HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-08/18/2004 i
f �
OS�FFO�;�c
Albert J.Krupski, President Q�. QG Town Hall
James King,Vice-President h 'yam 53095 Route 25
Artie Foster o P.O.Box 1179
Ken Poliwoda 0 Southold,New York 11971-0959
Peggy A.Dickerson
y�0 aQ� Telephone(631) 765-1892
1 �► Fax(631) 765-1366
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MINUTES RECEIVED 11-0(�
/6-1 ;'�o
Wednesday, August 18, 2004 JA �.
N 1 9 200
7:00 PM `
S011t, ql�Toerrn Clerk
Present were: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President
James King, Vice-President
Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee
Peggy Dickerson, Trustee
E. Brownell Johnston, Esq. —
Assistant Town Attorney for Trustees
Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant
Heather Tetrault, Environmental Technician
Absent was: Artie Foster, Trustee
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Thursday, September 16, 2004 at
8:00 a.m.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to approve, TRUSTEE KING
seconded. All AYES.
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 at
7:00 p.m.
WORK SESSION: 6:00 p.m.
TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA
seconded. ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Public hearings, Number 5, William Goggins
has been postponed. Number 6, Theodore Laoudis has been
postponed. Number 11, Joseph Logiudice has been postponed.
Board of Trustees 2 Aug. 18, 2004
Number 18, Andrew Weiner has been postponed. These will
automatically come up in the September schedule. We will
not open the hearings for those this evening.
I. MONTHLY REPORT: For July, 2004, check for $6,477.67
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:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Public hearings, We'd like to move through
these fairly quickly, they're not really public hearings,
however if anyone has any comment please be ready and feel
free to come up to the microphone and make your comments.
1. JOSEPH FRIEDMAN requests an Administrative Permit to
replace the existing failed cesspool system. Located: 590
Riley Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM # 143-5-11
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES
2. ROBERT AND LISA DEFRESE request an Administrative
Permit to widen the existing driveway to the property line,
cobblestone pave to extend the existing driveway to road,
and clear land to 10' contour line to 20' wide. Located:
5223 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the
Administrative Permit; do I have a-second?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there a second before we have a
discussion?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: _Let's have a discussion before we vote.
You saw it Peggy.'
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I saw it, I just didn't know what you
guys had discussed when you went.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there something with the area marked on
it? That doesn't show really a Work area. We saw the
stakes and the woods did you have any problem with that?
It's still level ground in here.
(Discussion with Mr. Defrese at dais.)
Board of Trustees 3 Aug. 18, 2004
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Peggy, when you make your motion, I think
there's nothing in here that I can see that says what you
want to do. There's nothing that says you want to widen it
four feet on each side and put gravel down.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Widen existing driveway to the property
line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But say all that for the entire length and
add hay bales in clearing, clearing as marked on survey.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the
Administrative Permit for Robert and Lisa Defrese request to
widen the existing driveway to the property line with
pervious cobblestone, to extend the existing driveway to
road and clear land to 10 foot contour line up to 20 foot
wide, with hay bales and clearing as marked on the survey.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you own the right of way?
MR. DEFRESE: Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Pervious driveway not paved. Do I have
a second?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
3. NICOLO DIBARTOLO requests an Administrative Permit to
install water service approximately 12 feet under the
wetlands to the residence. Located: 475 Condor Court,
Laurel. SCTM # 127-3-6.1.
TRUSTEE KING: Make a motion to approve the application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
4. SUSAN JOHNSON AND PETER BOGER request an
Administrative Permit to cut the phragmites down to one foot
to control the growth and improve the view.
Located: 723 Private Road Number 12, Southold.
SCTM# 87-4.5.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We looked at this last month, and they
marked it on the survey, stand of phragmites in the corner.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And we didn't see any need to do any
more than what was approved.
MS. TETRAULT: They didn't have a permit for it, so we said
we had to have a permit.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. It's fine.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's fine.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the
application.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
Board of Trustees 4 Aug. 18, 2004
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
5. Peter Corbin on behalf of TERRY WATERS PROPERTY
OWNERS ASSOCIATION requests an Administrative Permit to
clean up brush, vines, weeds, etc. and to clean a pathway
back from the fence along the road to a maximum of 10 feet
to 15 feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here to
represent the Terry Waters Property Owners Association? All
right, I don't think we'll act on that since we didn't
actually get an application. We went and looked at it, but
we have to go back there because there's a request to look
at that little pond or estuary next to that. I'll make a
motion to table that application or inquiry.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
6. SOUNDVIEW INN requests an Administrative Permit to add a
cesspool to the existing system, located on the landward
side of the two-story building, in the parking lot.
