HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-07/21/2004 Y
suFFot�
Albert J. Krupski, President 0�.o CQG Town Hall
James King,Vice-President =� 'f'� 53095 Route 25
Artie Foster y - P.O.Box 1179
Southold,New York 11971-0959
Ken Poliwoda
Peggy A. Dickerson y�� a0�� Telephone(631) 765-1892
•� `1► Fax(631) 765-1366
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MINUTES
Wednesday, July 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
Heather Tetrault, Environmental Technician
CALL, MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 at
8:00 a.m.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to approve, TRUSTEE DICKERSON
seconded. All AYES.
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 at
7:00 p.m.
WORK SESSION: 6:00 p.m.
TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded.
ALL AYES.
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve minutes of May 26, 2004 with
corrections given to Lauren
TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
seconded. ALL AYES.
I. MONTHLY REPORT: For May, 2004, check for $8,702.85 was
forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town
Clerk's Bulletin Board for review.
III. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
1 . BOBETTE SUTER requests an administrative permit to
install glass and screens on the existing porch and to
construct a pergola over the existing deck.
Located: 855 Fisherman's Beach Road, Cutchogue. SCTM #
111-1-20 & 30.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I looked at this today and it's a
screened-in porch and the pergola is right over an existing
porch, there's nothing at all going out around. I didn't
see any problem with it at all. I make a motion to accept
the request.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For the record I'm going to recuse myself
on this action.
IV. RESOLUTIONS-MOORING AND ANCHORAGE/STAKES:
1 . GIACOMO CHICCO requests a mooring permit in Cedar
Beach Creek for a 28 foot boat. Access: Private..
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
V. APPLICATIONS FOR
AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have a number of extensions. For the
2
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
benefit of everyone here, these aren't technically public
hearings; however, if anyone has any comments on any of
these transfers, please, we'd like to move things through
quickly so we can get to the public hearings, which
generally take more time, so if anyone has any comment,
please speak right up.
1 . RICHARD AND KIM PERRY request the last One-Year
Extension to Permit 5378, as issued on July 25, 2001 .
Located: 830 Clearview Road, Southold. SCTM # 89-3-11 .5.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to approve that last one
year extension?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
2. MARY ZUPA requests a One-Year Extension to Permit
5636, as issued on September 25, 2002. Located: 580 Basin
Road, Southold. SCTM # 81-1-16.7.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I believe that's the first request for
extension. Do I have a motion to approve?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make the motion.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
3. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of GREGORY
MAZZANOBILE requests a One-Year Extension to Permit 5631, as
issued on September 25, 2002. Located: 1360 Lake Drive,
Southold. SCTM # 59-1-21 .6 and 21 .7.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to make a motion to
approve?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
4. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of STEVEN KRAM
requests a One-Year extension to Permit 5634, as issued on
September 25, 2002. Located: 100 West Lane, Southold.
SCTM # 88-6-12
3
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to approve
that?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I believe I denied that one.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think it's for a house renovation.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Approve the amendment. This is the
September 25th action. We approve the amendment to
construct a four foot high lash deer fence around the
property being 15 foot landward of the existing bulkhead,
construct a 4 X 4 platform and stairs to the beach on the
seaward side of the existing bulkhead per project plan by
Proper-T Permit dated July 1 , 2003.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does this include the house renovation
also?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The original resolution, approve an
application for Steven Kram to construct additions to the
house structure includes three sections, 14' by 27'8",
extends east 7 feet, 365' 4". Located along back north side
of existing structure 4' by 9' front south side of existing
structure with a condition of hay bales during construction
20 foot from the bulkhead, leaders and gutters placed on
survey. That's what they want a one-year extension on.
That was granted in 2002. This is the first one-year
extension.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to go off the regular
meeting?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: So moved.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
VI. 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.
4
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
1 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: If anyone would like to address the Board,
please be ready, come up to the microphone with your
comments, identify yourself for the record.
COASTAL EROSION AND WETLAND PERMITS
1 . 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: A letter just came in today.
MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Krupski, the attorney representing this
client submitted a new letter July 21 , and asked that the
Trustees review this letter and kindly would request that
the hearing table until next month so we have time to look
at the letter.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Since the letter just came in today, I'll
make a motion to table the hearing application.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
2. ROBERT AND CHERYL SCHEIDET request a Wetland Permit
to construct a 5' by 20' dock, 10' ramp and 4' by 5'
platform. Located: 2570 Clearview Avenue, Southold.
SCTM # 70-10-29.2.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment
on this application? Any Board members have any comments?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Remember the discussion we had when we
5
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
reviewed this, about a grading system so that the platforms
could be lowered; did anyone contact the applicant about
that? Could you come up, please? After we spoke with you,
we reviewed your plans. We have this problem with most
docks, the fact that they have to go up and it's sort of a
ridiculous thing in most cases, but we've spoken over the
years about this with the DEC because it's a DEC
requirement, a certain height elevation.
MR. SCHEIDET: That's why we gave you new plans.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have an alternative to that. There's
different kinds of grating, metal and fiberglass, because
they allow for light penetration, the state said that they
would consider a lower structure, so you would have the same
size platform, it would just be a foot over. You'd have
like a step up instead of three steps up. I mean, I don't
know how you want to handle this. We'll approve it with the
new plan; you can come into the office and take a look here
and see what interests you and see what local dock builders,
of course, can get, that would be the best way to go. Then
we could approve this and then contact the DEC on your
behalf with this new plan.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, I would
rather approve this with the condition that we get a
different plan showing something that you find appropriate
and then talk to the dock builders and find out what they
can get.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: At a height of one foot above marsh. So
you'd have to get us a revised drawing showing us.
MR. SCHEIDET: Okay.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Make a motion to approve the Wetland
Permit on behalf of Robert and Cheryl Scheidet to construct
a 5' by 20' dock and 107oot ramp and a four by 5 foot
platform subject to a revised drawing that shows the dock
being no greater than one foot above the march.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Heather, when we get that plan in, you're
going to contact the DEC, find out who's reviewing it at the
DEC and tell them we have approved this with a different
plan for the light penetrating decking system that we'd like
6
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
to see approved at that height. And we'd actually be happy
to meet with them and discuss that if they have any
questions.
3. EDWARD WERTHENER requests a Wetland Permit to construct
a new bulkhead, inkind/inplace, after removal of the
existing retaining structure. Located: 180 Private Road
Number 12, Southold. SCTM # 78-6-3.1 and 2.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak on this application?
MS. TETRAULT: One thing you could ask is that when they do
this there's a lot of vegetation there that will be
disturbed that when they plant they have some revegetation
plan.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what I have down.
MS. TETRAULT: Have a revegetation plan after the work is
conducted, just add that into the permit.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC recommends approval with the
condition that no treated lumber is used. Any other Board
comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Make a motion to approve the request for
a Wetland Permit to construct a new bulkhead
in-kind/in-place after removal of existing retaining
structure. Located: 180 Private Road Number 12, Southold
with the condition that a replanting plan be in place for
after the work has been completed to keep the buffer.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
4. ROBERT WHITE requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built
6 foot stockade fence running on property line 101'4" on the
southwest side of the house. Located: 2400 Ole Jule Lane,
Mattituck. SCTM # 122-4-11 .
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there anyone here who wishes to comment
on this application?
MR. LARK: Good evening, Richard Lark, Cutchogue New York,
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
for the applicant. I believe the application is complete. As you know it
was inadvertently built without the permit, so you have an as-built, you
have a survey, Mr. White is here, if you have any questions on it.
Otherwise, I'll take any comments.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else want to comment? Any other
Board comments?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, that's fine.
TRUSTEE KING: If there are no other comments, I'll make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the as-built
request with the stipulation that it's probably 2 or 3 feet,
I would make it 3 feet, on the seaward end of the fence be
removed and make it even with landward end of the wooden
walkway. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
5. MICHAEL LIEGEY, AS CONTRACT VENDEE requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a single-family dwelling with garage and
sanitary system. Located: 480 Ackerly Pond Lane,
Southold. SCTM # 69-3-13.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of
this application?
MS. MOORE: Good evening, Board, I'm the new person here. I
have an authorization for the file (handing). Thank you so
much, I came to look at it and this is for your file (handing).
Mr. Liegey asked that I represent him. He
unfortunately ended up being hospitalized yesterday. We
hope he's fine. In reviewing the application, apparently
there have been a lot of comments and some of which I
want to clarify.
One of the things that I want to place on the record
is that there were comments made with respect to SEQRA, the
State Environmental Quality Review Act. For the record,
under 617.5139, construction of a single-family dwelling is a
Type II action that requires no further SEQRA review and
what I'd like to do for the record is put the law in your
8
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
file and give a copy to your attorney.
MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you.
MS. MOORE: With respect to the Wetland Permit that's before
you, there are certain standard conditions that you place on
the permits which are certainly acceptable to the applicant,
one of the things which the CAC recommended, which is a
standard condition by this Board, is a buffer,
nondisturbance buffer. I believe the CAC recommended 10
feet landward of the edge of the wetlands. That is
certainly acceptable. It seemed to me because there is a
bank there there's certainly room for additional buffering:
The bank continues up to the twelve foot, looks like a 12
foot contour in looking at the contour map in your
file. And it would certainly seem to me that that whole
area is to be nondisturbance, that's the intention and
certainly that could be the condition placed on the
permit.
With respect to your standard again, again your
standard requirements drainage, all roof drains and all
gutters should be properly drained, that is the standard
condition that this Board has. This survey just doesn't
have it clearly identified, but certainly that is a
condition that is acceptable to the applicant and a standard
condition on your part.
The property topography tends to go to a certain point
then the drainage goes towards the road. So there already
the topography is such that the rain water, the drainage is
going to go towards the road, we are not permitted to drain
into the road and we will catch whatever runoff, roof runoff
on premises and not allow it certainly to trespass onto
Ackerly Pond Road or to the wetlands. Also, again your
standard conditions are acceptable, which is hay bales and
that too should be identified on this survey.
With respect to the rest of the application, it is a
standard application despite all of the additional comments
that were made prior to this hearing; they are not relevant
to the Wetland Permit application. If the Board would like
to discuss any other reasonable conditions, I'm here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let me see if there's any other comment on
this application. Is there any other comment on this
9
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
application? I think we had a couple other questions. We
just received this?
MS. MOORE: Are you talking about the topo survey?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MS. MOORE: I saw it in your file yesterday. I think it was
delivered from the surveyor, or it could have been even from
the applicant directly, but yes, the topography survey,
certainly I'm glad it was prepared, it was one of the first
questions I had. The 10 foot contour, which is DEC
jurisdiction, is clearly identified. The topographic
features of the bank go to about a 12 foot elevation, then
it's a pretty level parcel that reaches a 16 foot elevation,
and then has a couple towards the road and the west side of
the property 18 feet, but that's over a long span of quite a
long distance, so it's a relatively flat parcel. The area
where the house and the garage is proposed is a flat area,
and actually from the road when you're looking at the
property it's obvious, there's a plateau, a flat, there's a
term for it --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have been to the site twice
MS. MOORE: So you're very familiar with it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Couple of comments that I have and the
other Board members have a comment; one is first of all, you
made a reference to a CAC?
MS. MOORE: If I read it correctly the CAC recommends
approval of the application with condition large trees are
protected and a 10 foot nondisturbance buffer -- I'm sorry,
I misread it, landward of the bank. So I guess the bank
being the 12 foot elevation, that looks to be about the 12
foot elevation so 10 foot landward of the bank.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That would be roughly a 30 foot buffer.
MS. MOORE: From the edge of the wetlands. Yeah, that
looked appropriate.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we'd like to maximize that. What
is the distance between, there's a house to the south,
think this permit marks this survey incorrectly, it says
formerly Slotkin,
MS. MOORE: Yeah, I don't think that's correct. From your
file, it looks like Mr. Laub.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He's on the south.
10
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
MS. MOORE: He submitted a survey that was in your file and
it shows, if it's accurate, it shows apparently a shed
that's right in the wetlands, but then he has kind of the
closest point to some type of addition to his structure that
shows a 57 foot distance to the edge of the wetlands as it
was flagged, whenever it was flagged.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's true. What I would like to see is
to have the house have the same setback as the two
neighboring houses off the road, would maximize the setback
off the wetlands and also the septic system could be put, I
think the leaching pools could be put in line parallel to
the road, which would maximize their setback from the
wetlands.
MS. MOORE: Let me clarify, if I measured correctly, I think
the sanitary looked to be about 100 feet or did you
measure something closer? It's hard to tell from this
survey, it's 43 plus 26.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have 80 here.
MS. MOORE: You think it's about 80?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. So that could be maximized because
the furthest one is almost 100. So you could maximize that
that and we would like to see the drainage shown for the
driveway on the plan and the drainage for the house and
nondisturbance on the plan.
MS. MOORE: Nondisturbance?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The nondisturbance. I think it would be
better if we went out and took a look at it and try to get a
better judge, with a topographical survey, we can get a
better judge of nondisturbance; and also could you please,
we have in the file what Mr. Laub represented of his survey
of a setback off the road and could you please get the
setback of the neighbor to the north, and I don't know what
the name is.
MS. MOORE: I'll check, yes. I don't think that's
correct. Goggin doesn't sound right. I'll get the adjacent
neighbors. The only concern I have with the placement of
the front yard setback is that it pushes us to the Zoning
Board of Appeals, generally you try to avoid going for
variances if you can. One possibility is if we can get the
adjacent neighbors, there's a provision in the code that you
11
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
can go to the front yard average setback within 300 feet of
neighbors on either side, so certainly Laub is very close.
If this survey is correct he's about 10, 15 feet from the
road, that certainly pushes us forward, but as far as the
other side if it's --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Conforming.
MS. MOORE: If it's conforming.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's similar.
MS. MOORE: It is, okay. That would make sense given the
way that street has been developed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. I would rather see that that would
maximize it off.
MS. MOORE: I'll talk to the Building Department as well
because sometimes -- I always try to remind them of that
provision in the code.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MS. MOORE: Okay, we'll get that, that's not a problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there's no other comment, does anybody
else have a comment? I'll make a motion to table the
hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MS. MOORE: Did you want to meet with the client out in the
field?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's fine.
MS. MOORE: I'll give him the date. Thank you very much.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before we go any further, Number 6, Ernest
Schneider; Number 12 Salvatore Guerrera; Number 25,
JHL Associates, and Number 30, Frankola have all been
postponed as well as off of the public hearing. Under
Resolutions, Jeffrey Hallock has also postponed. So if
anyone's here for those hearings, they will not even be
opened tonight.
7. John Koehler on behalf of FRED KOEHLER requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a deck attached to the existing
house. Located: 1595 Bay Shore Road, Southold.
SCTM # 53-4-5.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this. Is there anyone who
12
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
would like to comment on this application?
MR. KOEHLER: Members of the Board, John Koehler for the
applicant. I have the affidavit of posting, and the
affidavit of mailings, (handing).
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments against or for? If
not, I'm the Board member who visited the site. I didn't
have a problem with the deck being attached to the house
over the grass in one area. You have a deck currently
sitting on the beach on top of phragmites beyond the
concrete wall?
MR. KOEHLER: Yes.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'd like to see that removed. I don't
know if you're going to pull that deck up and bring it back?
MR. KOEHLER: No, that's a deck that we had in place of a
concrete platform that was removed partially from erosion,
but we do have a permit from DEC from back in the 70s when
that was grandfathered in, and that is remaining.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Do you have a Southold Town permit,
Trustee permit?
MR. KOEHLER: For that deck, no. But it's been there since
1975.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our Board didn't have jurisdiction on the
bay until 1991 .
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: More or less it looked like four floating
docks tied together, looked like to me?
MR. KOEHLER: That's exactly what it is. We bring them in
every season because the water does sometimes, in storms,
come up that high, but every season we bring it back out.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I've never seen it, I thought you just
tied those docks together.
MR. KOEHLER: No, we built it that way.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Do you have a permit? You said you have
a DEC permit in place, could you just provide that to the
Board?
MR. KOEHLER: I could probably get it from the DEC, I don't
have it on me. But I'm sure that they can give me something
that says that it's been there since the 70s.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If there's no permit in place, if you
can't provide the data, I might recommend that you remove
that deck and just approve this deck or make it a
13
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
stipulation that this deck approval --
MR. KOEHLER: Why is that?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Because we have a policy that there
should not be decking on the beach. However, if you do have
a deck grandfathered permit, I'll swing that way.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This isn't something we would approve
today, but if you have some preexisting condition, I don't
think we have a problem
MR. KOEHLER: Okay.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other Board comments? Would anybody
else like to comment? If not, I'll make a motion to close
the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Make a motion to approve the Wetland
Permit to construct a deck attached to the existing house
for Fred Koehler, with the stipulation that he provides us
with evidence that the deck on the beach has DEC approval,
and if not, shall be subject to removal.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
6. Meryl Kramer, Architect, on behalf of RICHARD AND JOAN
ARNOLD requests a Wetland Permit to construct a second floor
addition to the existing single-family dwelling. Located:
2105 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. SCTM # 53-4-13.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would you like to comment on this
application?
MS. KRAMER: Meryl Kramer, Architect, for the applicant. I
just wanted to let you know, and just wanted to make sure it
was understood that the second floor addition is directly
above the existing one story house and that all drainage
will go to gutters and leaders to a new dry well.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anybody else who would like to
comment on this application? Any Board members? Fairly
straightforward when I looked at
it, if not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland
14
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
Permit on behalf of Richard and Joan Arnold, do I have a
second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
9. Patrick Brennan on behalf of ROBERT and KATHLEEN
LAWRENCE requests a Wetland Permit to remove a one-story
frame house and construct a two-story frame house with
attached two-car garage, extend driveway, construct dry
stone retaining wall, and excavate and fill as
required. Located: 800 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue.
