HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-04/21/2004 OS�FF��c
Albert J.Krupski,President 0�. QG Town Hall
James King,Vice-President �� 'yam 53095 Route 25
Artie Foster cz ti P.O.Box 1179
Ken Poliwoda • Southold,New York 11971-0959
Peggy A. Dickerson y�o a�� Telephone(631) 765-1892
•( `1► Fax(631) 765-1366
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MINUTES
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
7:00 PM
Present were: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President
James King, Vice-President
Artie Foster, Trustee
Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee
Peggy Dickerson, 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, May 12, 2004 at 8:00 a.m.
TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA
seconded. ALL AYES.
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 at 7:00 p.m.
WORKSESSION: 6:00 p.m.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA
seconded
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of January 21, 2004,
February 25, 2004 and March 24, 2004.
TRUSTEE KING: I have a couple minor corrections on March.
On Page 25, last paragraph, I think it's a quote by Al. "I
recommend no application denied until the application's
amended. I think what you meant to say was I recommend no
action be taken. So change application to action. And on
Page 54, first paragraph almost down at the bottom, change
the word "nose" to no." No ability. I'll make a motion to approve
Board of Trustees 2 April 21, 2004
with those corrections.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for March
2004. A check for$5890.59 was forwarded to the
Supervisor's office for the General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES are posted on the Town Clerk's bulletin
board for review.
III. APPLICATIONS FORAMEN DMENTSIWAIVERS/CHANGES:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have nine items on the agenda for
Amendments, Waivers and Changes. They're not really public
hearings, however, anyone's welcome to speak on any of them.
If you're interested, please be ready and use the microphone
to identify yourself.
1. JIM NEUMANN requests an amendment to Permit#1253
to extend the fixed portion of the dock 20' and install four
new pilings, re-sink pilings for floating dock, 6' by 20'
and 6' by 16' ramp with two pilings. Located: 750 East
Mill Road, Mattituck. SCTM #107-1-1.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'd like to make that as a motion. Is
there a second?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm going to abstain on this one.
2. ANNA ACKER requests an amendment to Permit#5777 to
convert the crawl space of the existing dwelling to a full
basement. Located: 855 Pine Neck Road, Southold.
SCTM #70-5-33.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When was field inspection?
MS. STANDISH: We didn't get a chance to see it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is this the permit we were looking for?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just consider the housing part
tonight. This is the one the little shack down at the end
of Pine Neck.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We drove down there. Do you remember the
house?
Board of Trustees 3 April 21, 2004
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. I didn't understand the difference
between what we were seeing and what was on the agenda.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All I want to see is the survey. Do you
have the survey? You don't have a survey with you do you?
MS. ACKER: Doesn't have the new plan as far as the house
plan; do you need that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what we need; do you have that?
MS. ACKER: No, I don't have that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where would it be in relation to what's
existing?
MS. ACKER: This is what's existing right now. It's going
to be right here. Straight back L in here (indicating).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have been there a number of times
through the past few years.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: As far as the hay bales, gutters and all
that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're going to have to put this on a
survey for the Building Department.
MS. ACKER: Everything's going to be -- cesspool's going to
be moved. I need to get Health Department so it's really
now we're actually looking, the Building Department would
rather us tear it down and start all over again. So that's
where we're at. So originally we didn't need to go through
all that the DEC gave us the approval for the basement, then
the engineer went out and said the house couldn't withstand.
Then we went back to the DEC, they have no problem as long
as we don't come any forward, which we're not. We're
staying right in our original envelope.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What are the dimensions of the new house?
MS. ACKER: 29'11" by 50'.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Under now our new code you'd be required
to put up hay bales. Under our new code you need to put in
dry wells and gutters to contain roof runoff and also hay
bales during construction, stake hay bales I would guess
around the 10 foot contour. I don't know what the DEC --
why did the DEC issue a permit? Because there's a 10 foot
contour, and they generally issue a nonjurisdiction above
the 10 foot contour; do you know?
MS. ACKER: I have no idea.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Their permit is only to excavate 29 cubic
yards of soil to construct your new basement foundation.
MS. ACKER: It's going to be reapplied to the new house
plan, and they're going to make the amendment to that
present DEC permit to give me a new one for the entire
house.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I see this is for the old one. What I'd
Board of Trustees 4 April 21, 2004
rather do is issue an approval subject to before you get the
permit, you would have to submit the survey showing hay
bales, dry wells and gutters, and the actual gutters.
MS. ACKER: On the survey you want to have hay bales?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. The surveyor will draw them in.
MS. ACKER: That should not be a problem. We have to have
it for the Building Department.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As soon as you give us the survey, we can
look at it and approve it; then you can go to the Building
Department.
MS. ACKER: Okay. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that good, Artie?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Peg?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to approve the application
with the condition that we get the requested information of
the hay bale line and the dry wells and gutters and the
house location all put on the survey.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
3. Peter C. Sterling on behalf of CHARLES BANK
requests an Amendment to Permit#5680 to include a low stone
wall and small arbor. Located: 1385 Bayshore Road,
Greenport. SCTM #53-4-3.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this structure. Looked like
it was going to be on the side yard. So I'll make a motion
to approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Artie.
4. Docko, Inc. on behalf of ROLLA CAMPBELL requests an
amendment to Permit #5201 to add 24 (plus/minus) linear feet
of 4 foot wide fixed wood pile and timber pier extension and
a 30 (plus/minus) linear foot by 4 foot wide wood fixed "L",
a boat lift including associated braced support piling and
relocate three braced tie-off pilings all water ward of the
apparent high water line. Located: Private Road, Fishers
Island. SCTM #4-4-16.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I looked at this, Jim. I think you had
looked at this before, had you not?
TRUSTEE KING: No, I don't think so.
Board of Trustees 5 April 21, 2004
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I thought there was a note in here.
TRUSTEE KING: Possibly I looked at that but a long time
ago.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Okay, well, I looked at it, there's this
boat lift right next door and he obviously wants to get out
to a little deeper water. Looks to be quite shoal. There's
a lot of rocks in there where the existing dock is, and
based on what's in the neighborhood, I really didn't see
much of a problem with it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have any information for us,
Mr. Nielsen?
MR. NEILSEN: Keith Neilsen, acting on behalf of the
Campbells. I don't believe that in our correspondence we
have copied you with all of the essential correspondence
from neighbors.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I have the file here.
MR. NEILSEN: And other agencies including the New York
Department of State and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I'd
like to point out that as a result of the Department of
State, they specifically requested that the boat lift be
taken out of the application and I met with Mr. Chuck
Hamilton of the DEC on the Island, and he felt the same. So
the application has been modified. I believe that you have
copies of that application, but what I've prepared here is a
24" by 36" drawing that shows the original application with
an "L" shaped pier extension and the boat lift. The
existing pier ends here, and the existing float system is
here, but basically the float is perpendicular to the
incoming waves, and it's unstable. It's difficult to use.
A fixed pier is a better arrangement for boating. The boat
lift in my opinion is important to their ability to keep a
boat at this site even for just a weekend because the water
can get rough at a moment's notice, and if it gets rough,
it's difficult to get on and off the boat at this site. So
I felt that this was a better way to do it. In view of the
other comments from Mr. Hamilton and the Department of
State, we removed it from the project.
The second sketch --
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Excuse me for interrupting, but the boat
lift has been eliminated from the application?
MR. NEILSEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Oh, I didn't know that. They're no longer
looking for the boat lift, so it's just the dock.
MR. NEILSEN: We'd like to be able to address that in the
future. The pier was also requested by the DOS to be
smaller, so instead of a 32 foot extension and "L" 20 foot
Board of Trustees 6 April 21, 2004
extension and Mr. Hamilton of the DEC recommended that
instead of the boat lift, but put a storm tie-off pile so
that a boat can be tied off in this direction, clear of the
dock structure and ride out the rough weather in that
location. The Campbells are agreeable to that as an interim
solution. All of these documents have been modified, have
been submitted to the Department of State. The Department
of State indicated that they were okay with the project and
mailed a letter to the Corps of Engineers. I believe you
have a copy of it, if not I can give you a copy.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I have it right here in my hand.
MR. NEILSEN: We're now waiting for the Corps of Engineers
and the DEC to finish their processing. The DEC had one
question.a couple of months ago, what was Rolla Campbell's
relationship to Kim Campbell, Mrs. Campbell owns the
property, Rolla Campbell is making the application, I think
that's all been resolved. So since they're husband and
wife, I don't think it's a big issue.
So, this is the application that we're asking for
your approval on the straight out pier extension, the 20
foot "L", the storm tie-off pile, the boat lift has been
deleted and otherwise I believe that we've complied with
everybody's expressed concerns on this project, and all the
stipulations in your current standards have been complied
with. The decking will not be pressure treated, but the
substructure needs to be pressure treated because of its
exposure to the water. The decking we will not use exotic
hardwood or pressure treated pine. It will probably be oak.
If there are any questions I'd be happy to
respond.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have a question. You said there was a
float there one time?
MR. NEILSEN: There is a float there now, a seasonal, there
is a float.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In which location?
MR. NEILSEN: Sits right here (indicating).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other questions?
TRUSTEE KING: I talked to Mr. Hamilton quite a while
ago. He said he signed off on it without the boat lift.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Artie you want to make a motion?
MR. NEILSEN: If you need another copy of revised plans for
your file, I've got some with me.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: We don't have a plan showing the reduction
from 30 feet to 20 feet.
MR. NEILSEN: I tell you what, in order that your file can
be complete let me submit this to you. These are signed and
Board of Trustees 7 April 21, 2004
sealed drawings. This is a copy of the letter to
Mr. Hamilton indicating the reduction of the size of the
pier and locating that storm water tie-off.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Okay, this is different from what I have.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Are we all set here everybody? I'll make
a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE KING: Asper the revised plans.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: As modified by the revised plans.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES.
5. JMO Environmental Consultants on behalf of B.G.
TREMAINE requests an amendment to Permit#5552 to demolish
the existing single-family dwelling and construct a new
single-family dwelling. Located: Private Road, Fishers
Island. SCTM #7-1-2.
MR. JUST: Good evening, I'm Glenn Just, JMO Consulting on
behalf of Mr. Tremaine.
This was a project that was approved about two
years ago for quite a substantial size home knocking down an
existing dwelling, and we've come back in to request to
extend the permit which is due to expire next month and to
modify the permit to build a house that is about 50 percent
smaller than the one that was previously approved.
TRUSTEE KING: Did you say smaller?
MR. JUST: Yes. We were there yesterday with Mr. Foster and
Donnie Desinkowski. We made a run over the to the Island
yesterday to look at the site.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't see any problem with. It's pretty
straightforward. It's reducing the size of the house seems
to be fine. Any questions?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I don't.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Peggy?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Ken?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: No? Make a motion to approve the
application as requested for amendment.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: So carried.
6. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of
FRANCES E. NEILSEN requests an amendment to Permit#5172 to
construct a screened porch, deck and boulder wall. Located:
Board of Trustees 8 April 21, 2004
East End Road, Fishers Island. SCTM # 5-1-8.
MR. JUST: Once again, Glenn Just, J.M.O. Consulting, on
behalf of Frances E. Neilsen.
This is one that goes back to 2002. We originally
got an approval to construct the deck in the screened porch
addition to extend the permit but at that time a boulder
wall was installed as well. There are new owners on the
property now, and they're just trying to get a CO on the
property for work that was previously done. This was
another site that we looked at yesterday.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Do you remember this? Did you see this
before? This is a porch that was puts on by the previous
owner. It wasn't permitted and the house was sold, and this
guy inherited the problem. Everything's done. It's been
done for a while. Actually, those pictures aren't recent,
are they, Glenn?
MR. JUST: No. I think that's when you were there in
August, Jim.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I took those pictures, that was last
August.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's even more heavily vegetated now.
MR. JUST: There was a lot of clearing done.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: There's really no environmental issues
there at this point in time.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: There was a permit on it, but not for the
porch?
MR. JUST: Exactly.
MR. JOHNSTON: When is that going to expire?
MR. JUST: I believe it was issued on April 25, 2002, due to
expire three days from today.
MR. JUST: There was extensive clearing done on the site.
They did pay a fine to the DEC under their freshwater
wetlands law. There wasn't any request by the DEC for any
restoration. It was mostly mowing, not clearing. And a lot
of the pepperbush and stuff that they mowed is starting to
come back pretty well now.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There was some large trees also.
MR. JUST: Yeap.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's not grass. It's all grown back
natural.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But there were large trees?
MR. JUST: There were a lot of large trees removed. There
was some limbing done on the trees that they left to create
vistas. The trees are still in great shape. Admittedly, a
lot of stuff was removed but as of yesterday when we were
there, they're in fine shape.
Board of Trustees 9 April 21, 2004
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think it was tastefully done, was that
the term?
MR. JUST: That was the term we learned yesterday.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you ever pick an elevation? Give it
to Peggy.
MR. JUST: I think if it's a matter of creating a buffer
zone or nondisturbance zone, there would be no problem with
that at all.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: There was 70 some feet, 60 some?
MR. JUST: The wall was at its closest point 64 feet from
the wetlands line.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: 64. So give them 20 feet outside the wall.
They need some room.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 50 foot.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: 50 foot they only had 63 feet from the
wetlands to the wall.
MR. JUST: Most places it's 98, 97, high 90s.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All right, that's good.
(Conversation)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Somebody make a motion.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I will when you tell me what you want to
do.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let's put a 50 foot buffer in there?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: 50 foot okay, that's it? Make a motion to
approve the request with the condition that there be a 50
foot nondisturbance buffer from the wetlands. Get a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: So moved.
Glen, before you go. Let's move back on this
TREMAINE application for amendment, that permit is due to
expire May 22nd of this year. Do you want to include a
one-year extension?
MR. JUST: I believe that was part of our request.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's not written in here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Artie, you have until April 28th to
request it.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Do it now subject to a letter of request.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Motion.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Make a motion to amend the Tremaine permit
to include a request for a one-year extension.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: So carried.
Board of Trustees 10. April 21, 2004
7. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of SANDRA & FRANK
CURRAN requests an amendment to Permit#4666 to install a 3'
by 12' double-hinged ramp and 5' by 12' low-profile kayak
float off existing fixed dock. Located: 560 Fisherman's
Beach Road, Cutchogue. SCTM #111-1-16.
MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant, Sandra and Frank Curran.
The application was actually filed with the
Trustees during the moratorium phase. They were filed with
all agencies in November of'03. We do have approvals from
the New York State DEC, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
New York State Department of State Coastal Resources
Division.
The application itself is fairly straightforward,
but to give a little bit of background to the Board, the
Currans are proposing a seasonal float to be used strictly
for access to and dockage of a kayak. So what's being
proposed is a 5' by 12' float that would not be installed
with pilings or secured with pilings but rather would be
attached to the existing fixed dock with a double-hinged
ramp.
I know the Board has in the past had some concerns
about this type of configuration as it might enable the
owners to dock an excessive number of motorized craft;
however, here the design is such that it would only be able
to safely moor a kayak. I have some various ideas as to how
to assuage any concerns the Board may have of how there
would be compliance with the permit and enforcement, the
burden of which would be left in large part with the
Currans, but the contractor Tom Samuels of Rambo is also
here, and would like to briefly address the Board as well on
the application.
MR. SAMUELS: Very briefly, I'd like to give some historical
perspective to Fisherman's Beach because I've been there so
long and probably only Al goes back -- I don't think you do.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't remember.
MR. SAMUELS: Of course it was originally owned by the
Sterling family, then it was bought by George Braun, who
subdivided the entire Fisherman's Beach into lots on both
sides of the road. In subsequent years -- and a tie line
was granted by the Town Trustees at the time and a quick
claim deed was given to part of the creek on would be the
creek side. Only five houses have been built on that side,
and the only house whose bulkhead is right on the line is
the first one that Al File built after he sold me his beach
house. So that I guess, theoretically this kayak ramp,
Board of Trustees 11 April 21, 2004
float is going to be, Number 1, it's inside the line of the
docks which face the file line. I'm not in a position nor
do I wish to argue the Trustees'jurisdiction here in any
way, shape or form. I think this structure is within
Mr. Curran's property. But I never want to be an adversary
of the Trustees. I support your position. The purpose of
the float is just to be able to take out two kayaks at the
most, you can tell that by the width, out of the water
because, as you know, kayaks can't be bottom painted and so
on and so forth. It's inside the line of an existing dock,
which is inside Mr. Curran's property, and it's very benign
and probably will be in use for I would say at most three
months of the year, whereupon it will be removed and stored,
or, in fact, it can be tied up the bulkhead, in the boat
slip, whichever you might prefer.
The reason that it is different from the Gelblacks'
application, which you denied some time ago is that the
Gelblacks' bulkhead on the creek side is actually on the tie
line, and that dock extends definitely, according to the
maps I have, onto Trustees bottom. Those are the comments I
have. I've been there forever and had a part in all five
houses, piles, foundations and bulkheads and everything
else. That tie line stood up all these years, and I don't
think it's ever been challenged. I see no need to challenge
it. I know of its existence; it's on all the old VanTyle
surveys, and it was accepted by the Trustees at the time
most of this was done by the Board, which was Al Goldsmith
and Phil Horton and the rest that you know.
It's a very small structure. It will in no way
interfere with navigation because it's landward of the outer
edge of the current dock. I don't want to dwell on this any
longer. I think you should consider it favorably. I'll
answer any questions you have. It will be hinged, there's
no pilings, no penetration into the bottom, very light, it
will have a free board of six inches. It's not suitable for
a boat. It has no lateral strength whatsoever other than
the hinges. It wouldn't be suitable to tying up a boat;
there's no need for a boat in this particular location. It
can be placed as close to the existing bulkhead as you like,
but I'd like to stay clear of the alterna flora patch that
grows on the seaward side of the bulkhead.
Welcome back, Artie.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Thank you. You said you were going to be
brief.
MR. SAMUELS: I tried. There are too many years left for me
to come up here. Mr. Hermann is now describing me as that
Board of Trustees 12 April 21, 2004
elderly gentleman who will come down and look at your
property, which I take great offense to. But I really think
this is as benign a project as you can conceive of. It's
really in need of. Getting in and out of kayaks, unless you
can beach them, is extremely difficult, and Mr. Curran's
kids and grandkids and Mr. Curran is still able to get into
just about anything as big as a Cadillac. But thank you
very much for your attention. If you have any questions,
I'd be happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Tom, I always enjoy your presentations,
just very elegant.
MR. SAMUELS: I was thinking about you actually that I
hadn't seen you in quite such time. It's nice to see you
here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I had a conversation with Mr. Hermann when
we got this application and my concerns were extra coverage
of the underwater land, extra coverage of the creek bottom,
the fact that we had denied a similar permit like this in
the area was a big factor also in Mr. Gelblack, and Whites
we denied a couple years ago. I believe that if we approve
this application it will absolutely result in a
proliferation of probably a dozen docks of that whole
stretch from the inlet all the way around the corner,
probably a dozen docks, and I believe that would result in
everyone wanting a kayak float or an additional float. What
we asked Mr. Gelblack is that if he wanted a float instead
of a fixed dock that he had, he could substitute his fixed
dock with a float; then he would have a float and still have
a dock because that's the way I saw it. I don't know how
the rest of the Board --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I agree.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I agree.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: -- Board feels about it.
MR. SAMUELS: First off, there's no more land available on
Fisherman's Beach for a floating dock that I'm aware
of. There are no unpurchased lots, there can be no more
docks there. Now, if you're talking Broad Waters Cove --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. I mean Fisherman's Beach, where it
wraps around by the road bed.
MR. SAMUELS: There are no available lots.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, but each dock would want an
additional float. Each neighbor would say, okay, Mr. Curran
has a float maybe we should get an additional float.
MR. SAMUELS: I don't think that establishes a precedent. I
understand that's your concern. I don't think it's a viable
concern. Number 1, the water depth is becoming increasingly
Board of Trustees 13 April 21, 2004
difficult. It's really a problem and there should be some
dredging done, but I'm not going to get into that. So it's
only real shoulder boats that can get to the area you're
talking about, which is the little horseshoe where Dr.
