Board of Trustees 60 May 26, 2004
existing jetty has caused diminution of beach to the east
and placement of the dredged material as proposed will serve
to return natural indigenous materials back into the system
in which it was originated. .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any comment?
MS. MESIANO: Yes, I would just like to comment that between
the time that our application was submitted and the time of
the site inspection, the dredge operation was conducted by
others, which is part of the reason for the revision of our
application. Further discussion with the DEC resulted in our
removing the request for the Geotube. Since the activity
has been conducted this year, there is no spoil to
temporarily store, so we have just eliminated that whole
section of the permit. We have eliminated the Geotube
because we don't have a temporary storage issue. The
proposed activity that I have described is before the DEC
and my application is pending. I expected the written
application to be issued by this meeting, but I just don't
have it in hand.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MS. MESIANO: Does the Board have any questions?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have lots of questions.
MR. JOHNSTON: As a point of record, Cathy, can you identify
the tax map number of where you are going to be taking the
spoils from?
MS. MESIANO: I don't believe there is a tax map number.
MR. JOHNSTON: Or the physical location.
MS. MESIANO: The physical location is the mouth of the
inlet at the seaward end of the jetties that form the canal
that goes into the basin at Paradise Point. It's outside of
the mean high water, so therefore, I don't believe it's part
of any tax map number. It's in state waters.
MR. JOHNSTON: Are you satisfied that you know where that
is, Al?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I'm not.
MR. JOHNSTON: I'm concerned over Chapter 58 notification of
the adjacent properties to wherever the revised activity is.
MS. MESIANO: The revised activity is outside the basin at
the mouth of the jetty and the adjacent property owners are
the Paradise Point Association, who owns the piece of
property to the west of the westerly jetty. Mary Zupa owns
the property to the east of the easterly jet, and the realty
trust -- let me just give you the name of that -- the Basin
Road Realty Trust, which is the Curcura property which you
visited earlier in this hearing owns the property to the
east of the Zupa property. I noticed that property because
Board of Trustees 61 May 26, 2004
it is adjacent to the Zupa property upon which the dredged
spoil would be temporarily placed and also part of the spoil
would be used for beach nourishment; and I noticed the
Paradise Point Association because that property is adjacent
to the westerly jetty.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For clarification, you handed us two
documents tonight, one of them show a dredged section to be
dredged; the other one shows soundings currently. So this
is a request for--
MS. MESIANO: Let me back up and reiterate my request. We
had initially requested this permit because the mouth of the
inlet was shoaled; the area has since been dredged by
others. However, the permits that allow dredging in that
area, some or all of those permits will expire by the next
time this needs to be done, and we don't want to be here at
the 12th hour trying to get a dredge permit before the end
of May in the year 2005. The Paradise Point Association,
since you bring it up, has some type of permits, I have copy
of their permits which I'm sure you do too. Their latest
permit dated 11/21/2000, that would be Permit Number 5246
allows them to, and I will read this to you, "To resheath
from the inside existing east jetty with Sealock Series 4500
vinyl sheathing. Also replace one-inch toe rods and place
washers 3" by 6" top plant and 2" all drains at low point of
Basin Road to eliminate potential runoff. Each drain to
consist of 8" by 8" concrete leaching structure bearing
traffic with one casting to grade to receive road water.
Connecting pipe between structures to be 6" PVC.
Maintenance Dredge Permit Number 5161 only at maintenance
area to repair outside jetty and not inside basin. Run
concurrent with Army Corps and DEC. Ten year permit. Any
work done is subject to getting authorization from the owner
to access property."
Prior to that May 15, 2000 you issued under Permit
5161, "Maintenance dredge existing basin to 4' ALW 1,100
cubic yards to be utilized as backfill or to be trucked away
to an approved upland site dredge by crane on a barge with
enclosed containers dredging will occur in two areas, 50' by
100' and 50' by 130' as per enclosed plans. No upland
clearing is approved by this permit. This is a one time
approval to solve a shallow water problem because of the
deteriorating condition of the onsite bulkhead structures
and the erosion in the basin. The issues of the
deteriorated bulkhead and erosion in the basin must be
addressed before additional maintenance dredging is
approved. Upland access to the staging area dewatering site
Board of Trustees 62 May 26, 2004
must be provided by the applicant."
We have an amendment to a permit from the DEC dated
May 19, 2000 which states, "Your recent request to modify
the above permit has been reviewed pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part
621. It has been determined that the proposed modifications
will not substantially change the scope of the permitted
actions or the existing permit conditions. Therefore, the
permit is amended to authorize the transfer of dredged
material from the barge container directly to conveyance
vehicles within Paradise Point basin at the terminus at
Basin Road." And prior to that, effective April 19, 2000,
expiring April 18, 2005, the DEC issued permits to
maintenance dredge two areas within the basin and its inlet.
The inlet area being 50' by 130' and the basin area 50' by
100'. Both areas to be dredged to a maximum depth of 4'
below mean water, a maximum of 1,000 cubic yards of material
combined may be removed from the two areas in any calendar
year, all work must be done in accordance with the attached
plans by J.M.O. Consulting last revised the 2/21/2000 and
stamped New York State DEC approved 4/19/2000.
So my point is that the DEC permit will expire
4/18/2005. Your last two permits are not consistent with
each other. My further point is that the Zupas are the
riparian owners to the area in question, and as riparian
owners to the area in question, they certainly have the
right to conduct the proposed activity. The proposed
activity is activity that has previously been approved and
is not inconsistent with prior approvals. The proposed
activity is to provide for safe navigation.
If you have questions, I would be happy to answer
them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You say our previous two permits were not
consistent with each other?
MS. MESIANO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In what way?