SCTM # 103-13-6.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak for this application?
MR. BRENNAN: Good evening, my name is Patrick Brennan, I'm
here on behalf of Robert and Kathleen Lawrence. I'm here to
address any concerns you may have or answer any questions.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anybody else here that would
like to speak for or against this application? CAC
recommends approval of the application with the condition of
a 20 foot nonturf buffer and dry wells and gutters are
installed to contain the roof runoff.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Standard condition on the permit to have
dry wells and gutters on the house to contain the roof
runoff.
MR. BRENNAN: Yes, we can accommodate that. The current
plans being prepared for the Building Department include two
dry wells and the house is fully guttered with leaders to
the dry wells.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the
Wetland Permit to remove a one-story frame house and
construct a two-story frame house with the attached two-car
garage, extend driveway, construct dry stone retaining wall,
and excavate and fill as required. And you say the drainage
will be put on the plans?
MR. BRENNAN: Yes.
15
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On 9, excuse me, we're also going to
require staked hay bales on that; we're going to require
staked hay bales during construction.
MR. BRENNAN: 20 feet back from the wetlands?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: No problem.
10. Frank Notaro on behalf of DAWN RYAN requests a Wetland
Permit for a partial demolition of the existing
single-family dwelling, expansion of the first floor, and
second floor addition. Located: 165 Bungalow Lane,
Mattituck. SCTM # 123-3-4.1
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this
application?
MR. KRAMER: Steven Kramer and Dawn Ryan, we're just here to
answer any questions.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we all looked at it. Are there any
other comments?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll require dry wells and gutters. You
have to have those put on the plans.
TRUSTEE KING: Are there going to be new cesspools?
MR. NOTARO: I'm Frank Notaro, I'm here on behalf of Mr. and
Mrs. Kramer. Four bedrooms and will remain four bedrooms,
so we will not expand the cesspools.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You've got sufficient setback there even
if you upgraded the system, as long as you keep it in your
back yard. If we put that in the permit that if the system
is going to be upgraded that it be put outside Trustee
jurisdiction greater than 100 feet, I don't know if you
could -- you know, it depends on neighbor's setback and
whatnot, neighbors to move it to the front yard, road
side. Even if you moved it back, if you move it just
landward there, you could get it out of our jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE KING: You're going all through this now, just take
care of that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: While everything's dug up.
16
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
MR. NOTARO: Would we require Health Department approval on
that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If they move that, would that be
considered a repair?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Move what?
MR. NOTARO: Are we asking for an additional pool?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, an upgrade of the existing
system.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You have public water?
MR. NOTARO: That's coming very shortly.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You don't. If you want to move them, you
don't have to, you know, you go to the Building Department
and you tell them you're going to move them, they're going
to make you go to the Health Department. I just know
that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know what the procedure is, so.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: If he wants to move them and should move
them, that's fine, but I wouldn't go in there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So the condition of the permit is that if
this system is updated, then it has to be moved outside of
our jurisdiction. So if you find the system's sufficient
for whatever during construction, after construction, at a
certain point you're going to have to go to the Health
Department.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You don't really.
MR. NOTARO: I'm sure the client would be willing tomorrow
to put in a new system, two pools, thousand gallon tank and
that's probably 100 percent better than what's in the ground
now, it's probably just a couple of cesspools. The problem
is the time frame.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: My point is if you find that the system's
sufficient that's my point, and you have to do something at
that point then you have to move it outside of our
jurisdiction, but at that point, you won't have to come back
to us, it will already be in your permit to do that, you
might have to go to the Health Department, Building
Department or somewhere else, you'll have it in our permit
you can do that. As opposed to during construction or right
after construction then you have to come back to us.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I wouldn't go there. As far as we're
17
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
concerned, give him the permit and if he has to upgrade the
system, then he can deal with it later. It's going to hold
him up four months at least.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, we'll go with Trustee Foster's
recommendation.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments, anything else from the
Board? I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the
application.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
11 . Michael Irving on behalf of CUTCHOGUE HARBOR MARINA
requests a Wetland Permit for the site plan of the existing
marina. Located: 3350 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue.
SCTM # 110-1-12.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anybody here to speak on behalf
of the application? Is there anyone that would like to
speak at all in regard to the application?
MR. IRVING: I'd like to introduce myself, my name is
Michael Irving. The application presented before you is an
application for an as-built facility. At the present time .
there's no additional construction alterations or changes to
what we've already submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Before the Board makes any
discussion, I'll take any comments.
MR. HUNTINGTON: Ray Huntington speaking for the Fleet's
Neck Property Owners Association. This marina is, of
course, on Fleet's Neck and it's our understanding that the
marina seeks to obtain an approved site plan, and the
Planning Board wants to have the comment of the Trustees in
order to support that plan. We believe it's in the interest
of the membership of our association that this comment be
received at soon as possible; so we'd like you to expedite
that. We want an approved site plan, an approved proper
site plan, I should say. So we ask your expeditious
response, but we also seek a fully proper site plan.
18
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
There's been a number of abuses that have occurred through
the years and hopefully that's all behind us. We like very
much the way the marina's being operated for the past nine
months or period of time since the prospective owners came
along. We believe in order to support such a proper site
plan, we sent a letter to the Trustees earlier that covers
certain points. If you received that letter, and are fully
satisfied with respect to that letter, I need not detail
them, but if I need to, I will.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why don't you go ahead for the record, but
before you start, the Town is getting more organized, we do
have someone hired full time to review information like
this, and so as I'm sure we're going to get a comment from
Heather yet who visited there today and who we have not
heard from yet.
MR. JOHNSTON: Could I ask you to comment on both your 24
April as well as your July letters?
MR. HUNTINGTON: Sure. First I'll take the most recent one,
that's the 4th of July letter. It was our understanding at
that time and it still is, that the Trustees would do a
field inspection on the 14th of July, that would hold the
hearing today, which you're doing, that you wanted to
overview the updated final site plan that would be provided
either by the Planning Board or by the marina operator. And
that you were going to perform a review of the Trustees'
files. Have all those things been accomplished now?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We haven't heard from Heather yet.
MS. TETRAULT: Do you want me to answer?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you like. Just specifically about the
site plan, we knew that Bruno in Planning had mentioned to
us that there was a newer site plan with a few changes on it
that the Planning Department had asked for, and we just
received that today. So the Trustees have not had a chance
yet to look at it, but we do have it now.
MR. HUNTINGTON: The items of concern with respect to the
Trustees jurisdiction are, Number one, the cesspools, which
are very close to the creek. There's a Trustee permit of
1994, 1 believe, that requires the marina to submit to a dye
test; however, there is no enabling or no initiating aspect
to that, so it never happened. We say from our point of
19
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
view that that test should be done now. We would think that
the prospective owners would like to do that too, to have
that done before closing, I would think.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can we address point by point?
MR. HUNTINGTON: Sure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Which septic system?
MR. HUNTINGTON: One, but there's one that's closer than the
other to the creek. They should both show up on the map.
One is behind the service building.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And the other one presumably is behind the
house, the residence; is there a residence?
MR. HUNTINGTON: Yes. We think too, that the test should be
repeated at a minimum frequency once every five years. That
means that just won't sit in the file forever. It should
also be repeated if there's reason for suspicion, if the
Trustees come to a point of saying there's something wrong
here, that's the time to do a dye check. That's our
position on the cesspools.
Obviously, if there is a problem that the test shows,
there will have to be corrective action and have to go
further upland with any kind of system. Is that it on
cesspools or is there anything else?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's fine.
MR. HUNTINGTON: Okay. The next topic was the pump-out
log records, which the Trustees required copies to be sent
to the office annually. In discussing that with Mr. Irving,
he advised us that the policy of the yard is to only launch
a boat with a sealed system, that that goes into their
standard contract. That he's been doing that and with
respect to the records, first of all, I should say
apparently nobody ever kept any record before and there may
never have been a pump-out; that's how bad the operation was
earlier, again that's yesterday. So this is obviously a
much better practice that he has as part of his standard
business plan, it pleases us a great deal. As you know this
part of the creek is closed every year and the only reason
for such closure has to be the marina because that's where
the problem is.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He closes to shellfishing?
MR. HUNTINGTON: Yes.
20
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I believe that that's an automatic closure
isn't it, because of the marina?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes, within 500 feet.
MR. HUNTINGTON: It's not dependent on conditions but rather
just some general policy?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: DEC policy, they set the closure.
MR. HUNTINGTON: That's comforting in a way.
With regard to the records, since there's a charge for the
pump-out, it shows up in the marina's business records and
an automatic report could be produced that way. We don't
see any remaining reason to do an annual filing or any kind
of scheduled filing. If there's reason to understand what's
been going on, I believe the marina can be asked for a
report that covers the topic of concern which can be derived
from their business records. That's fine with the
association.
The next item we had was bottom cleaning and stripping,
the marina. We understand in their business plan, they do
not intend to do any bottom cleaning and stripping at this
location. But if it changes in the future, we think those
wastes should be captured, decanted and the solids processed
according to DEC regulations. We don't envision, and there
are systems like this for car washes, we think that's
overkill, but we would like to see some effort made here to
capture those solids so they don't gradually build up in
whatever they might go to. You might remember earlier there
was a permit issued for the travel lift and in front of that
was a washing station with a permeable cesspool right
there. We protested at that time that that should be an
impermeable tank. As far as lighter fluids, even organic
materials, they're coming off the top, that shouldn't be a
problem, they're going to be there anyway. But the heavier
materials, the copper laden paints, the copolymers and that
sort of thing, anything that comes off in pieces should be
captured. And, of course, if there's stripping, it's
obvious, but if the stripping is typically done upland with
the tarps and so on, as long as those kinds of practices are
followed, we don't have a problem with it.
MR. HUNTINGTON: There may be other issues that spring from
your review of the file, we're not aware of such issues. We
21
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
suspect they don't exist, but if they do exist, we would
like to have the opportunity to comment on them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, I'm going to ask Ken to review
them. The plan on the site today, I'm recapping.
MS. TETRAULT: Like I said, we were waiting for this
updated plan. The updated plan actually only has three
changes from the plan that we had. Planning asked them to
add French drains at the entrances. Mr. Irving, there's two
places, do you want to just talk about that a little bit,
the French drains, the screening on the roads they asked
for?
MR. IRVING: You will note the most recent site plan is
exactly like the site plan you had, with the exception of
proposed things that don't exist at this time. The Planning
Board seemed to indicate they would like to see going
forward at some point drainage system put in the two
entrances which are indicated there and decided French
drains are probably the best use, there's some additional
screening, there's some additional zoning along the north
property line with the exception of that, I think both of
those site plans are the same. One's an existing one is
what the Planning Board would like to see proposed.
MS. TETRAULT: Like I said, I was out today, and we still
want to check through the file and see that we have permits
on file for what is out there, and even though it's an
as-built, just to see what's in the file, and the Trustees
have already, just to address some of your concerns, made
plans that they do want to see the dye test yearly, and the
pump-out records yearly. So those will be required to come
into our office, I believe that's what we talked about.
As far as this site plan, one of the other things I'd
like to see at the northern end, I'd like to see the
wetlands fringe that's there, the spartina in the upper
creek part shown on here. It shows mean high water, it
doesn't show that marsh.
MR. IRVING: If I could just address that for one moment,
and you probably are familiar with the history going forward
with trying to get this site plan reviewed, and let me bring
you up to date real quickly. One, there was never a site
plan approved for that marina until we took over operation;
22
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
we have addressed the Planning Board, we have addressed the
DEC, Department of Health, Army Corps, all in an attempt to
get the site plan reviewed. Every time we present a site
plan to the Trustees or to the Planning Board, everybody
comes back with a different idea. They would either like to
see a little more detail down by the water, they would like
to see French drains added. They would like to see
screening put in. Our intent is to get what is there
reviewed and going forward absolutely. If we do
construction, we have to go through the permit process, if
we do any alterations, changes, so forth.
The most important part of this whole thing is that the
marina is under contract for purchase. The contract date is
running out in August, the more the Board delays on
approving what is there, the greater chance you're going to
have of the facility going back to the original owners and
would be operated the original way. You can discuss it with
Mr. Huntington, but that marina, quite frankly, was an
environmental hazard the way it was being run. We have
records and data of materials that we moved out of there.
We cleaned up the facility. I ask the Trustees to review
this site plan, act upon it as quickly as possible, if you
don't, obviously, the whole thing won't go through.
MS. TETRAULT: Let me just ask you about a couple
things. The laundry facility, the bathroom, and then
there's some bulkheading right in front of it. There's a
couple of small pipes coming through the bulkheading there;
do you know, are they connected to something?
MR. IRVING: No, I don't. There is a pipe that comes from
the Town.
MS. TETRAULT: Yes, there's two pipes from the roads that
goes through the bulkhead.
MR. IRVING: There's a straight one at each end. The small
pipes, there are a number of old electrical conduits that
led Cablevision and stuff out to the pedestals, which no
longer exist, which they could be if they're gray piping
there's chances are that's what they are.
The other thing I would say is that laundry facility, I
just want to say there's a washer and dryer nobody uses, has
always been an issue down there. Quite frankly, I couldn't
23
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
care less, if you want to take them out, that's fine.
MS. TETRAULT: You said that before, we just don't want them
to be overflowing into the creek.
MR. IRVING: I just want to tell you the dye tests done
previously, all of them came back negative.
MS. TETRAULT: Those two drains coming off the road, that's
the Town road?
MR. IRVING: I would imagine that's Town jurisdiction.
MS. TETRAULT: We would probably want to see those pipes not
open into the creek as they are now. We don't approve
that.
MR. IRVING: Neither do I.
MS. TETRAULT: I understand. And, just you did ask there
about the bottom painting, you're probably aware that
marinas in New York State require a fully enclosed facility?
MR. IRVING: Yes. One of the problems I think everybody's
having with this facility is there are a lot of things
everybody would like to see. The reality in a commercial
operation like that, there are certain guidelines, rules and
regulations from the DEC, from the Trustees, from the
Department of Health that govern how you do business. We
don't have an intent to do any major bottom cleaning or
spraying over there. Going forward maybe another owner
would, but then again, he would be under the guidelines and
rules and regs that are required. So I don't see why we
should alter what's there for something we aren't making use
of.
MS. TETRAULT: Okay. But you haul boats out there and you
store for the winter?
MR. IRVING: No, we do not. We winter store boats there,
but we don't do any haulage or anything like that.
MS. TETRAULT: Okay. You have the travel list, that's
why. On the travel list, you have a bunch of pilings; are
those being replaced?
MR. IRVING: When I got there and started to clean up the
area, I lifted off the inside of that creek 26 pilings that
were on the bottom of that creek, and they were strung in
the various positions from the north basin all the way out
to the main channel, all the way out past the gas stop.
Where they came from, I have not a clue.
24
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
MS. TETRAULT: Okay, those are those ones that are sitting?
MR. IRVING: Yes, they all came off the bottom.
MS. TETRAULT: When you say you don't haul them but you
store them, do people come in and work on their own bottoms
in the yard?
MR. IRVING: No. To bring you up to date, we have two
facilities, one in Cutchogue Harbor Marina and then New
Suffolk Shipyard. Just from a business plan, the operation
dictates that all the service, hauling, mechanical work is
done out of the shipyard and not out at Cutchogue. Our
primary use at Cutchogue is more for storage and for the
dockage.
MS. TETRAULT: Okay. The Conservation Advisory Council
recommended that the parking lot is graded away from the
water. To contain the runoff from the pervious parking
area, a recharge basin is installed and the parking area is
graded away from the water.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does it say which parking lot?
MS. TETRAULT: Lauren, do you know which one they're talking
about?
MS. STANDISH: They must mean the gravel one all the way
to the north.
MR. IRVING: There's no problem adjusting the grade so the
runoff goes -- I think actually, if you look at it now, it
does. But grading is not a problem. We're starting to
install cement drains and runoff drains for a facility we
don't own yet, that's a problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. We didn't look at this this
past month as a Board because we wanted to send Heather to
look at it, and it did take the whole Board to look at it.
MR. WILLIS: Can I address the group?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure.
MR. WILLIS: I'm Lawrence Willis. I'm the owner of New
Suffolk Shipyard, and in contract to purchase Cutchogue
Harbor. We have met with many people on this over the last
nine months trying to get to closure, as Michael
indicated. We're getting to the end of the rope. We're
getting to the end of the rope because we have a contract of
sale that is going to expire. Absent a contract for actual
closing, we have made considerable investments in that
25
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
property to improve it. We have met with the complete Fleet
Neck Associations, and we have indicated that we will do
whatever is necessary to make people comfortable with the
operation of that marina, I think we have demonstrated
through what we have done to date that we're prepared to
make that a first class operation. We would be very
concerned and would be a very negative situation if the deal
falls through simply because we can't get the paperwork
completed, which is what is happening. We have been going
through this for quite some time. Again, we're prepared to
do whatever is necessary to address all of the regulatory
requirements, all of the Town requirements, and I'm sure
that we can work individually with any of the neighbors to
address any concerns they might have going forward, so we
just want to get closure on this, otherwise it's going to be
back in the hands of the old owners.
MR. HUNTINGTON: I'd like to add at this point that the
association concurs with that. We would like to see this
deal be consummated. However, we also want a proper site
plan to be in place. This marina will be sold some day.
That's a fact, and who knows how the next owner will behave,
we want that protection in place. The Town Code provides
for it and the association wants it. We implore you to move
as rapidly as you can because of the circumstances that
Mr. Willis just described.