Keating and Jack Bromo have docks. As you go further up
Broad Waters --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm not going up that far, just in that
stretch that was our concern when we looked at it, that
right away it would lead to the domino effect everyone
wanting an extra float for kayaks, for jet skis, that sort
of small craft.
MR. SAMUELS: If Mr. Curran had a floating dock, he could
put the kayaks on the floating dock. He doesn't have a
floating dock. I'd be loathe to ask him to give up a dock
which predates the DEC. Mr. Hermann would like to respond.
I'll answer any more questions you might have.
MR. HERMANN: Al, after we had that conversation, I gave
that a lot of thought and I spoke to Mr. Curran and I have
an idea that I would want to run past the Board because I
think your concern is not that there would be some
tremendous environmental impact. Your concern appears to be
that there would be a proliferation of this, would each
person comply, how would you enforce it, and if you allow it
for a kayak, then you'd have the guy with the jet ski.
The difference, where you can differentiate the
application, it's for only non-motorized craft, and it would
be only for the storage of a kayak. Mr. Curran could
stipulate, the Board could stipulate that there would have
to be 100 percent compliance with the permit subject to
revocation thereof. And you could leave the enforcement
burden with the Currans by saying this could only begin from
whatever you deem the summer, Memorial Day to Labor Day. By
Memorial Day he has to notice you that the float is going
in, so when the bay constables are doing the rounds, they
can confirm that it went in properly. During the summer,
for example, maybe they'd have to supply photographs showing
what's there, and again, this would induce a bay constable
inspection when they're in the area. And at the end of the
year they would have to notify you they're taking the float
out and provide pictures showing that the float has been
taken out, pictures of the float stored. And if the Currans
failed to do any one of these parts, any one time, no
exceptions, no I was in Florida, no I had a doctor's
appointment, whatever, permit revoked with prejudice.
Period.
I don't think if you issued a permit like that
Board of Trustees 14 April 21, 2004
that was for such a specific purpose, for such a seasonal
non-motorized craft purpose, that you'd really get anybody
else wanting to do that. I mean, Tom would correct me if
I'm wrong, but I think even the Gelblacks was for a piling
secured float to access motorized craft because it was hard
for him to get to the motorized craft from the fixed dock,
which actually is why your suggestion was a viable one. He
didn't decide to go through with it, but remove the fixed
dock, use a float instead. That's not a viable alternative
here for the Currans because they don't have a problem
accessing their motorized craft from the fixed dock. The
fixed dock is sufficient. They're really just trying to
provide access at the water level for non-motorized craft on
a seasonal basis.
Unfortunately, I think six or seven people would
probably just do this and wait to get caught. The Currans
are approaching you and asking for a permit to do it, and I
think they would be agreeable to stipulate these kind of
compliance and enforcement conditions at the risk of losing
the permit if they failed.
I can't really sell the project to you any more
than that. I think it would be fair of you to consider that
if they're willing to agree to that kind of enforcement
burden. Looking at your standards, there's really no
standard for your permit issuance that this would
violate. This really is, as Tom was saying, pretty
benign. He could tie up a boat five times the size of this
float and the Board would have no say so about him doing so.
So certainly this 60 square foot float with a kayak on it
would have less of an impact than a boat that he could dock
there. So I don't think it's a question of impact; it's
question for fear of setting a precedent. So if you could
find a way to differentiate this so that it isn't precedent
setting, I would ask you to consider it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Rob, I have a question.
MR. HERMANN: Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The existing dock as is, there's a
motorized vehicle that's used already, that's what it's used
for.
MR. HERMANN: It's an existing fixed dock where a boat is
moored, yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Why is that not useable for the kayak?
MR. HERMANN: Because you can't get down to it, you can't
really get down to it. In other words, it requires more
than one person to load and unload the kayak. You'd have to
take it down and drop it in the water. This way it would
Board of Trustees 15 April 21, 2004
have a seasonal storage mechanism, because you can get onto
a boat from a fixed dock that's several feet above the water
level but you can't get onto a kayak from that height. I
mean, I believe that's the concern.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Stepping in from four feet up might be a
little difficult.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What's wrong with a ladder or stairs?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You can't get into a kayak from a ladder.
MR. HERMANN: If you wanted to leave the burden of proposing
some sort of enforcement conditions upon us to give to
Honorable Johnston for review and the Board's review I'd be
happy to propose something like that if the Board wanted
another month to consider it.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If I was in Mr. Curran's shoes, I'd buy
a Carolina skiff and put a little sling in, just slide the
kayak right on top of it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We really had that policy of a 6' by 20'
float, and then, if we get away from that, incrementally
adding, no matter what it's called whether it's a kayak
float or whatever, we're really getting away from that 6' by
20' float, then someone's going to want the jet ski float.
Again, it's a seasonal use, of course it's a seasonal use.
MR. HERMANN: Southampton Town Trustees consider a jet ski a
boat. They don't consider a kayak a boat.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's still the structure that's in the
water.
MR. HERMANN: That's why I'm saying you can differentiate
it, if you make it undesirable to anybody but the applicant,
you don't risk proliferation. It can only be used for
kayaks/non-motorized craft. It can only be used two months
a year. It can't be installed with pilings. The permit
will be revoked if you dock anything else against it. If
you create a situation that's so hostile towards
noncompliance, then you're not setting a precedent. It's
not the same as saying, hey, I have a 6' by 20' fixed dock
and I want to add a 6' by 20' float with two eight inch
pilings to it. I mean, it's such a unique application.
MR. SAMUELS: The argument made in the hearings on the new
regulations and everything else and everything that's gone
on before. It's always been said that eventually
site-specific decisions have to be made and will be made,
and that was the whole idea to give the Board some latitude.
I think this one just applies. It interferes with nothing
and no environmental impact whatsoever.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just reiterating what we said
before, that you already denied one, one or two houses
Board of Trustees 16 April 21, 2004
down.
MR. HERMANN: It's a different situation.
MR. SAMUELS: I didn't hear that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I was reiterating what Al said that they
had been denied.
MR. HERMANN: It's not the same project, Peggy.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just reiterating what was stated.
MR. HERMANN: I'm just responding. If you were going to
approve something that was identical to what somebody else
was denied, yeah, I'd say you're crazy, you're setting
yourself up for a lawsuit for the person you denied. But
it's a different project for a different purpose. There's
no pilings. It's a smaller float. It's not for the same
kind of craft.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't see where this isn't going to
result in a proliferation. I would say everyone in the
creek's going to want a kayak float now. Why wouldn't they?
MR. HERMANN: That's just a matter of opinion now. I can't
argue with you. I mean, maybe you're right. And maybe
everybody now will decide to take up kayaking and want an
extra note float for a kayak.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There aren't too many places in the water
that don't have a couple kayaks.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: DEC permit required. Do you have one?
MR. HERMANN: Yes.
MR. JOHNSTON: DEC said okay?
MR. SAMUELS: DEC said okay. Corps of Engineers said okay.
Department of State said okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken, what do you think?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I don't agree. I think additional
structures given beyond what we normally approve and
substantially more to our policy does set a precedent. It
will end up being a float. Everybody will want one.
MR. SAMUELS: That's why we have a Board that makes
decisions and makes specific decisions on a specific
project. It's not a question of everyone wanting one. You
can say no at any time.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We're saying no now.
MR. SAMUELS: Artie, would you comment on this application,
please?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes. You want my personal feelings about
it?
MR. SAMUELS: Yes, please.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I would approve it.
TRUSTEE KING: Where this boat house is, is there any place
you could launch a kayak, or do something over in that area?
Board of Trustees 17 April 21, 2004
MR. SAMUELS: It's a deck and it's high.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think he means a platform or something.
MR. SAMUELS: Adjacent to Mr. Curran's house is Bill
Baxter's, where he moors his yacht tender.
MR. HERMANN: That's the site, Jim.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is that gentleman sitting next to you the
applicant?
MR. SAMUELS: Yes, Mr. Frank Curran, my good friend and
neighbor.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're really trying to accommodate the
applicant at the same time not approve something --
MR. HERMANN: Which I can understand, which is the only
reason I'm suggesting -- I mean, I hate to be a proponent of
stalling as an excuse to make a decision, but maybe there's
a way that this permit could be laid out that it would be
impossible to set a precedent.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you like, we could meet you on the site
next month -- no?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I just --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Phil suggested stairs and a rail or
something to hold onto for stability as opposed to an
actual --
MR. HERMANN: I think part of the problem, Mr. Curran,
correct me if I'm wrong, it's storage, not just access; in
other words, you can just tie the kayak to the pilings, but
then it has to be left in at all times and you can't access
it properly.
MR. JOHNSTON: Do you have a boat on both sides of the dock?
MR. HERMANN: No, just one boat.
MR. JOHNSTON: Put the kayak on one side and the stairs
going down.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In an effort to accommodate.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Jim, I think there's a consideration here
that we have to make as far as the applicant not being 30
years old. If he was 30 years old he could probably just
jump off the dock into the kayak. You have to take into
consideration the age of these people that are asking for
this, and how much agility they have to do this. I mean,
obviously it's going to be a heck of a lot easier to do what
he wants to do with his kayak if he has --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's not the person we're denying.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In the effort to accommodate the
applicant, I would make a suggestion that we table this,
then you could meet us at the beach.
MR. HERMANN: I agree. Again, I would repeat the offer and
I would direct it to Brownell, there are ways that Boards
Board of Trustees 18 April 21, 2004
every day take site-specific cases and site-specific
approvals and denials and tailor them to that site so that
you don't risk setting a precedent so that somebody who has
a sandy beach and all the access in the world comes in and
says hey, you gave this thing to Curran now give it to
me. Legally if you can protect yourself by differentiating
the application, I think you can consider it. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll make that effort.
MR. JOHNSTON: I will be happy to make that effort, Rob.
MR. HERMANN: Thank you.
MR. SAMUELS: We service over 60 docks in Southampton that
have to be removed seasonally, have to be taken off the
property. It's a the law. You have to take moorings out,
and it's done. Let me also assure you that I will not.be
asking for a kayak rack because I might get in it, but I'd
never get out of it, and most of the people in there are in
the same shape. Thank you for your consideration and I'll
see you on Fisherman's Beach in May.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to table the
application.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES.
8. GARDINERS BAY ESTATES HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION, INC.
requests an extension to the five-year maintenance dredging
Permit#5003 for another five years. Located: Spring Pond,
East Marion. SCTM #37-4-18.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't have a problem with it. Does
anybody have a problem with extending Gardiner's Bay? No?
I'll make a motion to extend the permit.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
9. Swim King Pools on behalf of GIACOMO CHICCO
requests a transfer of Permit# 5730 from Glenn Behr to
Giacomo Chicco to install an 18' by 40' rectangle swimming
pool approximately 30' to 40' off the house. Located: 2797
Cedar Beach Road, Southold. SCTM #79-8-15.2.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We've all been to this site, across from
the pond in Cedar Beach, wetlands behind. I looked at it,
it looked fine.
MS. DERMBACH: My name is Mary Dermbach from Swim King
Pools. Just here to answer any questions that you may
have.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Maybe dry well?
MS. DERMBACH: Absolutely, no problem. Our filter doesn't
Board of Trustees 19 April 21, 2004
have any -- it's recirculating itself, but we will certainly
put a dry well in on the other side so it's far away from
that 50 foot nondisturbance buffer.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor. ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Five minute break before we start the
public hearings.
(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING
APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM
THE SUFFOLK TIMES. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ
PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.
PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF.
FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS IF POSSIBLE
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're going to start the public hearings.
I need a motion to go off the regular public
hearings.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have numerous public hearings. There
are some that have been postponed and we will not open them,
and I'll go over them. Number 7, Louise Moyle. Number 14,
Jack DaSilva has been postponed, and just out of curiosity,
is there anyone here for Number 14,
Jack DaSilva? Number 32 Jeffrey Hallock has been
postponed. So we only have 29 tonight.
1. ANNA ACKER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
4' by 4' deck and a 4' by 88' fixed catwalk with a ladder at
the seaward end. Located: 855 Pine Neck Road, Southold.
SCTM #70-5-33
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone that would like to speak
in favor of the application?
MS. ACKER: I am the applicant, so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We took a look at this last week. Did you
stake the seaward end of the dock?
MS. ACKER: They are. .You were there that morning, he was
Board of Trustees 20 April 21, 2004
there that afternoon. I took pictures of it, I don't know
if that helps you at all.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We approved a dock for the previous
owner; is this in any way similar to that approval?
MS. ACKER: It's the same dock that Michael Anarella had put
in for, but I don't think I had a Trustees because it was a
moratorium. I have DEC, I have the Army Corps of Engineers
and I have the State approvals.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm looking for what we were going to
approve per the last -- I think we better table this because
what it says here is slightly different. If you don't mind,
we'll table until next month and meet down there at the
site.
MS. ACKER: What is the discrepancy?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would have issued a permit June 21,
2000 for a 4' by 78' catwalk to start in the upland and
extend out no further past the edge of the marsh with six
low pile pilings to be hand dug throughout the marsh.
MR. JOHNSTON: You actually issued that, Al?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, it was never issued. It was almost
issued.
MS. ACKER: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This was one of those applications that
was not done lightly. So I know we went over this quite a
bit, and I'd rather we meet out at the site and take a look
at the stakes.
MS. ACKER: I'll be contacted?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: May 12th will be the day that we would
come out, so if you could have it staked for May 12th.
MS. ACKER: It's staked.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just make sure it's still staked on the
12th.
MS. ACKER: Now, as far as the parameters by the DEC, they
have a 4' by 88' approval.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I also see something in here about an Army
Corps approval.
MS. ACKER: Right, that's in there as well.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right. We'd rather meet you out
there.
MR. JOHNSTON: Do we have the DEC permit?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. Is there any other comment on this
application? I'll make a motion to table the application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken, you want to take the next one?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: For the record, I abstain from Number 2.
Board of Trustees 21 April 21, 2004
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Peggy, you want to take the next one?
2. ALBERTSON MARINE requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 12,000 square foot steel building for the
purpose of servicing boats and a retail store, improved
parking area, septic system, and to install a concrete pipe
next to Route 25 in the vector ditch. Located: 61205 Main
Road, Southold. SCTM # 56-3-13.4
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here to speak in favor
of this application?
MR. WITSKI: I will. Bill Witski from Albertson Marine.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any comments? I think the Board was
okay with this.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think the only question was if you
worked the drainage out with the Town?
MR. WITSKI: Correct. I think we're still in that phase
unfortunately.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we would be inclined to put a
condition on the permit that you work the drainage out with
the Town.
MR. WITSKI: Right there's going to be no water runoff on
the property, to the existing property or to the wetlands.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That would satisfy us.
MR. WITSKI: Right.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Anybody else here to speak for or
against this application? I'll make a motion to close the
hearing; do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to accept the
application for Albertson Marine to construct a 12,000
square foot steel building for the purpose of servicing
boats and a retail store with the condition that the
drainage system be worked out with the Town. Do I have a
second?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: With who in the Town?
TRUSTEE KING: Be approved by the Town Engineer.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Town Engineer. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: For the record, I recused myself.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
3. ERNEST H. SCHNEIDER, SR. requests a Wetland Permit
to construct a 1,395 square foot single-family dwelling with
second-story balcony, second-story deck, stairway with
platform, and sanitary system. Located: 915 Lakeside Drive
Board of Trustees 22 April 21, 2004
North, Southold. SCTM #90-4-5 & 6.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on this
application?
MR. SCHNEIDER: Ernest Schneider. This application was
approved. I failed to take notice that the application had
run out. And that was my whole purpose for resubmitting
again. I see the Trustees felt the need to go from the
beginning, so here I am.
TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments? Conservation
Advisory Council meeting held the 13th of April resolve to
recommend disapproval of it because of the violation. It
was issued for clearing with nondisturbance buffer, buffer
should be revegetated. What do you want to do with it?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Agree with CAC.
TRUSTEE KING: I do too. They recommend disapproval based
on the fact there's a violation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You want to disapprove or table it instead
of disapproving it?
TRUSTEE KING: Table this. See what's going to happen with
the restoration project here. How they work this out as far
as the restoration goes.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think your procedure is you don't have a
choice.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What can you tell Mr. Schneider?
TRUSTEE KING: We're just going to have to muddle through
the summer, Al. There was a lot of clearing out there.
MR. SCHNEIDER: I only took down a couple trees.
TRUSTEE KING: There was more than a couple trees taken
down, I'm sorry.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Whatever I can do to --
TRUSTEE KING: Go to Justice Court, right?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Brownell, won't that come up when the
violation is addressed, what he can do to clear that up?
MR. JOHNSTON: Right any judge --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Isn't that the next step?
MR. JOHNSTON: Correct. I'm pretty sure that McCarthy
served him; did he serve you; the Bay Constable served you,
right?
MR. SCHNEIDER: He served my son because I wasn't there at
the time.
MR. JOHNSTON: He served somebody?
MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes. He left his phone number for me to
contact him and contact the Trustees that I had been served,
which I did, I spoke with Mr. Krupski this morning. I have
Board of Trustees 23 April 21, 2004
not been able to get a hold of him. I didn't get that until
late last night, and I have not been able to contact him. I
left a message at the precinct. And I'm doing everything I
can to get it done. I've been waiting for this, as I think
most of the Trustees know, for three years now, and the only
reason that this occurred was because it took so long for
the other agencies to give me the approvals, by the time I
got all the approvals, this had run out, and I just, as I
got my permits, I put them in a folder and the next thing I
knew, I sold my house figuring I'm going to build this new
house, I have all the approvals, I got the building permit
and everything. And then I realized that this was only for
two years, so I reapplied right away for a new
permit. Three years this has been going on. I understand
it's not -- the Trustees have been the first ones to come
through with the permit, and unfortunately they're the ones
who have the two-year permit. Everyone else is six years
and five years.
MR. JOHNSTON: But there are two one-year extensions that
are easily given.
MR. SCHNEIDER: But I didn't realize that, sir, I was not
aware of it.
MR. JOHNSTON: You heard earlier today several extensions
were given, so I'm sorry. The issue today, Al, the issue as
I understand it from Jim -- who's handling this one, Jim?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. JOHNSTON: The issue is not the expiration of the permit
and reapplication, that is not what I understand the
Trustees are looking at right at the moment. It's the
clearing and the violation. So it's interesting the other
things that's you've said, but it's not relevant to what
they're thinking about right at the moment. Jim, did you
explain to him that your jurisdiction is 100 feet from the
tidal wetlands and any clearing, dead or alive stuff in that
area needs a permit?
MR. SCHNEIDER: You just explained that to me this evening.
MRS. SCHNEIDER: We want to do what's right.
MR. SCHNEIDER: I want to do what's right but at the same
time I really want to get on with this building.
MR. JOHNSTON: I just wanted to articulate what the Trustees
are thinking about.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The violation has to be addressed first.
That has to be taken care of.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Pardon me?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The violation has to be addressed first.
Then once that is by the Town then you can --
Board of Trustees 24 April 21, 2004
MR. SCHNEIDER: I have a May 14th or 16th appearance, can I
get it on for next month?
TRUSTEE KING: You should be able to.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As far as replanting or revegetating.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm going to see them tomorrow.
MR. JOHNSTON: Jim, did you hear, when was this cutting done
to the best of your knowledge? Did you hear that it was
February?
TRUSTEE KING: I would say early winter.
MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Schneider, you indicated February?
MR. SCHNEIDER: It was February, yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Peggy's going to meet with one of the Town
attorneys later this week?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Friday morning.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And we'll try to resolve this as to what's
going to be required of you to get on the agenda next month.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Should I contact the Trustees office?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second Jim's motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
4. JOHN AND JOAN WEEGAR request a Wetland Permit to
construct a single-family dwelling, garage, porches, patio,
fencing detached shed and landscaped gardens. Located: 50
Tuthill Road in Southold. SCTM #55-3-21
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in
favor of the application?