MS. MESIANO: Your May 15, 2000 permit states, "This is a
one time approval to solve a shallow water problem because
of the deteriorating condition of the on-site bulkhead
structures and the erosion in the basin." Then your
11/21/2000 permit says 10 year permit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I believe the Board issued a permit to the
landowner to --
MS. MESIANO: Which landowner?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The current landowner.
MS. MESIANO: Of?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Tax map 81-1-16.7 to conduct some upland
Board of Trustees 63 May 26, 2004
improvements to control the erosion.
MS. MESIANO: Okay. My concern is with your earlier permit
saying a one time approval, and then referring to that
approval as a 10 year maintenance permit; and then referring
to the 10 year maintenance permit to run concurrent with the
Army Corps and the DEC when that will expire in April of
2005. So I really don't know where you're going with this.
Why don't you tell me.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I wasn't going anywhere. I want
clarification on what you said.
MS. MESIANO: I guess we both were looking for the same
thing, then. Then we are looking for a 10 year maintenance
dredging permit for this particular location by my client to
maintain a depth of 4 feet at low water, dredge spoil to be
temporarily stored onsite and either utilized for back
filling of bulkheading onsite or removed to an approved
upland location. There's no need for this this year but
there most likely will be need for it in the future, and I
think we have the right to request a permit for activity
that will need to be done.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I thought in the field you proposed rock
revetment in front of the bulkhead and then sand it over?
MS. MESIANO: We talked about that, and at this point in
time since we're not conducting the bulkhead activity, we
don't want to make any modifications to the existing permit.
When the point in time comes that the applicant is
undertaking those activities under that permit, we will then
come back to you to discuss those issues. But since we
don't have material to store temporarily, there's no reason
for us to touch that area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just the bulkhead stabilization seems to
be an issue.
MS. MESIANO: It is an issue. However, we don't want to
touch that permit at this point, we're talking strictly
about the dredging of that inlet. That's something that's
approved under a different permit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I can't find it, I can't find the scope of
the dredging. Or is it just a generic request to keep the
channel open to four feet? I mean, you referenced our old
permit that had a 50' by 130' dredge area.
MS. MESIANO: Yes, I'm referencing yours.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could I get that drawn on a survey?
MS. MESIANO: You would have that information in your file;
that's in your old permits.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I understand that. That's why I'm asking.
Board of Trustees 64 May 26, 2004
It makes a lot clearer. I mean this would be a different
permit from what we issued to the association. So we need
to see that dredge rectangle drawn on your application.
MS. MESIANO: The areas denoted on the new hydrographic
survey of the current conditions, the area denoted as -5, 1
think that reasonably reflects the area about which we are
speaking because the overall length of that area denoted as
-5 is approximately 150 feet from north to south, and at its
widest point, it looks like between 30 and 35 feet from west
to east. And its narrowest point, I would say it looks like
15 feet or thereabouts. So I think for a point of
reference, the area denoted as being the -5 elevation
contour on the hydrographic survey, prepared by Robert Foxx
of Sea Level Mapping that is dated 5/19/2004, provides the
information that you just asked for.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MS. MESIANO: You're welcome.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments?
MR. PASCA: Anthony Pasca of Esseks, Hefter and Angel. We
represent Paradise Point Association.
First point is I did get a chance to look at what I
guess is now an outdated application this morning. I
obviously haven't seen what was just handed up at almost the
11th hour today, certainly the 11th hour figuratively, so we
would like a chance to look at whatever they have submitted
and study it, of course.
Going to the permits, she says that there is a
conflict between your permits; what she doesn't tell you is
that between your first permit and the second permit,
something happened, and is that the Army Corps give a 10
year permit. So in the second permit of yours, when you
said to run concurrent with U.S. Army Corps 10 year permit,
it makes a lots of sense why you did that. We have a 10
year permit, it goes until 2010. 1 don't know why they're
trying to jump in line five years ahead of the game, but for
whatever reason they're here asking for a permit, even
though we have a permit and we're acting under that permit,
something doesn't make sense, whatever's going on, and I
don't think they have explained it to you, and I don't think
they've been honest to you about why they're here.
MS. MESIANO: I haven't opened my mouth. I'm just standing
up.
MR. PASCA: I haven't finished.
I don't see how you can issue conflicting
permits. We are the holder of the current permit. We are
the holder of the current Army Corps permit, at least until
Board of Trustees 65 May 26, 2004
2010; we are the current owner of the DEC permit, we plan on
renewing that permit, of course. As you probably know, at
least the DEC does not allow more than one dredging per
year, so two people can't hold the same permit to do the
same activity. So I think before they come to you to ask
you for a new permit, they would have to find a way to
invalidate our existing permits, and until that's done, I
don't see how you have any power to grant a duplicate
conflicting permit for ones you've already granted and the
ones the other agencies have already granted.
Let's get past that for a second. Assume for the
sake of argument that you did have the power to do it, I'd
like you to at least ask yourselves why should we. Why
should we grant a permit to dredge a basin that is used by
many people, including a homeowners association. Why should
we grant the exclusive right to do that to a single
landowner, doesn't make much sense to me. But then add in
another factor that a few years ago when we were applying
for our permit, the Zupas came before you and said they're
against annual dredging. It's in your records, you can
check your transcripts. It says it, I'm against annual
dredging. Now all of a sudden, he's the saviour of the
basin, and they want to take care of everything, so much so
that they have got to come in a year ahead of time to get
some sort of applications.
There's a lot of difficult questions here, and I hope
you take your time to ask them, and we'd certainly like a
chance to review new submissions and, of course, address
whatever is raised by the Board.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
Is it just a brief response or is it new--
MS. MESIANO: First of all, I object heartily to being
accused of being dishonest. I want to go on the record loud
and clear. I've been coming before this Board for 11 years,
and I think I have a record with you people of being direct
and honest and I heartily object to anyone standing before
you and making that assertion. Number 1.