There was a request made to go over our memo, the
letter of the 24th of April; let me just summarize that
right now by saying -- that's about a four-page memo and
most of that has to do with the Planning Board. The items
that had to do with the Trustees were summarized in the memo
of the 4th of July. So I don't think we need to go over
that in any more detail that you might want.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there any other comment?
I think the Board is inclined to approve this with
conditions.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You know you want to consider there's
probably not one square foot of property on here that isn't
jurisdictionalized by us, and at a later date if anything
pops up, we can control that. So there's no reason to hold
them up for unobvious reasons, and you know, the conditions
26
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
that really don't exist at this particular time. I'm sure
these people will work with us if anything arises that we
need to deal with.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So what's been brought up is the wetlands
line on the north side should be marked. Do you want to
hold that until the property conveyed and put that on the
applicant? Because if, for some other reason, the property
isn't conveyed, then it's too much of a burden to put on the
applicant if he doesn't own it. These conditions we're
going to put on the permit tonight are only going to be in
place if you, in fact, close on the property.
MR. IRVING: What conditions are we talking about?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'd like to see the wetlands on the north
end flagged. You may be up for removing the laundry
facility. And dye test every five years and pump out
records.
MR. IRVING: There's no problem presenting you with pump-out
records and stuff, but I've got to tell you, in a busy
business schedule you guys are going to have to remind us;
what do you mean, weekly, monthly, yearly?
MS. TETRAULT: Yearly.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yearly. How much of an administrative
effort is that going to take on your part?
MR. IRVING: Takes an effort, got to print them out and send
them to you, every bit takes an effort. We have no problem
providing pump-out records and containing the wetlands flag
as indicated on the plans as long as it doesn't delay us.
MS. TETRAULT: No.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what I'm saying, to approve this
and then once you close on the property, then we would like
to see this done; in other words, you have an approval.
We're not going to require you to do something, suppose for
whatever reason you don't close on it, then you don't do
it. You would get an approval tonight.
TRUSTEE KING: These requirements are only after the fact.
MR. IRVING: That's fine.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: We just don't want to hold you up.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, usually we do it the other way, but
in this case, since you don't own it, it really isn't fair
for you to do the work. I'll make a motion to close the
27
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the
application of Cutchogue Harbor Marina, with the condition
that after the sale is complete, that within one year of the
sale, wetlands line on the north side of the property will be
flagged on the site plan, and that dye test be conducted
once every five years, and that the pump out records be
submitted once a year.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Starting at the time of purchase.
MR. JOHNSTON: Requiring a dye test at the time of purchase
and every five years?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: No.
MR. JOHNSTON: Five years after the date of purchase or
starting at the date of purchase?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Starting at the date of purchase.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You want one now?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You don't want one now?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Starting at the date of purchase a dye test
within five years?
MR. IRVING: I don't care which you want.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Or you want it the first year and then
five years? The first dye within one year and then one
every five years.
MR. IRVING: So year one, six, 11?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. So after the purchase, you have one
year to complete.
MR. IRVING: The probability is we will not close without a
dye test.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, that would fulfill the requirement
for the first one. So that was the resolution.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
13. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of OLIVE PENFIELD
requests a Wetland Permit to resheath 100 feet of existing
28
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
bulkhead by placing new 8' by 2' by 10' CCA T and G
sheathing landward of the existing sheathing.
Located: 515 Harbor Lights Drive, Southold.
SCTM # 71-2-3.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would you like to comment on this
application?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, Jim Fitzgerald on behalf of Mrs.
Penfield. It's pretty straightforward, unless you have any
questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other public comments before I begin?
If not, I visited the site, the only recommendation I have
is to create a 10 foot nonturf buffer where it's all sloped
in falling in.
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, that's fine.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Other than that, I have no other
comments.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: CAC, for the record, recommended disapproval
because the use of CCA lumber is prohibited. And the
project requires a 20 foot nonturf buffer.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: In that area I found most, if not all, of
them were 10 foot nonturf buffers, two of them have decking
we've given permits for.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So this sheathing's going to be behind, so
it's really not in contact with the water. If that was
their concern.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If no other comments, I'll make a motion
to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland
Permit on behalf of Olive Penfield with the stipulation that
a 10 foot nonturf buffer be created behind the bulkhead. Do
I have a second?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
14. Vicki Toth on behalf of ROBERTS CUSTOM HOMES requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a two-story, single-family
dwelling with associated septic system. Located: 1500 Bay
29
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
Avenue, East Marion. SCTM # 31-8-12.9.
MS. TOTH: Good evening my name is Vicki Toth, I'm here on
behalf of Roberts Custom Homes. If you have any questions,
I'd be happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Are there any restrictions?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have been out there, see if there's any
other comment. We have been out there a couple months
earlier.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there any other public comment? I'll
make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before you close this, can you pass that
survey down? There's a 75 foot mark on that survey, we'd
just like to see that line follow the edge of the pond line
and show that as the nondisturbance buffer.
MS. TOTH: You would like it noted on the survey, that would
be an undisturbed buffer zone and --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. And a line of hay bales along that
line during construction. And even though the house is
really nonjurisdictional, we'd like to see dry wells and
gutters on it. I think that's a building requirement
anyway.
MS. TOTH: It is. And for the record, the existing shed
will be removed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Artie, do you have any other comments?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: No. Any other comments on this
application? I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second that. And just add the house
really is nonjurisdictional; it's really just one corner of
the lot that our jurisdiction covers.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You seconded. All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to approve the
application with the conditions that were mentioned.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES.
15. Vicki Toth on behalf of CONSTANTINOS MARKOTSIS
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 25' by 25'
one-story addition with a fireplace on to the existing
house. Located: 145 Williamsburg Road, Southold.
30
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
SCTM # 78-5-12
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would you like to comment on this one?
MS. TOTH: Good evening again, my name is Vicki Toth, I'm
here on behalf of the homeowner. I'd like to request an
amendment to revise this permit to reflect the revised
survey that was submitted to you. The proposed addition is
actually 25 by 27, and there is an existing covered screened
wood deck and what they're proposing is to enclose it. I'm
not sure if that needs a wetland because they won't be going
outside the existing footprint of the home, but I would like
that to be noted as a change to the first survey.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes, it would.
MS. TOTH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: As far as the amendment to enclose that,
I didn't look for that.
MS. TOTH: Okay.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at where the addition was going,
I didn't have a problem with that. By looking, I don't think there's any
problem where this enclosure is going to be.
MS. TOTH: Just another note for the record, this property
is nonjurisdiction with DEC because of the man-made bulkhead
that's been in existence prior to 1977.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments on this application?
If not, I have one stipulation I'd like to see dry wells and
gutters.
MS. TOTH: Okay.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'd just like to see those added.
MS. TOTH: So any gutters and leaders you'd like to go into
dry wells?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes. I'll make a motion to close this
public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve a Wetland
Permit on behalf of Constantinos Markotsis for the addition
with the stipulation that dry wells and gutters be added on
the survey; do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
31
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
16. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of CAROL R.
DENSON requests a Wetland Permit to construct an upper level
on the existing barge restaurant building.
Located: 750 Old Main Road, Southold. SCTM # 56-6-8.7
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any public comment?
MR. COSTELLO: George Costello, Senior. I believe at one
time we had a waiver from the Trustees for this particular
project, and I think it expired, I believe that's why we're
here.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: We all looked at this. I don't think
anybody had a problem with it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We did note a few changes for the
drainage.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: There's a few notes here that there will be
no turf on the site other than what grows naturally. Grade
the parking lot away from the water, gutters and dry wells,
and cut the phragmites to one foot.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We want to delineate that area. The
problem seems to be on the south side of the building.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, waterside.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: From the building itself going to the west
front of the building in front of the parking lot. The
phragmites seem to be choking out the spartina, and if they
were cut down to a foot in height we felt the spartina would
grow. And also the area between the bulkhead and the
parking lot is like a sandy area. We just wanted to make
sure that wouldn't be turf at all. That would remain either
sand or gravel or something?
MR. COSTELLO: Correct.
MS. TETRAULT: One thing I looked at.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It says check all dock permits, which is
our responsibility and keep the runoff out of the water.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Artie, can you delineate that on the
survey, the area that the phragmites are to be trimmed at,
so it's clear?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Was there a question since you're going
up on a second floor of a restaurant is there going to be a
need for more cesspools?
MR. COSTELLO: No, I believe the outside seating is going to
32
Board of Trustees OSQf c July 21, 2004
Albert J.Krupski,President 0� Q Town Hall
James King,Vice-President =� G'y� 53095 Route 25
Aiggowpatairs. o - P.O.Box 1179
KeTRUiScTEE POLIWODA ;I we shouldoAtddfle%lgvcfff R&971-0959
Pe
ggyr .i ftfflfiges out front, ' float layingrelephone(631) 765-1892
there, sideways the le gt tM We would llk('tb(631) 765-1366
see that removed.
MR. COSTELLO: Okay.
TRUSTEE POLIV MAP Q19T@WWWNTJWWg there.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: J(RWRff 8 3OLD
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any other comment?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just one question, during construction is
there going to be a need for excavation; should we have a
hay bale line?
MR. COSTELLO: No. The second story is going to be
supported on pilings, so it's piling driven, no
excavating.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to close the public
hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to approve the public
hearing as requested with the changes that were verbally
made, no turf on site, grade parking lot away from water,
check all dock permits, gutters and dry wells, cut
phragmites to one foot as indicated on survey, parking lot
keep half higher above parking lot.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That was that sandy area in front.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: And keep runoff out of the water and remove
the float that's on the marsh. And I think that's it; anybody want to
second it?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES
17. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of THEODORE
LAOUDIS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 252 foot
retaining wall within 18 inches in front of existing retaining
wall using C-LOC 4500 vinyl sheathing, 9 inch diameter
piling, and 6' by 6' stringers; place 45 to 50 cubic yards
of clean trucked-in fill between existing and new retaining
33
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
walls; place 1500 to 1800 pound boulders in front of new
retaining wall; reconstruct existing 5.5' by 20' stairs;
construct a new set of 5.5' by 20' stairs on the south side
of the property; remove and dispose of a total of 107' of
bulkhead and construct a total of 107' of bulkhead using
C-Loc 4500 vinyl sheathing; remove and dispose of the most
seaward 20 foot section of existing jetty and construct a
new 20 foot section of jetty using C-Loc 4500 vinyl
sheathing; remove and dispose of a 35 foot section of
bulkhead and construct a new 35 foot section of bulkhead
using C-Loc 4500 vinyl sheathing. Located: 405 Kimberly
Lane, Southold. SCTM #. 70-13-20.3 and 20.4.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone who would like to speak
in favor of this application?
MR. COSTELLO: George Costello, Senior. All the structures
are existing with the exception of one set of stairs, which
is going to the south and the placement of the 1500 to 1800
pound boulders. I'll answer any of your questions that you
may have.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anybody else who would like to
speak for or against this application?
TRUSTEE KING: I just had a question, George, on the groin,
I have trouble understanding how you're going to do it.
You're going to replace the seaward 20 feet with vinyl?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes. There is 68 feet, if you recall,
bulkhead. And it turns into jetty, most of that is
basically on the ground because it's built up so much with
the exception of the offshore 20 feet, and you can see it's
been repaired a couple of times and that is still
functioning but as a jetty.
TRUSTEE KING: There's one section just stacked up two or
three pieces on top of each other, just landward of where
the 20 feet would be, can that be removed?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: It just didn't make sense to me.
MR. COSTELLO: It was a patch job.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't have anything else except a 15
foot nonturf buffer. Anyone else here to speak for or
against? Board comments?
TRUSTEE KING: My one question was get rid of some of that
34
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
excess timber sticking up.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC recommends disapproval of the
application because the survey did not match the
property. We didn't seem to have a problem with that.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We found it. You know, if he puts a few
more stones out there, it feels like the Catskill Mountains
in my back yard.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The groin that you want to replace, if
you can construct that as a low profile groin?
MR. COSTELLO: We're going to carry the same line as the
original one, this one's been built up a couple of times,
we're low profile, DEC requested the same thing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I made a motion; do I have a second?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have all Ayes on the closing of the
hearing. I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland
application for Theodore Laoudis as requested with a 15 foot
nonturf buffer along the bulkhead and also that the top
would be removed from the jetty.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
18: Patricia C. Moore on behalf of LISA EDSON requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling on
piles, swimming pool, pervious driveway, sanitary system
with concrete retaining wall; 450 cubic yards of fill, dry
wells, a 50 foot nondisturbance buffer, and connection to
public water and utilities. Located. 9326 Main Bayview
Road, Southold. SCTM # 87-5-25.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak in favor of the application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. I'm here to try to answer any questions
that might come up. I thank you for going over to the
property. We did have a clearing area for your convenience,
and hopeful that helped give you another tour of this
property probably for the fourth or fifth time, sixth time
you've been there. Did you have any comments or questions?
35
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We might. I'll just take all other
comments first.
MS. MOORE: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in
favor or against the application?
MS. KIRSCH: Hello, my name is Mary Kirsch, and I'm the
adjacent neighbor to the Edsons.
First, for the record, I would just like to rectify
something mentioned in the April meeting. It was implied
that the Edsons tried to accommodate us with numerous
building proposals. Well, the truth of the matter was it
never decreased in size, which was part of the problem. The
house, pool and decking were moved around, switched over
here, over there, but it always remained the same size, very
large. A little over two years ago this Board very
reluctantly issued a Wetland Permit to the Edsons and told
us to fight it out in the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board
was extremely forgiving and the Edsons got the green light
to go and build. They never did. Now the Wetland Permit
has expired and the whim to build again has returned. In
this interim of time we have had a building moratorium to
keep a handle on the building boom here, protect the
wetlands with more stringent rules, regulation, and setbacks
in order to keep the integrity of the north fork
landscape. The Edson building package, therefore is no
longer valid.
Not too long ago the Edsons illegally cleared the lot
now new growth has returned and wetland vegetation and
planted species are clearly everywhere. It is so low down
there that after a good rain, you are ankle deep in water;
and finally, their building package setback from the
wetlands no longer meet Southold code. Everyone has been
extremely accommodating throughout their whole process and
now, in short, they had the opportunity to build, it passed
and now their building proposal is no longer appropriate or
valid. This is one of those unusual situations where a
wrong can be made right. Something that fell through the
cracks can be rectified.
So in all due respect, I request that the Trustees deny
this Wetland Permit. Thank you.
36
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there any other comment?
Just for the record, I'd just like to say, Pat, before you
speak, that routinely we are, as we did at the beginning of
the meeting, we grant extensions to permits and also fairly
routinely, when permits run out as they do, we have to go
through a whole review process depending if conditions have
changed. Now, just for the record, this permit was applied
for in March and it's now July, and the reason it's going on
this long is because the reason we have been out there twice
since March is because the conditions on the site seemed,
not only has the code changed, but the conditions on the
site seem to have changed somewhat. And we had to have the
area cleared and restaked so we could actually, physically
take a look at it, where we couldn't physically look at it
before, it was impossible, it was impassable. That's why
it's gone from March to July and we are fortunate to have
someone full-time in the Trustee office working for the Town
that can go to this site and review the application and to
verify the wetlands lines and to make comments to the
Board. And I'm going to ask Heather for what she saw on the
site.
MS. TETRAULT: Like Al was saying, the conditions have
changed from an area that was cleared and graded, so it was
more upland and then when those trees were cleared out, it
filled back in with some high marsh upper edge marsh
species, which indicates things about wetland soils and
where the tide is coming up there, where there's some water
coming up closer there.
I went to flag the wetlands and also look at where this
proposal is. I didn't see stakes for all of it, but that
was one thing I wanted to ask you about because when we went
with the Trustees last week, I think the Trustees were
looking more at the site, the whole site and where the
wetlands were. But today I wasn't able to find -- has
everything been staked?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we saw the stakes last week.
MS. MOORE: It's been staked numerous times. In fact, most
recently to try and help, I think Tom McCarthy went to cut
from stake to stake pretty much identified where the
building envelope was to try and help you identify following
37
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
the building envelope and where the stakes were. He said he
actually was able to find the stakes pretty consistently.
He had the survey in front of him, obviously because of his
construction background, he can identify offsets and stakes.
To my knowledge, the cleared area now reflects the corner
staking of the development area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we found as a Board last week we
found most of the stakes.
MS. MOORE: Good.
MS. TETRAULT: But the wetlands line that I saw wasn't
exactly like what was on here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what we wanted to verify. What did
you find?
MS. TETRAULT: I didn't know if you wanted me to flag them
and tear them.
MS. MOORE: If I could just put some facts on the record.
To begin with, for the record, I did the permit work for
Mary Kirsch to the north, and we came in on a parcel that
was one-half -- or fully one-third the size of this
property; it's one acre versus this 3.7 acre parcel. We
were able to get a permit from flagged wetlands that were
flagged by Rob Hermann of En-Consultants, who's here, and
the construction of the house was placed at 50 feet from the
closest point of the flagged wetlands. We then, within two
years or so, we came 'in for Lisa Edson, and Lisa Edson, the
wetlands were not only flagged by Rob Hermann, they were
flagged in the presence of the DEC to verify these
wetlands. These are tidal wetlands, and therefore they
are -- and I asked Rob to put on the record -- that the fact
that tidal wetlands do not deviate greatly; they are fed by
tidal action, so you're not dealing freshwater
wetlands. The fact that DEC has been using the same
ordinance that you used today to flag wetlands. So as far
as circumstances changing, the code may have changed,
however, our wetlands flagging was based on DEC regulations,
which you have now mirrored based on vegetation. So the
circumstances have not changed, not significantly. We have
Health Department approval here; we have DEC approval. We
have had numerous years of these approvals. We had to come
in to you for approval for extensions of approval and it was
38
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
only by just oversight on the client's part that she missed
being able to come in for an extension of a permit within a
month of his expiration because of the way the permits are
written, it doesn't fall in line with the permit date on the
document; it may fall with the permit date of the
hearing. So unfortunately, she ended up missing it, it's
not that she ever intended to have this permit lapse. She
had architecturals ready. She had Health Department stamp
ready. She was ready to go file for building permits and
then you had the moratorium, which obviously once the permit
lapsed, the moratorium at least originally, you could not
come in and get an extension on a lapsed permit. So she was
faced with the hurdle of waiting. Now you say that we
started the process in March. Understandably you needed to
have the area cleared because the property has been left
untouched so that there would be no issues of violations,
and they took great efforts to flag it, reflag it and then
clear it for you so that you could see it. We are pretty
much locked into this design or this footprint because we
are 75 feet at its closest point from the wetlands that were
flagged by the DEC.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: When is that, Pat?