MR. WEEGAR: Yes. John and Joan Weegar, we are the
applicants.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When did we first go out on this field
inspection; do you recall?
MR. WEEGAR: No, I don't. It was in the winter.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I wonder if Artie has seen this one. Have
you seen this one, Artie?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: No, I have not.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any other comments before the
Board makes comments?
If you look at the plan, I'm trying to find a
directional here, on the west side of the garage we want a
nondisturbance buffer. The garage shows 35 foot to the
property line. The CAC recommended 20 feet. I think that
would probably be adequate. So what I would suggest, and
I'm open to any other Board's comments, is that you draw a
line 20 foot -- have the surveyors draw a line on the
survey -- a 20 foot line on the west side of the property.
Board of Trustees 25 April 21, 2004
And what kind of buffer do you want on the wetlands side, on
the north side? 50's going to be pretty hard, 40 feet?
We're trying to maximize the buffer on the north side of the
property from that wetlands.
MR. WEEGAR: Did you get the latest copy? Because we moved
the house as was requested.
MR. JOHNSTON: What is the date of that survey, sir?
MR. WEEGAR: July 30th.
MR. JOHNSTON: We have that.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: We have that one.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is different?
MR. WEEGAR: Yes, because I moved the house four feet
further away.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we're referencing the survey that's
stamped by the Town March 19th, but it's last revised
December 19th. 20 foot buffer on the west side, and it
would wrap around here to the north side 40 foot buffer here
on the wetlands like that. And that would be
nondisturbance; that's that steep bank coming down. Then
with that permit you could do whatever within the confines
of this, you'd have to put up, during construction, a line
of hay bales along this line.
MR. WEEGAR: I should have the surveyor or I can draw it
in myself?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The surveyor should draw it in. 20 foot
in the back, then 40 foot off this line, so you could even
make it still have to be 20 foot off this, but this goes
down here. It would still have to be 20 foot off this. I
don't know where it would end up, somewhere like that.
MR. WEEGAR: Follow the line of the wetlands.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then 40 foot off this and it should show
gutters and dry wells for the roof runoff. He could just
stamp those. All right, is the Board satisfied with that?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Artie?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's fine.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Sounds fine.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to approve the application
with the 20 foot nondisturbance buffer on the west side of
the property, a 40 foot nondisturbance buffer on the north
side of the property off of the flagged wetlands, and that
during construction staked hay bales be put in place at that
line and dry wells and gutters be put on the survey and in
Board of Trustees 26 April 21, 2004
the plans to contain roof runoff.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MR. WEEGAR: Thank you very much.
5. GERARD GRALTON requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 4' by 52' catwalk and install one 8-inch
diameter piling 20' offshore of the catwalk for use with the
pulley system. Located: 5710 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM
#138-2-34
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because that's my father-in-law, I'm going
to recuse myself on that application.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone that would like to
comment on this application. For or against?
MR. FARAGUNA: I'm not against him per se, I just have a
couple concerns. My name is Paul Faraguna. My family has
the property at 5675 Skunk Lane, which is the property
directly adjacent to Mr. Gralton, and my dock would end up
being two docks north of his proposed dock.
As I started out saying I have no opposition to
him having a dock per se, I'm concerned over the overall
length of it. It seems like it would end up extending
significantly past the line of existing docks on that side
of the creek. So boats approaching my dock and the dock
that would be directly adjacent to him, would be forced to
make much sharper starboard turns and in the summertime the
prevailing wind is south, southwest, coming up that creek,
so you would have the wind directly abeam of you for a much
longer period of time.
Also it seems it would be right on the edge of the
channel, and I'm concerned, that channel's already getting
filled in. It hasn't been dredged in quite some time, so
I'm concerned about silting that would occur by the constant
boat traffic that would occur right there on the edge of the
channel, but other than that, I really have no other
objections. Thank you.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments?
MR. ROCHON: Good evening, my name's Craig Rochon. I'm a
dock owner also adjacent to the property in question
here. And I just want to say I just second Paul's
concerns. He's my neighbor also, and I have the same
concerns as he does concerning this application. Thank you.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you. Anyone else like to comment
on this application? Board?
TRUSTEE KING: We basically had the same concern.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We inspected this in the field and we
Board of Trustees 27 April 21, 2004
agree with your comments. We believe that the pier line
ended, it should be a 4' by 30' catwalk rather than 4' by
52' and the piling 20 foot offshore of that which would keep
everyone in line, the pier line would remain in line, and we
spoke to the owner on-site and he agreed, and I believe
that's what we're going to issue a permit for.
Any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any comments from the CAC?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: CAC recommended to disapprove on behalf
of Gerard Gralton to construct a 4' by 52' catwalk and
install an 8-inch diameter piling 20 foot offshore of the
catwalk for use with the pulley system. Their disapproval
of the application was because the proposed dock
construction includes CCA material. So that's another
comment.
MS. ROCHON: Patricia Rochon. Can I ask a question? What
is the CAC?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Conservation Advisory Council, they're
advisory board to the Trustees.
MS. ROCHON: Did the DEC also need to inspect it?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, they approved.
MS. ROCHON: Did they approve?
MR. ROCHON: But you you're approving it as shortened?
TRUSTEE KING: It might have been at the DEC's request that
it be a longer pier because they want to see more water
depth where there's boating activity. It's a hard point
between the Trustees and the DEC because we try to keep the
docks as short as possible so you don't obstruct traffic and
create problems. It's a difference of opinion,
MR. FARAGUNA: With the pilings only 20 feet beyond the edge
of the catwalk, it seems like it's only a 20 foot boat so
the draft must be fairly shallow.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm sure it is. If the owner was here,
he'd comment on it. Apparently he agreed to it.
If there's no other comments, I make a motion to
close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Public comment?
MS. ROCHON: I was wondering if the DEC would approve it at
30 foot if they were saying that they wanted 50 feet; would
that change their view of environmental impact?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: As the Trustees own the bottom land, I
believe our permit is the primary permit and the applicant
would have to adhere to our permit more so than the DEC.
MS. ROCHON: I see, so you can overrule the DEC?
MR. JOHNSTON: No, need them both.
Board of Trustees 28 April 21, 2004
TRUSTEE KING: You have to go back to DEC and see if they
will modify the permit to be consistent with our permit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is unrelated to this. This has
happened in the past where the DEC has approved applications
for docks that haven't been applied for and then this Board
would approve something much smaller, then the applicant has
to go back to the DEC.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If no other comments, I make a motion to
close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I will make a motion to approve the
Wetland Permit on behalf of Gerard Gralton to construct a 4'
by 30' catwalk and install one 8-inch diameter piling 20'
offshore of the catwalk for use with the pulley system, and
I make a comment it shall begin where it was staked in the
field, the catwalks will begin where it was staked in the
field. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I recused myself.
Artie, would you take the next one?
6. HELEN W. KEITH requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a new residence with pervious driveway. Located:
1060 Willow Terrace Lane in Orient.
MS. KEITH: I'm Helen Keith, hello.
MR. KEITH: And Bob Keith. And this was a project we talked
about at the December work session, 75 foot setback on the
last vacant lot on Willow Terrace Lane, the Douglas farm
next to Billy Hands, and we're asking for the same 75 feet
that the other houses have.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this one, it's fine.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: We had all been out there once before.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're familiar with the area.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I inspected this last week, and I found
it to be in compliance with all our policies. It has a
setback of 100 foot for the septic systems, as well as 75
foot --
MS. KEITH: 75 foot from the bulkhead to the house.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The only comment I can make to improve
the condition is to put a 10 foot non-turf buffer.
MR. KEITH: The slope of the land is going to make that
happen, and we'll agree to do that also.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there any other comment on this
application? Board? If not, I'll make a motion to close
Board of Trustees 29 April 21, 2004
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 to construct a new residence with a pervious
driveway. Located: 1060 Willow Terrace Lane, Orient, with
the condition that there be a 10 foot non-turf buffer behind
the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
8. STEPHEN BURNHAM requests a Wetlands Permit to
construct additions and renovations to the existing
single-family dwelling, re-grade existing lawn and install a
new septic system. Located: Madeline Avenue, Fishers
Island. SCTM #6-7-12
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there anybody here to speak on this
application? No comments. Anybody want to see this survey?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I have a couple of them here. Make sure
they're all the same.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is your comment here, Artie?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well, really none. I thought perhaps the
septic system could be moved, but it's very unlikely because
of the contour of the property, and I really don't see any
impact. It's only 63.5 feet from the flagged wetlands, but
it's considerably higher. It's way up in the air.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why can't they reverse the tank and the
leaching pools; could they do that?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well, I don't think so. I don't think they
have enough room to do it. They're pretty close to the
house as it is. They'd be even closer if they come up the
other way, then you have your water line up there. I looked
at this, this is familiar to me. Was this in last year?
MS. STANDISH: Yes.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Because I looked at this once before. They
made some changes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This one.
MR. JUST: Jim, you were there about two years ago. You had
been there. This is around the corner from Larry Loren's
house in that little duck pond?
TRUSTEE KING: Where is the exiting existing septic?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's not indicated on here, but it's on the
opposite side of the house as the proposed septic system. I
believe it's off the deck. Here, this is existing, this is
just a new addition here (indicating). I don't know why
Board of Trustees 30 April 21, 2004
they didn't propose it over here unless there's no way they
can get a pipe out there. They have got quite a large deck
on here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What the septic? It would be worse on
that side, wouldn't it?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Over here?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well, it would be much closer that way.
Given the strength of the lot, I don't really see where it
could be anywhere else.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Make a motion to approve the application of
Stephen Burnham to construct renovations to existing
single-family dwelling, re-grade existing lawn, and install
a new septic system, Madeline Avenue, Fishers Island.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: So carried.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want to put any --
TRUSTEE FOSTER: We have to have them, don't they? Do you
want to mention it?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think it should be on the survey. They
should have to give us a new survey.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Show the hay bales.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And dry wells. Make a motion to approve
it.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I make a motion to approve the application
subject to a new survey showing staked hay bales and dry
wells for roof runoff.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES.
9. Docko, Inc. on behalf of JOSEPH PENDERGAST requests
a Wetland Permit to construct a pier assembly consisting of
an "S" shaped, pile-supported timber pier consisting of 35',
25' and 10' sections, a 40' by 3.5' ramp and a 24' by 8'
float secured by four (4) guide pilings and install five (5)
mooring pilings. Located: Oriental Avenue, Fishers
Island.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: And we do have some comments. Mr. Neilsen.
MR. NEILSEN: My name is Keith Neilsen, I'm the president of
Docko, Incorporated, in Mystic. We're representing Mr.
Pendergast tonight on this application for a new fixed pier
Board of Trustees 31 April 21, 2004
and float.
The applicant owns property on Oriental Avenue and
the water body in front of his house, the rear of his house
is Inner Bay, off Pirates Cove on Fishers Island, south end
of West Harbor. The drawings that I've prepared on behalf
of this application show the existing site. It's a survey
of the west edge of his property, which shows environmental
features including a spartina patens, tidal fringe marsh and
a spartina alterna flora fringe march, which runs right to
the Parsons' property on the south and a small section of
fringe marsh which runs to Malanowskis' property to the
north. There is a small break in the tidal wetlands which
we have located and which causes the reason for the S-shaped
pier in this case.
Mr. Pendergast is handicapped, so this pier and
float system with the elongated ramp is an effort to
accommodate his disabilities but still leave him with viable
boating facility. Because Inner Bay is a small body of
water, we spent quite a bit of time coordinating this
proposal with the Malanowskis to the north and Mr. J.
Lester Parsons to the south prior to completing a conceptual
design.
We have located the pier and float systems so that
they do not extend beyond the line of development from the
Parson's pier to the south or the Malanowskis' pier to the
north. In addition, Mr. Malanowski runs a shellfish
aquaculture operation at Inner Bay with upwellers and
facilities for holding clams and scallops and oysters of all
stages of development from larval through maturity. So he
specifically requested that this pier and float system not
be installed between January and the end of July.
Mr. Pendergast is agreeable to that stipulation. He also
indicated that he would rather not have any CCA treated
structural components on the project, and so this dock
system is designed with greenheart piles and timbers and a
non-CCA deck, that's not been decided yet as to what the
exact material will be, but it could be either a composite
recycled material or cedar or oak. There are a variety of
alternatives for that.
I would like to provide, I believe that you have
already received a copy of a letter from B.D. Construction
with their offices at the northwest edge of the entrance to
Inner Bay. In addition, we have letters of support from
Mr. John Skee, who is the adjoiner just to the west of J.
Lester Parsons. We have a letters from Mr. Paul Tamberry,
who occupies the land right across Inner Bay. Mr. Chip
Board of Trustees 32 April 21, 2004
DuPont, from Pirates Cove Marina at the entrance, and we
have a reaffirmation of the Malanowskis' concerns when this
dock was originally proposed stating the seasonal
limitations on construction and the materials to be used and
their desire to keep the turbidity to a minimum turbidity,
which could be induced siltation of the water by prop action
of the boat coming in. What we have done is we have located
the pier and float so that the access is to the deepest
water right in front of Mr. Pendergast's property. So the
tendency to stir up the bottom will be minimized in this
location. Mr. Pendergast has plans to acquire a 25 foot or
so Mako center console boat to be used here. So this system
is designed for that.
The reason the float is sized the way it is is
because the length of the ramp and the weight of the ramp
and the bearing of the ramp on the float would tend to upset
the float's stability and angle of inclination; so that's
what the float is designed for. The floatation for the
system will be polystyrene encased in polyethylene cover
black plastic floats, highly durable and in any rate
consistent with all the standards that have been proposed by
the Town.
There are a lot of considerations required by the
new ordinance, and I would like to address for the record
all of those provisions very briefly here.
First all, the site as I mentioned, has an
environmental fringe and marsh, and we have located the pier
facilities to avoid that.
The navigation issues have been resolved with
adjacent neighbors, and we have letters in the file to
document that. Mr. Parsons' original concerns about
impacting his navigation way to his dock were taken care of,
and he wrote us a letter saying that he would not oppose the
application.
We have not exceeded the line of encroachment of
existing piers. We have letters from adjacent property
owners because of the size of the bay we contacted them all
to make sure we were okay.
The littoral development rights allocation within
the bay has been abided by within in this application.
Obviously, as long as we comply with the two adjacent
neighbors and we're not exceeding the one-third of the bay
diameter, we're okay in that regard.
We have also abided by the 15 foot side yard back,
that setback from Malanowskis on the north is 20 feet and is
considerably larger, almost 100 feet from the south. The
Board of Trustees 33 April 21, 2004
considerations for the environment include our passage over
the slot between the wetlands along the shore. There is no
observed submerged aquatic vegetation on the site during our
site visit, so no adverse impact there. There's a minimal
upland disturbance where the pier comes to shore and a small
amount of timber embedment to make a transition on the
ground onto the first deck. The open pile and timber
construction will not include any CCA materials. There will
be a seasonal restriction on construction in accordance with
Malanowskis' request. There's no adverse impact on flow and
circulation, no induced drainage problems by the structure,
there's no erosion potential from it. Any water that falls
on the deck will still seep through the gap in the decking
so we're not obscuring any rainfall runoff onto existing
ground. The structure's designed to accommodate flooding
and fluctuating water levels as required in the ordinance.
And the shape of the shoreline will not be impeded by any
aspect of this structure. There is no public access along
the shore in Inner Bay. I know that your regulation
requires a public access easement, but the terrain does not
lend itself to public access, nor are there any public
access points anywhere on Inner Bay. So I don't believe
that a restriction for public access along the shore would
really be appropriate. If it is required by your
regulations, I don't believe Mr. Pendergast is going to have
any objection to that; nor does he have any objection to any
of the stipulations in Paragraph 97-25 F, G, H, I and J. So
he would be willing to accept the permit with those
conditions in there.
The structure is designed to be standards of the
industry. We use greenheart piles and timber, no CCA on the
decking, I mentioned the floats and the float size. The
aluminum ramp will create a useable slope for Mr. Pendergast
even at low tide, and one of the stipulations in your
ordinance requires railing only on one side, I would like to
ask for a waiver of that because of his use of a wheelchair
or some kind of walking assistance, a rail is really
necessary for him on both sides. And we've got rails shown
on both sides of the pier and all the way down the ramp; we
have a rail on the end of the float in case he loses his
grip or something like that, he won't go off the float. We
have obtained permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, a
statement of compliance with the Department of State
standards, and we have obtained an original permit from the
DEC and an amendment to show requirements of the Department
of State and the Corps of Engineers, and so we have two of
Board of Trustees 34 April 21, 2004
those.
I believe I've covered all of the requirements of
your ordinance, and if there are any adverse comments, I
would respectfully ask the opportunity to respond.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I was just curious because the first "
survey I was looking at was just straight forward, what was
the purpose for--
MR. NEILSEN: Right. Originally we had a straight pier.
The Corps of Engineers requested that we deviate to go over
the gap between the spartina marsh at the north end of the
property. Originally, the pier went straight to the hill
and the Corps of Engineers requested that alignment. I have
to abide by all the permits, so we modified that alignment,
then went to the DEC and got the modification through the
DEC.
TRUSTEE KING: DEC approved the straight out approach?
MR. NEILSEN: They originally approved the straight out
approach, yes, then they amended their approval to cover the
S-shape that I have now.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You mentioned the railing you have at
four feet?
TRUSTEE KING: I should think it would be easier for a
handicapped person to go straight out rather than make two
turns.
MR. NEILSEN: I won't argue with that but please don't get
us in that Catch 22.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Seems like a waste of space to have a
design like that.
MR. NEILSEN: We argued it. We didn't win the argument.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's to get away from the guy next door.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is that "S" portion over the intertidal?
MR. NEILSEN: No. I've colored the spartina alterna flora
light green, the spartina patens darker green, some spartina
alterna flora over here. We're clear of all the spartina
where this pier crosses the wetland.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm not so much concerned about the
upland; I'm concerned about the intertidal area, which would
be what we primarily protect because that's where there's
shellfish. It appears you're covering a lot of that, which
we like to see a straight --
MR. NEILSEN: You mean this section here (indicating)?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes. It's sitting right over the
intertidal.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was their objection, the intertidal
marsh?
MR. NEILSEN: Yes. The actual, the area where we have this
Board of Trustees 35 April 21, 2004
pier from the point of origin, the first straight section of
the pier is over a deposit of rocks. I can't tell you
anything about the history of that, it was pre-existing long
before we started any application process. It was
pre-existing before Mr. Pendergast owned the property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The Army Corps of Engineers made an
on-site determination?
MR. NEILSEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that unusual?
MR. NEILSEN: No. We asked them to come out. They came to
Mystic, and we brought them over there by boat and went
right to the site.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But is that usual for you to bring the
Army Corps out for every application?
MR. NEILSEN: Yes. We ask for the Army Corps to come out
for every application. They usually do not come.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's our understanding, they usually do
not come, because if they hadn't come here, you would have
gotten a straight dock that everyone else, including the
applicant, would have wanted.
MR. NEILSEN: We're trying to be thorough in our
preparation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Go ahead, Artie.
MR. NEILSEN: I'd be happy to answer any questions.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I have a letter here. I have a letter from
Steve Malanowski, Ph.D., Fishers Island Oyster Farm,
P.O. Box 402, Fishers Island, New York, I'm going to read
into the record:
"Thank you for the opportunity to again review
the application of Mr. Joseph Pendergast to
construct a dock adjacent to our property on West
Harbor, Fishers Island, New York.
"We have no objections to the proposed dock
but because we swim in the cove, fish in the cove
and base our livelihood in the cove, we would like
to repeat our concerns.
"Our aquaculture business has been our sole
source of income for the last 20 years. We operate
both the shellfish hatchery and extensive nursery
systems. Our hatchery cultivates microscopic
larvae, the most sensitive stage of the life
history and operates from January through July.