Number 2, with respect to the alleged objection
earlier by the Zupas of annual dredging, I think that was in
reference to the fact that jetties were leaking, and no,
dredging shouldn't be conducted on an annual basis because
if proper maintenance were being done on areas that were
under the control of the, quote, homeowners association,
which I'd like to remind you, doesn't really fit all the
criteria of a homeowners association. If those people who
assume that level of authority were acting out in that
Board of Trustees 66 May 26, 2004
capacity, the condition of the jetties that exists today
wouldn't exist. When I was there a week ago, the westerly
jetty was half empty of sand. I don't care how many permits
you've issued, there has not been one iota of maintenance
that has occurred to that structure. That structure is half
empty. The material is lying in the bottom of the channel
or in the bottom of the bay or in a landfill somewhere. They're
so concerned about all of these things, yet the activity for
which the association has permits, the activity is not
occurring. The land is continuing to deteriorate.
Now whether the Zupas dredge or some entity dredges,
that's all well and good, but if one has a permit for
activity to protect that which is sacred, why is it
deteriorating to the point that it is. And why am I
standing here being accused of being dishonest, etcetera,
when nothing's happening except a lot of verbose garbage.
Now, can I answer some relevant questions?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what I'd like to get into. Does
the Board have any questions? My comments are, either you
say we issued one dredging permit for maintenance dredging
and that's enough. It's redundant to issue more; or.you can
say there's other interested parties that aren't satisfied
with the performance of the maintenance dredging and they'd
like to insure --
MS. MESIANO: I would like to comment if you don't mind my
interrupting you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I do mind.
MS. MESIANO: We are concerned with the maintenance dredging
because the Zupa boat sustains substantial damage as a
result of the condition of the channel, which is why we're
before you seeking this because if we maintain a boat to
come in and out of this basin, we want to be able to do it
safely. I apologize for interrupting.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right, I'll start again. There's two
schools of thought on, do you allow one entity to dredge as
is the norm and customary in areas where private dredging
takes place, where people are happy to have one entity take
responsibility and the financial burden of dredging, or do
you allow another interested party to dredge because they
feel that they're not satisfied with the performance and
that it's not reaching their expectations, and in which case
you would say what does it matter who dredges? The only
similarity I can see in my experience is when the Town
actually and the county actually gave up the responsibility
of dredging to a private homeowner, who took on the
responsibility to dredge because they weren't satisfied with
Board of Trustees 67 May 26, 2004
the county and Town's performance, and that was down in New
Suffolk, and that was Louis Bacon and he took that over
privately because he was unhappy because the County would
dredge annually and by boating season, the area was pretty
much shoaled in; and it was pretty much unusable down in New
Suffolk. So this isn't totally without precedent that
somebody would take it over because they were unhappy with
the maintenance dredging. The scope of the project never
changed, so environmentally it was no difference.
MS. MESIANO: I'd like to add another point. Aside from the
fact that the Zupas are not satisfied with the level of the
quality of the maintenance, there's the issue of what
happens to the dredge spoils.
The Zupas own the waterfront lot to the east of the
subject site; that that beach front is being depleted
because of the diversion of the sand that would otherwise
flow in that direction. Part of their application entails
the use of these spoils to renourish some of that beach.
They would like to be able to use the spoil to backfill at
the point in time when their bulkheading is done. As you
know, we have spent numerous hours discussing the low sill
bulkhead inside the basin and restoration of that area
utilization of the sand taken from the mouth of the channel,
it would be appropriate to use that for that purpose. So
aside from the fact that the maintenance is not being
conducted appropriately, the use of the dredge spoil would
be better-- the use of the dredge spoil for our proposed
purposes is a better use than having it trucked to an upland
site and taken out of the system totally. All of the
beaches updrift of this location are being starved as a
result of those jetties. I don't think that can be
disputed, although I'm sure there's some in this room that
will take the opportunity to dispute it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does the Board have any objection to using
the dredged spoil onsite as beach nourishment?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: No.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think that's an issue.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think it is with the DEC, it's
intertidal.
MS. MESIANO: No. My application clearly states that any
spoil would be deposited above the high water mark at that
clearly outline the area --
TRUSTEE FOSTER: There's no beach there at low tide, is
there?
MS. MESIANO: There is a beach at the easterly end of the
Zupa property.
Board of Trustees 68 May 26, 2004
TRUSTEE FOSTER: So you're going to put it on that one end?
MS. MESIANO: We can only put it above the high water mark
at the easterly end of the property.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't have a problem with that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No one here does.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't think it's ever been an issue with
this Board. It's always been a DEC issue.
MR. JOHNSTON: Are you satisfied with the notice?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm satisfied with the notice.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Legally there's no problem with the
permit, one overriding the other?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They don't override, it's just an extra
permit.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what I'm saying.
TRUSTEE KING: What's it going to be a race to dredge?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thoughts, Ken?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I don't care if we issue 10 permits.
MS. MESIANO: We only want one so it makes it easy.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That was my one question whether there
was anything.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments?
MR. JOHNSTON: Al, are you satisfied that anybody of
interest has had a chance to object?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I remember that whatever the dredge
permit we issued earlier for Paradise Point Association,
whether it was four feet or five feet or 6 feet should be
identical to that permit.
MS. MESIANO: We requested the same four feet that was
issued and granted on the earlier. That they dredged to
five feet is out of our control.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken, you're absolutely right. That should
be in there. That should be an absolutely identical permit
so that one person dredges and the next person can't go in
and say there's 10 feet extra because that shows on my
permit.
MR. JOHNSTON: I'm going to go a half foot deeper.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You're asking for trouble.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Brownell brought up the question of
notification, is everyone satisfied that the neighbors have
been adequately noticed?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Did you get it or didn't you?
MS. MESIANO: The neighbors were adequately noticed. They
chose to refuse delivery of the certified mailing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I saw that.