Located: 58775 Route 48, Greenport. SCTM # 44-2-22.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a new cesspool in the parking lot,
road side.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Any problems?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think so.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Pre-existing too.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the
application.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
7. Charles Sidorowicz on behalf of MARK BAISCH requests
an Administrative Permit to remove three trees and regrade
area of stump removal. Located: 1425 Gull Pond Lane,
Greenport. SCTM # 35-4-11.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have field notes on that, that should
show on the plans no turf from the bulkhead to the retaining
wall. Hay bale line, where would you like the hay bale
line, at the top of the first retaining wall?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And gutters and dry wells on the house.
MR. SIDOROWICZ: Our original application it stated six
trees and now I see I'm only allowed three trees; why is
that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Good question. The tree looked like a
three. Must have been a bad typewriter, typo.
MR. SIDOROWICZ: The owner Mr. Baisch was out yesterday,
Board of Trustees 5 Aug. 18, 2004
and we discussed, we'd like to do the project right. The
retaining walls that are there are basically 2 by 8's and 2
by 10's with 2 by 4's holding them in place. We'd like to
be able to grade after we take the trees and stumps out,
grade to the level of the bulkhead, and put grass in there
and stop the erosion from going into the creek but with
those 2 by 6s are going to rot in a year or two. So we'd
like to do it right, take those 2 by 6's and 2 by 8's out of
there. I took pictures I took today, come and show you
(handing).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Under a normal bulkhead reconstruction
would require a nonturf buffer behind the bulkhead. It
might be better if you put a real retaining wall in here and
keep the upland up, then do something different down here,
whether plantings, gravel, decking, not turf, you know, in
that area?
MR. SIDOROWICZ: Do we.have to amend the application or can
we take the trees out and amend the application?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What they have across the creek, they have
gravel down here, they have retaining wall higher up,
gravel, plantings, whatnot, but the turf doesn't go right
down. That's what we'd rather see, so the lawn doesn't.run
right down into the creek.
MR. SIDOROWICZ: Also, on either side of us to the north and
the south, the bulkhead is 10 to 16 inches higher than ours;
is it possible with a permit to put another 6 by 6 on top of
that existing bulkhead and grade to that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Fine with me.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I think we'd prefer to grade below the 6
by 6, in case any runoff drains through the soil.
MR. SIDOROWICZ: The bulkhead is 10, 16 inches higher to
ours, we want to put another 6 by 6 on top of ours and grade
to or below that.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right. It would be beneficial to raise
it and grade below that, catch the water.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do we have to go out there again or can we
approve it?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We're familiar with the site.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'd like to approve this but you have to
send us plans for the retaining wall and what you're going
to do down here. We can approve it then. The approval
would include tree removal and the hay bales. At that point
you'd have to put hay bales at the top of the bulkhead, and
the drainage for the house?
MR. SIDOROWICZ: I don't know if you noticed when you were
there for your inspection on the north side, on the step
Board of Trustees 6 Aug. 18, 2004
side, their drainage, originally there's two pipes coming
down and dry wells up on the house to catch all the runoff.
Right now it just runs to the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Put that on the plans. Draw that all up
on the plans and when the plans come in we'll stamp them,
and you can get your permit. If you have any questions, .
call the office. You're clear on that, right, Heather?
MS. TETRAULT: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the
application -- to amend the application to approve the
removal of the six trees as shown on the survey, elevating
the bulkhead to match the neighbors north and south, line of
hay bales on the bulkhead during work of clearing the trees
and retaining wall reconstruction work; new retaining wall
on the upland side, nonturf buffer between the retaining
wall and bulkhead, dry wells north of the stairs, and dry
wells and gutters to contain the roof runoff.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
IV. RESOLUTIONS-MOORING &ANCHORAGE/STAKES:
1. SUSAN JOHNSON requests an onshore/offshore stake in
Corey Creek off her property located at Private Road Number
12, Southold.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Looks like there's room out in front of
the property. I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
2. MLADEN JAKACIC requests a mooring in Town Creek for a
35 foot boat, replacing Mooring Number 43. Access: Public.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I believe we had a discussion on the
length of the boat, th length was 35 feet?
MS. STANDISH: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that because they were on a waiting
list?