"The hatchery draws approximately 1,000
gallons of cove water per day during operations.
This water is filtered with a one micron bag
filter. On our dock we have land-based upwellers
Board of Trustees 36 April 21, 2004
which are flow-through nursery systems utilizing
about 100 gallons of cove water per minute and the
water attached to our dock are four large flupsy
nursery systems that flow approximately 3,000
gallons per minute. Our livelihood, therefore, is
intimately dependent upon the maintenance of
excellent water quality in the cove. The cove is
very small and activities on any of the docks or
any of the properties, lawn and tree treatments,
for example, in the cove affect the water quality
of the entire cove. Our concerns reflect this
issue of the water quality.
"The construction of the dock will cause a
significant amount of turbidity in the small cove,
which could be a significant problem for our
hatchery operations. We have larvae in the
hatchery from the beginning of February to the
end of July. Impacts to our hatchery associated
with dock construction would be significantly
reduced if construction occurred outside this time
frame. Floating saw dust from CCA treated lumber
that ends up along the tide line in the cove could
cause a long term chronic problem. Shellfish
larvae are extremely sensitive to copper.
"When we built our dock, we cut and trimmed
lumber at a cutting station and removed all
sawdust from this site. Mr. Neilsen of Docko,
Inc. states that there are alternative
environmentally sound materials which would be
best of all.
"Cleaners and solvents routinely used
in pleasure boats are extremely toxic to young
shellfish and the food they eat. In fact, they
are harmful to all marine life. The bottom
sediments of most of this small cove are fine
silts that are mayonnaise-like in consistency.
The cove is shallow and is necessary for us to
tilt our outboard to get from our dock to the
channel at low tide, as it will be for
Mr. Pendergast. Propellers can stir up the bottom
and create turbidity throughout the entire cove.
This impact can be minimized by tilting engines
and using minimum power in the cove. Without
dredging, this cove is unsuitable for a large
inboard vessel.
"Carefully maintaining high standards of water
Board of Trustees 37 April 21, 2004
quality in the cove benefits everyone who shares
it. I don't believe my concerns result in
restrictive suggestions associated with this
project.
If I can be of any help, please don't hesitate
to contact me. Sincerely, Steve Malanowski."
MR. NEILSEN: It was because of that letter that we first
received about a year and-a-half ago that we spoke with
Mr. Pendergast and advised him we should use greenheart
piles and timbers and special decking. And Mr. Pendergast
was not averse to that.
We also talked with Mr. Malanowski directly to
advise him why we were going for that deepest water so there
would be minimal disturbance. Mr. Pendergast understands
that his boat will be docked bow-in, rather than bow-out,
which is a typical configuration. That way the motor is
over the deepest part of the water. He understands that
he'll have to have the motor tilted in order to operate
because the water gets a little shallower before it gets
deeper on the exit channel, so I believe we've taken care of
everything.
Mr. Pendergast is agreeable to building it after
August 1 st. We've worked very hard to make sure that we
maintained harmony in this small bay through the
construction of this pier and float. And I think we've got
evidence that we have satisfied everybody.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any other comments?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that construction date something that
we should put in our permit; is that something that's in the
DEC permit?
MR. NEILSEN: It's not the other permits, but Mr. Pendergast
won't object to it being in there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Artie, you want to add that to your
resolution?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You want me to read all these letters?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, just add the construction date to the
resolution as a condition.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is the date stated in this letter?
MR. NEILSEN: The construction needs to be --
TRUSTEE FOSTER: After July?
MR. NEILSEN: -- after July. From August and not to exceed
the end of January.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Can I get a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: Make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES.
Board of Trustees 38 April 21, 2004
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to approve the request
for Joseph Pendergast -- is that as written?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I believe so.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: With the condition that the construction
not begin until August and be completed by December 31 st of
that same year.
MR. NEILSEN: January 31st of the following year.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Okay, that will work, second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES
MR. NEILSEN: Thank you all very much.
10. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of
KATHERINE R. STURGIS requests a Wetland Permit to construct
a 4' by 50' ramped fixed dock leading from the edge of the
existing lawn to a 4' by 100' elevated fixed dock, 4' by 15'
ramp, 8' by 15' float and an 8' by 20' float in an "L"
configuration. Located: Private Road -- no number--
Fishers Island, New York. SCTM #2-1-2
MR. JUST: Good evening, Glen Just with J.M.O. Consulting,
once again for the applicant.
This is a project that went back to just before the
moratorium. I think you checked the records, Mr. King had
inspected the site on May 17th of last year with
representatives of the DEC, and I'm trying to think, maybe
one bay constable was there at the time. It was originally
for a 4' by 120' fixed dock, and at the time of the
inspection, the depths were redone, and it was asked that
the dock be reduced to 100 feet in length, which we have
done.
Do you have the correct plans because I did bring
additional ones that show the 4' by 100' instead of the 4'
by 120'?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. We have the old ones.
MR. JUST: We noticed that yesterday when we were on-site,
that's why I brought additional copies with me.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Same date on this but --
MR. JUST: These are the different ones here. I didn't
bring the Army Corps here. Initially too, we had asked for
a set of steps on the beach itself, and at the time of the
inspection last May we met with the Sturgises, and they
asked for that ramp at the landward end in lieu of the steps
at the rocky beach there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about this ramp, Glenn, I don't see
it on the plan?
MR. JUST: Beg your pardon?
Board of Trustees 39 April 21, 2004
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't see the ramp on the plans.
MR. JUST: It's at the very end. It's all completely on the
uplands. There's no vegetated on the tidal wetlands,
intertidal marsh or high marsh on the property. It's a Long
Island Sound beach.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because I was looking at the cross-section
and it starts at eight feet, and I was wondering how is
there beach access issue here; should we have steps coming
off to the beach on either side?
MR. JUST: We could incorporate them into the plan. I don't
think that's an issue on Fishers to be honest, such large
properties. Again, we could incorporate that.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: They show that as beach but it's all
rocks.
MR. JUST: It's boulders.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's indicated beach but it really wasn't a
beach. I couldn't imagine anybody walking along there.
MR. JUST: It would be pretty difficult.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I suppose at that kind of elevation you
can walk under it at eight feet. No, you can't because high
water goes up to it.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: What's the tide rise and fall over there?
TRUSTEE KING: Not much. Two and-a-half feet, three
feet.
MR. JUST: Probably same as Mattituck.
TRUSTEE KING: Less than three feet, Mattituck's about five
and-a-half on the average.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Three and-a-half now.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: What's the Board's position on the eight
foot wide floats; is that an issue?
TRUSTEE KING: We've consistently allowed a wide float in
this area, Fishers Island Sound, because of the openness of
the water.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: More stability?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, we've made this exception particularly
for Fishers Island historically.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's definitely open water.
MR. JUST: That was the whole reason.
TRUSTEE KING: It was an issue during the hearings too.
Everyone from Fishers Island --well, they actually wanted
their own plan.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't have a problem with it as long as
everybody else doesn't. I understand the issue.
TRUSTEE KING: Seems to be a necessary evil over there.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: The only concern here from the previous
inspection basically was to shorten the dock a little bit
Board of Trustees 40 April 21, 2004
and they took 20 feet off it, so any other concerns?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm still unclear as to where the ramp
ends and the dock starts and should we have beach access or
not?
MR. JUST: It's a manicured lawn that drops down from
elevations in the teens, to sharp, big, gravely rocks the
size of bowling balls, the smallest one, down to mean high
water, and they just want to span that area from the lawn
where it drops off across the rocks down to the landward end
of the dock.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You want to do stairs or not?
TRUSTEE KING: I can't imagine anyone walking the beach
there.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: No, it's huge rocks.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it's an issue at all.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then let's move on.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: 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 Katherine Sturgises as written with the dock
shown 20' shorter than its original request to 100 feet.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE FOSTER: So carried.
11. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of MARC
RUBENSTEIN requests a Wetland Permit to construct an
addition, deck and terrace onto an existing single-family
dwelling and to construct an addition and porch onto an
existing cottage. Located: Madeline Avenue, Fishers
Island. SCTM #6-7-7.
MR. JUST: Once again, Glenn Just on behalf of the
applicant.
Just a little history on this one. I believe it
was back in August, when Mr. King and myself and Chuck
Hamilton from the DEC went out to this site and that was the
day, I think the first six job sites we stopped on it was a
violation. By the time we got to this site I wanted to go
back in the car and go home. But we were there and we
inspected the site. It consists of a small existing one
and-a-half story single family dwelling and two studios that
are offset probably 50 feet away. And what originally they
wanted to do was to put a small porch and addition
connecting the two studios, and then to put a proposed
addition and a terrace off the existing dwelling. That's
the plans you have now, but in the last week or two we've
Board of Trustees 41 April 21, 2004
re-met with the DEC and the project has been changed quite a
bit. Unfortunately, I don't have the plans with me but I
thought I'd take the time, a minute or two to discuss
them.
The applicant has agreed -- this is the original
post-terrace, this is the house here. He's agreed not to
extend beyond the line of the existing dwelling.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is this the house?
MR. JUST: That's it. There's an existing leaching pool for
the septic system about 50 feet away from the fresh water
wetlands line. The applicant has agreed to abandon that
cesspool, an existing cesspool, an existing septic tank and
relocate them to a point of 95 feet landward of fresh water
wetland boundary again. So we'll make the proposed terrace
and to agree that there's not going to be any heat, these
are shacks, I mean, that's what they come down to. They're
unheated, there's summer electricity, there is a bathroom in
the one studio that's connected to this one system, they
have agreed to not upgrade the building where they would be
putting in heat or insulating the building. I guess people
stay in over the summer and again relocating the septic
system up here. Chandler Palmer came in to get the new
plans in time. I just wanted to take the chance to discuss
and we can come back next month. We could wait. It's up to
you folks you if you want to look at the plans.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Everyone else seems to be familiar with the
site. I'd have no problem to approving it subject to
getting everything, then if there's some problem we won't
stamp the plans, we'll come back again.
MR. JUST: That's fine with me.
TRUSTEE KING: Was there a violation before, mowing or
something, Glenn?
MR. JUST: No. They had originally mowed right down to that
freshwater wetlands historically. These people are new
owners maybe seven or eight years.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I was curious.
MR. JUST: If the Board wants to incorporate a
nondisturbance buffer, again, I don't know if we could get
50 feet. I don't think there's enough room there, but we
could work something out on the plans.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: There's no place to put that.
MR. JUST: It's so tight, the house is right there.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't think you could, it slopes right
off.
MR. JUST: You could probably get 10 or 15 feet at the most
there.
Board of Trustees 42 April 21, 2004
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't think you could do anything with it
anyway.
MR. JUST: No, just don't mow is what I'm saying, that one
stretch.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You'd never know it was wetlands when they
mowed it, it was dry. It just looked like weeds. It's wet
right now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Someone want to make a motion or do you
want to table it?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think we can approve it subject to a new
plan. Don't you? I'll make a motion to close the hearing,
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Make a motion to approve the application of
Mark Rubenstein as requested, subject to the issuance of a
new plan showing the present changes.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: So moved.
12. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting Services on behalf
of W.L. LYONS BROWN III requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a sunroom (14' by 14'), a screened porch (13' by
14') and an open deck (10' by 16') onto an existing
single-family dwelling. Located: Hedge Street, Fishers
Island. SCTM #10-7-12
MR. JUST: Once again, Glenn Just on behalf of the
applicants.. I think this is pretty straightforward
application. The property is bulkheaded and a concrete
seawall, no vegetative wetlands on site. I think Mr. Foster
was the only Trustee that was on the site. This is one that
came in after your last trip. This is right next to Tom
Dougherty's house on the back part of the harbor there.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Wasn't this next to the house that burned?
MR. JUST: No, that was Mr. Sturgis', the dock that we did
previously. This is the one on the inner harbor that had
the big concrete seawall. We walked around the left side of
the house, big privet ledges when we went in. Wood pile on
the left-hand side when you walked in.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Okay. You're not on here for the one with
the swimming pool high up on the bluff?
MR. JUST: No, I'm going to submit next --
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You're not going to submit that?
MR. JUST: I will next month.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any comments? No, okay.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't see any huge impact on this.
Board of Trustees 43 April 21, 2004
TRUSTEE FOSTER: No, it's cut and dried actually.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Move on.
MR. JUST: It's been reduced in size at the request of the
ZBA just recently as well.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's been reflected here?
MR. JUST: Yes.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any further comments? Okay, there being
no further 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 request
for W.L. Lyons Brown, III for a Wetland Permit, to construct
sunroom 14' by 14', screened room 13' by 14', open deck 10'
by 16', onto existing family dwelling on Hedge Street
Fishers Island. Second?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: So carried.
13. Twomey, Latham, Shea and Kelley on behalf of JOHN
F. BETSCH requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion
Permit to construct a two-story single-family dwelling with
a two-car garage in place of the existing one-story, two-car
garage and dwelling, and to be built on wood pilings.
Located: 2325 North Sea Drive, Southold. SCTM #54-4-24
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in
favor of the application?
MR. FINNIGAN: Good evening, my name is Martin Finnigan,
Mr. Krupski, Members of the Board, I'm here on behalf of
John Betsch, who is seeking a Coastal Erosion Management
Permit pursuant to Sections 37-11 and 12 of Southold Town
Code to reconstruct a single-family dwelling on his
property, as you know, located at 2325 North Sea Drive.
The existing structure is a single-family home with ground
coverage of approximately 1,782 square feet. The property
lies along the Long Island Sound and is flanked to the east
by a beach parking lot and to the west by a home.
At the outset, I'd note that the proposed
construction is to take place in excess of 100 feet from any
freshwater wetland and as such a wetlands permit is not
required. I think as the Board is aware, at the last
hearing a letter of non-jurisdiction was submitted for the
record here dated March 4, 2004 -- actually, it wasn't at
the last hearing. I think we submitted that in writing to
the Board. I'd also just like to note that the proposed
Board of Trustees 44 April 21, 2004
construction is entirely compliant with the dimensional
provisions in the Southold Town Zoning Code, it also meets
all FEMA requirements.
Basically we're here because the applicants would
like to build, reconstruct what is now a fairly basic home
into a home that is, quite frankly, more in keeping with all
the other homes that neighbor their property. The proposed
construction is nothing extraordinary. There's yet another
three bedroom, two bathroom home with a garage and a deck.
The square footage will increase to approximately 2,900
square feet. The proposed construction is entirely keeping
with the character of the homes that are currently either
built or being built along North Sea Drive, and I have
photographs which I can share with the Board. I believe
some of them have already been presented to you in the
record, but I would show them to you as we proceed
here.
Basically we're here because of the existence of a
coastal erosion hazard line on North Sea Drive. I think the
Board is aware that the line actually goes right down in
sort of a diagonal fashion, but it goes right along the
road. The Betches' property being right here to the east
right next to the beach parking lot.
At the last hearing, there was a discussion, and I
think Mr. Krupski actually read into the record a letter
from a Robert McDonough from the DEC which purported to
respond to Mr. Krupski's inquiry about why this line was
where it was, and what is exactly the natural protective
feature which the line was drawn to protect. You may recall
that Mr. McDonough's response was somewhat inconclusive and
he wasn't really able to identify exactly why the line is
where it currently is placed, but seemed to indicate that if
there was eventually an appeal some day of your decision,
that maybe they could come out and look at it and try to
figure out why it is where it is. I bring this up just to
suggest that it doesn't seem equitable that the Betches
should be required to litigate the location of this line
when there doesn't seem to be any reason why it is where it
is. It's obviously a couple hundred feet from the water and
by aerial view there's no conclusive explanation as to its
location.
I'd also like to address some of the comments that
Mr. McDonough made in his letter with regard to your
discretion here tonight and your jurisdiction to consider
this application. Mr. McDonough suggests that there's an
absolute prohibition to your issuance of a permit because
Board of Trustees 45 April 21, 2004
the proposed construction is greater than 25 percent of the
existing structure, and I submit to you that there is no
such mandate in the Town Code in Chapter 37, which mandates
that this Board must deny an application for a permit to
construct a home that is greater than 25 percent of the
existing structure. Section 37-11 empowers the Board to
issue permits for regulated activity, which includes the
construction of a major addition, a major addition is
defined as the construction or reconstruction that results
in a 25 percent or greater increase in ground coverage. So
I submit to you that there is jurisdiction, you do have the
authority to administer this code, and if we can meet the
criteria of Section 37-12, 1 think that you have the ability
to issue a permit, notwithstanding what Mr. McDonough has
stated in his letter. Particularly in light of the fact
that there's been no natural protective feature identified
by Mr. McDonough.
I would like to briefly address those 37-12
criteria for you and establish to you why I believe that the
issuance of a Coastal Erosion Permit is warranted here. I'm
sure you're familiar with them, but obviously the first
criteria is that the proposed construction is reasonable and
necessary. Obviously, reasonableness, I would suggest to
you is defined by the surrounding area and what are we
comparing this to, what are we trying to do. We have a
parking lot on one side; the other side of this property is
the house that in 1997 a permit was issued by this Board to
reconstruct a house that increased ground coverage we
approximate by approximately 55 to 57 percent.
The Betches are not looking to construct a
monstrous house here. They're looking to construct a house
that is entirely in keeping with the character of numerous
homes along the road, and if I could I'd like to hand up
some photographs of some of the other homes that are along
the road, some being constructed some are already
constructed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry, could you clarify what you
just said earlier, the Board approved an application on this
site for this house?
MR. FINNIGAN: No, the next door neighbor, the Pearlstein
property which is directly next door.
The home itself, the proposed construction is, as I
said, compliant with FEMA requirements and therefore, it
will be constructed on pilings, and as I again stated
earlier, it is in compliance with all other dimensional
requirements in the Town Code. So in essence, were you to
Board of Trustees 46 April 21, 2004
issue a permit, the Betches could go tomorrow and get a
building permit for this property. There's no other
impediment other than the placement of this line along North
Sea Drive.
So I would suggest to you that if we look at all
those factors together that the proposed construction is, in
fact, reasonable and completely in character with what's
going on in the neighborhood there, and, in fact, it is an
aesthetically pleasing design that will be not unlike the
other homes that you're looking at in those photographs. I
do have some schematic drawings if the Board is interested
in reviewing them.
The next criteria is whether or not the regulated
activity is likely to cause a measurable increase in erosion
at the proposed sites. There's absolutely no indication
that the construction of this home, which is essentially in
the exact area where the existing home is, which is well
over 100 feet from the wetland line, could in any way
contribute to additional erosion. We've been unable to
determine how that could occur. Furthermore, the third
factor being, will it minimize effects on natural protective
features. Again, not knowing exactly what the protective
feature is here, I can certainly assure you there will be no
impact on a bluff, a dune, whatever it may be. It is
construction confined to an area where there is existing
construction. The house is going to be raised, actually,
put on pilings and will, in fact, decrease the intrusion to
the ground cover that currently exists.
Essentially, I'd suggest to you that reviewing the
criteria of 37-12 and reviewing what is proposed here, I
believe that the Betches' application meets that criteria.
I believe that you are empowered by the code to issue this
permit based on those criteria. Particularly, when you look
at the big picture here and consider that there's no
legitimate reason for why the line is here. To litigate
that, to have it reevaluated or moved is a monumental
undertaking and the next door neighbors were able to
construct their house, several other homes along here, even
though the line goes diagonally, and they may be in a
different standing that the Betches are with regard to this
line, this construction has gone forward, so I believe it's
in conformity with what's going on and we would respectfully
request that you issue the permit pursuant to Section
37-12.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Before the Board comments, are
there any other comments on this? Does the Board any have
Board of Trustees 47 April 21, 2004
any comments?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have a comment. You had mentioned
that the proposed building does not take over anymore of the
site, you're saying it's pretty much within the footprint?
MR. FINNIGAN: It will increase the footprint, that's why
I'm saying it's a major addition. It is greater than 25
percent. The approximate increase is approximately 50,
probably about 55 to 57 percent.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: More.