MR. JOHNSTON: I leave it up to you, Al.
MS. MESIANO: They're here. If they weren't adequately
Board of Trustees 69 May 26, 2004
noticed, their attorney would not be present.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The only other issue I can see from not
granting this tonight is that -- I'll call them, can I call
them for the records, the neighbors? -- have asked to
review the information that was submitted tonight, and of
course, it's impossible for them to review that, and I
think --
MS. MESIANO: I object to that. They have had adequate
notice. I gave you what you asked for a week and-a-half
ago.
MR. JOHNSTON: What would be the detriment to giving this a
month to be thought about?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There is none because the dredging can't
be done.
MR. JOHNSTON: What damage to be on the conservative side?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't see any damage to table this for a
month and let it be reviewed by any interested parties, and
I'm not questioning the notification, which seems to be
adequate, even if someone refuses it. And we do have, I
mean I do have an issue personally, to submitting something
at the meeting that an interested party can't have time to
review.
MS. MESIANO: If it were something new but what I submitted
to you was what you requested, and it is a depiction of the
activity that was conducted by that party. They know full
well what activity they conducted, and my map chose the
results of their operations.
MR. PASCA: I'm sorry, from what I heard before, you were
reading modifications to the proposal, modifications to the
application itself. How we could know about the
modifications to the application when I was here this
morning and those modifications were not in the file?
MS. MESIANO: Those modifications only affect the shore
front of the Zupa property. It has nothing to do with any
dredge area, any land that others have.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I was just going to say, what we issue is
probably going to be an identical permit as far as in water
operations.
MR. PASCA: I think we're entitled to see what they
submitted today; that is what due process and notice and
having public hearings is all about, is to let the public
see what is going on.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You can't issue two different spoil sites.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, you can.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Whoever gets there first, now you're
starting real problems.
Board of Trustees 70 May 26, 2004
MR. JOHNSTON: That's the first I saw that.
MR. PASCA: Maybe everyone along the basin should apply for
dredging permits, and to the victor go the spoil, is what
they say.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I personally feel that it's better if you
have full disclosure and everyone has a chance to review it,
especially that this is in a timely -- I would like to see
you amend your application to make the scope of the dredging
to be identical to the existing Town permit that's currently
issued to the association, same description, same scope.
MS. MESIANO: That's a little difficult to achieve because
the shoaling takes place in maybe subtle differences, but if
I outline a specific area that's perfectly delineated and it
shoals in a little bit of a different area, then I'm in
violation. I've shown you an area on this map where others
have created a five foot depth. We're looking to maintain a
maximum of four foot at low water. I have no responsibility
to the five foot depth, but that area outlines the area in
which is most probable that the dredge activity would be
necessary, and I don't think that the earlier permits were
any more scientific or technical than that which I submitted
to you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't have the old permit in front of
me, but was there an area drawn in on the --
MS. MESIANO: It was a hatch-marked area. Nothing even as
technical as what I have submitted to you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think the Board would be more
comfortable in issuing an identical permit in scope of
dredging. Now the Board doesn't have a problem, as you have
heard, with issuing an alternate spoils site, that's going
to be different. But I think the scope of the dredging
should be completely identical because we don't want to have
two dredging projects in one year, and we don't want to get
into a situation where everyone's going to be playing
around.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We're not giving out 10 permits for 10
different dredging operations and everyone does their own
thing. It would have to be identical. One person comes in,
he does the work, that's it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's got to be worded the same.
MS. MESIANO: That wording is up to you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm going to ask you as an applicant to
word it the same as the existing, valid dredge permit for
that area, and then to amend your application to have it,
the hatch-mark area identical to the existing valid permit.
MS. MESIANO: Fine.
Board of Trustees 71 May 26, 2004
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because then we don't get into the --
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't understand the need for the permit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let's take a step back. We're looking at
this from an environmental standpoint. Most of the creeks
in Southold Town have the mouths dredged for navigation and
flushing purposes.
MS. MESIANO: That's the purpose of the application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Most of the creeks in the county, we had a
big controversy this year with Little Creek, most of the
creeks are done by the county, some of the creeks are done
privately; they're usually granted a 10 year maintenance
permit because not every creek has to be dredged every year,
and then they're dredged as an as-needed basis, but they
have the dredging permit. Sometimes some areas go through
10 years without being dredged at all, but the 10 year
maintenance permit gives them that window of opportunity to
come in and dredge. What I would like to see from the
applicant is a maintenance dredging permit that is going to
be environmentally as sound as the current maintenance
dredging permit.
MS. MESIANO: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So I'll make a motion to table.
MR. PASCA: Can I make a comment?
MR. JOHNSTON: Al, I just want to make sure that the three
out of five of you can, in your mind, have a need. I don't
want to set ourselves up to have five permits here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let's think it out as to what we're --
MR. JOHNSTON: Ken, you have no problem with five permits?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No. As long as they're all worded the
same and somebody does the work.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Basically you're looking at someone wants
to dredge; look at it environmentally, forget the players
because it's too confusing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's a fight over sand, Harbor Lights is
all filled in.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our Board doesn't have a problem with
putting the sand as beach nourishment instead of carting it
off. Our Board environmentally doesn't have a problem with
the basin being dredged as needed to a certain depth in a
certain area, so, that's the environmental issue. Beyond
that it's just a social problem.
(Conversation)
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You said there's no issue here, that we're
not responsible for that, but if you create the situation,
you are responsible. You have created that situation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think we're responsible for
Board of Trustees 72 May 26, 2004
creating any situation down there. Sir?