MS. MOORE: The latest DEC flagged wetlands was August of
2000.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: August of 2000?
MS. MOORE: 2000, so we're talking about only a four year
duration, which is not for tidal and you're certainly all
much more knowledgeable than I am on the impacts of tidal
wetland. They are not ones that deviate. So here we are, I
appreciate Miss Kirsch's complaints, and it's purely a
factor of yes, if we can keep this house from being built
where it is, it protects her views, but she well knew when
she bought this property that Lisa Edson had a right to
build here. The parcel is 3.7 acres and it is 90 percent
preserved. You should have most of your applications or all
your applications that are as limited in their development
as this one. I'm sorry, 3.47 acres.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you finished, Pat?
MS. MOORE: What Mary Kirsch is talking about change is not
change at all. Your code has not -- our flagging is not
39
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
based on your code, it is based on the DEC. That has not
changed. In fact, it is now more accurate reflecting DEC
regulations.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What if they had flagged this 14 years
ago instead of four years ago, would you still argue the
same point?
MS. MOORE: DEC generally has permits 10 year durations,
there's a basis for it. In fact, the USGA map you
recognize, when was that done, 70s, '80s and that's still
the basis for your permits, DEC permits, most of the
maritime permits.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not our permits.
MS. MOORE: They were under the previous code. So it's a
state recognized standard.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It has changed because we issued this
permit -- originally this was applied for in 1999, I've got
the survey here that says edge of wetlands is flagged by
En-Consultants on March 17, 1999.
MS. MOORE: Please look at the note on the closest wetlands
of the 75 feet on the west side of the property says tidal
wetlands as delineated by En-Consultants and New York State
DEC, August 16, 2000.
There were inspections, re-inspections. If you recall
your original permit came in, you had us revise the access,
the right of way. We had to go get Zoning Board of Appeals
and the Health Department, we had to go back to the
different agencies to modify the permit. This poor woman
has gone through numerous permits and reissued permits and
modifications of permits. All of these notations were not
done at her whim. They were done based on your requests,
DEC requests, Health Department requests. At this point she
has an enormous expenditure in order to satisfy the Trustees
drainage condition on this right of way. That was probably
the most regulated access driveway that you had ever
permitted in that the drainage system there far exceeds
anything else that the Town had at that point approved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was at the applicant's suggestion,
not ours. We didn't ask for a structure.
MS. MOORE: For the drainage structures.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They asked for massive drainage like we
40
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
did on another project that we did.on Cog Neck, we didn't
ask for --
MS. MOORE: No, I think you should go back to your
transcript. I remember specific drainage structures. In
fact, we had to go to the Health Department to modify her
permit because it now affected the Health Department
approval.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment?
MS. MOORE: I'm here to try to respond.
MS. KIRSCH: My comment is that the Zoning Board was
extremely forgiving with a zero side yard, which made this
whole project possible. I mean, it's total wetlands. The
setback should be 100 feet, not 75 feet, and I mean, I
welcome you guys, but you should go by the rules, that's
what this whole moratorium was about.
MS. MOORE: Clarification and correction. The Zoning Board
at the time the Building Department interpreted right of
ways to be a front yard -- I've put this on the record
before, and it's still being repeated incorrectly -- the
Zoning Board gave a zero lot line or a 10 foot setback and
five foot -- three foot setback for the sanitary system
because the right of way is purely a pedestrian right of way
for the dredged canal. It is not Trustee land to the extent
it is not under your proprietary interest, it's regulatory
review. So generally, the Trustees recognize that wetlands
that are created by artificial means are treated a little
bit differently than wetlands that are naturally created
through nature.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But the value of the wetlands is still
high because it's adjacent to undisturbed wetlands. The
dredge canal is the dredge canal, but the adjacent wetlands
was probably more extensive before areas were filled and
obviously areas were filled when the canal was dredged.
MS. MOORE: I don't know that to be the case. It could have
been land that is not filled. It doesn't show as filled
land.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It was dredged and diked up.
MS. MOORE: Keep in mind that we have provided for a 50 foot
nondisturbance buffer. So you have 42 free from the edge of
a wetlands that is kind of spur wetlands not the kind of
41
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
filter wetlands. We have 50 feet of nondisturbance and
buffering to these wetlands. That's why this Board thought
it reasonable to give the permit that was given and extended
and revisited. So here we are today that again, I would
emphasize that the conditions have not changed. We have the
existing conditions.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's where the conflict arises, you're
asking for a 50 foot nondisturbance buffer from the survey
from the year 2000 and when I go out there to inspect the
property, at present it appears that the wetlands have taken
over and where your 50 foot buffer is completely wetland.
MS. KIRSCH: And I think the wetlands did take over because
about 25 oak trees were cut down and that was originally
wetlands, and it was shaded and the vegetation wasn't there,
but it was wetlands; that's what your clients did.
MS. MOORE: My client hasn't done any of that. We haven't
cleared anything in the time that we have been before this
Board.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually, when we went out there it was
completely cleared. We went out there in a violation.
MS. MOORE: That was before I got involved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When we were involved, the original
action.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The very first time I was out there, the
entire property was cleared, and --
MS. MOORE: I don't know that that was Lisa Edson, it may
have been another family member.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what happened. You said it was in
the family.
MS. MOORE: It's not Lisa, the applicant before you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's why we said the property's changed
dramatically. We went out there, it was completely cleared
and now, five years later, it's completely revegetated as
the pictures in the file show, so that it was physically
impassible for us to inspect and find the stakes that's why
to do a serious inspection it was impossible before this.
Now, I'd like to get back to the environmental end of
it here and ask Heather if she can verify the wetland line,
I mean 2004, 1 mean -- 2000 wetland line and a '99 wetlands
line. We asked her to go out in the field and verify those.
42
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
It's very important because we still want to honor our
setbacks that are in the code.
MS. TETRAULT: Well, I think, like you were saying, when
those oak trees came down, they did open it up and some of
the high marsh species like the bacharus grew in there, and
so the wetlands line that I saw was not the same as what is
on this survey.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would you recommend having the applicant
reflag the wetlands line, not reflag it, that's assuming
that it changed, reevaluate the wetlands line. They hired
En-Consultants last time, they can hire anyone they want.
MS. TETRAULT: That would be good because now it's saying
this 50 foot buffer like Ken said, but it's not going from
the right spot.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then we could reevaluate it because based
on the updated information, things have changed. Like I
said, many of these resubmissions after the prior permit came in
and conditions haven't changed at all. In many cases they
want an area next to the house, you look at it, and it's the
same thing. This has been a dramatic change in vegetation
on the site. Maybe it would be a better idea to have the
applicant recheck the wetlands line and then our office can
verify that. That's what I'd like to see. I'm not saying
it changed, I'm just saying they have to check it.
MS. MOORE: I asked Rob Hermann to put on the record some
facts.
MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants. I am not
currently retained by Lisa Edson. So I, for the record, am
loathe to say anything in support of or opposition of the
application. I will, Pat, if you don't mind, make a
suggestion. This is not a totally unique situation. It's
my suggestion that probably the most reliable way to do this
would be for the applicant to retain a surveyor to go out
and recreate the relative portion of the wetlands. A lot of
wetlands are on this property and it's probably a waste of
everybody's time and money to have the entire site
reflagged. The only part that's really important to the
opposition, to the Board, to the applicant, et cetera, is
where are the wetlands that are closest to the proposed
development.
43
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
If I recall correctly, there were some points from
which the buffer arcs were drawn. It would not be difficult
for a surveyor to go out and essentially recreate what was
flagged five years ago. You could go out to visit those
stakes from the surveyor, and very easily see there are now
wetlands higher up than that or are there not. So that
would be my suggestion as listening to both of you going
back and forth. Probably the most efficient way to go out
and find out whether conditions have changed have in fact
changed. It's the easiest thing to do because nobody's
going to figure out going in there where those flags were
hanging five years ago, and it doesn't seem to make all that
much sense to try and reflag the entire site. So given you
have a site plan based on a specific line, recreate that
line and see what the conditions are on either side of it.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Can I ask you a question, do tidal
wetland lines move?
MR. HERMANN: Kenny, I'm really reluctant to stand here and
offer testimony, because I'm not retained by Lisa Edson.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm just curious, from a Trustee point of
view.
MR. HERMANN: I'll be happy to talk to you somewhere else,
but I'm not --
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's a yes or no.
MR. HERMANN: I'm not going to respond. It's not a yes or
no answer, so I'm not going to. And, Pat, I hope you
understand me, I'm not being paid so I'm not going to get
dragged into this. It's not a matter of a value of the
answer. It's just that if this thing goes from one way to
the Article 78, I'm not going to stand here and put my
testimony on the record. I mean, Brownell --
MR. JOHNSTON: I agree.
MR. HERMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you see the picture, you remember the
site from four or five years ago?
MR. HERMANN: Brownell, can you get me out of here?
MR. JOHNSTON: Sit down, Rob.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you for your suggestion, that was
my suggestion also.
MS. MOORE: So you only need a couple of points because
44
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
flagging these wetlands was a real tireless job for Rob, the
DEC, they were out there quite a bit. I called the
surveyor, and the surveyor says, you know, just take a
measuring from the stake and move it out and you've got your
point. So he was not very helpful in trying to give me a
suggestion on how to stake this. If you want to give me
some identifier, mark on my map.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could we mark on your map?
MS. MOORE: Sure, and then I can give to Joe Ingegno the
spots and that would make my life easier and we're talking
about thousands of dollars to survey and stake.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: (Marking.) I guess he can do these points
he had before and then these points, it's a fairly consistent
line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to table the application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
19. Andrew Nikolich on behalf of WILLOW POINT ASSOCIATION
requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge
approximately 900 feet of an existing Budd's Pond channel
and canal to an original width of 50 feet and depth of 5
foot. Dredging will be performed by utilizing crane and
clamshell bucket. Approximately 900 cubic yards of dredged
material will be disposed on Willow Point Association
property. Located: Willow Point Road, Southold.
SCTM # 56-5-28.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in
favor of this application?
MR. NIKOLICH: I am Andrew Nikolich, and I would answer any
questions that you might have to the best of my ability. We
also have here Bob Guarriello.
MR. GUARRIELLO: Bob Guarriello, G-U-A-R-R-I-E-L-L-O.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have any comments on this? Let me
see if there's any other comments from anyone else; is there
anyone interested in commenting on this application? Have
you contacted the DEC on this at all?
MR. NIKOLICH: Yes, I submitted to DEC sometime in early
February a plan to do the dredging. They requested a survey
of the marina property, which we complied with. They also
45
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
requested that the original plan that I submitted to them be
revised showing a high low waters, which was done, then we
submitted two or three weeks ago, all the information, eight
requests that they noted. They also requested a letter of
the adjoining owners of the canal that have underwater
property for their permission to do the dredging, which we
received four letters, three letters, actually, the three
people, and we submitted to them. They requested that we
submit, that we obtain a permit from you because you own the
property outside of the canal and then, only then they would
issue a permit on that. That's why I applied to you for a
permit and once we get your permit, I will go to submit the
permit to them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think the Board has any big
problem with the dredging itself. I think the issue was
with the spoil site. I think that's where our concern was,
where the spoil would be placed.
MR. NIKOLICH: The disposal for the spoil is on the marina
property if that's okay to put it, if not, then we have to
look for alternatives.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: There's your answer to your question: Do
the wetlands change; do they move?
MR. NIKOLICH: Well, the surveyor --
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I was referring to this drawing, but in
reference to the last hearing.
MR. NIKOLICH: Right.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Because we went out and looked at this and
I think this was an original spoils site, but which is now
loaded with spartina and so wetlands have actually grown
into that spoils site. So at the last hearing they wanted
to know do wetlands actually move, well, obviously they
do.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The reason I asked if you have been in
contact with the DEC, because it seems unlikely that they
would allow you to place the spoils in that location.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Unless they didn't do a visual
inspection. They might not have done an onsite inspection
and saw what was previously a spoil site and given them
permission based on that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That doesn't seem right because 900 yards
46
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
is a lot of material. They have to give a visual inspection
on this because they're pretty fussy about spoil site.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Private land.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Mr. Nikolich, one of the things that we
considered was that road ending that goes almost right down
to the water's edge. We wondered if you would consider
putting that spoil at the end there?
MR. NIKOLICH: No. That would be -- it's like a large
parking area. It would be almost like in the middle of it.
MR. GUARRIELLO: You would actually have us put it --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And move the road back away from the
water's edge and replant it there as opposed to putting it
on top of the --
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Getting rid of the cul-de-sac?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Not completely.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: 900 cubic yards. One cubic yard is 3 by 3
by 3 feet.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Tell me yes or no.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Do that times 900.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You couldn't get rid of 900 yards at the
end of that road.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay.
MR. NIKOLICH: If we could put a portion, we'd appreciate
that. The rest we would have to truck out. The other
possibility. We were contacted by Suffolk Department of
Bridges, the owner of the island that is in front of the
Port of Fiji Marina, I guess he said that he would give us
permission to put the spoil on this island here, which I
have a picture.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's going to be mostly clay. That's not
sand. Probably some sand in there, but that was all
clay. When you dig that with a clam shell bucket, you're
going to come up with a lot of clay. I know because I
worked on that project when they dug that canal. They dug
that canal out dry, and then they broke the entrance open.
MR. GUARRIELLO: Wouldn't that be silt that filled in?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Probably. But when you do it
hydraulically, you'd be able to get the sand, but when you
go in with a clam shell bucket, a clam shell bucket is going
to hit on the hard ground and take a couple of feet or
47
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
whatever out of there. It's clam shell, I'm surprised
they're doing it with a clam shell. Drag line is really the
only way to regulate the elevation when you pull the bucket
in.
MR. GUARRIELLO: That's the way it was originally done.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It was originally done with a bulldozer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Has that channel ever been dredged
outside?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't think it's ever been dredged inside
since it's been dug.
MR. GUARRIELLO: We dredged about 15 years ago.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: The outside?
MR. GUARRIELLO: Along the bank of Budd's Pond.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: But never inside the actual canal. You go
in there with a clam shell bucket, you don't have any way to
control the actual depth.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't have a problem with using this
site as dewatering and then trucking it off and then it will
revegetate itself.
MR. NIKOLICH: We can use this area to dewater this thing
here and then truck it out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't have a problem with that.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: A majority of it is going to be dewatered
on the barge, right?
(Discussion)
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't think the DEC would allow you to
put that clay out there on that island.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Looks like a hard object.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They're going to tell you about particle
size, it's going to have to match the particle size of the
beach or be larger and in this case the particle size is
going to be very small. I don't have a problem using this
site as dewatering and then trucking it off.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Where?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The association property.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's fine.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then it will revegetate itself.
MR. GUARRIELLO: We can use this area to dewater this thing
over here and then truck it out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't have a problem with that.
48
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We have the silt from the canal when the
operation commences. The bucket picks it up, puts it on the
barge, it dewaters on the barge.
MR. GUARRIELLO: Originally the canal was dredged, a lot of
history was put here.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: When it was originally done?
MR. GUARRIELLO: Outside the canal, the channel?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't know that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is your opinion on that? I hate to
issue a permit and DEC's going to say you have to do it
completely different. Well, we could do that. We could
issue a permit, and then at least you could go to the DEC
with something then they make amendments to it; you can come
back to us.
MR. GUARRIELLO: Put a stipulation based on DEC decision
with the spoils.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Even the method, like Artie said, they
might make you use a different method. They might not let
you use a clam shell. You might have to use a drag line.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's difficult. I've dug a few canals out
here, I did drag line. It's difficult with a clam
shell bucket. First of all, you're under water and you have
no way of knowing that you're right next to where the bucket
was the last time, where with the drag line you can
actually control the elevation, you're scooping it, taking a
flat shovel and scraping it off the top. Where with the
clam shell it's like a spoon and jello.
TRUSTEE KING: Don't you have to do that from a shoreline,
Artie, if you're doing a drag line?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Not necessarily. Well, yes, because you're
going to do it on a barge I assume. But the barges they
drop, there's ways of holding them, they just drop these big
steel pipes down and they get anchored in. You know, taking
a small amount of time, peel four, five inches off at a time
it's soft, it should come off. I don't care how they do it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, that's our point. We don't have a
problem with the project. I'm inclined to issue a permit
tonight for something and then he can go to the DEC and even
if the DEC wants to meet us out at the site, we can amend
the permit.