MR. FINNIGAN: More. It's an increase in square footage
from the existing ground coverage of a little over 1,000
square feet, 1,100 feet.
MR. JOHNSTON: Al, are the other houses on the seaward side
of the coastal erosion line that you approved?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Lot of them are.
MR. JOHNSTON: The one he makes reference to?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could we see that aerial map that has the
coastal erosion on it?
MR. FINNIGAN: This one is the one I referred to in '97.
There was some different circumstances with these
applications because of, obviously, the placement of the
line and what structures.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is Pearlstein, the one that's right
next door that's also seaward?
MR. FINNIGAN: Seaward of the line, yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that what's at issue here and the
letter we got from Robert McDonough that's been referenced,
who is the environmental program specialist of the Coastal
Erosion Management Unit, and this comes out of the code, a
variance could be issued for reconstruction provided that
the following criteria are met. And we have to decide is it
reasonable and prudent, or is there an alternative site.
MR. FINNIGAN: Can I comment on that? That's the criteria
for a variance.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Correct.
MR. FINNIGAN: We're seeking a permit. That criteria is
the criteria that you would have to establish to the Town
Board if we did not get --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But the Town Board --
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Don't you need a variance for relief from
the coastal erosion line?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The Town Board is the Appeals Board.
MR. FINNIGAN: For the variance.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not for the variance, they're Appeals
Board.
MR. FINNIGAN: From the denial of the permit. If you deny
Board of Trustees 48 April 21, 2004
a permit based on the criteria, I would have to appeal to
the Town Board, and that's the variance criteria I would
have to establish for the Town Board.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: What would be the reason that we would want
to deny it, just the coastal erosion line?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because of the coastal erosion as stated
in the letter or we could find it in the code says the
reconstruction or an increase of 25 percent or greater in
ground coverage is prohibited and would require a
variance. So it's up to us to say is the issuance of a
permit, one, is it reasonable and necessary.
MR. JOHNSTON: Both, reasonable and necessary.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So that's how we have to look at this, and
I'm inclined to have it staked and look at it again, instead
of just trying to either make a determination tonight or
kick it into the Town Board. What's the square footage of
the house next door?
MR. FINNIGAN: The exact square footage, are you struggling
with the issue of necessary? Necessary, obviously, is a
relative term. This is what they've decided, they're moving
out here to live permanent. It's a summer home now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think we want to lawyer it up.
I'd rather see it staked in the field and we can take a look
at it in our May inspection.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Wasn't it staked out?
MR. FINNIGAN: Do you have a copy of the survey?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. We want it staked in the field so we
can see it staked in the field, May 12th. We'll be happy to
meet either you or the applicant or both on-site and you
could also give us the square footage of the Pearlstein
house.
MR. FINNIGAN: I don't have that with me this evening, but
we'll try to determine that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there's no other comments, I make a
motion to table the application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MR. FINNIGAN: Thank you very much.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. 14 has been postponed. Ken, I
think this is one of yours, 15?
15. John Bertani Builder, Inc. on behalf of W. BRUCE
BOLLMAN requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing
dwelling and construct new two-story dwelling on the same
footprint, and construct a first floor and second-story
Board of Trustees 49 April 21, 2004
addition to the new dwelling. Located: 1755 Truman's Path,
East Marion. SCTM #31-13-03
MR. BOLLMAN: My name is Bruce Bollman. I'm here for any
questions.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The only question I had was about all
the structure from the beach landward?
MR. BOLLMAN: I'm sorry?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All the structure, the bulkheading and
the clearing, was that existing?
MR. BOLLMAN: That's been there for years. My father built
the house in '45. So we have had it for a long time.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Okay. One other comment I have is you
need to put the drywells on the survey.
MR. BOLLMAN: Okay, I'll make sure he puts them on.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments, Board? Fairly
straightforward. 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 on behalf of Bruce Bollman with the stipulation that
there be dry wells placed on the survey.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
16. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of DIANA J. FISCHER
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story,
one-family dwelling with attached porches and carport;
install a sanitary system, drywells, pervious driveway, and
public water service; and establish a 75' wide
non-disturbance/non-fertilization buffer adjacent to the
freshwater wetland boundary. Located: 385 North Lane, East
Marion. SCTM #31-7-10.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment
on this application?
MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant, Diana Fischer.
I hope the Board would attribute a little bit of
ceremony to this application. It was the first officially
booted application last January when a moratorium was passed
about an hour before you intended to review the application.
Miss Fischer owns a property along Marion Lake that is
almost two and-a-half acres in size, and has proposed a
development of that lot that would consume little more than
two percent of that area, less than 2,600 square feet. It's
a proposed two-story cottage essentially with a couple
Board of Trustees 50 April 21, 2004
screened porches to overlook the lake, with a pervious
driveway and carport and there are no accessory structures
proposed. There's a 75 foot nonfertilization/nondisturbance
buffer that was imposed by the New York State DEC and
covenanted. It doesn't get much better than this for the
Board I don't think, and we would ask respectively for your
approval.
'TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you. Is there any other comments?
I've looked at this, have you?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We've all looked at it. Move it along.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 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 Wetland
Permit on behalf of Diana Fischer.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any conditions?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Hay bales during construction.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Dry wells?
MR. HERMANN: They're all on there.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MR. HERMANN: Thank you.
17. En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of EMILIA AND ILYA
KABAKOV requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace
(in-kind and in-place) approximately 163 linear feet of
existing timber bulkhead and backfill with approximately 25
cubic yards of clean fill to be trucked in from an upland
source. For purposes of bulkhead reconstruction, remove and
replace 11' by 26' deck and 4' by 7' steps. Remove and
replace (in-kind and in-place) existing 45', 61' and 60'
timber groins with low-profile, vinyl groins.
Located: 1700 Park Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM #123-8-5
MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicants. If the Board has any questions, I can answer
them, otherwise it's a fairly typical application for this
area, it's part of a stabilized shore front with bulkheading
and groins, and we're looking to replace the groins with low
profile vinyl groins trying to be consistent with what the
Board's policy typically is with groin replacement and the
bulkhead is also to be replaced that's it.
TRUSTEE KING: I was out there, Rob, at low tide looking at
it. I'd like to shorten the groins up. The seaward ends
Board of Trustees 51 April 21, 2004
are not really functioning at all. I measured it out, and
the westerly groin 40', the center groin make 50 and the one
to the east make 50. It's a nice stable beach, I don't see
any need for those --
MR. HERMANN: Could you repeat the numbers?
TRUSTEE KING: 40 to the west, 50 in the middle and 50 on
the east end, that's what I measured out to where there were
actually conforming.
MR. HERMANN: You didn't get a chance to look at this with
anyone from DEC, did you?
TRUSTEE KING: Not yet.
MR. HERMANN: I don't think that's a problem. I mean, I
have on the plan the low water lines marked out and that
would be fairly consistent with the measurements I took. I
would say that we could agree to it, but just leave open the
possibility if there's some variation with DEC's
determination, if maybe I have to come back to see you, but
for the interest of efficiency, I mean, I don't largely
disagree with you.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay. And I'd like to see the remnants out
there removed where the new one's built. And the bulkheads
are they going to be vinyl?
MR. HERMANN: Actually, I don't think this is proposed to
be. It's not in the water, Jim, it's actually up -- it
should say right here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What would be the reservation?
MR. HERMANN: Yeah, it is proposed just to be replaced with
CCA timber. That's just what the specifications that the
contractor discussed with the owner. I know that normally
if it's regularly inundated with high tide, the Board likes
to see it switched to vinyl.
TRUSTEE KING: I was curious because they're doing the vinyl
groins, they're going to be working with vinyl here. I
don't know. I don't think it's going to have a real big
impact. Is that going to be all one height, the bulkhead
now? There's a variance in the height drops down, picks up,
drops down.
MR. HERMANN: On Sheet 1, Jim, I have the Number 6, height
of all new bulkheading above beach grade not to exceed
existing five and-a-half feet, which is the maximum that's
there now. I mean, he may come a little lower than that,
but he won't come any higher than what's there now.
TRUSTEE KING: Other than that it's pretty straightforward.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion.
TRUSTEE KING: Make a motion to close the hearing, any
other comments? If not, I'll make a motion to close the
Board of Trustees 52 April 21, 2004
hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: Now I'll make a motion to approve with
change in length of the groins.
MS. STANDISH: What are those new lengths?
TRUSTEE KING: Westerly groin is 40 feet, center groin 50
feet and groin to the east is 50. Can we get a new set of
plans showing that, Rob?
MR. HERMANN: Yes, I would, definitely. I have to.
TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES
18. David Corwin on behalf of JAMES E. GIBBONS
requests a Wetland Permit to extend the existing dock 8'
seaward by installing a new 6' by 8' section and relocating
the existing float and ramp 8' seaward. Located: 505
Lighthouse Lane in Southold. SCTM #70-6-29.1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone like to speak in favor of the
application?
MR. CORWIN: David Corwin, I don't have any comments, but if
you have any questions, I'll try to answer them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments on this application?
Normally I'd be against any additional dock-like in the
creek, however, upon site inspection it seems to me that it
was a pretty reasonable -- because of the sand accretion in
that location, a pretty reasonable request, and not an
impossible intrusive one. So if there's no other comment,
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to approve the application.
TRUSTEE KING: Second
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES
19. David Corwin on behalf of DAVID EDELSTEIN AND
LIBBY GOLDSTEIN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'
by 16' ramp, 4' by 46' catwalk, 4' by 12' access stairs,
and one (1) mooring pile. Located: 4145 Wells Road,
Peconic. SCTM #86-2-12.6
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in
favor of the application?
MR. CORWIN: David Corwin, I don't have any comments, but if
you have any questions, I'll try to answer them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment?
Board of Trustees 53 April 21, 2004
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You wanted the pole 40 feet out?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What's that?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We wanted to the pole 40 feet out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is it now?
MR. CORWIN: I have 40 feet on the drawing I
believe.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does anyone have any issues with this?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any way we could -- and I feel
like I have to ask it -- is there any way they could reduce
that catwalk to 3' or are they set on 4'?
MR. CORWIN: Say that again.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any way they could reduce the
catwalk to 3', would they consider that?
MR. CORWIN: I'd have to ask the owner. The DEC has
approved it and the Corps of Engineers has approved it
at 4'.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm inclined to approve it, I just want to
know how intensive the use is. A lot of people are
satisfied with 3 feet because it's a seasonal use. If you
could ask them that, we would entertain that, reducing the
width.
MR. CORWIN: All right.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? I have 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.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES
20. 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. LYNCH: Hi, I'm Dion Lynch, and I'm here as an officer
for the Old Cove Yacht Club, which is a tenant and has been
a tenant on the property for 50, 60 some-odd years. I've
been going in and out of School House Creek for 30 some-odd
years, and we're pretty much just trying to put things back
the way they were. We've let them go a little too long I
think, and getting that sand back on the beach is pretty key
Board of Trustees 54 April 21, 2004
to our kids' sailing program and getting the floats, of
course, for our fleet
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you. Anybody else like to comment
on this application?
MR. SCHULTHEIS: My name is Jerry Schultheis, I live on
School House Creek, and I'd like to make quite a few
comments. I think the new Chapter 97 bears directly on this
particular project.
First of all, I'd like to bring up the fact that I
don't believe the proper notification was made to even have
this public hearing right now. If you read Chapter 58,
Section 58-1, Section B-2 of the Town Code, it says
basically that all abutting property owners need to be
notified of this hearing. This work is being held on Tax
Map Parcel Number 50, which is on the assessment role.
There's a copy of the property record card included that
shows it's on the assessment role. Clearly not all of the
abutting parcels have been notified. In specific, there are
two parcels, Parcel 16 and 48.1, which have not been
notified. So in essence by Town Code, the proper
notification has not been made and this hearing really can't
be held.
MR. JOHNSTON: Can we hold it for a second?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll verify that, and if you're correct
then you're correct. Brownell, can you take a look at the
file?
MR. JOHNSTON: Sure.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 14.2, is that the correct tax map?
MR. SCHULTHEIS: The parcel Tax Map Number 50 is where the
work is being done.
MR. JOHNSTON: Work is being done on 14.2?
MR. SCHULTHEIS: The work is actually shown on Parcel 50 on
their application. I think, I'm not sure what number they
refer to it, but I believe it might be Number 9. It's
actually the finger of School House Creek.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: They show 14.1 and 14.2 as parcel
location. I believe you're right. I believe you're right,
it is 50 also, where the floats will be going.
MR. SCHULTHEIS: Here's a copy of the submission that was
made. This shows the site of the dredging and the site of
the dock and it's clearly in the creek which they call
Parcel 9, and it refers to it as Tax Parcel Number 50
clearly in the application.
MR. JOHNSTON: And it says 50 on our tax map, is that where
you think you're going to be going?
MR. LYNCH: 9 or 50 whichever.
Board of Trustees 55 April 21, 2004
MR. JOHNSTON: 13, 14.1, 1 don't think 15, but the other one
there, I can't see the number, 14.2, probably not 15, but --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why not 15?
MR. JOHNSTON: I don't think it goes down there; does it?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, 15.
MR. SCHULTHEIS: The spoils are actually being placed next
to Lot 15.
MR. JOHNSTON: Okay.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is 15 noticed?
MR. SCHULTHEIS: 15 was noticed.
MR. JOHNSTON: Bottom line we table it. Send them out
certified.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Make a motion due to lack of
notification that we table this for one month until
neighbors are notified. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MR. CORWIN: I'm not following what lots you're saying
aren't notified.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What was discovered is the work was being
done on parcel, it's either 50 or 9, which would be
described as the dredge canal and that all the neighbors
adjacent to that parcel -- because it's not Town owned
underwater land, it's actually a privately owned parcel --
had not been notified.
MR. CORWIN: So you're saying neighbors abutting Parcel 9?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Correct. All neighbors abutting Parcel 9
should be notified.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Are you sure it's only 9?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are sure it's Parcel 9, correct, that's
where the work is going to be conducted.
MR. JOHNSTON: It's the ones abutting that, not just 9 but
the ones abutting that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's right.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: What parcels are they? Give them the
numbers so we can --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you read off the numbers, Ken, the
ones that need to be noticed.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The parcels abutting this where the
operations will be is Parcel Number 15, Parcel 13, Parcel
16, Parcel 48.1, Parcel 21.1, Parcels 46.3, 46.4, all the
way up, Parcel 30, Parcel 9.1, Parcel 49.1, and there's one
at the head of the creek there, there's no number, adjacent
to Number 13.
MR. CORWIN: Okay, thank you.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: If you want to know who those parties are,
Board of Trustees 56 April 21, 2004
1 can tell you.
MR. JOHNSTON: Tell him. Dave, the authority for that is
obviously Chapter 58, the public notice requirements for
public meeting.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we'll all meet again next month.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: As well as Number 44.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you make a motion to table this?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Ken did.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
21. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of GRACE KEHLE
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a low-profile 3' by
95' fixed timber dock, minimum 2.5' above grade, with 3' by
8' steps to grade. Located: 450 Strohson Road, Cutchogue.
SCTM #103-10-20
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak for this application?
MS. MESIANO: Katherine Mesiano on behalf of Grace
Kehle. I understand from speaking with Lauren that you had
some issues when you visited the site, so I'd be glad to
address any of your questions. And also I'd like to add
that this is a matter that we had been addressing prior to
the implementation of your moratorium. There was some
discussion with the DEC we were never able to resolve the
issue with the DEC, so we started the process all over
again. We're starting with you again then we'll go back at
it with the DEC. They wouldn't undertake the application
while your moratorium was in effect.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We went out and were concerned about the
extent of the marsh area that was being covered and wondered
if they would consider going centrally right out from the
house to that open area?
MS. MESIANO: Yes. They would actually prefer to have the
dock there.
TRUSTEE KING: Wasn't that the first time we were going to
do it there, and then we wanted to do it there?
MS. MESIANO: The DEC -- what had actually occurred was
that the DEC wanted them to end the dock in that central
location landward, more landward than was practical so that
any kayak, row boat, whatever you might be getting back
into, you'd be in the muck if you stepped into a boat, you'd
be driving it into muck, and it wouldn't even float at that
time. And the DEC was just holding firm on that. So we
were trying to come up with something. They're not even
Board of Trustees 57 April 21, 2004
asking for a float, there's not enough water for it. They -
would love to have a float, but it won't so it would be
redundant to ask, but we at least want to be able to have
steps down to grade and not be trotting through the muck.
TRUSTEE KING: Tome that was the logical place to put
that. You would be disturbing less marsh and as a matter of
fact, there's still some old poles that there was something
there at one time.
MS. MESIANO: That's where we want to be.
TRUSTEE KING: That's where I'd like to see it.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: We all felt the same on that one.
MS. MESIANO: Yes, except the DEC. So since the time has
passed, your moratorium is over, we're readdressing the
whole situation. I really think that that is the logical
location for it, and from a practical perspective, it makes
perfect sense. Least amount of impact, but we want to be
able to be out far enough so as not to be slogging through
the muck.
Now, I have some of my old sketches and one of the
sketches that we had entertained in that location, our fixed
dock extended approximately 14 feet beyond the edge of the
bog, that restricted -- that included the steps by the
way -- that restricts the overall length of the structure to
less than a third of the distance of the width of that
channel, and it puts them in about 1.4 feet of water. That
ideally is what we'd like to be able to do.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's basically right back where we were
when we started. Now you're going to have to go all through
that with the DEC again, and they're going to deny it?
MS. MESIANO: I hope not. We never came away with a permit
from your Board, and like I say, we're back in the
beginning, and I'd like some direction from you. That's
where you'd like to see it, that's where we'd like to be.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's where it should be.
MS. MESIANO: That's where it should be, that's where it was
previously. It's the least amount of disturbance, least
amount of coverage of the wetlands area and most
particularly, we're concerned with that depth of water that
we can get into. We don't want to step off the end of the
dock into marsh. The DEC was proposing that we end the dock
well into that little notched-out channel, and, Ken, I think
when we were there, you had commented on how muddy it was
and how active the shellfish population was there. There's
quite a bit of mussels and so on. It didn't make sense at
that point to stop at that point and start trotting through
the water at that point.
Board of Trustees 58 April 21, 2004
1 have an old plan I can get new copies of it, but
I can give you this copy if you like, it illustrates what
we're talking about, who's pointing here.
Primarily, are you in agreement with the overall
length so we can achieve a little bit of depth?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The last one was 13 and it was a width
of 40 and this is 14 --
MS. MESIANO: 14 at 45.
TRUSTEE KING: You say that includes the stairs?
MS. MESIANO: Yes. If you look at that you seethe steps
are included at the end.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: DEC probably doesn't want to cover the
water.
TRUSTEE KING: It can be right on the edge, it doesn't have
to be in the center of it.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'd put it right back where we put it the
first time and send her on her way.
TRUSTEE KING: That's what we're looking about.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else want to say anything?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: No.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments on this application?
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Make a motion to approve the application
with the condition of new plans, on the condition that new
plans be --
TRUSTEE KING: If you can, Cathy,just show that west edge
of the dock in line with the edge of the marsh, over that
little gutter, so it's not centered in the gutter, but you
just miss the marsh, almost in line with the poles, where
the old poles are.
MS. MESIANO: The westerly edge of the dock should be
consistent with the westerly edge of the notch?
TRUSTEE KING: Right.
MS. MESIANO: And we're at 3' in width and 2 and-a-half feet
above grade?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'd like to make that at two and-a-half
feet above grade not minimum. It says minimum.
MS. MESIANO: Okay, at two and-a-half feet, okay.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Stay within 115 feet.
TRUSTEE KING: This was in a different location.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay.
MS. MESIANO: Rather than have a discrepancy on the overall
Board of Trustees 59 April 21, 2004
length of the dock, limit the length of the dock so that it
does not exceed the 14 feet past the edge of the bog since
we have identified the creek at 45 feet.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You want it not to exceed 14 foot into
the channel?