MR. PASCA: You are creating an environmental problem if
you do this. You say, no big deal environmental, why do we
have a problem with this. What happens in January, somebody
dredges, then in spring another person dredges, then in the
fall, another person dredges. You're only supposed to have
one dredging a year, that's the way the DEC has their
permits, each permitee is only allowed to dredge once a year
for a reason, because they don't want the ground being raked
up multiple times a year. If you start giving out permits
to different people, they're each allowed to dredge once a
year, and you're going to be effectively bypassing the once
a year limit, so you do have an environmental consideration
here, and I think you should think about it.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If those permits are identical, there's
nothing to dredge.
MR. PASCA: Shoaling happens more than just one day a year,
it happens throughout a year. If we decide now it's gone
from four feet to three feet over the summer, and we want to
dredge in the fall, we have a permit to do that; and if they
decide, oh, it's gone back from four feet to three feet and
now we want to dredge in the spring, then they can do it.
Then let's add a few more permitees.
MS. MESIANO: I would like to interject.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Peggy's first.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I was just going to say just make it
contingent that it can't be dredged any sooner or closer to
the one year.
MR. PASCA: You can't take away existing rights.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: If it's dredged in February, it's within a
year, it just can't be dredged again for eight more months
or 10 more months.
MS. MESIANO: I'll speak on behalf of the applicant and say
they would be willing to offer whatever insurances the Board
needs that they would not contribute to any dredge activity
occurring in excess of once a year.
MR. PASCA: Who decides when the year starts? We did the
last dredging, so if we dredge 364 days later, does that
mean that they can't dredge again for a year? If we dredge
364 days after that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely.
MS. MESIANO: The dredge window is very narrow.
MR. PASCA: I'm telling you we have an existing permit.
We're not giving that up. So if you want to allow other
people to continue raking the bottom, I think you're
disregarding your environmental obligations on your Wetland
Board of Trustees 73 May 26, 2004
Code.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is the last thing that we would do.
MR. PASCA: You're saying it's no big deal. Let's let as
many people as want have a permit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. Ken said as many people can have a
permit, we didn't say we would consider having people dredge
more than once a year.
MR. PASCA: Since you've already allowed us to dredge once
a year at least, I don't know how you can take that away
from us, so if you give that right to somebody else, you're
effectively saying you guys get to dredge again. It's not
as simple as, oh, let them fight it out. We would give out
20 permits and whoever gets there first gets the
spoils. It's not that simple.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It would be because we wouldn't allow it
to be dredged once every 364 days.
MR. PASCA: You've already given us a permit. How are you
going to enforce that?
MS. MESIANO: From a practical perspective, and I risk being
practical, one does not undertake a dredge activity until
that point in the boating season when you're starting to put
your boats in the water, and it's time to start using
them. From a practical perspective, one doesn't generally
go out to dredge in November, December, January February;
it's usually not done until March, April and May for the
purposes of preparing for the summer boating season. So one
might argue until 2:00 in the morning all of these fine
points, but from a practical perspective, the dredge window
is very short, highly unlikely that one will be dredging in
October, highly unlikely that one would be dredging in
February. The only extreme circumstance I could imagine is
if you have the 100 year storm, it completely shoals over
the mouth of the basin, and there are boats trapped in there
and people want to get their boats out for the winter.
That's the only scenario I can imagine. And in that
scenario, I imagine one might come to this Board for an
emergency permit for relief from that once a year
restriction, but looking at it from a practical perspective
rather than nitpicking the fine points as nauseam, I think
this can be resolved simply if we look at it from a
practical perspective.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES
29. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of SCHEMBRI HOMES,
Board of Trustees 74. May 26, 2004
INC. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 30' by 66'
single-family dwelling, on-site sewage disposal system and a
pervious driveway. Located: 1025 Seawood Drive, Southold.
SCTM # 79-7-63.
MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there a violation on this property?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. Go ahead.
MS. MESIANO: We're here because Mr. Schembri received a
building permit for the construction of a single-family
dwelling on this site. Prior to that we received a Health
Department approval for the installation of the septic
system and the water supply system. Prior to that we
received an approval from the Southold Town Board of Appeals
for a Waiver of Merger thereby recognizing this as a single
and separate lot. The construction activity was commenced
and upon commencement of the activity, it was found that the
westerly end of the property, that being the rear of the
property, was underwater. Now, I would refer you to the
survey of the property-- and I should back up and say this
project has been going on for the last two years. We first
surveyed this property and did the test hole, et cetera,
November 5, 2002 there was activity, test hole was done
August 30, 2002, at that point in time there was no standing
water and no identifiable areas of potential wetlands on the
site.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Where did all that water come from?
MS. MESIANO: That's interesting you should ask that. We
have numerous photographs that have been taken on the site,
that demonstrate that the runoff that is terminating at this
site and is collecting on this site is coming from off-site.
The neighboring properties are both improved.
Neighboring dwellings are dwellings that are not unlike the
dwelling that is proposed on this site. The neighboring
properties have been cleared and have grassy lawns all the
way down to the wetland areas. Land has been denoted, there
are no trees in the back, there are sheds. There is
playground equipment. There's lawn all the way down to the
bottom of the property; by bottom, I mean the back end of
the property. There are down spouts and gutters and leaders
from the neighboring property that connect to pipes that
terminate on Mr. Schembri's property and the runoff that is
being created on the neighboring site is being directed onto
this site from the neighboring properties. Both neighboring
properties have asphalt basketball courts. Now we all know
that asphalt is not a pervious material. Water collects on
the asphalt and runs off down into the bottom of the
Board of Trustees 75 May 26, 2004
property. So the runoff that's coming onto this site is
being generated at least in part off-site. It's collecting
because of the clay content in the subsoil conditions. If
you look at the test hole that was done in August of 2002,
that test hole happened to have been done at the area that
is just landward, if you will, of the line of hay bales,
which is consistent with the edge of the flagged
wetland. That test hole did not indicate that there was any
wet ground at that point. So I have photographs that I'd
be glad to give to you. I'll start them down here. You
have a 38 by 40 basketball court. This is a neighboring
backyard, and I just want to point out all the stumps
remaining of the trees that were taken out that goes right
down to the wetlands area.