MS. STANDISH: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They were on a waiting list for that. Is
there a problem with that?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm looking at the location. I remember
discussing the location. I was thinking it should have been
more to the east.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Move it.
MS. STANDISH: They indicated where they wanted it or where
it would be best?
Board of Trustees 7 Aug. 18, 2004
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What is that 6.5 feet?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where do you think it should be?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I think it should be in line with 970 and
870 tree in a line, so they're not in the channel. In
between the two of them or is that to the south?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why don't you mark the location in and
that will be the location?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right here (indicating).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where is their access?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Probably Founder's Lane.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Make a motion to approve Mooring Permit
for Mladen Jakacic to replace Mooring Number 43 to the
location I have checked off on the map; do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
3. EILEEN RIDDELL requests a mooring in Little Creek for a
12 foot boat, replacing Mooring 65. Access: Public:
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I recall we spoke about this. I'll make
a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
V. RESOLUTIONS — OTHER
1. Revoke Permit Number 439 issued to GERARD SCHULTHEIS
on August 4, 1987 for a 3' by 12' foot ramp and a 6' by 36'
floating dock. Located: School House Creek, New Suffolk.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We spoke to Mr. Schultheis in the field
last week and he had some information he wanted to share
with us.
MR. BRESSLER: Representing the Schultheises. Eric J.
Bressler, Wickham, Bressler, Gordon and Geasa, Main Road in
Mattituck, New York.
At the outset, Mr. President, I would like to note for
the record that I am handing up to the Board, and, in fact,
handing to the President a copy for service for a lawsuit
which was commenced by the Schultheises against Lawrence
Tuthill and the Board of Trustees to resolve this issue of
ownership for the land under water. As the Board is aware,
the ownership of the land under water is not a question
that's properly before this Board, it's now properly before
the Supreme Court.
But before we get into that, let me speak momentarily
to the procedure. First of all, I want to note my objection
to this procedure and I challenge the jurisdiction of the
Board of Trustees 8 Aug. 18, 2004
Board to proceed in the manner in which it's proceeding. A
little bit of history serves to sharpen the focus of that
particular argument. The Board will recall that sometime
back in the early '90s in a double secret proceeding it
purported to revoke the Schultheises' permit. By double
secret proceeding for those who aren't familiar with
Animal House, I will explain. The Board held a meeting
without giving notice to the Schultheises that it was having
such a meeting, purported to take its action, and then, even
more shockingly, did not tell the Schultheis's of the action
that it took. Within the past year then a criminal
prosecution was commenced against the Schultheises based
upon the double secret revocation of the permit. After
discussion with the Town attorneys, that was dropped.
We now find ourselves the subject of a (inaudible)
resolution of this Board in violation of the provisions of
Chapter 97. Chapter 97 provides that if there is a problem
with a permit or if anything is being done in violation of a
permit, that a notice of violation be.issued. Upon the
issuance of a notice of violation there's an opportunity for
administrative hearing on appropriate notice; and after the
administrative hearing, the Board then has the opportunity
to make a determination and the court has an opportunity to
review in an Article 78 proceeding. I don't find that any
of those procedural safeguards or statutory mandates were
followed here. The good news is that I guess the Board has
acknowledged that some sort of process is due before you can
take away a permit that has been outstanding for almost 20
years. The bad news is that you didn't follow your own
Chapter 97.
Moving onto the litigation history we have already
explored what already happened here before the Board, but I
think maybe what this Board doesn't know and what it should
know from review of the permit, is that this is a
longstanding dispute with Larry Tuthill. It started with
the Cremminses, the Schultheis's predecessors in title. It
involved in a lawsuit about 20 years ago, at which time Mr.
Tuthill was attempting to do the same thing to the
Cremminses that he's attempting to do to the Schultheises.
Then the Cremminses were anchoring their boat. They were
mooring it off their bulkhead, and a lawsuit was commenced
to stop the interference with that mooring of their boat in
the identical position that you people and the Department of
Environmental Conservation granted a permit for a
dock. When the lawsuit was commenced, apparently it had the
desired effect because the behavior ceased. After that
Board of Trustees 9 Aug. 18, 2004
time, Mr. Tuthill came back to your predecessors on this
Board. Prior presidents if you have gone back to look at
the record, which I invited you to do in my letter, issued
letters and told Mr. Tuthill they were going to do nothing
about his application, and he went away. Then he came back
and he was told again and he went away, now he's starting it
again, and we have commenced the instant lawsuit once and
for all what the rights and liabilities of the parties are
with respect to'this particular piece of property.