MS. MESIANO: Not to exceed an overall length of 14 feet
into the channel.
TRUSTEE KING: Not to exceed over the edge of the marsh,
not to exceed 14 feet.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Not to exceed 14 feet seaward of the
marsh.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Do you have any idea how far the
neighbor extends out beyond the bog?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Not much.
MS. MESIANO: I don't have the neighbor to the northeast,
they have a very substantial dock. And the other dock
doesn't extend far at all. I think they have more water
there though, Ken.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You might be right.
MS. MESIANO: There's a channel, but we're not lucky enough
to hit any deep water where we are.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm recusing myself, for the record.
22. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of EVAN AKSELRAD
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 30' by 62'
two-story single-family dwelling and attached garage,
approximately 504 square feet, deck, pervious driveway, and
on-site sewage disposal system. Located: 1355 Shore Drive,
Greenport. SCTM #47-2-27
TRUSTEE KING: Anyone care to comment on this application?
MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the
applicant.
I think the application is pretty straightforward.
We're pushing the house as far from the bulkhead as we can
get it and still allow room for the septic system, that's
basically what dictates the placement of everything else, is
maintaining our setback for the septic, then maintaining the
appropriate setbacks from the septic to the house. If you
have any questions I'd be glad to address them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No comments on this. You want to close
the hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? I'll make a motion to
close the hearing.
Board of Trustees 60 April 21, 2004
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: I just need to show the dry wells for roof
runoff.
MS. MESIANO: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No.
TRUSTEE KING: Make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MS. MESIANO: Thank you very much.
23. Patricia Moore on behalf of THOMAS LUNIEWSKI requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling.
Located: 470 John's Road, Mattituck. SCTM #122-3-25.2
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the
application?
MS. MOORE: This is one of the very last ones before the
moratorium was adopted. I guess it was on for a public
hearing that night, and much to everyone's surprise, it
couldn't be heard. We had actually gotten already DEC
permit. The plan had already incorporated and does
incorporate all your policies from before the permit
requirements of today, which is maintaining a 50 foot
nondisturbance buffer, placing the house landward of that,
using stone blend pervious driveway and placing the sanitary
system as far as away from the wetlands as possible.
So I have Mr. Luniewski here. He's a hard working
guy, fireman in New York City, and he's been waiting very
patiently for the processes to continue. And here we are
and we're hoping that this Board can act favorably on this
application so we can move forward.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? I'd just like to see,
I don't think it's on the survey, the 50 foot buffer?
MS. MOORE: It is. It's a checkered 50 foot nondisturbance
buffer area. It should be highlighted in gray.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm color blind.
MS. MOORE: It's darkened
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't have that.
MS. MOORE: I can get additional prints. I'm sorry, I
thought you had that. Let me see what Young and Young sent
me. I'll get you more of those if you need them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One's good. If there's no other comments,
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
MS. MOORE: Just one thing, I just want to be sure that we
have a permit that mirrors the DEC permit. I believe I gave
I
Board of Trustees 61 April 21, 2004
you a copy of the DEC permit, Lauren, it should be in your
file. It should state construct a single-family dwelling,
septic system, place 200 cubic yards of clean fill. That's
all.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's not ringing a bell.
MS. MOORE: I'll be sure you get this as well. You know
why, because it's probably reactivating the permit
application from the original packet. At that time we did
not have DEC permit. I'll fax it to you tomorrow morning
and that way you have it in your file.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: What's the fill for, the sanitary?
MS. MOORE: Just the sanitary to the extent that it's
required.
MR. JOHNSTON: How much did you think it was going to be?
MS. MOORE: Surveyor told me 200 cubic yards.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It could be.
MS. MOORE: We have an updated one that we use for the DEC
with the nondisturbance buffer, I think that in all other
respects the surveys are the same.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Looks basically the same.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. I've got a motion to close the
hearing; do I have a second?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to approve the application.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
24. 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 yard of fill, dry
wells, a 50 foot nondisturbance buffer, and connection to
public water and utilities. Located: 9326 Main Bayview
Road, Southold. SCTM # 87-5-25.
TRUSTEE KING: Anyone here to comment?
MS. MOORE: Yes, thank you. This should look very familiar
to you because we've seen it over and over. Unfortunately
my client didn't read the date very carefully, and they had
actually had to come in and amend the original permit that
was issued October 2001 because the Health Department
required reconfiguration of the dry wells along the road.
That was done in April 2002 and I guess she looked at it and
thought they had gotten an extension on the permit.
Unfortunately, that hadn't been done and we got caught up in
the moratorium and no work had been done at that point. So
Board of Trustees 62 April 21, 2004
she's got her DEC, she has her Health Department, and she's
got everything, and she's ready to make a Building Permit
application. All we need is the re-issuance of the permit.
TRUSTEE KING: We need to see that house staked, Pat,
there's nothing out there at all.
MS. MOORE: This is the exact same application that you
approved and you went through massive review. The big thing
was, as far as you were concerned, was the drainage along
the right of way. And we went and staked it three or four
times because the stakes kept getting removed. We have DEC
approval. We have everything. I was hoping you'd recollect
this application having gone through at least two or three
hearings the first time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Honestly, that was two years ago and
probably how many hundreds of applications.
MS. MOORE: I don't know Lisa Edson, I thought this one
would ring a bell because you were out there so many times.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It rang a bell, but we still want to see
it.
MS. MOORE: Okay. I'll have the surveyor stake the corners
again. All right, so we'll adjourn.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thanks. We just didn't feel comfortable.
We walked around there.
MS. MOORE: I saw that they staked the driveway.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We walked out there because we couldn't
drive because they staked it. And we just said, you know.
MS. MOORE: You didn't remember where it went, okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let them stake it.
MS. MOORE: All right.
TRUSTEE KING: Make a motion to table this until we
reinspect the site.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Peggy?
25. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of DEBRA
VICTOROFF requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
single-family dwelling with on-site sewage disposal system.
Located: 445 and 505 Dogwood Lane, Southold.
SCTM #54-529.1 and 55
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak in favor of this application?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, please. Jim Fitzgerald for the
applicant. Our initial effort on this project was to apply
to the DEC for a freshwater wetland permit, and what we got
from them was a letter of nonjurisdiction on their own -- it
Board of Trustees 63 April 21, 2004
was their idea. And I have a copy of that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You supplied us with that.
MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. So we went from there to the Zoning
Board and during the public hearing at the Zoning Board,
some of the adjacent property owners appeared concerned with
the existence of wetlands on the property, and as a result
of that the Zoning Board indicated that they would want the
Trustees to offer an opinion to review the project and
either approve or suggest modifications to it before they
acted on it. So we're here, unfortunately, this was in the
middle of the moratorium, so it was delayed
As you know from your inspection last week, there
is indeed standing water in the northwest corner of the
property and that's about 1,500 square feet. We have
environmental evaluation reports from both Rob Hermann and
Chuck Bowman, and I think you have copies of both of those
reports.
Both of the consultants indicated that, according
to the definition in Chapter 97, there are quote, freshwater
wetlands in the area. However, we would like to suggest
that the area, although it is wet, is not really something
that needs to be preserved for a number of reasons, which
Rob Hermann particularly has indicated in his report, the
main thrust of his report was that the so-called freshwater
wetlands is very small, is completely surrounded by
development, consists almost entirely of phragmites, which he
refers to as -- correctly of course -- as a nonnative and
invasive plant and, as you know in many parts of the country
it's considered a weed and people try very hard to figure
out ways to rid themselves of it, but anyhow, the point of
all this is that although the area is wet, it does not seem
to us to be worthy of your protection. Although, indeed, it
may be worthy of regulation.
The project plan which was initially submitted to
the Trustees -- I'm sorry, to the ZBA was significantly more
grand than that which we have submitted here. There was a
deck, there was a pool, and the structure was much closer to
the west property line, and it has been reduced to I think a
bare minimum now. And considering the fact that there are
questionable areas in that corner of the property, something
which I pointed out to you, which I would ask that you
consider in your review of the project is that as I showed
you when you were inspecting the property, and the 1974 five
eastern town topographic map, which the county produced,
there appears a relatively large depression in the area, a
relatively small piece of which is on the Victoroff
Board of Trustees 64 April 21, 2004
property, but a large part of it is on the adjoining
properties to the west and to the north of the area, runs in
generally a northwest direction.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you wait until we find that?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is it the area, what is it?
MR. FITZGERALD: Here's a new version of it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What he's saying is that that was
apparently a depression there and now, of course, it's not.
MR. FITZGERALD: The last part of that is apparently the
construction on the properties on the north and to the west
included fill to the extent that the areas in both yards are
significantly higher in elevation than that corner, at
least, of the Victoroff property. And Mr. Hermann describes
its most significant value at this point as acting as a
catch basin for the runoff from the adjacent properties to
the north and the west. So it would appear that, at least
some of the existing situation, is due to unnatural causes.
And, as I said, we would appreciate it if you would take
that into account in your review of the project.
Now, Miss Victoroff is here, would you want to say
anything?
MS. VICTOROFF: Can I read this letter?
MR. FITZGERALD: Can she read this letter?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think all of the Trustees have a copy of
the letter she's proposing to read. If she starts to read
it and it's the same one, maybe we can just stipulate. Why
don't you start reading it and make sure it's the same one.
MS. VICTOROFF: I'll just start.
"I am writing to you to provide
additional information in support of my request for
an application for a Southold Town Wetlands Permit.
The hearing for which I'll be attending this
Wednesday.
"In 2001 1 purchased a small plot of
vacant land on Dogwood Lane near Kenny's Beach
Road. I love that area and I wanted to find a
house there, but I couldn't afford one and the
vacant land seemed like a promising alternative."
MR. JOHNSTON: For the benefit of people objecting, maybe
she should read it because they haven't heard it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Continue.
MS. VICTOROFF: Okay.
"In 2001 1 purchased a small plot of
vacant land on Dogwood Lane near Kenny's Beach
Road. I love that area and wanted to find a
Board of Trustees 65 April 21, 2004
house there but could not afford one and the
vacant land seemed like a promising alternative.
I'm a single woman living in an apartment in New
York City and a house has always been a dream of
mine, and to have a house near the water is an
ultimate dream.
"I was told early on to make sure that
there was no protected wetlands on the property and
that my first step should be to contact the
Department of Environmental Conservation to find
out if they considered my parcel part of their
wetlands map. I did so via Jim Fitzgerald, my
expediter. I was very happy when almost two years
ago, June 27, 2002, 1 received a letter from the
DEC stating that my lot was more than 100 feet from
regulated wetlands, and so therefore, according to
the DEC, I would not need a permit to build my
house.
"I went ahead with my survey on which was
drawn a small house with an adjoining swimming
pool, I was advised that if I though I might ever
want anything in addition to the house, it needed
to appear on the survey from the very beginning.
I'd seen a tiny house on Shelter Island years
before with a little pool, and my property was
even larger, so I thought I could and should
include the pool. I also knew it was something I
could let go if I needed to. However, at a
subsequent hearing before the Zoning Board of
Appeals my neighbors enlisted an attorney, who, on
their behalf, reported that there were phragmites,
wetlands plants, growing along the border between
my property and theirs, and assuming there were
wetlands there, warned that I should not be
permitted to go forward with my plans.
"The ZBA asked me to have the area
investigated and mapped to determine if there were
wetlands according to the definition of the Town
Trustees. I hired Rob Hermann, a wetlands expert,
to do so and at the same time, the coalition of
neighbors hired their own expert, Chuck Bowman, to
investigate the same issue. I'm not clear whether
he actually traversed my property, I was not asked
to grant him permission to do so, although I would
have, if asked.
"According to both reports there's a
Board of Trustees 66 April 21, 2004
section of my property that would be considered
wetlands according to the Southold Town Code
definition, which defines wetlands as any area that
includes phragmites at least. The reports came to
basically the same conclusions and you, the
Trustees, will certainly get an opportunity to
include both. I've included both in the package
but I wanted to point out something about which
both reports concur.
The reports agree that the wetlands exist
in the area of my property that is lower than the
adjoining properties. Rob's report says that
quote, The wetlands current primary function
appears to be that of a catch basin for runoff from
the surrounding properties, unquote. And also,
quote again, The shape of the wetland indicates
that it's boundaries have already been artificially
altered and defined by the surrounding developed
land, unquote.
"Chuck's report says, quote, Elevations
within the area descend from the adjoining parcels
towards the north and west, end quote. And he
also makes reference to, quoting him again, The
north side of the low area, unquote. It seems as
if these wetlands are not original or natural, but
have emerged as a result of development that
adjoins my property. However, as a result of the
wetlands reports, I have revised my plans for the
property as follows: I've moved the house
footprint as far away from the back of the
property line where the phragmites are as possible
while still leaving a reasonable tree line between
the house and the street. The septic system has
been moved from the southwest side of the house
footprint to the diagonally opposite northeast
side. There will be a concrete retaining wall
around the septic system on the opposite side of
the property from the wetlands. I have replaced
the rear deck with a rear patio that I understand
will require minimal land disturbance. I have
eliminated the side deck. I have eliminated the
pool. I have eliminated the driveway. These
changes have all been reflected on the most recent
survey that you have, the third one since I've had
drawn since I bought the property.
"I read the Southold Town Code Section
Board of Trustees 67 April 21, 2004
97-12, and under the heading Findings A, the code
states a desire by the Town to preserve the
wetlands since they, quote, constitute important
physical, social, aesthetic, recreational and
economic assets to existing and future residents
of the town, unquote. I believe the small
pocket of wetlands on my property did not
fall strictly under the protected criteria listed
above in terms of physical, social, aesthetic --
except to my contiguous neighbors -- recreational
or economic assets they provide to the town.
In addition, if the attempt is to protect assets
for the future residents of Southold, it's ironic
that as a potential future resident myself, I might
not be able to enjoy those assets since I might
have to sacrifice my own property.
"I am a nature lover and a vigilant
proponent of protecting the environment, not only
for the health of the planet, but also for the
pleasure of its occupants. The passion with which
the Trustees protect the lands of Southold is much
of the reason I love the north fork. I understand
why my neighbors do not want to have someone
building a house near theirs. I too want privacy
and quiet, which is why this area with its small
houses and natural appearance so appeals to me. I
have no desire to change the character of the
neighborhood, and I wish to have a small house and
to landscape the land to provide the utmost privacy
for me and my neighbors. I do understand why the
rules protecting the wetlands were drawn up, and I
respect them, but I also hope that the Trustees
will evaluate this request and can offer some sort
of compromise as I have compromised, so that I can
finally realize my dream of living on the north
fork."
The end.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. Is there any one else who
would like to speak for or against this application?
MR. ROZAKIS: Good evening, my name is Tom Rozakis, I'm an
adjoining property owner, and I'm in opposition of the
wetland application.
You might have received a letter that I faxed to
you yesterday. I would like to read it in the record, if I
may.
Board of Trustees 68 April 21, 2004
"Southold Town Trustees: Dear Sirs and
Madam: I on behalf of ourselves and our neighbors
John and Eva Kirincic, who are here and Virginia
Curley, who is not, we are writing to formally
state our opposition to the wetland application
referenced above.
"As adjoining owners we have been
monitoring this project since it was proposed to
the ZBA last year, and we believe that this wetland
application is before you due to our insistence
that the Town Code be observed. We have expended
much of our own time as well as considerable
resources retaining an attorney, Helen Rosenblum,
and environmental consultant, Chuck Bowman, in
pursuit of this goal. Unfortunately, the 12 days
notice that we had, neither of them could attend
today, both had prior commitments, although Helen
might show up since it's so late and she said she
might try.
"The ZBA variance application filed in
March 2003 contained incorrect representations
concerning the existence of wetlands on the
property. We quote directly from the application:
'Are there areas which contain wetlands grasses?'
The applicant's answer was no. In fact, there are
several areas that contained a total of almost 1,800
square feet of wetlands grasses, about 1,500 square
feet in one corner, there's an entire line of
phragmites and other wetland grasses along the road
and in the corner, where they plan to put their new
septic system.
"D-2 on the application, 'Are the wetland
area shown on the map submitted?" The applicant's
answer was 'not applicable.' The map submitted did,
not show the significant wetland area in the
northwest corner of the lot. The septic system was
located there instead. The latest map dated
November of last year shows 1,500 square feet in
that corner.
"D-4, 'Have you contacted the Office of
the Trustees for its determination of
jurisdiction?' Applicant's answer, 'not
applicable.' It has been our contention for almost
one year, through three ZBA hearings and after
quite a bit of expense, that the Trustees
jurisdiction is most definitely applicable to this
Board of Trustees 69 April 21, 2004
property despite the protestation of the applicant.
A reading of the minutes of those ZBA hearings,
especially the one held last October will clearly
reflect this.
"By all accounts, the parcel is inside a
freshwater wetland as defined by New York State
Law. Our consultant, Chuck Bowman forwarded you an
aerial photograph and his analysis in early
October. He describes a wetland system in the
entire project vicinity that is connected to the
subject parcel by a band of mature wetland trees
that extend into the subject parcel. Later that
month, Robert Hermann, the applicant's expert,
visited the property. His report agrees that the
evidence, quote, establishes that area, the
northwest corner, has as wetland, pursuant to the
Town code. Mr. Hermann minimizes its ecological
value, however, without much evidence to that fact.
"Finally, last week the Conservation
Advisory Council made its unanimous recommendation
that this wetland application be disapproved
because the entire parcel contains wetlands. A
sparadok (phoen.) also was found along the road,
and, in fact, that Mr. Bowman's aerial photograph
shows that the wetlands continue through the
property.
"There is no question that this is a
wetlands and for some of us there are no further
questions. Others, however, will question its
naturalness and its value. On the first issue,
briefly, topographic, plant and anecdotal evidence
indicates this lot has been in its present state
for decades. The contours are consistent with the
swale that runs from the Great Pond to Little Pond
along the rear properties of all the lots along the
north side of Dogwood Lane. The three black willow
trees distributed on the property which
Mr. Hermann, in fact, cites have diameters we
estimate to be from 18 to 36 inches and are up to
60 feet tall. There is a stand of red maple that
is shown on the aerial photograph as well on the
northeast corner of the property, with trunk
diameters we estimate to be up to 12 inches. Since
they moved to their property adjacent to the
subject parcel 35 years ago, the Kirincics have
observed ever present standing water.
Board of Trustees 70 Apri121, 2004
"B, this part of Southold is identified
on the Town website as an area of high
groundwater. This is natural groundwater, not that
created by landscaping and home building. The
elevation of the standing water in the northwest
corner of the lot is consistent with the elevation
of natural groundwater in the area.
"C, the DEC protects dozens of similar
small wetland areas all around the Kenny's Beach
area. We were told by Robert Marsh, a biologist
at the Bureau of Habitat State DEC in June 2003,
the fact that the DEC does not protect all wetlands
as defined by state law is an arbitrary effect of
their map, which does not reflect all the wetlands
in the state. It is up to the individual towns to
enforce the protection of other lands that meet
their criteria. In fact, the notice of
nonjurisdiction included in this application is
actually a flag calling for Trustee action. To
quote the final sentence of this document dated
June 27, 2002, 'Please be further advised that this
letter doesn't relieve you of the responsibility of
obtaining any necessary permits or approvals from
other agencies.
"As to the value of this wetland as
habitat, it would be hard to determine that during
a 15 minute inspection. It is a fact, however,
that it serves as a nesting area for snapping
turtles, a corridor for foraging foxes, owls and
hawks, and a stopover refuge for American woodcock,
cedar wax wings and other migrating birds. We have
witnessed and enjoyed this natural drama for
between 15 and 35 years and sincerely believe that
this property in its current state contributes to
the natural diversity of Southold.
"Of course, the issue of property rights
comes up. We will not get into that right now. We
have no interest in causing economic harm to any
individual. We regret that our offers to purchase
this property at market value have been rebuffed
throughout this lengthy process. Our interest is
seeing the Southold Town Code enforced and the
shared resource of our community preserved.