The contours on the neighboring lots is consistent
with the contours on our subject property. I should also
add that the subject property has been used as a dump site
for yard debris, chunks of concrete, tires, old appliances.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Cut to the chase, is there a wetland
indicator plants in that?
MS. MESIANO: There is moss on some of the trees. There is
today no standing water on the site. This is the
neighboring houses. Here you see some of those photographs
show the pipes from the downspouts from the neighboring
properties and being directed onto this site.
So I can't say we can assume responsibility for this
problem because this is a problem that we have not created.
The agencies have adequate opportunity to get their hands on
this. Mr. Schembri acted in reliance upon the Town's
decision to grant him the waiver of merger, to grant him the
building permit, started his construction, and then we end
up at this point. So we're asking for a permit to construct
the structure as proposed and to move forward.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Glenn Just, he delineated the wetlands
boundary. I'm going to say maybe we're wrong and maybe it
was a runoff pole, but why did an environmental consultant
come out and --
MS. MESIANO: Because of the water sitting on the site as a
result of the clay condition, it being dark, shady, there
was a lot of vegetation in there. Mosses were allowed to grow
in the area; this is what was explained to me. So if one
were to look at the technical definition of a freshwater
wetland, you name mosses as one of the criteria. So in his
doing his job honestly -- we need to bring up that word
again -- there was some evidence of vegetation that was
Board of Trustees 76 May 26, 2004
listed in your definition. Therefore we were obligated to
make this delineation. This site is not on the New York
State DEC's inventory of freshwater wetlands.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If this is a wetlands, it's probably very
important to the area because there are a lot of deer.
MS. MESIANO: How important to the neighborhood can it be,
Ken, this is the last unimproved lot on this block.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm not saying it's not buildable,
there's plenty of room upland. It's a matter of setting up
the buffers correctly.
MS. MESIANO: We're willing to work with the Town.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It looks like you ran the driveway right
through the wetlands.
MS. MESIANO: We didn't have much choice in that site
planning because of the contours on the site.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I mean, it has to be worked out. Maybe
he has to have a front yard driveway.
MS. MESIANO: If you look at the contours, when you're
looking at it from that single plain yes, you might say
that, but if you look at it from an engineering perspective
and you start taking into account what happens when you
start cutting into that area, and then having to provide
fill to build up the back of the house, and so on, you're
creating more of a problem than you're curing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I have a neighbor, he built an eight foot
wall. He lives on a hill just like this, and he built an
eight foot block wall, and that's his buffer. I think he
has a 35 foot buffer. Similar to that we can set up a 50
foot buffer.
MS. MESIANO: We have considered that request of the Town,
of the Trustees with respect to your discussion of a 50 foot
buffer, and it is not feasible on this site to provide a 50
foot buffer. The primary reason behind that is that the
septic system has to be located in the front yard and we
have located the septic system as far away as we can. We've
gotten approval for the location of this septic system;
there's no place else to put it. The house is presently at
I believe we measured 36 or 38 feet, and there's no place to
put it. The septic system has to be where it is.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: How many feet is that septic according to
your wetland boundaries; is that 90?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're going to have that verified by our
people.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I was going to say have Mark Terry look
at it, our environmental engineer.
MS. MESIANO: Okay. Then if you want to skip to the next
Board of Trustees 77 May 26, 2004
issue of talk about buffering and so on. I'm sure that we
can offer a buffer along an area delineated by the hay
bales. We really are not in favor of creating a hard
structure there. We would be in favor of doing some kind of
a planting that would restore some of the area that's been
disturbed, and provide a buffer in that manner. I think
we've talked about --
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's up to him. I figured because it's
on a hill you put an eight foot berm up, you have the land.
MS. MESIANO: This is Alan Bernhart. Mr. Bernhart is Mr.
Schembri's engineer, and he can address technical issues.
MR. BERNHART: You brought up the driveway in the back,
that's as a permeable driveway.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Before we get into this, I think we
should table this and have our environmental consultant go
out there and measure 50 feet then you know what we're
working with.
MR. BERNHART: We know where 50 feet would be, it's just not
feasible.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: First we're going to do is what Ken said,
we're going to delineate the wetland boundary with our
people first, and see how it matches up with your people.
Then we're going to strive to achieve at least a 50 foot
buffer from that wetlands. I don't see how it's not
feasible.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's going to be feasible from the hay
bale line of 50 feet.
MR. BERNHART: Right now the hay bale line, we'd have to
push up the offset of the house; right now we only have 38
feet, by pushing it up --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: With that size house.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We do that all the time. Houses can be
twisted and shortened.
MR. BERNHART: It's 29 foot depth to the house, it's
consistent with the neighbors on both sides.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But the property might not be
consistent. Just because you look at the footprint, every
piece of property is different. Sometimes you have to
adjust what you could do on that piece of property just
because of the constraints of it.
MR. BERNHART: It's actually very similar, the property
boundaries are very similar to the adjacent properties.
Another point I wanted to bring up regarding the
wetland issue, and whether or not you know when Glenn had
delineated this it's what we call truly a wetlands issue or
not, in my professional opinion, this is not a naturally
Board of Trustees 78 May 26, 2004
occurring wetlands. This is a wet area that was derived
from runoff of the adjacent properties. That the drainage
from the two adjacent properties contribute -- you could see
it from the photographs -- that the drainage from the two
adjacent properties contribute to this; the grading of the
adjacent properties, you can see on the contours both funnel
towards the back of this property. So this property is
receiving 100 percent of the runoff from both of these
properties.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's why we need our engineer in there
to delineate.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think I'd like a second opinion.