49
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
MR. GUARRIELLO: I tried to contact them. I left messages
because somebody I think mentioned to me that maybe they
should get in touch with you about an inspection. It's hard
to get, you leave message and message.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Just come back to us and we'll amend it. I
think our big concern was the spoil site, and how that had
developed into a wetlands area, but if you isolate it and
confine it. What do you have one, two days, see; the DEC
may tell you too that you may have to let that material sit
for two days to dewater before you can move it. I know that
they do regulate that occasionally. Whether they will in
this case or not, I don't know, but you're going to have
to let that sit before you can move it a second time. So
you're going to have probably two days worth of digging
there.
MR. GUARRIELLO: Are we wasting time saying we're not going
to truck it away with this permit or --
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Personally, I think that the DEC is not
going to allow you to do what you want to do with it, to
put it on that site and just spread it out on there.
Because now it's a wetlands and a species indicators there.
MR. GUARRIELLO: Would they say that we have to leave 100
yards there, or they have to truck 800 yards away?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's hard to say what they will say. You
know, if it is primarily a lot of clay, what are you going
to do with it? Who wants it? If no one wants that stuff
then you're stuck with a place to take it.
MR. JOHNSTON: More a legal question than an environmental
question, that is, could you explain to me who owns the
properties that you are going to be dredging and who owns
Willow Point Association? And the last part of the question
is: How do my clients, the Trustees, know that the two of
you have the authority to make this application for this
association. So, first,'how do we know that's really owned
by the Willow Point Association; how do we know that the
landowners, who may or may not own this, have given you
permission to be on their land, as Artie's saying, maybe if
you're doing dredging to be on their property?
MR. GUARRIELLO: The association is owned by the association
members, and we pay taxes to Southold Town on that property.
50
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
MR. JOHNSTON: We have tax maps showing they're the owners,
not just here, I see the tax map numbers over here, how about
this area here (indicating)? Because I think the place that
you're putting the spoils is on the land the association
owns, right?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes, but they're not going to be on anybody
else's land. If they do it by barge they're doing it totally by water.
MR. GUARRIELLO: This is privately owned indicating. And
DEC wants us to get your permit because you have
jurisdiction over this area.
MR. NIKOLICH: Once come here this is private owned
property, one, two, three, owners over here, but this part
here (indicating), and we received letters from them, their
permission that they're aware and giving us authority to
dredge.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Who owns the canal itself?
MR. GUARRIELLO: We did. I'm not sure if the Town took it
over.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But the canal's a separate parcel.
MR. JOHNSTON: Who owns the canal, that's not ours?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's privately owned.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It was privately owned.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: When it was dug, it was dug on Bleeker's
property. It was his project. It was his land.
MR. NIKOLICH: Three owners, one owner here, and there's one
here, and there's all of this side, indicating. We have
letters that I submitted.
MR. JOHNSTON: Do we have letters from Robert Bozure,
Lauren, is that in the file, a Robert Bozure?
MR. GUARRIELLO: Robert Bozure, Esposito.
MR. JOHNSTON: Wait a second, one at a time.
MR. GUARRIELLO: I have three letters, I can bring them to
you tomorrow.
MR. JOHNSTON: What do the letters say?
MR. NIKOLICH: Two letters I compose.
MR. JOHNSTON: What do the letters say?
MR. NIKOLICH: Say that we are aware that there is going to be
dredging, and we give you permission to do the dredging as
long as we stay 10 feet away from the bulkhead.
MR. JOHNSTON: That letter is addressed to the Willow Point
51
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
Association?
MR. NIKOLICH: Yes.
MR. JOHNSTON: Okay, fine. And the last part is how do we
know that you have authority from the Willow Point
Association?
MR. NIKOLICH: There is actually authorization that the
president of the association wanted me to do this and also
we have a letter to DEC.
MR. JOHNSTON: Do we have that letter?
MR. NIKOLICH: I submitted that. There was also a letter
explaining the project and the assignment.
MR. JOHNSTON: You understand my concern?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely. The association president
signed it. I don't know who that is. Thank you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We had a concern about the marsh area to
the northwest over on the side, the dredging, that nothing
would interfere with that. There was a very healthy --
MR. NIKOLICH: Going to be about 25 to 40 feet away from
that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there's no other comment, 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
for the maintenance dredging of Budd's Pond with the
condition that during operation, the silt bed at the
entrance and that spoil site, temporary spoil site --
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Really depends on how much they do a
day. Do they give you a projection time, how long it's
going to take?
MR. GUARRIELLO: No.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: They have to put it on the barge and then
bring the barge over and off-load it, how much they're going
to do per day and you don't know how many days they're going
to have to let it sit before they move it. But if they do
100 yards a day, well, 100 yards obviously takes a lot less
area than. 900 yards. If they were going to pile up 900
yards and spread it out and leave it, then you're going to
need the whole area. But, if it's in fact going to be
52
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
trucked away and you're going to do it, you've got to have
let's say every two days you can do it; if you have to let
it sit for two days.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How about we say the spoil site is going to
be coordinated with the DEC?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Probably more with the contractor, because
he's going to have an idea of how much room he's going to
need. Who's doing the job?
MR. NIKOLICH: We think it's going to be Latham. He just
the last minute in I got the permit to do dredging in front
of my bulkhead 60 cubic yards. Within an area, if you fill
up 30 cubic yards, took it to shore, unload it, come back
within half an hour, he was back 45 minutes, and another
hour he was done, 60 cubic yards couple hours, he was done.
So it goes pretty fast. He has 30 cubic yard container on
his barge. He picks it up with a crane and unloads.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I agree with Al. Leave it up to the DEC
to approve the site because wherever we said, they're going
to look at it and approve their own.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You might be able to use part of the island
to put the spoils. We'll approve this with the condition of
approved spoil site in coordination with the DEC.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's got to be that way anyway.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then see what their suggestions are and
then you'll have to bring the contractor into the mix.
MR. NIKOLICH: If he does have to put the spoil, if he puts
it on the marina property or if we dewater it there, they're
going to have to repair the road going in because it's in
pretty bad shape. So we would like it to become part of the
permit that we would, after the whole thing is completed, that
we regravel the access to the marina, if that could be put
in the permit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right, I'll make that part of the
motion that the existing roadway to the marina be restored
to a gravel road, and also the elevation, the dredge spoils,
after they're removed, that the elevation of the association
property to stay the same, and then we're not going to put a
condition on the permit, let me make that motion; is there a
second?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
53
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then we want to see the letters from the
neighbors before we write this.
MR. GUARRIELLO: I'll bring it tomorrow.
20. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of WILLIAM AND DIANE
BEARDSLEE request a Wetland Permit to raise the existing
garage; resurface the existing driveway with pervious
gravel; replace existing sanitary system with new, Suffolk
County Department of Health Services conforming sanitary
system to be elevated two feet above ground water by
approximately 355 cubic yards of fill and concrete retaining
wall; and construct access steps over raised septic.
Located: 435 Beachwood Road, Cutchogue. SCTM # 116-4-24.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this
application?
MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicants, William and Diane Beardslee.
This project primarily involves the raising and
renovation and additions to a dwelling, all of which is
actually beyond the Trustees' jurisdiction. The subject of
the permit application is for some associated improvements
to the site that are located within 100 feet of the tidal
wetlands to the north of Beachwood Road. Essentially with
what the Board is reviewing pursuant to its jurisdiction is
the raising of the existing garage that will comply with
FEMA elevations. The resurfacing of the existing driveway
with pervious gravel, and the replacement of the existing
nonconforming sanitary system which consists of I believe
two cesspools with a sanitary system that meets today's
Health Department code.
So essentially what the Board is getting in the
application in association with the renovations to the house
is more or less a pervious driveway, some dry wells, the
raising of a garage to meet flood elevation and the
improvement and an upgrade of a septic system.
If the Board has any questions, I'd be happy to answer
them. William and Diane Beardslee are also here, but it
should be pretty straightforward.
54
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
TRUSTEE KING: That garage is within our jurisdiction?
MR. HERMANN: It sure is, yes. The raising the garage, the
driveway and the septic is all within your jurisdiction and
that's the subject of the application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: . I'm just looking for, the concrete
retaining wall around the septic system, what is the
elevation in relation to the house to the east, Mrs.
Morgan's old house there; is it going to be roughly the
same?
MR. HERMANN: There is a profile in the plan, the top of
wall elevation is seven and-a-half. That will be about a
foot and-a-half above the adjacent grade to the east, which
is 6 feet. On the other side it will tie into the proposed
elevation on this lot. I'm trying to find, there's probably
about a 4 foot elevation that ties into the property to the
west.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What do you mean a 4 foot elevation?
MR. HERMANN: There's a 4 foot contour elevation that ties
through this property into the adjoining property to the
west.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: From the top of the retaining wall?
MR. HERMANN: No, that's what the elevation is to the
property to the west. If you look at the survey, if you
look there's a frame garage that's shown on the property to
the west, there is a 4 foot contour that actually ties from
that property over and into the Beardslee lot. So the wall
would be about three and-a-half feet above the grade at that
point, but the grade that's immediately adjacent to that
property, the west, won't be changed. In other words, the
retaining wall will be contained within this site, and I can
tell you what the setback of the retaining wall is. About
eight and-a-half feet off the property line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm not getting through to you. That's not
intentional?
MR. HERMANN: The elevation on the parcel to the west in the
vicinity of the retaining wall is 4 feet. The top elevation
of the retaining wall is 7 and-a-half. That retaining wall
is about eight feet off the property line. So there will
still be maintained that 4 feet elevation overlapping the
property, but then about eight feet in, you'll have a
55
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
retaining wall that's about 3 and-a-half feet high that will
be containing fill for the septic.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The whole property from the road is going
to come right up to 7, to the retaining wall and you'll walk
right over level on top of the retaining wall?
MR. HERMANN: No, not exactly. The elevation in the front
adjacent to the road is not being changed; there's no
proposed contours there. The proposed filling on the
property will tie in from the south side of the retaining
wall and around the dwelling, that's the part that's
actually out of your jurisdiction. All the grades in the
front are essentially remaining the same. The garage will
actually match the elevation, the slab will match the
elevation of the wall. You see it says slab will be lifted
to elevation 7?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I saw that.
MR. HERMANN: Then will tie into the wall. So basically you
would access over the retaining wall either through the
garage or through the steps to the side of the driveway, but
we specifically did not propose the filling of the lot
adjacent to the road for obvious reasons.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So your cars will get full of salt?
MR. BEARDSLEE: When there's high tide, yes.
MR. HERMANN: And there's a ramp shown that will be a ramp
that shoots right up to the garage.
MR. BEARDSLEE: We've always had the high tide in the house
over the past 50 years through numerous storms, hurricanes,
nor'easters, the tides have gone above the wall sockets, and
you can see the rust coming down around the walls.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? If not, I'll make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application
as stated.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
56
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
21 . En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of MARTHA AND JOHN WATTS
requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace (in-place)
approximately 140 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead
with the vinyl bulkhead and backfill with approximately 50
cubic yards clean sand fill to be trucked in from an upland
source. Located: One Harbor River Road, Orient.
SCTM # 24-2-8.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf
of this application? Rob?
MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann on behalf of Martha and John
Watts. This is pretty standard, in-place replacement of an
existing timber bulkhead with a vinyl bulkhead. Should be
again, pretty straightforward. If the Board has any
questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would anybody else like to comment on
this application? As for the Board, I visited this site. I
found it straightforward replacement. The only thing I was
contemplating is how many foot nonturf buffer we should put
in there?
MR. HERMANN: 10 foot I think is usually what you can ask
for in these, that would be fine.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes, but there was a little more
extensive protection in there.
MR. HERMANN: We show a backfill area of 15 feet. If you
want to make it the same.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I was actually thinking 20 feet. There's
a lot of plants in there, closer to 25 feet, but go to 20
feet.
MR. HERMANN: I would be reluctant to -- I mean, I think
that area's already planted with beach grass.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right, there's at least 20 feet there, so
I figured just leave it alone.
MR. HERMANN: If you want to show that 20 foot area behind
the bulkhead to continue to be revegetated with beach grass,
I don't think the owner would have any problem with that.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Okay. And as for the finished grade, I'd
like to see it remain at least 6 inches below the top of the
vinyl, whatever it's going to end up being.
MR. HERMANN: Can you just put that into the permit so the
57
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
contractor knows?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's about all the comments. Anybody
else have any comments? If not, I'll make a motion to close
the public hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland
Permit on behalf of Martha and John Watts to remove and
replace the bulkhead as written, backfill the sand and
stipulate that the grade shall remain at least 6 inches
below the top of the bulkhead as well as maintain a 20 foot
nonturf buffer behind the bulkhead; do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
22. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of JENNIFER AND PHILIP
STANTON requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing 54'
long plus/minus 245 square foot fixed dock, and construct
fixed timber dock consisting of a 4' by 50' fixed timber
catwalk, 3' by 14' hinged ramp and 6' by 20' float secured
by (2) 6" pilings. Located: 720 Town Creek Lane,
Southold. SCTM # 64-1-14.7.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak for this application?
MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of
applicants Philip and Jennifer Stanton. This project is
basically the replacement of an existing fixed dock which
has a fixed section that runs out as a catwalk and then
widens out to a larger platform at the end. You can see, I
don't know if the boat was there at the time of your
inspection, but if you look in Figures 3 and 4, the
photographs that were submitted with the application,
currently the boat is moored out some distance of the fixed
dock, and what the owner is trying to accomplish is actually
to extend the float 19 feet farther than where the existing
fixed dock ends, which would leave it the same distance from
the low water line as the dock that's immediately to the
east, and it would be out 3 feet farther from the low water
line than the dock to the west. The existing dock is 54
58
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
feet. It extends approximately 21 feet seawardly of low
water. The proposed dock would extend 18 feet farther, it
would be 39 feet from low water. The new dock as proposed
would start actually 7 feet farther landward than what's
proposed, I don't know if that's completely clear on the
project plan or not. I tried to show that as best as I
could. But again here, since we actually have the depth to
accomplish it while still being compliant with the Town
Trustees' policy in terms of the portion of the channel
taken up, they would like to dock two boats, so that is why
we proposed a dock that extends straight out as opposed to a
T. We have done that again, if you look on the third
photograph, you can see the existing dock, then where the
boat is, and then in the background you can see the adjacent
dock that extends out farther than that. I suppose as it's
also worth noting that we would be reduce the amount of
fixed dock structure by about 45 square feet because much of
the end of this dock would be seasonal ramp and float as
opposed to the larger platform that's there now. So the
dock would be longer but the fixed portion of the dock would
actually occupy less bulk. And I think that's all I have on
it. That's basically the rationale behind the proposal that
you're looking at.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else here that would
like to speak for or against this application?
I was just noticing the CAC, their comments were
similar to ours, overall I think the Board wanted it
shortened and try to keep it the same line and I know you
had a comment that it was going to be, but our eyes and our
pictures weren't showing that. The CAC recommends
disapproval of the application because the dock will
interfere with boat traffic. CAC recommends that the dock
be constructed in an "L" configuration, but you just
commented on the need for two boats. I think the Board had
discussed it and they were looking at changing, reducing the
4' by 50' fixed to a 4' by 30', reducing the 3' by 14' ramp
to a 3' by 12', reducing it 22 feet.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I think you said you wanted to go 7 feet
more landward.
MR. HERMANN: Yes. What you see on the plan is just in
59
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
order to ramp up and get the proposed elevation. The
proposed dock is actually 7 feet, starts 7 feet farther
landward; so under the numbers that Peggy just mentioned,
the dock would end up actually being 7 feet further than
what's there. I mean, you can't -- this photograph --
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The end of the boat would be further
out.
MR. HERMANN: Obviously the way this dock is on the
conservative side, you can see in the photograph and the way
the boat is out here is probably about 20 feet further out
then where this is now. So basically the dock would end up
stopping about here.
MS. TETRAULT: You were saying that was for depth of water,
right?
MR. HERMANN: Right. Because with the float going out as it
is, sometimes what we have is on a T float you're reaching
your two and-a-half feet of water just on the other side of
that, but here, essentially basically the float has to be in
two and-a-half feet of water for the deck to go along with
it. So what we proposed is this float basically goes from
about 2 feet to 4 feet in change from front to back. Now,
actually Peggy mentioned an L.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was the CAC comment.
MR. HERMANN: Okay. Even when we see the same site a little
bit differently, we're usually not seeing a 22 foot
differently. Somebody's looking at something that's a
pretty substantial discrepancy. And again, with the numbers
that you just mentioned, the dock would end about 4 feet
closer to the land than the existing dock does. So I don't
think that's what you meant, but it's not what you meant to
end up with, it may have been, but just 22 feet, it's pretty
substantial difference. Now Kenny, maybe you're saying 7
feet of that is due in part of a confusion so you get back
down to 15 feet.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 4' by 37' instead of 4' by 50 , so it
would be 13 feet rather than the 20 feet that we're
thinking. We found in the field it looked like you had
plenty of water. You had well over 4 feet at the very end,
which is where the motor's going to sit.
MR. HERMANN: At the risk of the clich6d suggestion, would
60
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
it make sense to meet there together and actually put a
stake on the landward and seaward ends, so if there is some
sort of modification, we can make it?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Sure.
MR. HERMANN: Where I'm showing on the plan, the 39 foot
seaward extend on the adjacent dock, I actually walked over
to the adjacent dock and measured from low water to the end
of that dock. And that was 39 feet and that's why my dock
is proposed at 39 feet, because I was trying to stay exactly
in line with that dock. When you're standing there or
standing in the water, it may not look that way.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, we walked out on the adjacent dock
to the west. We walked out on that dock, we walked out on
the western dock first.
MR. HERMANN: That dock's about 36 feet from low water. In
other words, the measurement I'm taking is from the dry sand
at low tide. That's where I'm coming up with that
measurement. Somewhere we're looking or measuring, it's
just off. So maybe we could just meet there and figure out
what the discrepancy is and come up with some sort of
solution.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. I have one comment, I don't think
there's 10 feet of wetland fringe there. It's all lawn then
it drops, you have a little bank maybe 10 feet laterally.