"We therefore urge the Trustees to accept
unanimous recommendation of the Conservation
Advisory Council and deny this application.
Board of Trustees 71 April 21, 2004
Respectfully submitted, Thomas A. Rozakis and my
wife, Ann Rozakis."
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anybody else who would like to
speak on behalf of this application? Comments from the
Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't see how -- I just want one comment
on the snapping turtles. I don't really think this could be
nesting area for the snapping turtles. They always lay
their eggs in a sandy sunny spot. And on field inspection I
didn't see any sunny spots or sandy spots.
MR. ROZAKIS: There were two photographs entered into the
file.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I saw those.
MR. ROZAKIS: I happen to have a camera or brought a camera
the day of the first hearing at the ZBA because I realized
that there was a misrepresentation about the wetlands. As
was walking out of the house after the ZBA hearing a
snapping turtle walked past me, and, in fact, every June
they walk through our property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But they're not nesting.
MR. ROZAKIS: The land there in that northwest corner is
wet, sandy and that's where they're going. And the
Kirincics have photographs of the babies coming out. The
small turtles they come through our property as well.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They don't nest where it's wet. They nest
where it's dry.
MR. ROZAKIS: Apparently there are areas we see them going
in, we don't follow them in, and we see the small turtles
come out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: From seeing the site and seeing turtles
nests --
MR. ROZAKIS: All we can tell you is what we've seen every
year. The turtles themselves are up to 16 inches in
diameter. They're very large and formidable creatures.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have a question for the applicant. The
elevation is obviously very low, and the test hole shows a
foot and-a-half to water. I don't understand, I see that
the neighbors when we walked through and we didn't look -- I
didn't look at the Rozakis house, but we looked at the two
other properties and I'm going to --the Kirincic and the
Kelenpelidis property, the two adjacent properties, you can
notice the elevations have been raised considerably. How do
you propose to put a house there at that elevation under
those conditions?
MR. FITZGERALD: Do you mean with the continuing collection
Board of Trustees 72 April 21, 2004
of runoff from the adjacent property?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. The low elevation, period.
MR. FITZGERALD: Well, you mean from the standpoint of the
septic system?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, the septic system I can see has been
elevated to meet, probably I would assume the Suffolk County
Health Department standards. No, I mean the house itself
wouldn't have obviously a basement?
MR. FITZGERALD: Probably not.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's in a flood plain, isn't it?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Artie, help me out here in the elevation
business. What elevation would the first floor have to be?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's in the Flood Zone A-E.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What would that require?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You've got to be 8' or maybe I V above mean
high water or average high water for the flood plain. Is
this lot right next to the corner lot?
MR. FITZGERALD: Which lot do you mean by the corner lot?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: This road comes out on Kenny's Road and
Soundview Avenue?
MS. VICTOROFF: This lot is between two houses; is that what
you mean?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: If you go towards the beach on Kenny's Road
and you make a right on Dogwood, there's a corner house on
the left, right?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is this the next lot?
MR. JOHNSTON: Second lot in?
MR. FITZGERALD: It's the only undeveloped lot on the block.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: So it's just before the turn. All
right.
MR. FITZGERALD: If I may, one of the points that the
gentleman brought up was urging you to apply the tenets of
the revised or existing Town Code. But it's my
understanding that the Town Code doesn't prohibit
development in or near freshwater wetlands but rather gives
the Trustees the jurisdiction to regulate the use or
development or whatever of freshwater wetland. I don't
think there's any prohibition.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think it takes all the runoff. Did you
see a catch basin in front of it, or a pipe going in from
the Town?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know about that. It shows from
what Mr. Fitzgerald gave us before, much of the area is a
low area and the majority has been filled and this is one
spot that hasn't been. My question is, one of my concerns
Board of Trustees 73 April 21, 2004
are when you have a low spot like this, it is a valuable
function for the area in that it does take the runoff,
whether the adjacent lots are filled or not, it's taking the
runoff from them and from a lot of different areas. It
provides a valuable service, because the water's going to go
somewhere obviously. If you fill that, water's going to be
somewhere else.
MR. FITZGERALD: Unless, of course, the adjoining property
owners can keep their runoff on their own property, as you
frequently require other applicants, new applicants to do.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct. Now on this property,
though, what steps could be taken to protect that wetland
areas and again, the house elevation has got to be addressed
because would there be proposed fill?
MR. FITZGERALD: You mean the construction details, Al?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, are you going to bring fill in to
bring it up or will it be on pilings?
MR. FITZGERALD: We had not gotten to the point where the
specific design features of the house was involved, but I
mean from the standpoint of this construction.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well, it's definitely important because you
know, you don't have much area there and you're going to
have pretty much zero disturbance along -- you've only got
seven feet from the patio and certainly if you did any kind
of basement excavation there you wouldn't be able to go down
more than a foot or so, so it would be minimal disturbance.
But if you've got to meet the flood plain you're going to
have to be up in the air whether it be on a raised concrete
foundation or on pilings.
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: One of the two.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that's a detail that has to be
addressed.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Regardless of which it is, you still have a
minimum amount of disturbance that you'd be allowed to
develop.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Obviously, I think you'd have to show a
driveway also.
MR. FITZGERALD: Why is that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because where are you going to park your
car?
MR. FITZGERALD: A number of the folks in the area park the
cars in the street, at least that's been our observation.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: There's room for a driveway on the --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's plenty of room for a driveway.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: -- south west, northwest, what is it?
Board of Trustees 74 - April 21, 2004
west side of the property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, that's a detail I'd like to see on
this job.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll tell you why, because we got into
this a year or so ago on a house proposal and a great deal
of fill was necessary to raise the elevation and et cetera,
etcetera, and it became an issue of runoff and well, I'll
leave it at that. So I'd like to see that addressed. What
is the final, the proposed first floor elevation and how do
you propose to accomplish that, and then I would think put a
driveway on there because that seems to be something that
would be -- if you're going to build a house there, it seems
you should have a driveway. Maybe I'm old fashioned.
MR. FITZGERALD: Let me ask you this: When you were there,
the areas of, quote, standing water--
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure.
MR. FITZGERALD: -- is indicated on the map. However, at
least at this time of year the phragmites are only in the --
there's an area within that triangle that is either sparsely
vegetated or not vegetated at all right now. And I think it
would be valuable for us to know how the Trustees feel about
intrusion into that area by fill or whatever; in other
words, how important do you think this wetland is based upon
what you saw and what the gentleman described this veritable
menagerie of wildlife?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Based on what I heard tonight and what I
read in the file from Rob Hermann's report and Chuck
Bowman's report -- and this is just me, and the Board can
comment -- I think its wetland value-wise, it seems to be as
highly an impacted wetland as I've ever seen. Does it have
a value? Like I stated earlier, I think it does have a
value in that it does control water and it provides for a
recharge area for water. I would assume it's groundwater.
Because of the elevations that are shown, and your test hole
says a foot and-a-half, and the elevation there is five
and-a-half and there's water there. You go down to four and
I assume it's groundwater. I think it provides a valuable
service in some area, and I wouldn't want to see that
filled. '
MR. FITZGERALD: Unless perhaps if that's its main value
then I'm sure we can figure out some way of taking care of
the water.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know, does the Board have any?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes. I want to comment on it. If you pull
out Rob's report and Chuck Bowman's really basically said
the same thing, that the primary function of the property
Board of Trustees 75 April 21, 2004
appears to be of a catch basin for runoff for surrounding
properties. The shape of the wetlands also indicates that
its boundaries have already been artificially altered and
defined by the surrounding developed land, Specifically
through your topographical survey is not detailed enough to
depict a depression. Its southern and western limits are
defined by a sharp and virtually linear increase in
elevation at your southern and western property lines.
Though I am hypothesizing due to my lack of firsthand
knowledge of history of the area, it is likely that this
nearly linear increase in elevation at the property
boundaries coincides with the northern eastern limits of
fill that were placed to raise the adjoining properties at
the time of their development. Therefore, my findings are
that while a small depressional freshwater wetland exists in
the westerly portion of the property, it has little likely
been impacted already by the surrounding developments and is
limited in ecological value. And it also says -- I should
have got this before -- however, ecological value of this
wetland is however limited, not only is the area small and
lacking in diversity, it is comprised almost entirely of
phragmites, a non-native and invasive plant. It is
completely surrounded by development and effectively
disconnected at the landscape level from other undeveloped
natural habitat. Therefore, the area is extremely limited
in its ability to provide either a habitat or corridor for
wildlife in its current primary function appears to be that
of a basin for runoff. There's your environmental expert
report so take it from there.
MS. ROZAKIS: Ann Rozakis. Can I ask Trustees to address
the Conservation Advisory Council's disapproval and the
context for that.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: We do, we always do in every application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't know the context. They act
independently of us. We don't meet with them.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: They just give us a report and we consider
their concern and everybody else's concern, and we toss it
around. Actually, if you've been to these meetings, you'll
know that we have a history of dragging things on from month
to month, and it's usually because of concerns of the
people, the neighbors and ourselves and the CAC, as well.
So, this isn't something that we're going to just jump at
and make a decision, because there are concerns. I just
wanted to point out that the wetland experts in as much as
they say it has some wetlands value, it doesn't appear to be
this tremendously pristine wetland. And we have to weigh
Board of Trustees 76 April 21, 2004
all these things, and the experts are the experts and we
certainly have to give their opinions serious consideration.
MS. VICTOROFF: Could I speak, please? I just wanted to say
that the wetlands areas when we're talking about whether or
not, I mean you don't want it to be touched, and I am happy
to stay away from it or not fill it or anything if I don't
know what the possibilities are, but the house footprint is
the area that the area that I want to put the house and I
would make every effort not to touch that whole section of
wetlands, so that one of the concerns that you mentioned was
you didn't want it to be filled in or the elevation raised
to meet that of the adjacent areas, well, that is not my
intention anyway at all. That's part of what I was
mentioning that I moved everything as far away from that
area as I could.
And I also would like to address something else
that Mr. Rozakis had implied, which is that our
protestations about whether or not there were wetlands,
protestations that's not true. I went by the expeditor's
opinion that once the DEC had sent us a letter of
nonjurisdiction that we were good to go, not that we were
avoiding anything from the Trustees. So when it says "does
not apply," first of all, I didn't fill that out; second of
all, that's not a protestation or an attempt to be
dishonest. Thanks.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Sir?
MR. ROZAKIS: I just wanted to say that Mr. Bowman's report
ties in this parcel with the larger vicinity of wetlands
which are shown not only in the aerial, but you'll see the
exact tree stands in this -- I found that picture that was
mysteriously in the file that was used during your
walk-through and you'll see my house with the tree stand,
the large wetlands, which is connected. So, Mr. Bowman
thought the entire parcel was wetlands as does the
Conservation Advisory Council. It's not just limited to the
northwest corner. It's a mature wetland in 80 percent of
the parcel and a standing water in that corner.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mr. Rozakis, in all likelihood we'll be
reviewing this application next month on our field
inspection May on 12th. Is it possible for us to walk down
your property line to gain access?
MR. ROZAKIS: Yes, without a doubt. In last June I gave you
permission in a letter. You can anywhere you want, however
the property has not been staked fully, nor has the house
been fully staked.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just try to bring this to some sort a --
Board of Trustees 77 April 21, 2004
MR. JOHNSTON: When you do your field inspection, when we do
our field inspection, are we going to see any of these
wetland species on the other side of the stockade fence or
on the other side of the chain link fence?
MR. KIRINCIC: No. Maybe in June, July, not now. It's
too cold for them.
MR. ROZAKIS: You're talking about turtles.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any indicator species of wetlands on your
property, or the young lady's property there?
MS. ROZAKIS: We're on the eastern side, are you speaking
about the north and --
MR. ROZAKIS: Mr. Kirincaledes has a lawn that is inundated
with water most of the time in that corner. I don't believe
there's any wetlands species there, and Mr. Kirincic has
sand always had sand. And the photographs of the snapping
turtle go through his property with the sand.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's where they nest in the sand. So I
think that's the area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can we walk on your area?
MR. KIRINCIC: Anytime.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Appreciate it, thank you. I think we need
from the applicant, because we're going to try to move this
along, we need that house corner and the patio corner
staked.
MR. FITZGERALD: They are staked now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What did we see in the field, that was the
last inspection?
TRUSTEE KING: Stumps and some grass.
MR. FITZGERALD: Two corners of the house.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We walked in here.
MR. FITZGERALD: Here (indicating).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what we want. What we want is
you're going to have to figure out elevation-wise on the
house by May 12th.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Indicate on this survey which corners are
stakes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He did, he showed us.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You got it, Okay. I'm going to go out
tomorrow morning and take a look at it.
MR. FITZGERALD: Here Artie.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They say the water table's about normal
right now.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: They are staked right now?
MR. FITZGERALD: That's correct.
MR. JOHNSTON: Do we have permission to go on these people's
land too?
Board of Trustees 78 April 21, 2004
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Which people?
MR. JOHNSTON: K-E-L-E-N-P-E-L-1-D-1-S?
MR. ROZAKIS: They're not a part of our action, I don't
know.
MS. VICTOROFF: Can I ask, when you did go out and look at
the property, had it been staked, the house? So did you see
where the stakes would be?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I was in Town Hall at 7:00, this was about
5:00 at night.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I remember seeing one or two, but I
don't remember.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Seems like if it wasn't staked we would
have remarked on it.
MS. VICTOROFF: I think Jim told me at least afterwards that
he had pointed out the house stakes to the people.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It must have been staked, otherwise we
would have said it wasn't staked.
MR. FITZGERALD: It was staked and you saw it.
MS. VICTOROFF: I'm questioning what now on the second visit
you're going to look for, no one saw the stakes?
TRUSTEE KING: One thing we're interested in seeing what
the first floor elevation would be.
MS. VICTOROFF: Do you need to go out to the property again
to see that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're going to be out as a Board on May
12th throughout the whole town, so it's better for us to go
and look at it.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: How can you see what the first floor
elevation is going to be?
MS. VICTOROFF: Exactly. My question is, what is the
difference between this second viewing --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because if the elevation currently is 5'4"
and your elevation's going to be -- I'll make up a number--
10, then when we're standing there at 4", we know that the
first floor elevation is going to be five feet up.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: We need to know what the first floor
elevation is.
MS. VICTOROFF: But don't we --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're going to have an idea, then you're
going to say well, I need pilings, or I need to put fill
around it, some requirement by you.
MS. VICTOROFF: Don't we provide that to you guys?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, you do.
MS. VICTOROFF: But before -- I mean, when you go out, you
guys don't say to me it needs to be five feet?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. Before May 12th you're going to find
Board of Trustees 79 April 21, 2004
out from the Building Department what the first floor
elevation is going to be.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: The surveyor should know that. Surveyor
should be able to determine by being in the flood zone that
you're in, he should be able to determine what your finished
floor elevation is going to be, and he does not necessarily
have to put it on a survey and go through the expense of
marking up another survey. All we have to do is know what
it is because we have an existing elevation of 5.4, and as
Al said, if your finished first floor elevation has to be 11
feet, all we have to do is do the math, and we know where
that's going to be in relation to the existing grade.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And you'll know what you have to do to try
to accomplish that physically, you can't just put the house
there, it's got to be --
MS. VICTOROFF: I understand all of that totally, but then
when you go out again after I give you those plans, what are
you looking for?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what we look at afterwards. We see
how it's going to fit on this piece of property
MS. VICTOROFF: Okay.
MR. JOHNSTON: Jim, do you understand what has to be
submitted?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I do.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: But the point I'm trying to make is at this
point in time you don't have to go have another survey
drawn. All we need is the number of that elevation. You
can have John Aylers -- is that who did this?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: -- call the office. I can't see wasting
their money if this isn't going to happen. At some point in
time, we're going to want to know what the house is going to
be constructed on, whether it be piles or concrete
foundation, because that will determine how much disturbance
you're going to make on the property. But certainly we
don't want you to go out and provide all that information
now because it's costly. So first let us look at the
finished floor elevation and the degree of wetlands on the
property and make a determination as to whether we're going
to entertain approving this. If that's the case, then we'll
ask you for more information. But certainly, we don't want
you to waste your money.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's unnecessary anyway if you tell us
whatever the elevation is.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Right.
MS. VICTOROFF: Who should John Aylers call?
Board of Trustees 80 April 21, 2004
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Call the office and talk to Lauren and give
her the first floor elevation number.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Peggy, is this yours?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, am I tabling?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You are.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to table the wetland
application of Debra Victoroff until next month.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
26. 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' from the end of the
fixed dock. Located: 1450 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck.
SCTM #122-4-44.6
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment
on this application?
MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald for the applicant. This
again, you've seen a number of times. Nothing has changed
except that the contract vendee and the owner have stopped
fighting with each other and have decided to jointly pursue
the original application, which is on hiatus for three
years, I think.
The plan we've submitted is the same as it was when
last we met low those many years ago. It's for a house and
a relatively long walkway to get to a canal that runs behind
other houses on Ole Jule Lane.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I believe out in the field we discussed
possibly bringing that catwalk over to the northwest--
before I make that statement, are there any other comments?
MS. DUNNE: Can I see what you're talking about?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Sure.
(Discussion)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want to segment the house and the
dock?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: He wants to save money, instead of
having a whole new wetland application, that's why they're
applying for everything at once.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We're asking him to separate it, but
then it's going to cost him double on applying.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know if we can do that or not.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If you keep it together, the walkway is
going to take some time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It might take some time if you're going to
Board of Trustees 81 April 21, 2004
move it.
MR. FITZGERALD: Let me see if that change in the location
of the walkway is okay with him, and, if so, maybe we can do
the whole thing next month.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, fine. In the meantime, is there any
other comment on the dock?
MS. DUNNE: I have a comment. My name is Margery Dunne.
My first question was when I applied, I had to get
a survey, a recent survey, and it had to show the dock on it
before I could apply. And I had to submit that to my
neighbors. Okay, and I didn't get that. There's no -- this
is not a survey by a surveyor, not what I got.
MR. FITZGERALD: I don't think the regulations require a
survey to be --
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Are you the neighbor?
MS. DUNNE: Yes.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: So you're not applying?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's a separate part of Town Code. I
think that's Chapter 58, and I don't think that requires
that you have to have a survey sent. I think you have to be
notified of what's going on. You have to come into the
office and check for the survey and any other particulars.
MS. DUNNE: Then the other question that I had was, I'd
like to know if I could erect a fence going straight down?
And I'll tell you the problem that I have is that the land
that you're talking about, you cannot walk on there, ever,
unless you're walking in muck. So what they do, is they
have created a path coming over onto my property, going
down. It's very obvious that this path is on my property.
I spoke to -- not the owner of the property, but the -- he
said that he was a builder, and that he created that path
and that's fine, that he's been doing this, and he's going
to keep doing it. Okay. And I told him, and I told this
gentleman here, twice, that I didn't want him on my
property. And he was clearly on my property.
MR. FITZGERALD: You told me once.
MS. DUNNE: I have had to call the police. I had real
estate come on, and that's the only way they can show the
people the property is they come over and they walk. I
can't walk on that piece of property there. They have taken
wood because that's dry 98 percent of the time, so I guess
when it wasn't they took wood where I had it on the side and
they made a path, and I'm outraged, and I would like to know
what recourse do I have. Can I put a fence going straight
down on the side of this property?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To delineate your property line I would
Board of Trustees 82 April 21, 2004
have no problem with putting up a split rail.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Up to the marsh.
MS. DUNNE: That's what they have done on my property.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Up to the marsh.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about a split rail barbed wire?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Phragmites, what are you going to hurt?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You got to cut it down.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can do a wire fence, something to
delineate the property.
MR. FITZGERALD: Could we talk about the application before
you?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One question we had was with the plan,
that's the most recent plan that was submitted. It shows
the dock crossing the property line to get to the water?
MR. FITZGERALD: The extension of the property line?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's our questions when we were out in
the field. It doesn't say extension of property line; it
says property line.