MR. SCHEMBRI: Pete Schembri. We had gone to the Zoning
Board and we got it unmerged. If you look at the map, when
McDonald did his test hole, he did it to the rear of the
property. It was dry as a bone there. When he did that
test hole he was there with a machine down right at the
site. There was nothing there, and you could see the "X".
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: August of'02? You wouldn't expect in
August of'02 to see much water anywhere, that was one of
the most driest summers on record.
MR. SCHEMBRI: When we started clearing the lot, going back
to a couple months ago, there was no water standing water on
the lot at all. The only water there was to the rear of the
property, all the way in the back. When the machine took
down a couple of those oak trees that were there, and he
made ruts, the water that ended up standing there was from
puddling up because of the clay that was under there.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You're hitting the nail on the head,
that's why we'd like our environmental consultant out there.
Maybe the water is 50 feet encroached and no wetland species
under it.
MR. SCHEMBRI: Okay. And as far as when he asked about a
violation, we've discussed the violation with the attorney
and we sent a check in, and it was all squared away. I
don't know if he knows that. But we mailed our summons and
supposedly that's taken care of. They wanted to know if we
were on the calendar to come in tonight.
MR. JOHNSTON: Was it Town Attorney, Ms. Montefusco?
MR. SCHEMBRI: It was a woman. I'm not sure, my attorney
spoke with her and he mailed -- we gave a check to the Town
of Southold and mailed it out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let's move this along then, please.
MR. JOHNSTON: Do you remember the amount of the check?
MR. SCHEMBRI: I think it was $1,000.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're going to get our people to take a
Board of Trustees 79 May 26, 2004
look at it. I'm going to ask -- guess we're going to ask you
for some modification of your plan that we received tonight.
I would guess it's going to include some sort of restoration
of the disturbed area and probably not include a driveway
and a buffer area, we're going to include a buffer area.
Maybe I'm way ahead of myself, and we're going to
take our plan that you provided us with tonight and we'll
have our people take a look at it to verify that wetland.
Thank you.
I'll make a motion to table the application.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to reopen that hearing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES
MR. JOHNSON: Donald Johnson, 895 Seawood. I'm the next
door neighbor to the lot. I just wanted to point out a few
things, and yes, you brought it up, that the test hole was
done August 2002, which has been the driest year around here
in a long time. I have lived there four years, and there
has been standing water every year there except for
2002. Also, there is a lot more water standing back there,
it's not on this lot, but it goes back much further than
their lot, it's not coming from my lot, it's not coming from
my neighbor's lot that's causing all this water. I mean, I
guess the last thing I would say is that if you do your
wetlands marking by vegetation, it's going to be a lot
harder to do it because there's no vegetation left there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They'll be able to see what was there, I
think. Thank you. Any other comment?
MR. KLEIN: My name is Barry Klein, my family owns the
property on the opposite side, at 1125 Seawood. Just to
reiterate what my neighbor said, I've been there for
three years and there's always been standing water there,
even in the dry year, what was that, 2002, it was so dry there
was always standing water there. I got this through the
mail through the builder's lawyer, and the big question was
determined the boundary line of the wetlands, now I saw, I
went to your office to the Trustees, and I saw a notice
there where the back of his building proposed building is 34
feet from the boundary line, that is on his map that I got
through the mail. So it is well within the 100 foot zone
that they think. So I would just say that you know I think
that his proposal for approval is way out of line. Thank
you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who has any other comment?
Board of Trustees 80 May 26, 2004
Sir?
MR. BERGESON: Thank you. Sitting here a long time I can't
talk. Bob Bergeson, I live on the other side of Seawood
Drive. I've been asked to come as a historian of Seawood
Drive. You heard Rudy Brewer say his dock is 44 years old,
well I've been in my house for 44 years, and I can tell you
that that standing pond has been back there for the 44 years
that I've been there. On occasion you will have a dry year,
but I'm not sure that that standing pond ever dries up
completely. There are ducks in this at this point, but my
kids used to go there and catch goldfish out of it. So it's
been there a long time, and to have there what Mr. Schembri
said when they cut some trees down they saw the water back,
I have some pictures that were taken the day after the trees
were felled if you'd like to keep them and put them in the
file. Some of them show trees laying right across the
standing water. If you would have that (handing). And what
happened, I in the middle, after 9:00, 9:30 at night one
night, about a week later some guys showed up and they were
out making noise in the woods, and I didn't know anything
about it, but my neighbors told me, and that's when the hay
bales went in and it was 9:30, 10:00 at night. I have no
idea why they did it then. there's two sets of them. The
day after the cuttings and --
MR. JOHNSTON: Could you put the approximate date on these?
MR. BERGESON: I'm going to have to go home and do that.
MR. SCHEMBRI: I'd like to say one thing. When we went for
the unmerger to split the single lot from the 20 acre
parcel, the whole neighborhood showed up here to discuss it,
and not one person ever said anything about wetlands. The
Zoning Board sat here and about 30 people came to this
microphone and no one ever brought up anything about water.
The Board wasn't aware of it; I wasn't aware of it. I never
went to the back of the lot and across the property line
into the woods to see if there was water there 'cause on the
survey it didn't show water. For people to come out now and
say that it's been there and meanwhile we went through an
unmerger, and we went through a building permit process and
no one ever said a word about it until they started cutting
trees down, I wish somebody would have spoke up sooner when
we were going through the process.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Who owns that back lot?
MR. SCHEMBRI: Mr. Reese. Everybody was more concerned
about it being an access point into that 20 acre, 25 acre
parcel, but they weren't concerned about water. They
weren't concerned about anything. They didn't want the
Board of Trustees 81 May 26, 2004
traffic, and this was actually benefiting them because by
putting a house there, there would never be 20 homes coming
up and down for 20 people as an access point. So it
actually benefits people that are there instead of deters
cars coming through. I wish somebody would have spoke up
two processes ago when it was in front of the Town instead
of tonight.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. JOHNSON: Sorry, I got to say I did speak in front of
the Zoning Board of Appeals with the map. I said at that
point where this test hole is the year before there was
standing water. I did mention water. I did not mention
traffic I mentioned water. I was there.