MR. HERMANN: That there's not much vegetative wetlands, but
why do you mention that?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I can't see the reasoning of having
anything ramp up, 3 and-a-half feet there and then dropping
it down for 10 feet of wetland fringes.
MR. HERMANN: Actually it isn't, Ken, if you look at the
cross-section, because of that slope you're talking about,
we're basically starting it at grade and just going straight
down, so it will be tight to the grade here and once you get
over this little area of marsh, it's going to be 3
and-a-half then we bring it right back down.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's going to continue ramping down?
MR. HERMANN: It continues ramping down. Again, I tried to
do something, the contractors build it this way so it comes
out and you're only about 20 inches above high water. See
the problem we run into is not only the DEC but the Army
61
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
Corps through marine fisheries because they're always trying
to get us to put things at 4 feet. So, you can sort of
humor the Corps, but the DEC and Trustees we try to make
sure we get an elevation that is going to be
consistent. But I always try to show these things ramping
down so you have your minimum elevation above marsh but then
maximum elevation above high water. If you look at most of
the docks that Steve Pollock does, he builds them that way
and they come out looking a lot better than where you just
take that line and by the time you're at the end you're like
15 feet above the creek bottom and they look
ridiculous.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm going to make a motion to table this
application for next month.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
23. 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 KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak in favor of this application?
MR. BOWMAN: Chuck Bowman, Land Use Ecological Services on
behalf of the Krauses.
First of all I wanted to say hello to Heather, welcome.
She's terrific, my experience anyway. I think you helped me
a lot.
That being said, I wasn't here for the first hearing,
Kelly from my office was, and I believe you have a new set
of plans that changes the configuration of the dock. So now
we just have a timber catwalk with a step down and it ends
with two tie-off poles and a ladder. I'm assuming that's
what you wanted, because as I say, I wasn't here for the
last hearing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: This is what I want, one pile, just one
pile.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We went to the site last weekend. It was
62
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
staked, but the stake was.right in the middle of the
channel, in fact, Heather was kind enough to measure it for
us, and the one-third rule, of course, applies with a
structure with the boat, and the stake was easily half way
across.
MR. BOWMAN: Well, if I can point out, though, they own the
other side of the channel. So theoretically, they would be
allowed to have one-third from that side as well.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it's a separate lot from the other lot
they own, and if that changes ownership, then it becomes an
issue with the new owner. You see what I'm saying?
Something's on the market also because the sign's up. I
don't know who's sign it is, but the sign's up so either the
house or the lot or both is on the market. So if we block
the channel with that dock, we can't, if people buy the
house on the bay.
MR. BOWMAN: I think that can be handled through some sort
of restriction or easement that perhaps the Trustees could
review. Their attorney is sitting here as well,
coincidentally, that's a legitimate concern.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's why we have the one-third rule
because that addresses -- that way everyone's provided with
their access.
MR. BOWMAN: I understand that. I mean, my own personal
opinion is that we should try to restrict anything from
being built on the other side. It's great habitat, there's
some nice wetland.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's the same parcel, right, same lot?
MR. BOWMAN: They own two parcels there, three parcels.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI:- They own both, there's the building lot
then there's the house. I think either I'm inclined to go
either with Ken's suggestion, or since there really is
no -- it's a vacant lot, at some point in time someone
builds a house and wants access, we can discuss that at that
time.
MR. BOWMAN: I think from the stand point of the Krauses,
they want to see if they can get all these things in place
now and see what they want to do with the properties, and I
think they have a right to ask for it to be considered. And
again, your point is well taken. But I think we have to
63
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
talk to the Krauses on how to guarantee that they're not
going to have a problem in the future with some other person
coming in and saying, hey, that dock is there. I understand
if we do that through a legal mechanism that restricts it, I
think that would solve your problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think the one-third resolves it. Then it
comes back to what's the point of building what's proposed
because you're going to cut that back so severely in order
to adhere to the one-third rule.
MR. BOWMAN: Basically you're saying they can't have a dock
on that lot.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not like that.
MR. BOWMAN: Maybe you could --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They should move something to the west side
MR. BOWMAN: Correct me if I'm wrong, at the last hearing,
didn't you ask for it to be amended in this way?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we wanted it staked and what it shows
here the stake about a third of the way across from low
water. Now, when we went out in the field, it's staked in
the middle of the channel.
MR. BOWMAN: Let me have the surveyor stake it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm not saying it was staked wrong but
something's wrong.
MR. BOWMAN: It may be staked wrong because obviously we
don't show it being in the middle of the channel. So I
mean, the stake may be wrong.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What do you show here, what's the end off
the shoreline?
MR. BOWMAN: It's about eight feet, something like that.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What did we measure off Heather's
drawing?
MR. BOWMAN: That's off low water, not off the high water.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: 36.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Off what, high water or low water? We
measured across it.
MR. BOWMAN: From where to where? High water to high water
or low water to low water?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Vegetation.
MR. BOWMAN: What vegetation, the patens, the alterna flora?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Alterna flora.
64
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
MR. BOWMAN: You meant from the top edge of the alterna?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. We went to seaward?
MR. BOWMAN: That would be low water to low water.
Basically alterna flora is going to grow --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The problem with low water is it changes
every day but the vegetation is going to be pretty
constant. So that's why we measured the vegetation as
opposed to saying it's not really low tide, it's sort of --
MR. BOWMAN: I will go out with you if that's what you're
doing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Next month.
MR. BOWMAN: Okay. We can do that. We can decide a third
from there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's fine. I'll make a motion to table
the application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
24. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of MATINE,
INC. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 145'
plus/minus CCA timber beach access stairs with an 8' by 6'
platform. Located: 590 North View Drive, Orient.
SCTM # 13-1-5.1 .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak on behalf of this application?
MR. BOWMAN: Chuck Bowman, Land Use Ecological Services,
representing the owner.
If you will recall at the last hearing, there was
objections to this application, which is a simple staircase,
access staircase to the beach. I have appeared before this
Board many, many times. I know you have approved many, many
staircases for individuals.down bluffs so that they can
access the beach. It's a relatively simple application. The
DEC approves them routinely. This Board approves them routinely,
and the question that arose is why the owner could not use the stairs that
exist now that are, if you will, community stairs or neighbors' stairs. We
did provide this Board with a copy of the deed; you'll notice in
the deed that there is no restriction whatsoever on him
accessing the beach. It's private property to the high
65
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
water mark. There is no mention in his deed of an
association, a formal homeowner's association. A
requirement to pay dues, to join a homeowner's association.
Gale Wickham is here and has submitted a letter to you
indicating the concerns and the status of that title. And I
would like her to be able to talk to you about it. You have
a letter from her which I think was delivered to you today.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, the Board hasn't seen it.
MR. BOWMAN: I think that letter's very important because
we're dealing here with issues that the owner has,
particularly one of liability to those other stairs, his
rights to be able to have stairs of his own. That there
really isn't a homeowners association. There is no evidence
of one being formally formed; there's no evidence of any
insurance on those stairways. Any requirement for
maintenance on how people pay for them. There is no
requirement on who uses it and what happens if someone trips
and falls on it. And quite frankly, Mr. Hurtado does not
want to be involved with a loosely formed, even that's a
loose characterization of this association, because no one
is required to do anything. How will it be maintained? Who
makes someone maintain that? Do they pass the hat when it
needs to be maintained? Who keeps insurance on it so that
if I go up there and I trip and fall down the stairs, even
though I'm supposed to be there, who gets sued? Probably
the people who put it up there and use it. He does not want
to be a part of that. His deed does not require him to be a
part of it, and this Board is well aware that formal
homeowners associations are registered. They have
insurance. They collect dues. They have meetings. They
have minutes. They have bylaws. None of that exists
here. And I think the Board should take notice of that and
I believe Gail Wickham will add a little bit to what I'm
saying, if you don't mind.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before Gail starts, is there any Board
member that has any interest in this at all, any private
interest, financial or relatives or anything like that? No?
Okay. Thank you.
MS. WICKHAM: Good evening, Abigail Wickham for the property
owner. I just want to clarify something that Chuck spoke
66
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
to, because I'm not sure he is aware of it, but there is an
association that is organized specifically to address the
roads and what used to be a private water supply in Brown's
Hills Association. The point that he made, and it's one
that I made in my letter, is that with respect to the beach
access, the association may have a beach access at the end
of the road for which they're responsible for, there is
absolutely no obligation for that association to provide
access to anyone in the community, including this lot
owner. There is no restriction against the lot owner having
their own steps according to the title that we have
ascertained from our title searches, and there is no reason
that I'm aware of that a private owner should not have their
own access, even if there is a community beach access. It's
an important property right that we think here is not an
unreasonable request given the stability of the bluff and
all of the ecological and environmental concerns that
Mr. Bowman and the engineer have addressed. So, if the
Board has anything more specific, I'm happy to try and
address it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, we'll just take all comments
first, before the Board makes any comments. Is there any
other comments?
MR. JOHNSTON: Heather raised an excellent point, is there a
coastal erosion line?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I really think that a stairs is an exempt
activity.
MS. TETRAULT: The code says, new construction stairways is
done in accordance with conditions of coastal erosion
management permit. So I was just asking if it was in
coastal erosion.
MR. RYALL: The pertinent section is Number 7 under
Bluffs C, Bluffs Section 7. Coastal Erosion Management
Permit is required for new construction, modification or
restoration of erosion protection structures, walkways or
stairways.
MR. JOHNSTON: Can you back up and give us the beginning of
the cite, please?
MR. RYALL: Your 5.8.
MR. JOHNSTON: Not from the Southold Town Code?
67
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
MR. RYALL: No, I just happen to have these, but you have
adopted these regulations.
MR. JOHNSTON: In 1991 we adopted the law.
MR. RYALL: I know that's what you adopted these laws
verbatim, you may have different numbers, but you adopted
Article 34.
MR. JOHNSTON: I understand what we adopted, sir.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If that's true, and I was trying to find it.
MR. JOHNSTON: What is the title of the section you're
reading?
MR. RYALL: "Restrictions on Regulated Activities within
Natural Protective Feature Areas."
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Natural protective feature in this case
would be the bluffs.
MR. RYALL: Then you go to Bluffs, and then you go to
Subsection 7.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We've gone through this before. The
stairs are okay, but the platforms, certain size on the
platforms.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
MR. RYALL: We can eliminate a platform.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's not eliminate. They shouldn't be any
more than 4' by 8 .
MR. RYALL: I think that just answers the question.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think so. Okay, go ahead, sir.
MS. WITT: Actually, I'm going to speak first. My name is
Lynne Witt, I live in Brown's Hills, I'm part of the
association. I would like to make a correction. The
association has been in existence since 1952. We have
bylaws; we have minutes. We collect association dues every
year, 100 percent participation, everybody in the
association pays, nobody's exempt, nobody is asked not to
pay, not to be a part of it. It does go, as you said, to
maintain the road, the water, now we have Town water but
prior to that as a group. The stairs in the current
location were built, I don't recall the year -- 1985, and
are paid for by Brown's Hills, insured by the association,
everybody's dues goes toward that. So much of what he said
just isn't accurate. I just wanted to clarify that point.
MR. RYALL: I am Bill Ryall, I am also a resident of Brown's
68
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
Hills, and I am one of the officers, I am on the Board of
the Association, as well as Mary Foster Morgan is also on
the Board. So we definitely exist and have existed I guess
since 1952. We have hundreds if not thousands of emails
amongst all of us constantly all year long about everything
going on up there. Our annual meeting is this Sunday, and
we have, as Gail said, we have 100 percent participation
from everywhere on Brown's Hills, all property owners belong,
all pay dues, no one is in arrears, everybody votes, and as
far as the particulars of the stair are concerned, we own
the stair, we're a corporation. We have an attorney here
who kept quiet while the applicant, a representative of the
applicant, said that we don't exist. There are four of us
here who exist. You received a letter from us, which was
signed by I think 15, now we have 17 or 20 who want to sign
and as of this Sunday, you can have 30 if you want that many
people. We will all come to the next meeting if you don't
think we exist. It's a corporation. It owns the land
beneath the stairs; it owns the roads. Once a year at the
advice of our attorney, we close the road and we close the
stair to maintain our private ownership. We have liability
insurance, which we pay for; we have to. And so most of
what you just heard was untrue. As far as no one being
required to maintain the stairs, since I am the official
beach commissioner and the stair commissioner, we do
maintain the stairs. There are three or four treads that
need to be replaced with treads which are slightly
longer. Dennis McMahon, who is a licensed contractor in
Greenport, who does most of his work in Orient, now is going
to be meeting me out there tomorrow or Friday so that I can
report at the annual meeting on Sunday that we're going to
have to spend a few hundred dollars fixing the stair and
this is what's going to be done. This is just regular
maintenance.
I think if you have, I'd be welcome to answer any more
questions or even give you documentation of any of this, if
you require it, such as our insurance policy, which we heard
does not exist also. Thank you very much. I don't even
know how to count the number of lies that we heard in this
room tonight in the last 10 minutes, coming from Ms. Wickham
69
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
also. Now, back to the agenda that I thought we were going
to have this evening. We sent you a letter, we would be
very happy, any of us, to answer any of the questions you
have about the letter or even go through it as sort of an
agenda for what we thought was important and should be
addressed. The letter was July 14th signed by 15 people.
Most importantly, on that letter it states there is
absolutely no need for another stairs on this bluff. There
is no need because the person, whoever the person is who
ultimately purchases this house from the owner/developer,
will use the stair that is already there. They in fact will
own it, they will pay their share of insurance on that
stairs. The bluff is 1,320 some feet long. There is one
stair only on that bluff; it's really a fantastically, I
would say almost unique situation on the north fork, on the
north shore. And there are very few properties privately
owned that are used residentially of that size, in this case
we have 23 houses, each one is in a lot which would, in
fact, be nonconforming. They are about half an acre mostly,
some are an acre, but together we somehow managed to have
this whole bluff sit there in one piece, which is incredibly
beautiful and should remain that way.
As far as the environmental issues, I took photographs,
I have them in my computer I am sorry, I couldn't print them
out, but I will show them to you what the environmental
situation is. There is ongoing erosion of that bluff.
There is mud at the bottom of it, this is after you went
because we had a lot of rain last week, and it was after
your visit to that site. There is mud. There is a huge
piece where the top soil fell off completely at the bottom
of the stair that is about 12 to 15 feet long and about nine
feet tall. And this goes on periodically on that bluff;
it's no mystery. This is a very steep, very tall bluff and
it is under protection. We don't understand why there is
any need to endanger that when anyone who lives in Brown's
Hills can use an existing stair.
I would like to talk about the application itself. The
application which you all probably have there in front of
you states -- I don't understand this -- it says on the
SEQRA application, there's no mention of it at all. As far
70
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
as the CAC referral letter sent, April 30, 2004, this was
not mentioned except one small bit of it at the public
hearing which we attended. This letter coming from the CAC,
which is I don't know what that stands for, Conservation
Advisory Council Town of Southold moves unanimously that
they resolve to recommend to the Southold Town Board of
Trustees disapproval of the Wetland Permit application of
Matine, Inc. to construct 4' by 145' CCA timber, yes, CCA is
arsenic. They were so sloppy in their application that they
clearly put in something which is most obviously written in
the code as illegal, but they put it in anyway, timber
because it's cheap, timber beach access stairs with an 8' by
6' platform. Then they put the location. The CAC
recommends disapproval of the application because of the
size of the platform is not in accordance with Chapter 97.
CCA timbers are prohibited and the construction would cause
damage to the bluff. What are we to do with this
information? That certainly didn't come out at the last
hearing. Then, we go further into the application here.
don't know whether all of these are required here or not,
but the receipt of the CAC report was not put on this form
even though it's dated the 15th of June, prior to our last
hearing, which I believe was the 24th, I don't know if the
technical review is required, but it's not noted. Lastly,
then on Page 2, under no prior permits/approvals for site
improvements, just conveniently ignored that little check
mark right there. It happens to be that there is an open
building permit on the property. There is a house just
started construction on the site. There was, of course, the
original application to the Building Department was rejected
because it was there was no buildable lot without a
variance. So they went to ZBA and after much haggling and
changing of negotiations and numbers, a smaller house was
permitted. That process went on for about eight months and
ended with the variance granted last April.
Then we get in here, how much does this project involve
excavation or filling? No, is checked. I would like to
know how you could put a stable stair into a hill side,
which is angled at about like this (indicating) without
doing some excavation, maybe footings, and then the drawing
71
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
itself, which is juvenile, shows that there the 4' X 4's
which sort of miraculously lands 6 feet underground without
disturbing the cliff face, without any excavation at all,
but the answer is no. Then, depth of which material will be
removed, n/a, even though on the drawing submitted, which is
not, in fact, stamped by a licensed engineer as required by
the town, again, 6 foot pilings but no mention of depth of
material or anything to be removed.
Now, then, Number 11 , does any aspect of the action
have a current valid permit or approval? No. How about the
open building permit? No mention. Miss Wickham says that
the poor soul who has to live in this house must walk to the
end of the road to use the stair, end of the road, first of
all, it's not at the end of any road. It's 165 feet
further, the applicant's property is where the existing
stair is. We can all get down on our hands and knees and
crawl over there in two minutes if we needed to. The end of
what road is what I'd like to know. Don't we think that at
least the attorney for the person who has made this
application could bother herself by going and looking at a
map or looking at the site? This is the way this whole
thing has gone.