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, this is a property line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, who owns this?
MR. FITZGERALD: I think it's the Department --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You got to change it to over here. The
suggestion has been made to move the catwalk to the other
side of the property.
MS. DUNNE: The DEC when I applied for my permit, they said
they granted me a permit because there was a prior dock
there on my property. What I got was 10 feet. I had asked
for an extension, if you remember you got an extension going
this way.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I remember coming out there.
MS. DUNNE: Okay, so the extension would, see the dock, it
would go this way. The DEC said no, you can't have that
because there's no water this way on this side of the
docks. When you put, you put one boat there, you can't get
past. There's no way you can get past because the water is
too low.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's why we asked for an alternative.
MS. DUNNE: The DEC said the same, would not allow me to go
this way at all. Not enough water.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In an effort to move this along, you're
going to give us an alternative for next month? Is there
any other comments on the house or any other part of the
plan besides the docks?
MS. DUNNE: It doesn't shows on here where is the fill, you
know, when they dig up, where is that going to go? Where is
the sewers?
Board of Trustees 83 April 21, 2004
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that your current plan?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's the current plan for the house.
What I'd like to see on the that survey is a nondisturbance
buffer maximized on that.
MR. FITZGERALD: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You show us that for next month. Any
other comment before we table this?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: No.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken, can you make a motion?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to table until next
month.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MS. DUNNE: One more question. Do I have to come and show
the same -- are you going to change this; am I going to be
informed of changes? Do I have to come to the next meeting
or not?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's likely going to change the
catwalk.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You should call in mid-May and check, see
if he came in with new plans to change the. project.
MS. DUNNE: I was wondering why we didn't get a copy of the
plans, the neighbors.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They don't have to send the plans. If
you're interested you come in and get the copies.
MS. DUNNE: Thank you.
27. 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.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in
favor of this application?
MS. CANTARA: Kelly Cantara, I'm with Land Use for Geert
Martens and Ray Murray and I'll answer any questions that
you have?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments on this application?
We had a couple comments. One, we'd like to see this
staked. But two, we really weren't happy at all. Were you
out there recently to this site?
MS. CANTARA: Think it is last time was over the winter,
it's been a couple months.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The proximity to the other dock is a
Board of Trustees 84 April 21, 2004
little close, we'd like to see a little more separation.
And there's this great big oak tree in the middle of the
property, I don't know if it's in the middle, but it's more
towards the north, but we'd like to see the dock come out
more or less from that oak tree. So they're going to have
to show stairs down the bluffs, and the bank to the dock and
also we'd like --we need soundings in that location, and
maybe another 40, 50 feet out, so that we know about the
water depth.
MS. CANTARA: From the oak tree?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: From the end of the proposed docks. So
they can give us soundings from that location to the end of
the proposed dock and put a stake in there so they know the
extent of it for our May 12th inspection. Then also provide
us with, since you're going to have to do soundings anyway,
go out another 50 feet with soundings, so we know what the
water depth is further out.
MS. CANTARA: That's where, that's in the location where the
dock is, on the plans or that's in front of the oak tree
where you want the dock?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The oak tree. We just would like it
further to the north.
MS. CANTARA: When we had originally drafted the plans, we
had done soundings farther to the north and there wasn't
enough water depth. Now I know as far as with the other
dock, basically it encroaches onto -- it's essentially an
illegal dock which encroaches over those property lines.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We've been through that many times.
MS. CANTARA: Yes, exactly.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You show a float, is there any reasonable
expectation of getting a DEC permit on that?
MS. CANTARA: We have a DEC permit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You do? Two foot of water that's
surprising, right?
TRUSTEE KING: Seasonal floats.
MS. CANTARA: It's seasonal, when we did soundings I believe
the minimum depth was two and-a-half feet when we were out
there. That may be changed, I don't know.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to table that and we'll see
you next month.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you could actually stake both
locations, the one that you proposed tonight and the other
one to the north. Obviously, if there's some drastic
variation in depth, use the oak tree as a reference not as a
Board of Trustees 85 April 21, 2004
fixed permanent marker.
MS. CANTARA: Right.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So if the water depth is much better 20
feet south of it, that's fine too.
MS. CANTARA: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. JOHNSTON: Did you get an okay from the Corps and the
DEC, both?
MS. CANTARA: The Corps is pending but we did get a
Department of State and the DEC.
MR. JOHNSTON: You'll get that to us.
MS. CANTARA: I'll send you State and DEC and Corps as soon
as we get it.
28. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of
CHARLES SNOW requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the
existing 4' by 39.4' fixed timber catwalk, add a 4' by 19'
fixed timber catwalk to the landward end of the existing
catwalk and a 4' by 31' fixed timber catwalk to the seaward
end of the existing catwalk, install a 3' by 20' ramp and a
6' by 20' float. Located 2826 Cox Neck Road, Mattituck.
SCTM #113-8-7.5
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this
project?
MS. CANTARA: Kelly Cantara for Land Use Ecological Services
for Charles Snow.
TRUSTEE KING: Was there ever any old permit on this dock;
does it have an existing permit?
MS. CANTARA: I'm not sure, to be honest with you. The
existing DEC permit, I don't see.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think there is.
MS. CANTARA: Yeah, I just have existing permits. I don't
see any old permits in there, but we do have existing
permits from the DEC, the Army Corps and the Department of
State.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Existing permits for this structure as
current or for the proposal?
MS. CANTARA: For the proposal, I'm sorry.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Probably basically a new permit, right?
We looked at it, the Conservation Advisory Council
recommends approval with condition to reconstruct the
existing 4' by 39' adding 4' by 19' catwalk, basically it's
what they have asked for. CAC recommends approval of the
application with the condition no large trees are removed.
We went out and looked at it, and it's basically what our
Board of Trustees OS�FF� � April 21, 2004
C
Albert J.Krupski,President Oar QG Town Hall
James King,,Vice-President h`Z 'y 53095 Route 25
Agjr�gae�s there's enough th n the P.O.Box 1179
KhPPd1,o@asmaller shed and t "t red in the Southold, New York 11971-0959
Peg9.WAt19Q"6on Gy �� Telephone(631) 765-1892
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I agree y hink we all Fax(631) 765-1366
agree.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We do.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think the Board agrees that the seaward
end of the dock is mo W WMWN, M R1VfiTE9*hded
that, you're going to get i ntcM%V1gffi106WU9MtDAnd
that an issuance of our permit, a condition's going to be
required to move that shed on the wetlands, and there's an
old dock, I guess a floating dock and ramp should be removed
also.
MS. CANTARA: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Did we have a problem with the in-shore,
inland end of it? Our biggest problem is we don't want you
going farther out in the creek. The landward end of the
that catwalk can be extended landward. You have a proposed
4' by 19' landward extension, we don't have a problem with
that. We don't want you to go out any further than what's
out there now.
MS. CANTARA: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you make a resolution?
TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments? I'll make a
motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the landward
extension of 4' by 19', no further'extension seaward and
they can have the 6' by 20' float with the ramp from the
existing catwalk only, no seaward extension. Do I have a
second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And the removal of the floats in the
wetlands, there are some old floats laying in the wetlands
we want those removed, and that little storage shed should
be removed.
MS. CANTARA: Okay. So where did you want the float?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In its current location.
MS. CANTARA: Where it's proposed in the plan?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. It's current location in the field,
in the creek, sorry.
TRUSTEE KING: In other words, we'll disallow the extension
seaward, that's not allowed. Just what's there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll need new plans unless you have other
plans in here that show that. No, we'll need a new set of
Board of Trustees 87 April 21, 2004
plans showing what's existing with the pilings and with the
float as it is now.
MS. CANTARA: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did we make that motion?
TRUSTEE KING: Make that motion.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I believe I seconded.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Peggy.
29. 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 DICKERSON: Is there anyone that would like to speak
in favor of this application?
MR. LARSEN: My name is Peter Larsen. I live at 8925 Skunk
Lane. My home and property borders Little Creek and is
adjacent to the Krause property located at 9105. This is an
unimproved 1.9 acre lot which the applicant purchased last
year. This applicant also owns 9205 Skunk Lane. This is a
three plus acre parcel with several hundred square feet of
bay front on Hog Neck Bay and on Little Creek. There was a
main house with out buildings. All the referenced parcels
are designated by the New York State Department of State as
critical environmental areas worthy of protection, and the
proposed dock site is unique in that three sides of the 9205
property surrounds an inlet creating a lagoon-type setting
in it is a very popular area for recreational activities,
such as kayaking and canoeing, and children are often seen
snapper fishing from row boats during the summer. The width
of the creek is very narrow. Perhaps 20 to 25 feet across
from mean low tide to -- I mean, the mean low water to the
mean low water.
I'm very concerned that the construction of the
dock as proposed for 9105 will really restrict access to
recreational boaters primarily the kayakers and canoers as
well as the row boaters. I also believe that the
application may violate a section of the Town's revised
Wetlands Law, specifically Code 97-27 Section C of the
general rules, Paragraph 5, which states that within the
creeks and other narrow waterways, no dock length shall
exceed one-third the total width of the water body.
Determination of the length of the dock must include the
dimensions of the vessel. The length of the dock includes
the ramp as well as the floating dock, that would be 38
Board of Trustees 88 April 21, 2004
feet. Meaning, they would need 114 feet of width to legally
build that dock, perhaps 20 or 25 feet. Clearly if there's
a boat docked there, no one will have access into this
lagoon.
I just found out that the Krause family has
recently put -- they have purchased a new home in Cutchogue
and they have put both parcels, 9105 and 9205 on the market
as one unit. It's listed with Prudential Realty. However,
the lot at 9105 Skunk Lane will be sold separately if the
buyer of 9205 is not interested in the separate lot. The
advertisement for Prudential states, and I quote, "Almost
five acres of bay front beach. Private deep water inlet
front to dock your yacht and sailboat." There's no way you
can put a yacht in that little harbor. You've got maybe
three feet of water. It's very narrow and I question how
this is possible. If this application is approved as-is,
there would virtually eliminate any public water access into
this inlet, and will, in effect, be granting the applicant
exclusive private use of this public waterway.
I do want to state for the record that I have no
objection to my neighbor being granted a permit to construct
a dock on both parcels providing it does not violate the
Town Wetland laws and codes. It would seem to me it would
make a lot more sense to build a dock that is in line with
the property that would run east and west -- from west to
east on the 9205 property. I don't have the blueprints with
me, but --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What do you mean west to east?
MR. LARSEN: See how this dock currently jets out into the
area, this is 9105, this is 9205. It would make more sense
to have the dock more at this end so that public would still
be able to use this area for recreational purposes. By
putting this dock there, you're cutting off access for
everyone.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We couldn't quite understand. This dock
is pretty much beached.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And you're correct, it used to be our
policy, the one-third rule, but now we've codified it.
MR. LARSEN: Codified it meaning?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's actually in the code. It's law as
opposed to it being just a policy. The dock and the boat
can't be more than one-third the way across. You're really
limited here. Now Peggy can remember, this is the new
channel and I do too. We're very familiar with this.
MR. LARSEN: This also includes the length of the ramp,
Board of Trustees 89 April 21, 2004
correct?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, the seaward end of the structure.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Structure and the boat combined can't
exceed one-third of the width.
MR. LARSEN: Right. But under Town Code in the definition,
it's the dock plus the ramp.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The whole structure?
MR. LARSEN: The whole structure, which is 38 feet, which
means you'd need 140 --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, no, the structure at the most seaward
end plus, we're going from low water.
MR. LARSEN: Right.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're not going from where it starts here,
no.
MR. LARSEN: It's very tight.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're very familiar with it. I mean, I
remember before this was a channel here too.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: There are cases where the actual channel is
extremely to one side rather than in the middle, in which
case the one-third rule wouldn't apply there because you
have to consider the navigable water. So if it is in fact
on the dock or float side of the channel itself where the
deepest navigable water is, you're even more restricted.
MR. LARSEN: This afternoon at 3:00 low tide, just a visual,
if there's a boat docked there there's nobody getting
through there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is the channel there and it went out
to the bay like this.
MR. LARSEN: I remember that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When they dredged it in the early '60s the
Trustees gave this whole channel away and the Commoners --
you can read about the Commoners on the chart there on the
wall -- the Commoners owned all this marsh on that side and
they gave it to the Trustees just lately, but they owned it.
They predated the Trustees. They owned all this marsh out
here and the barrier beach.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Little Creek?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. They gave this marsh away also when
the county dredged this channel in the '60s, meaning they
used to own it for whatever reason they just decided it was
easier to cut it off and give it away.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: So it kind of got abandoned, is what it
amounts to.
MR. LARSEN: Mine wasn't abandoned. You charge me taxes for
my marshland.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This structure would have to be modified
Board of Trustees 90 April 21, 2004
so that the structure with the boat on it couldn't exceed
more than one-third of the way across. It's pretty tough.
MR. LARSEN: Any restrictions as far as the size of the
boat, particularly the beam?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. That would be the restriction,
one-third. Basically you could be looking at not a float
just a catwalk with a tie-off pole. So the boat would be
where the float would be. It's very limited. It depends on
the size of your yacht, I guess.
MR. LARSEN: And sailboat.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a beautiful spot in that you could
certainly pull up any kind of a small boat or Sunfish.
MR. LARSEN: I also find disturbing is that you're going
through the application process when the property is now on
the market.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's normal.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It increases the value. Sell it with a
permit on it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Also skeptical of the four feet mark,
who measured the soundings?
MS. CANTARA: We actually did soundings twice out there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You had four feet?
MS. CANTARA: There was actually a couple spots where we had
four feet. There was right in here and there even out here
over here. You know, couple of times.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We looked out at low tide and no way.
MR. LARSEN: I go there out at low tide and there's no way
there's four feet.
MS. CANTARA: We can do soundings again.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think it's water depth, it's the
width of it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to table Skunk Lane
Trust c/o Bradley and Mary Krause.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're going.to have to come up with a
dock with boat that doesn't violate a one-third rule.
30. Alpha Consulting on behalf of PETER COSOLA
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 28' open pile
fixed pier, a 3' by 15' hinged ramp, a 6' by 20' float and
one (1) float pile, and a 4' by 6' ramp landward of the
existing wall to access fixed pier. Located: 2880
Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. SCTM #87-3-343.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would you like to comment on this
Board of Trustees 91 April 21, 2004
application?
MR. ANGEL: Good morning, Ted Angel, Alpha Consulting on
behalf of Peter Cosola. I'd like to interject that
Mr. Johnston said I could stay up late today.
This application is the replacement of a one time
existing dock in the same location that was wiped out by a
hurricane when the Beige family owned it, and at this time
the application is to replace it for Mr. Cosola. It has DEC
approval, and it's just waiting for the Trustee permit.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The only recommendation I had was to
make it three feet wide instead of four feet since it's such
a short structure, just keep it small, downsize it. DEC
won't, they won't hammer you on that one, just build it.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Why? Can't get a wheelchair down there.
MR. ANGEL: He has young kids too. There is quite a bit of
space, as you saw on the inspection. I think you missed
that one, but the rest of the Board was there. I saw you on
the second one. You know the location.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes.
MR. ANGEL: Basically, because it's such a wide area, if
you don't object and we could keep the four foot wide.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I agree with Ken, try to make it three
feet. I have children, I don't care if it's 20 feet wide,
they're going to be on the edge. They're not going to be in
the middle. If they have a problem with the three feet, let
them come back and we can amend it. Is that fair, Ken?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Sure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let them come back and you can call them
tomorrow and say look, the Board really wanted three feet
because they wanted to minimize the structure. If they have
a huge problem come back and amend it.
MR. ANGEL: But going on the assumption that it's okay with
them, we can conclude it this evening?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Sure. Any other comments? I'll make a
motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the
Wetland Permit to construct a 3' by 28 open fixed pier, and
a 3' by 15' hinged ramp, and 6' by 20' float with one full
pile in a 4' by 6' ramp landward. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
31. Alpha Consulting on behalf of RICHARD M. BLAIR
request a Wetland Permit to install a 4' by 28' fixed pier,
a 3' by 15' ramp and a 6' by 20' float to be accessed by
Board of Trustees 92 April 21, 2004
stairs from grade to 4' level above vegetated
areas. Located: 900 Mason Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM
#127-3-9.1
MR. ANGEL: Ted Angel Alpha Consulting on behalf of Richard
Blair.
On this particular application initially it was the
28' ramp and stairs, and at the time of the inspection a
week ago last Monday, the Board of Trustees was on the site,
and I had indicated at that time that we changed it a bit to
completely limit any impact on the wetlands by creating a
ramp onto a fixed pier all forward of the vegetation
line. And initially -- you had, I should say you had at the
time of the inspection the revised site plan showing the
larger structure, and this is almost analogous now to the
application Number 5 that we heard earlier where the DEC
wants 4 foot depth and basically that's pretty much what
dictated this particular application site plan, going out to
4 feet at the beginning of the float.
We're talking about an area where there was some
notches cut into the marsh many years ago. I'm sure you're
very familiar with it. One of the -- call it a -- redeeming
factor on this particular application is to the west and to
the east of this parcel there are existing structures that
are more seaward than what was originally proposed here or
what I'm proposing at this time. I brought some additional
photographs because on the easterly side of the Blair
property there is a bulkhead extending an additional 18 feet
out beyond the four foot mark that we have for the float,
and I would ask the Board's consideration that since this is
an open area, and there's a lot of distance to the other
side where the waterway is rather wide, that we be allowed
to be in conformity with the existing neighboring properties
and structures. And with the Board's permission, we would
have a float situated where the beginning of the float is at
the four foot mark and it would go a little bit deeper at
its length of 20 feet. And it would not be intruding on any
navigation channel because any navigation here would have to
be seaward of the existing structures on either side of the
Blair property. Yes, sir.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I was surprised to learn previous I think
it was Geert Martens, that the DEC a float, I think it was
two feet. Have you gone to the DEC with this?
MR. ANGEL: It's in. I made the change off the initial
one. It's under analysis, but this is a permanent
structure. I think that two and-a-half foot was a seasonal.
TRUSTEE KING: The float was seasonal.
Board of Trustees 93 April 21, 2004
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Only the float, you could make this a
seasonal.
MR. ANGEL: But since the bog already projects on both
sides out, and it's a pocket, and it's directly in front of
the property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You said you had additional pictures?
MR. ANGEL: Yes, I just wanted to show you. This bottom
one, this easterly shot I believe is it, you can see this
additional "L" shape there. And since this would not be
going out any further than that, if you would consider it
where at least it would be in conformity with the other
structures, it wouldn't be going out any further. We would
limit it to that and make any necessary adjustment. Because
you have other structures, and there's the pocket. It is
protected, but we'd like to have the 4 feet and satisfy the
DEC, but we have to satisfy you too.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Honestly, I would split the baby and go in
10 feet then, you still have 4 feet of water under the
water. We want to keep it as tight as possible.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Wash that 4 feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I say go from 4' by 40' fixed, I would
think they would be happy with that. You still got the 4'
by 40' ramp.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 4' by 40' fixed.
MR. ANGEL: I'm giving up something on the ramp from the
float as well, 4 feet. 4 foot give back for the ramp
sitting on top of the float. We just want to stay at the
four feet to keep the DEC satisfied.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Okay good.
MR. ANGEL: Let me write that down.
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
with a new plan 4' by 40' fixed pier, 3' by 15' ramp and a
6' by 20' float. Do you need three piles there?
MR. ANGEL: For stability's sake.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, three piles and which includes an
access ramp in the foot path, a 3' by 16' access ramp from
the foot path. Is there a second?
MR. ANGEL: 3' by 15?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 16.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Talking about two different things, talking
about the ramp from the foot path is 3' by 16'.
MR. ANGEL: Sorry, yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second?
Board of Trustees 94 April 21, 2004
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to go back to the
regular meeting?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
(Time noted: 12:10 a.m.)
RECEIVED
J U L 1.7, 2004
thold Town 0e