I think it goes without saying that my clients have
riparian rights off their own bulkheads and the lawsuit
reflects that. Apparently Mr. Tuthill agreed because he
ceased and desisted last time around 20 years ago. He
appears to be back. Notwithstanding the existence of the
riparian rights, the deed, of which the Board has at least
four copies in the file, reflects that we own to the center
line of the creek. That alone mandates that this resolution
be denied, if, in fact, you're determined to move forward
with the resolution in light of jurisdictional objections.
In short, there is absolutely no basis whatsoever to revoke
a permit which has been granted by DEC, which was granted by
this Board, which has been extant almost 20 years, in which
my clients have utilized continuously on the claim that
somebody else has the right to a permit. Against the
possibility that this matter will not be resolved, I have
commenced the action, and if the Board is inclined to do
anything it should do anything, it should await the outcome.
I note in that action that the prior President of the Board
Bredemeyer took the position in one of his letters that the
submission that Mr. Tuthill made led him to believe that the
Trustees may indeed lay claim to ownership to the bed of
that creek, and it is for that reason among others that the
Trustees have been joined to give them an opportunity to
come in and assert ownership to the bed of the creek. Our
research indicates going back to the maps in the 1800s that
School House Creek, at least to a certain extent, was
connected to Peconic Bay and was therefore properly Trustees
land under the Andros Patent, notwithstanding widening and
other things that may have occurred thereafter. I think the
Trustees can rightly lay claim to that, and I think the
Trustees ought to carefully consider before abandoning any
assertion of jurisdiction over that creek bottom. I think
President Bredemeyer acknowledged that when he put that in
the letter.
In short, this is not ripe for anything. The only
thing this is ripe for is an answer from the defendants.
Board of Trustees 10 Aug. 18, 2004
And let's find out who owns, and leave these poor people
alone, and let them used their dock until the judge
determines that they have no ownership or riparian rights to
that particular dock.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. We did have some communication
with the town attorney, Pat Finnigan, about this, and the
Board is inclined to give Mr. Schultheis time to prove
ownership of this parcel and not act on that resolution
tonight because we felt that the file is full of claims. I
hope this lawsuit does finally resolve this.
MR. BRESSLER: So do I. 1 await the Trustees' answer with
great anticipation actually.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're going to review it. I believe
Mr. Johnston is recusing himself from this matter. So you
can refer to everything to Kieran Corcoran or Pat Finnigan.
MR: BRESSLER: I presume I'll hear from them in due course
asking for an extension of time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is the Board satisfied? Get a resolution
on this?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Sure.
MR. BRESSLER: May we presume that Item Number 17 on the
calendar is similarly tabled pending resolution so my client
doesn't have to sit around all night?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have an interesting agenda tonight. I
would assume that if we don't revoke a permit for a dock,
that it would be difficult to approve a new permit in the
same location.
MR. BRESSLER: Mr. President, there's no limit for the
ability of the Board to overcome difficulties. I would
concur if you're not revoking their permit I don't see how
you could possibly grant one for the same space.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Straight answer, I can't see how we could
approve an application.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: More than likely, tabled.
MRS. SCHULTHEIS: Yes or no?
MR. BRESSLER: Yes or no?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll be honest with you, it is a scheduled
public hearing, so we have to open it up.
MR. BRESSLER: Would the Board entertain a motion to take it
out of order make its ruling since they seem to be related?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it would be unfair to other applicants
to do that.
MR. BRESSLER: Okay, you guys stay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll take no action on Resolution
Number 1. I'll make a motion to table the resolution.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
Board of Trustees 11 Aug. 18, 2004
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a resolution in relation to
the scallop season. the following action was taken at the
Southold Town Board Trustees regular meeting held August 18,
2004 resolve that the Southold Town Board of Trustees open
the following dates to scallop.harvesting: From Monday,
October 4, 2004 from sunrise to sunset through Sunday,
October 17, 2004 inclusive. Dip net or scallop net is
permitted for noncommercial scallop harvesting only. From
Monday, October 18, 2004 from sunrise to sunset through
Thursday, March 31, 2005 inclusive all gear permitted
pursuant to Chapter 77 of the code of the Town of Southold
is permitted. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? . ALL AYES.