Any questions? You know, it's like it's been made too
easy for me, honestly, I'm an architect, I spent a lot of
time in New York City. We are accustomed to problems, but
this is like how much time can I spend planning it all out
here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, any other comments?
MR. MORGAN: Tom Morgan, and I also live in Brown's Hills,
and I met most of you there last week after the rainstorm
for the inspection, and I just want to endorse entirely what
Bill just said on my behalf and emphasize the fact that one
of the reasons that you saw some emotion is because the
applicant is not going to be the ultimate homeowner here.
The applicant is a speculative builder who wants simply, his
need for the stair is a need to maximize his profit. If the
ultimate homeowner chose to build a stair at some future
date and can possibly demonstrate a need, there wouldn't be
any objection. It would be a bothersome to us because it
would ruin the view shed. When we walk down the stair we
72
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
see a distant stair that was built only in the last year,
and it's actually a disruption but nothing we can do
anything about, it's on the adjacent property so it just
emphasizes what a change it would be and one that's actually
not called for and not needed and as I said, ultimately
there may be a need that can be demonstrated by the
homeowner, and I'm sure they can work it out with the
association and everything will be equitable and everybody
will be happy, but that situation is not at this moment, and
that's all I want to emphasize.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When we get applications for stairs, they
are pretty straightforward. We didn't find that Chapter 37
coastal erosion, other unregulated activities, now they are
exempt under coastal erosion because they are regarded as a
simple beach access.
MR. RYALL: You observed when you were going up that stairs
that there seemed to be some of the uprights that had pulled
away from their base; the real liability is with some of the
handrails.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure.
MR. RYALL: Those uprights that you were commenting on were
actually set in not an upright position, they're set in at
an angle and bolted to prevent not a lateral movement but
sliding down the hill essentially. So they're in the place
that they were constructed to be in. They weren't pulled
loose. I looked at it closer. I was concerned about it
when you pointed it out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to explain how we conducted ourselves,
it didn't because it's layered, which didn't really make
much sense, because stairs are routinely granted to people
who want access to the beach from their property because
there's no other way you get on the bluff, you destabilize
it, you constantly wear away.
Normally one Trustee goes out and does the field
inspection, that's normal procedure. This Board had no
idea, as we stated at the last hearing, that there was an
association stair available to everyone. We try to get
people to share stairs and docks whenever possible, because
people are paranoid about legal liabilities and so forth, it
very rarely happens. They have to have their own, don't let
73
1
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
anybody look at it or use it, it's a problem, so on. So
that's the whole function of a public hearing. That's why
the project's posted, that's why.the neighbors are noticed.
So then if there is any kind of a situation that the Board
would otherwise be unaware of, it comes to light at the
public hearing, that's the whole point of it, otherwise, we
would never know. So that's just an explanation of how we
feel about this.
MR. MORGAN: In any case, your obligation is to establish
that there is a need for this additional staircase and our
contention is that there is none. And thank you very much
for your consideration.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. MORGAN: And a whole bunch of you coming out to look at
it, thank you very much for that.
MS. MORGAN: My name is Mary Foster Morgan, I live in Brown's
Hills, and thank you also for coming out to look at the
site. I appreciate that. I have a letter here from Bob
Gordon, the treasurer of our association, who writes that
the beach stairs are a matter of the Brown's Hills
Association since they were built and are maintained and
insured by the association. Moreover, it is in the
association's interest to keep the beach area fronting
Brown's Hills as natural and pristine as possible. Keeping
the beach front as it is now affects its aesthetic value,
and cluttering it up with more stairs and other construction
will have a negative impact of the real estate value of each
of the members' property. The association keeps the
easements leading to the stairs and pays taxes on them,
built the stairs and maintains them so that we as a
community would have.the entire use of the stretch of the
beach. And he urges us all to speak on this point to you.
I also wanted to comment and thank some of you,
particularly some of us in the association, are concerned
that there might be some Trustees who may have some business
interest. We really appreciate your comment and your
assuring us that you will ask Brownell Johnston, the
attorney, to look into that and to do the proper thing to
recuse anyone who needs to be recused from voting on
that. We appreciate that.
74
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
TRUSTEE FOSTER: There is no Trustee who has any business
interest.
MS. MORGAN: Thank you, just our concern.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? I'm asking Brownell, is
this association thing a big deal? Honestly, we got this
letter from Gail Wickham today, I'll be honest, I didn't get
a chance to read it. Is this really important that the
association exists, it doesn't exist, because one side says
it doesn't exist, the other side says it does exist; do we
care? Environmentally does it make a bit of difference?
MR. JOHNSTON: First of all, it bothers me that we get a
letter hours before the hearing and then have to think about
it, but that's a different issue. Al, it goes to the same
thing, each time for you to have a governmental agency to
act, you have to feel there's a need for you to act. In
establishing that there are many facts you have to weigh and
one is that is there a need or isn't there, and part of your
analysis would be, does this property owner already have
access to the beach, which is very close to --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do they?
MR. JOHNSTON: I don't know.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Without analyzing this, we don't know.
MR. JOHNSTON: I have never seen the letter, I don't know.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is everyone clear on that? Gail, briefly.
MS. WICKHAM: First of all, I apologize for bringing the
letter in this afternoon, but I didn't think I would be here
today. So as a courtesy to the Board, I wanted them to have
it, and I'm happy to address what it says tonight, that was
not intended to slip anything in. It was as a courtesy to
your Board.
Secondly, just so Mr. Ryall and his group understand,
my letter does acknowledge the existence of the association.
The question is, to what extent is it relevant to this
particular application? It very well may be that there is
access by beach steps, and I dispute the distance that he's
proposed, but certainly, if there are or are not beach
steps, at this point the association is not the proper party
to decide on whether our client needs steps to the beach.
My question is whether an association of homeowners whose
current majority decides that they're going to have and
75
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
maintain beach steps is necessarily going to maintain that
into the future or properly insure them or properly maintain
them. It's really not relevant to this proceeding because
our client has waterfront property and has asked the Board
for access over their property to get to the beach, and I
don't think the fact that there may or may not be now or in
the future access over beach steps down the road that are
possibly available to them and many other families should
preempt them from having their own direct access over their
property. The environmental issues again, I'm going to
refer to Mr. Bowman.
MR. BOWMAN: If I can make one other comment too, because
again, this Board approves stairs as a matter of course in
very simple applications. If this was another private house
next door that had its own set of stairs, you would have no
problem approving a set of stairs for this house. You would
not ask them to go next door to see if they wanted to share
the stairs with it. This is a very standard application,
gets approved monthly in front of this Board and it's no
different than if it was a house next door. That is why
this activity is even exempted from coastal erosion hazard
regulations. It's diminimus. It's something that is not
harmful to the bluff, it's not harmful to the beach itself,
and it provides access.
If I can make one comment on use, which I disagree
with, this Board does not decide whether someone has a need
to build a house on their property or has a need to build a
dock to access the water, and I think you have to put this
in the context of your own regulations when you review this
application. Thank you.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: On your point, does this property have
deeded rights to those stairs, the applicant's property have
deeded rights to those access stairs?
MS. WICKHAM: The property and all of the properties in
Brown's Hills have deeded rights to the roads and to a
particular area, strip, I don't know that this is -- it may
not be an actual road out to the bluff, whether they have
access down the stairs or not, there's a possibility, but
I'm not sure again that's relevant whether there's already
beach stairs there. We have no way of knowing that and
76
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
there are how many owners, 23 people, 23 lots that use these
steps, apparently that's a pretty heavy duty usage.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just have one question for
clarification, I'm looking at the tax map. Could someone
identify me the parcel in question?
MS. WICKHAM: Also in answer to your question, there are
many, many associations and neighborhoods that have beach
access.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. What is that? Does the association
own that?
MS. WICKHAM: Yes, that used to be, as I understand it,
where there were steps that were demolished is what I was
told.
MS. MORGAN: Yes, actually because the hillside fell
apart.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I was looking at what we have. We were
there. Thank you. We went down it.
MR. JOHNSTON: Is there an existing permit for those stairs?
MS. WICKHAM: Yes.
MS. MORGAN: I'm just going to also point out that using
your plot map, that our plot map the 165 feet.
MS. WICKHAM: We're very familiar with it. We went up and
down.
MS. MORGAN: I also want to say when you talk about heavy
access, there's 23 houses in the association, they all have
access to the stairs. I'd say on a given weekend, probably
on average maybe a dozen people go down the stairs. Maybe
they go up and down once in a day. Once you go down, you
tend to stay. So they don't get beaten up. It's not like
hundreds of people go.
MR. MORGAN: Mary and I live there full time, we're there
365 days a year. We often go down to the beach, but I have
rarely, maybe on the 4th of July weekend, maybe on the Labor
Day weekend maybe on a day like today at 4:00 in the
afternoon, there might be one other couple on the beach at
the far end or the other. The usage is minimal, far
disproportionate to the number of people who live in the
community, some of whom have never been up and down those
stairs, I grant it.
MR. JOHNSTON: I want to make sure that each of the Trustees
77
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
takes notice of what Heather pointed out that for the record
97-27-A7; do you feel it's appropriate?
Off the top of my head, I can't recall it verbatim. The
Trustees all have the ability to look at what critical
environmental areas are and at the discretion of the Board
of Trustees any operation proposed in a critical
environmental area, if you deem that to be in this area
maybe stringent may be subject to more stringent
requirements than detailed in the section, such requirements
may include, but are not limited to denial of operation,
shortening or reducing the size of the structure, increasing
the width of nondisturbance buffers. It goes to what you
feel this area is.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. JOHNSTON: I have no feeling on it. I just want you to
make sure that in your determination you address that.
MR. RYALL: Can I talk just a second about the legal aspect
of the association, which is actually a corporation. This
is not a fly-by-night organization. It actually has an
asset there. This has been very happily going on since
1952. This is the second stair that the association has
built. The first one was built to 200 feet to the east of
the property in question, and had to be abandoned in 1985
because of the erosion on this bluff. We've since built, in
1985, a new stair, but if this whole issue were to hinge on
whether this association specifically addresses the legal
rights of the owners of the stair, which is us, then we
could certainly have Jennifer Gould, who is our attorney,
write that up to whatever she thinks is right. So that this
becomes a permanent fact for everyone who owns property in
the neighborhood, if there was something that said we can
use the roads but they forgot to say the roads and stairs,
then, okay, we will write in the stairs. There's never been
any conflict over the stairs in the neighborhood. No one
says we don't want to have the stairs; everyone wants to
have the stairs. So we will write it in if that's what you
require.
I do think there's one issue, which perhaps erroneously
but at the last hearing we went to, we got a very, very bad
impression of how it was discussed. Now I realize that you
78
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
cannot go and do due diligence on all these cases. We've
got 30 cases here tonight to look at, that's one per day and
there are five of you plus a couple of help staff and a
part time attorney. So we brought this thing up. But
before we got to speak, what we heard was one member of your
Board say that we should, that you should -- we the
Trustees, meaning you -- should approve, meaning you people
should approve this thing, that he knew about it, he had dug
a test hole on the property, and just go ahead and approve
it. Oh, after reducing the size of the platform slightly as
proposed. To us, to anyone sitting here, the appearance
would be that someone who was on your Board had had an
interest, a financial and business interest in this, a
contract. So, I think that that is whether -- I mean, we're
not doing an investigation here, but the impression
definitely was a conflict, and I think that Mr. Foster
should recuse himself from anything having to do with this
situation here. Whether the people doing the excavation are
your son or your self or your cousin or your aunt or your
uncle or whoever, you definitely said you had had an
involvement with that. You didn't go up there as a
volunteer and dig a hole on that property.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I didn't dig a hole up there, and I didn't
say I did dig a hole up there, and I don't have any personal
involvement with it. My son did work up there.
MR. RYALL: All right.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I drove a truck up there and put sand in a
hole that Chesterfield Associates dug.
MR. RYALL: We're not talking about sand, we're talking
about money.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It has nothing to do with me. I don't even
get paid.
MR. RYALL: Blood is thicker than what?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: What's that got to do with the stairs? Has
nothing to do with my son. My son works for John Hurtado.
He doesn't give a hoot whether John gets a set of stairs or
not. What does he care? All he wants to do is get paid for
the hole that was dug.
MR. RYALL: Well, your son is your son, he's been working on
the property and you were the advocate. You were the Board
79
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
advocate for this application.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's right. And every month another
person goes and looks at a set of stairs. A set of stairs
is a minor thing. We have never denied a set of stairs down
the bluff because people have a right to access the beach
from their waterfront property.
MR. RYALL: You're giving --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I go through the inspects, this month
there were over 30 minor proposals get handed out. Ken did
a number of them. Peggy did a number of them. Jim did
some. Artie did a couple, we try to divvy them up
geographically so that somebody can go, because to go to
look at a fence in Mattituck to look at a set of stairs in
Orient, we did over 20 as a Board together, well, the major
ones we do together. And when there's a problem, as was
brought to light last month, there was a problem with this
then we table it, and the whole Board goes to look. That's
the way we do it. I don't know about any holes, Artie Foster
never said he dug a hole there.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I didn't dig a hole there. I said I was
familiar with the property because I was up there when they
were digging the hole.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I took the inspection list from Lauren. I
looked at all the files and nowhere in the files did it say
that Artie Foster did any work there. I looked at the file,
it said set of stairs in Orient. I said Artie is going to
get this one, and Lauren writes Artie on it and gives it to
him.
MR. RYALL: I don't know that, in fact, I don't believe
that. But that's besides the point.
MS. MORGAN: I think the whole reason that this is a little
more acrimonious than maybe it might have otherwise been was
the whole idea that the association didn't exist, the
neighborhood didn't exist, the stairs weren't insured, all
of that got us off track.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: None of that was submitted to us.
MS. MORGAN: Whether there was a need for the stair, the
damage to the bluff, I own property in California, coastal
property. I've dealt with coastal commissions which is way
harder than this. I developed four parcels; so, 1
80
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
understand what's involved in all of this. I'm surprised
just out of ignorance, really, that you're not to consider
what the stairs do to the bluff as part of the environmental
impact of this. That's what I am hearing. That the
platform matters but the stairs don't. You didn't write
those laws, I don't believe, but it seems very odd to me and
it is a bluff that is eroding.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We did write the law, the wetlands code,
the code. Environmentally a set of stairs is the most
environmentally sound access you can have down the bluff, if
you wind a path down there you get a gully.
MS. MORGAN: I understand, you couldn't have a path down
there because it's so steep. I'm just saying that it's
interesting that that isn't -- just for me -- my interest,
it isn't so critical because I wouldn't put another stair on
myself.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How would you access it?
MS. MORGAN: There's one stair now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there were no association stairs, how
would you access the water?
MS. MORGAN: I would probably go elsewhere.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Drive to Orient Point?
MS. MORGAN: I might, seriously. I lived in California for
a long time. And there was no private beach access Hawaii
doesn't have private beach access. Florida doesn't, you
don't own the beach access. There are accesses that the
state maintains and so the idea that I would have my own
stairs to the beach when there's a stair 165 feet away from
me, to me it's fairly ludicrous. If there were none? If
there were none, I didn't buy there because there were
stairs to the beach. I bought there because it's a great
place to be living. Other places I looked didn't have a
beach nearby, I would have driven, sit near a river or
something like that. That's just me.
MS. WICKHAM: I just wanted to ask the Board, unless you
have further substantive that you would like to hear from
us, we'd like to ask the Board that perhaps you could close
the hearing and make a decision. I just wanted to reiterate
that what the association does or doesn't do or what rights
and obligations there may be, I'm really not sure is
81
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
completely relevant to this consideration because the
applicant cannot and should not be required to be limited to
their steps, and they have steps so perhaps should we. I
would just like you to keep that in mind.
MS. TETRAULT: I would just like to speak to something
Mr. Bowman said, he was saying it's normal activity. You
put the stairs on the bluff, it acts just like a bulkhead,
and it's no problem and that's true. But I just want to
comment on that all of that is true. There are many places
along the sound and the bay where there is quite a bit of
erosion that I just want to make sure that you do consider
that. That stairs, there have been a few areas, there's a
few areas in Cutchogue, Oregon Road, where it's been totally
disastrous with stairs and bluffs and stairs falling down
and bluffs eroding, and just make sure, I know you are all
aware of that, but just the way he made it sound like, oh,
there's no problem. Well, sometimes it can start to cause
problems and disturbing the ground and doing that kind of
construction that changes the bluff, you can change the
bluff, this new house up there, it's to protect them too,
it's not necessary to keep their bluff as well, and also
just what the Trustees have been trying to do to the
shoreline in keeping that as much as possible.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think one thing I noticed myself is
that this area is very pristine. I mean, there are places
where are stairs all along the sound, but this is very
unique in that and it's because of the association I think
that there is that one set of stairs. It's a natural,
pristine area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I agree. The stairs are disposable on the
sound. We've seen that for many years. And mostly I think
people consider stairs to be fairly disposable. This is as
stable a bluff that you get on the north shore and the
sound, and most people most of the times we see stairs in
areas that are moving a lot more and need to be replaced a
lot more frequently but everything is eroding.