MS. MESIANO: I would like to comment that the objectants
are raising issues about Mr. Schembri's activities, but I
just want to point out, I've given the Board photographs,
the neighboring properties are cleared, down to the back lot
lines; there's not a tree left on the property; there's lawn
planted all the way down to the wetland area. There's been
ongoing dumping occurring on the site. For a neighborhood
so concerned with the environmental factors to come out and
object so vehemently to Mr. Schembri's activity, when the
activity that's occurred on the presently improved lots is
as at least as detrimental to the environment as that to
which they're opposed tonight. So I think there's a double
standard being held here, and I think the Board needs to
take that into consideration.
We've given you ample photographic evidence to show you
that these properties are well cleared, well established in lawns.
The house that we propose is no closer to the wetland than any
of the existing homes. The design of the house is consistent with the
designs of the neighboring homes taking that contour of the
land into account. I'll stop at that point, since we'll be
here next month, but my point is that there's a double
standard being imposed here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. SCHEMBRI: If I could say one more thing, if I could show
you something on the pictures so you know. This was gutters
from this gentleman's house, the downspout right into the
lot, that's with the water just coming out, and this is, I
took these pictures two days ago, there's no water coming
from our lot that's building up in front of the bales of hay
to occur, and the other side the gentleman said his family
owns the lot, this is their rear yard; there's not a tree
left in it, and this is his basketball court, which is 4
and-a-half feet encroached into our property, so of course
Board of Trustees 82 May 26, 2004
he didn't want us to build a house because then he has a
problem, not that I would make it a problem. They can keep
the basketball court there, I don't have a problem with it,
but if he's bringing it up, I've got to speak up, I can't
just sit here. Here's the debris 6 feet high of dumping.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We saw that.
MR. SCHEMBRI: It is what it is. That's really it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. SCHEMBRI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Briefly, sir.
MR. KLEIN: The counsel said it's a double standard being
involved here. When our homes were built, we had a permit
to build them. The builder doesn't have a permit to build
them now, and there's all kinds of different regulations
that come into effect the last 10, 15 to 20 years. So
there's no double standard involved, thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to table.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
MS. MESIANO: Just like to say there was a permit issued on
this project. I just want to clarify that point that all
permits were issued prior to the issuance of your violation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have a motion and a second. All in
favor? ALL AYES.
30. David Corwin on behalf of NORA TUTHILL GLUECK-TRUSTEE
FOR KATHARINE TUTHILL ESTATE requests a Wetland Permit to
maintenance dredge approximately 300 cubic yards of sand,
place sand in front of Old Cove Club bulkhead and end of Old
Harbor Road as beach nourishment, and install four 6'
by 20' floats. Located: Old Cove Yacht Club, New Suffolk.
SCTM # 117-5-14.1 and 14.2
MR. CORWIN: My name is David Corwin. I'm acting as the
agent for the applicant. I would just like to address a
couple of the things that Mr. Schultheis brought up in his
letter of April 21 st, and at the non-public hearing a month
ago. And one was the question of the nature and material
there. Mr. Schultheis is concerned that it would be silty
material and be suspended into the water. I gave you a silt
analysis, the material inside the canal there is
substantially the same as the beach material. There is
little or no silt in the material.
The question of heavy metals was brought up, you need
some industry to have heavy metals in the sediments, and I
don't think there was much industry in New Suffolk besides
the submarine and weak fish.
The question of well contamination by the temporary
Board of Trustees 83 May 26, 2004
stock pile was brought up. The Suffolk County Water
Authority has a water main down Old Harbor Road, and the
neighbors on either side of Old Cove Yacht Club property are
hooked up the Suffolk County Water Authority. The question
Mr. Schultheis brought up that material would travel back
into the canal; there's a jog in the bulkhead, the Hartong
bulkhead that's about 12 feet, which jogs to the east of the
Old Cove Yacht Club bulkhead that would trap any
material from going back into the canal. The material,
because of the wind and waves is going to travel to the
north if it's placed on the beach there, and that's where
the materials are needed, it's eroded there.
There was a question of the road drain at the end of the
road that that was washing material into the bay, the road drain is
the Town's problem. They stuck a drain in there and the DEC
weren't happy when they noticed it on the photos I sent to
them, that's the Town Highway Department's department.
also want to point out that the DEC gave a permit to the
Suffolk County Department of Public Works to dredge Wickham
Creek and put the material up on the south side of the
entrance to Wickham Creek. They went down below apparent
low water, and they must have dredged -- I'm taking a wild
guess -- 2,000 cubic yards of material, and placed on the
beach there as beach nourishment in March of'04, and they
had a permit from the DEC for that.
And there's a question of the Building Inspector and
whether any variances or nonconforming uses are there. The
work's going to be in an M1 Zone, and the question is
whether nonconforming use of the Old Cove Yacht Club, I
would contend, is not the purview of the Trustees.
If you have any additional questions, I would try to
answer them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does the Board have any comment? My
comment was I thought was it was kind of appropriate.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That creek needs to be dredged.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For that creek. It's not an environmentally
sensitive creek. It's a creek that's used with boats and
maritime activities, and it seems like it's kind of more
like restoring what was there then creating something new.
I believe we approved dredge spoil placement at the end of
Old Harbor Road before.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: This is more or less maintenance
dredging. It hasn't been dredged in a while but it's more
or less a dredged channel, just maintenance.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Artie? This isn't publicly owned bottom.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments?
Board of Trustees 84 May 26, 2004
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to close hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to approve the application.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: : Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Make a motion to adjourn. Second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES
RECEIVED
//,O fIn
JUL 2 6 2004
0
So old`Town Cler