MR. BOWMAN: A very short comment in response to what
Heather's saying, is that the erosion on the north shore is
not caused by stairs, it's caused by the nor'easters during
the winter; it takes the sand out of the toe and that's how
82
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
the bluff falls down; that's how a bluff acts, and like you
say, stairs are disposable, I agree with you 100 percent and
they get rebuilt all the time, and it's going to erode
whether there's a stair there or not, and that's why you
don't want to have a bulkhead put down there because then
you're stabilizing the bluff, keeping the sand off the beach
and the beach disappears. So that should be the experience
here is keeping the toe of that bluff unstablized and
natural and stairs can be rebuilt.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I agree, thank you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would just like to read the CAC
recommendations into the minutes. They disapproved of the
application because the size of the platform is not in
accordance with Chapter 97, which we already discussed. CCA
lumber is prohibited, but they also do say that construction
would cause damage to the bluff.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you suggesting, Peggy, that currently
the stairs are unnecessary because there's access now?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think because of that and also, even
though the property is owned by the builder, but the builder
is going to be selling and you don't know --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know if you were on the Board, at
the end of Indian Neck Lane, right next to Mrs. Baize is a
new home and the owner wanted to put -- remember that, Ken?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The boardwalk?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He wanted to put that long boardwalk
through the marsh, hundreds of feet of boardwalk, and when he
could go out the other door and walk down the paved road.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: But his father was handicapped.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But the paved road was safer than the
boardwalk. To me that kind of equates with that in that if
there is access, there's access. And there's no need to
duplicate the access. If some point in time the association
doesn't maintain the access for whatever reason, I don't
care what it is, then you would reconsider it. If there's
access I don't see why you need it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I agree.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I agree.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment?
MS. WICKHAM: Mr. Chairman, I would seriously have to
83
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
dispute your right to deny steps to a private owner just
because there may or may not be common access down the
street. I really think that that is a legal principal that
has no basis in the law.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It might have or it might not because under
Chapter 97 we are charged with protecting the environment.
Adding a set of steps, no matter will certainly cause an
effect on the bluff face, and it will cause some
environmental damage. Walking down the bluff will cause
environmental damage, without steps will cause environmental
damage also so doing anything will cause environmental
damage. This Board has in the past denied people exactly
the kind of access that they have applied for because
alternative access was available, and I think because it
causes less environmental damage.
MS. WICKHAM: I don't know if that was a stair, Number 1 ;
and Number 2, the access is not available on this particular
piece of property. It is not on this piece of property that
the access is available and that I think is a distinction.
Also, I think you have to balance the environmental harm
that these stairs could make on a stable bluff with a
relatively modest angle of repose compared with depriving a
property owner of his right to access the beach directly.
We also, just to recall, we went to great lengths to
stablize the upland area of this property with a retaining
wall, and for the most part, the angle of repose -- that's
not the right term -- the angle from the bluff face landward
is downward. So it's not a straight shot down. There is
not water running over the bluff.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what we observed.
MS. WICKHAM: So that would further minimize any further
impact on the bluff. So -- but I would strongly urge you to
consider seriously not restricting an owner's right to
access to the stairs in this particular circumstance. I
don't think it's something that the Board has the authority
to do, frankly.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. RYALL: I just want to answer what she said.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Briefly.
MR. RYALL: She said the owner went to great lengths
84
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
building retaining walls to stablize the situation; in fact,
the retaining walls were built in order to build a platform
to build a generic house on that platform, the developer's
solution to the sloping problem. It had nothing to do with
environmental considerations at all. It was to simplify
construction of the house.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to deny the application
for a set of stairs for Matine, Inc. because on the current
condition of an access stairs that's available to the
applicant to reach Long Island Sound. I make a motion to
deny without prejudice. If the access stairs ever becomes
unavailable to the applicant at any time, the applicant is
more than welcome to reapply for access to the Long Island
Sound, the beach.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Opposed?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll recuse myself.
26. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of JOSEPH
LOGIUDICE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by
108' fixed timber catwalk with a boat lift. The catwalk is
proposed to be elevated a minimum of 4 feet above the
average high water mark and will utilize four (4) 4' X 4'
piles with a depth of penetration 6' plus, and (26) 6"
diameter timber piles with a depth of penetration of 10 feet
plus. The boat lift is proposed to be an Alum-A-Vator,
utilizing (8) 10" diameter timber piles with a depth of
penetration of 10 feet plus. Located: 10995 north Bayview
Road, Southold. SCTM # 79-5-20.13.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak in favor of this application?
MR. BOWMAN: Chuck Bowman, very tired, if you have any
questions, just ask me so we can all go home.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Have you done an environmental assessment
85
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
of the water out in front of this property?
MR. BOWMAN: What do you mean environmental assessment? As
in eel grass beds?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Did you find eel grass?
MR. BOWMAN: No.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Or flora or fauna?
MR. BOWMAN: No.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Or submerged aquatic vegetation?
MR. BOWMAN: Not where the dock is going, no, and yes we
did. We didn't find sostera beds if that's what you're
asking.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The reason I asked that is because the
day we inspected it, which was Wednesday, July 14th, we have
photos to back us up, there was 4 inches of eel grass on the
shoreline, as you can see, tons of eel grass.
MR. BOWMAN: You mean on the rack line?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: On the rack line. In this photo, just
behind that rack line, approximately beginning 5 or 10 feet
below the low mean water, we noticed extensive SAV.
MR. BOWMAN: Most of that area, and again I'm talking about
the sostera, when I was out there, there was a lot of algae.
It's a rocky substrate, and that's where the dock was
going. Now, I didn't do a whole story to see where those
sostera beds are, if you want, I'm sure the water is clear
enough, I'll go out to the end of it, and I'll to the end of
it and I'll -- if you want, I'll even have an underwater
camera, we'll stick it under where the dock is going and
show you a picture of where the dock is going, if that's
what you like. But to answer your question, yes, we always
look at that. When we put a dock out, we always look to see
if there's eel grass beds.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: As far as the (inaudible) according to
Town code.
MR. BOWMAN: You have new plans, the boat lift has been
eliminated. There was new plans sent to you, quite some
time ago.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's about all my comments. I see a
lot of eel grass here and this property off the location.
MR. BOWMAN: I'll be more than happy to do what I
volunteered to do, make you feel comfortable. This
86
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
application's been around for a long time; I have no
problem. It's a legitimate question, if you will feel more
comfortable, I will provide you with that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why don't we bring everything up so we
don't get to the next one. You had other questions about
the fish movement and sedimentation?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right. I figured it went all through
this at a hearing.
MR. BOWMAN: Understand you all approved the Miller dock.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That was a different location, different
bottom structure.
MR. BOWMAN: It's fairly close by though.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Different code also.
MR. BOWMAN: I say it's a different code, absolutely, but it
has very many of the similar characteristics.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'd just like to point out in this
location, it will abut a fish trap there. So right now
there are no hard structures in that water that impede or
prohibit certain fish.
MR. BOWMAN: But again I would ask you the question, what
makes you think an open pile dock is going to impede fish?
Usually open pile docks would attract big fish which may
actually bring more fish into the area and not certainly
impede their movement.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: To rehash the whole long scenario I drew
up last time, you bring in hard structure, you bring in a
change of species. You bring in black fish, you bring in
bass, right now there's probably flounder, fluke.
MR. BOWMAN: I would imagine those trap nets are there
probably for bass, weakfish, they're not there for fluke.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: They're not meant to be inhabited
areas.
MR. BOWMAN: But you just said it's going to change species
and bring in bass, that's what's there now, that's what the
target species are there now. Probably weakfish are the
target species now. It is certainly not fluke that are the
target species or winter flounder that are the target
species. So I don't see where that changes species are
going to be, blackfish, I doubt if in the summer time, maybe
in the winter time, in the winter time you might get some or
87
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
in the late fall when the water temperatures fall, but
certainly in the summer time they're not going to be there,
the water temperature's too warm. They're not going to be
anywhere around.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: They probably catch all those fish you
mention because they're migrating through the area; however,
if you put a structure through the area, all of a sudden
they become an inhabitant and they may chase away various
species. They may chase out the squid.
MR. BOWMAN: Again, I would certainly not see where a pier
is going to affect a migratory fin fish in the area there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other consideration of sedimentation
from the piles?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's always a consideration as we've
seen in the other locations in the bay. One great example
would be off Cleat's Point in Greenport. The sedimentation
is incredible.
MR. BOWMAN: Again, I'm going by my recollection, and I
think that's a legitimate question, and I will certainly
document the bottom type to you. My recollection is that it
was a rocky substrate. I will go out and again, it was a
while ago because we started this whole process when
actually, I think it was probably a couple years ago then it
was put on hold because the house got sold. I will go and
update that data for you. That's a legitimate question.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I wanted to just bring everything up.
MR. BOWMAN: I appreciate that.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: And depth of water at the end of the
dock; will you provide that?
MR. BOWMAN: Four feet.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Four feet?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can I make a motion to table this
application?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Did you see eel grass on the shore?
MR. BOWMAN: I've seen eel grass there.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Probably the first time I've seen it
there in 10 years.
MR. BOWMAN: Let me take you down to Great South Bay
88
Board of Trustees IJuly 21, 2004
sometime, and they're piled this high and they're not eel
grass beds all over the bay. So you have to keep that in
mind.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
27. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of DEBORAH DOTY
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 3' by 85' fixed
walk at minimum 3' above grade, 3' by 12' ramp and a 6' by
20' floating dock. Located: 670 West Creek Avenue,
Cutchogue. SCTM # 103-13-5.3.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak on behalf of the applicant?
MS. MESIANO: That would be me.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any questions, comments?
MS. MESIANO: Yes, Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the
applicant. At the time of the site inspection, we had
extensive conversation about alternative materials that
might be in the construction of the structure. After
discussing with Miss Doty, she is willing to consider the
alternatives. I have contacted the company that Jim had
recommended, I had, by the way, gone to North Fork Welding.
They had no material. They really weren't sure what I was
referring to. I got the information from Lauren and took it
back to them. They still couldn't help me, so I contacted
the company directly. They're sending me samples, which I
hadn't received, grading material, and when I got that
material, I'm going to have this looked at by an engineer,
so that they can give us an opinion as to the feasibility of
using that type of material, and if the material is adequate
structurally and has the type of life that you would expect
that type of material in that type of an application, then
we will be able to design a dock of a low profile, and we
would then like to take that to the DEC. What I would like
to ask of the Board in this instance is that you grant me an
approval subject to my submission to you of a plan that is
acceptable to you because I would like to take that plan
then to the DEC with the Board's endorsement.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just did that about five hours ago.
MS. MESIANO: Did I miss it?
89
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Someone else.
MS. MESIANO: With this type of material?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. Actually his catwalk is 4' by 5'
long.
MS. MESIANO: We've got a significantly --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is your length?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Do you know what the DEC told that man?
MS. MESIANO: No.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: He had to go 3 and-a-half feet, go up 3
and-a-half feet so he could go 4 feet -- go up 3 and-a-half
feet so he can go 5 feet this way, then 3 and-a-half feet
down.
MS. MESIANO: Yes, it's absurd. It makes no sense. They're
only looking at the regulations and they're looking at the
numbers, they're not taking the site and the site
considerations into effect. The applicants would rather
have the low profile. If it's a matter of safety and it's a
matter of the wave velocity and so on, I think you have
other considerations, but across the salt marsh, in this
instance, we've got an 85 foot fixed walk, so if we take the
85 foot fixed walk, the 12 foot ramp, that's 97, and the 6'
by 20' floating dock, so that's 97 -- say 117 to 120 feet
thereabouts, would be the distance to get us out to a depth
of about two feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you draw the line between them, it's
pretty close, it's just a pier line there.
MS. MESIANO: I believe the originally proposed structure,
our seaward end is in line with the two neighboring existing
docks, so therefore we wouldn't propose to go any more
seaward than those docks that presently exist, but again,
given the fact that we don't have the material in hand and
it's going to require some engineering, I would like your
approval subject to my presenting to you an acceptable plan,
again, for the endorsement so that I can go to the DEC on
this.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Everybody good on this?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Will you try for one foot over marsh?
MS. MESIANO: Yes. When you say one foot over marsh, do you
mean the grade or the top of the vegetation?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's got to be the grade.
90
Board of Trustees• July 21, 2004
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: One foot above grade.
MS. MESIANO: I know it can grow that long, but it can fold
over. I just wanted clarification, you mean from the grade,
not from the vegetation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MS. MESIANO: That's what we were hoping.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And the grass can grow through it?
MS. MESIANO: Yes, the material that we're looking at. I
had an extensive conversation with one of the sales
representatives. It's a two inch thick material and the
openings are two inch square, and they're approximately one
inch thick. The light penetration is at about between 70
and 75 percent. It's constructed or manufactured with some
type of a ribar so that it's bearing capacity is at about
200 pounds per square foot.
TRUSTEE KING: They have some other stuff too, like an inch,
inch and-a-half thick fiber glass that has light penetration
but it's probably not as strong.
MS. MESIANO: You see that was intended for not to be the
weight bearing structure but to be set on top of like a concrete area.
They didn't recommend that because they felt
it wouldn't be strong enough.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I 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
for a 3' by 120' fixed dock, elevated one foot over grade
subject to plans submitted.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MS. MESIANO: With that approval will you be able to provide
me with a letter that I can submit to the DEC?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely.
28. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of JAMES SWEENEY
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 33' fixed
walk at minimum 3.5 feet above grade, 3' by 15' ramp and a
6' by 20' floating dock. Located: 2950 Minnehaha
Boulevard, Southold. SCTM # 87-3-42
91
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on this
project?
MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant.
Again, at the site inspection we discussed similar proposals
as in my previous application, which was to employ a grate
system in place of the proposed timber walk, thereby
enabling us to build a lower profile dock, and I make the
same request that you give me an approval subject to my
submission of an acceptable plan for a low profile walk. In
this instance, we will, however, still require the ramp and
float because we are getting out to a depth of about -- I
think it's about 6.8 feet at the seaward end of the
float. The float is in line with the neighboring structure,
that neighboring structure is pretty much identical to that
which we originally proposed; however, Mr. Sweeney would
favor a low profile structure as we discussed, so my request
is the same as the earlier. You wanted to also add, we
discussed that in both instances in particular in this
application, your comment was to maintain the phragmites at
one foot by hand cutting them, so we needed to write that
in. And if I might digress, in the Doty application it was
a similar condition.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Why would the CAC ask for a 5 foot nonturf
buffer?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know.
TRUSTEE KING: They did that on another one also.
MS. MESIANO: Why would we disturb what was already
developed?
MS. TETRAULT: Right.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They always do that when it's got to be dug
up.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No.
TRUSTEE KING: Make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: Make a motion to approve the application,
the submission of plans showing the new grading system and
to hand trim the phragmites at least once a year down to 12
92
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
inches.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MR. JOHNSTON: Are you having any problem having the DEC to
give you a similar permit for the one foot phragmites?
MS. MESIANO: No.
MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you. I want to make sure we're not
make it difficult reconciling the two permits.
29, Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of SCHEMBRI HOMES,
INC. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 30' by 66'
single-family dwelling and sanitary on-site sewage disposal
system, and a pervious driveway. Located: 1025 Seawood
Drive, Southold. SCTM # 79-7-63.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here who would like to
comment on this application?
MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant.
I have still received no comments from the Board; therefore
I am unable to go any further. This has been tabled, I
believe this is the third month I'm here on this, and I'm
waiting for the Board's comments.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do we have a letter? Where is the letter?
MS. TETRAULT: I went on the site. I went out to the site
and we decided what we wanted to do there, and I just gave
the Board a letter that they looked over and then you will
be getting a letter in the mail, I would think that they
would get right back to me in a few days.
MS. MESIANO: I would just like to say that I did request to
meet with you at the site and to be involved through the
process and not to have the big surprise at the end. I try
to work with the Board and I did request a site inspection
and I am waiting three months.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The problem was, we've got a back log and
we just got Heather.
MS. MESIANO: My point is I just, I did request to meet on
site and to be involved in the onsite inspection. I think I
could be more effective in performing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're not saying this is it, take it or
93
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
leave it. I think what we're saying, here's our
recommendations, now let's see your comments. It's not like
an ultimatum. It's just, this is what we think.
MS. MESIANO: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's the way it's got to go and you can
make comments on it. It's not a permit.
MS. MESIANO: I didn't think it would be.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's going to take us a while to get up to
speed.
MS. MESIANO: That was not my point. My point was that I
asked to --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But now you're part of the process. It's
not like you were excluded. You were brought in at this
part instead of earlier.
MS. MESIANO: My only comment is that I had requested that
onsite meeting and to be involved at that earlier point,
that's my only point.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can still do an onsite meeting.
MS. MESIANO: I don't want to duplicate efforts so it's
done.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other public comments?
MS. MESIANO: I want you to remember the pictures that I
submitted to you and do keep in mind the conditions that we
presented to you as far as the flooding and the runoff and
so on. There's other culpability and that contributes to
some of the problem.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I recall.
MS. MESIANO: Thank you.
MS. TETRAULT: This is an application for Wetland Permit to
build a house and what we decided is they need to take care
of the violation before they can proceed with this
application to build a house.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I was going to make a motion to table.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to amend the Debra Doty
application to the permit to include cutting the phragmites
by hand trimming.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
94
Board of Trustees July 21, 2004
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We still have Willow point and the snow
fences. I'll make a motion to reopen the hearing for Willow
Point.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MR. JOHNSTON: You're going to amend to make it clear that
the maintenance dredging permit is the standard 10 year
maintenance dredging permit versus the assumed two years on
all of our permits if we don't stipulate?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Make the motion.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to remove all snow fences
with from the beaches that the Town has put up because
violation of Chapter 97 and we're going to ask the Highway
Department to remove them.
MR. JOHNSTON: By when?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thirty days.
MR. JOHNSTON: If you do it 30 days, they're going to remove it
August 31 st anyway.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Disregard usage of compliance, we'd like
to issue to every applicant with the final inspection --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Run this by me again it sounds vaguely
familiar.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For compliance at the point of inspection
we have to make the file saying this is fine.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Make a motion to adjourn; do I have a
second?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES
RECEIVED
/l.,q.:�r h Y1
OCT 6
95
outhold Town Clerk