3. Amend resolution of April 21, 2004. CHARLES SNOW
requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct and add onto an
existing dock facility as follows: Reconstruct the existing
4' by 39' fixed timber catwalk elevated a minimum of 3.5
feet above the existing grade, add a 4' by 19' fixed timber
catwalk to the landward end of the existing catwalk, add a -
4' by 31' fixed timber catwalk to the seaward end of the
existing catwalk, construct a 3' by 20' ramp and a 6' by 20'
floating dock. Located: 2826 Cox Neck Road,
Mattituck. SCTM # 113-8-7.5.
TRUSTEE KING: This is consistent with what we saw, looked
at in the field and it's consistent with the DEC permit
that's already been issued. I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
VI. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS
1. JAMES DEMILT requests a transfer of Permit# 5899
from John and Joan Weegar to James Demilt, with the revised
survey prepared by Joseph Ingegno last dated July 15,
2004. Located: 50 Tuthill Road, Southold.
SCTM # 55-3-21.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any problem, question?
MR. DEMILT: I'm James Demilt. I'm in favor of it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
Board of Trustees 12 Aug. 18, 2004
2. FLORENCIO GOMEZ requests a transfer of Permit 641 from
William Crawford to Florencio Gomez to repair the existing
bulkhead. Located: 1775 Smith Drive North, Southold. SCTM
# 76-3-2.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion?
MS. TETRAULT: Remember you asked that he remove his
fence.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here to represent the
applicant? No.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to grant the transfer
to Permit 641 from William Crawford to Florencio Gomez to
repair the existing bulkhead and back up the chain link
fence to the bulkhead with at least a 15 foot buffer, 1775
Smith Drive North, Southold.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
3. FRANK JACOBSEN requests an amendment to Permit#5616 to
construct a 12' by 22' tool shed and to transfer
Permit #5616 from Schembri Homes to Frank Jacobsen.
Located: 330 Shore Lane, Peconic. SCTM # 86-1-4.12
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I looked at this today, and the shed is
40 feet from the property line and the property line is 50
feet from the wetland, and the buffer area is 75 feet from
the wetlands area, so it all looked fine. I'll make a
motion to approve; do I have a second?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
4. Diane Herold, Architect on behalf of NANCY R. ROSS
requests a one-year extension to Permit# 5643 as approved
on October 16, 2002. Located: 3350 Park Avenue, Mattituck.
SCTM # 123-8-22.2
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
5. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of
MONICA KREISCHER FELDMAN requests an amendment to
Permit #5801 to construct a total of four additions to the existing
dwelling, containing a total of 925 square feet; construct a
detached garage within the northeastern section of subject
property, containing 320 square feet; abandon the existing
septic system within the northern section of the subject
property, and construct a more conforming septic system
Board of Trustees 13 Aug. 18, 2004
within the central section of the subject property,
resulting in a setback from the wetlands of 140 feet; and
remove the existing asphalt impervious driveway and install
a gravel pervious driveway. Located: 825 Harbor Lights
Drive, Southold. SCTM # 81-1-20
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I inspected this. It seemed fairly
straightforward, and it was actually an upgrade to the
environment taking away the paved driveway and creating a
pervious driveway and removing the septic system and coming
back 140 from the wetlands. It was a bulkheaded
property. CAC did not make an inspection.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
6. En-Consultants Incorporated on behalf of KEVIN AND
DOREEN BARR request an amendment to Permit # 5725 to remove
and replace in-place approximately 158 linear feet of
existing timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead and backfill
with approximately 25 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be
trucked in from an upland source. Remove existing beach
steps and deck, and construct a 4' boardwalk, 10' by 10'
deck and platform and steps to beach. Located: 200 Basin
Road, Southold. SCTM # 81-1-20
MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants, just came to
make sure that the application is clarified. This is
essentially what the Board has already approved except
rather than attempting to do a resheathing on the landward
side, they're actually proposing to remove and replace and
straighten up that whole structure and actually replace the
timber with vinyl. The boardwalk, the decking, all of that
is the same. There is one other difference just that
they're proposing to relocate the beach steps that right now
go out perpendicular from the wall and realign them against
the wall. That's all.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's fine, very straightforward. Any
Board comments? If no other Board comments, I'll make a
motion to approve as written.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
7. En-Consultants on behalf of BASIN ROAD REALTY TRUST
requests an amendment to Permit# 5926 to shorten the
lengths of the proposed vinyl groins from 48', 34' and 32'
to 28', 30' and 28' respectfully, from west to east along
the shoreline. Located: 450 Basin Road, Southold. SCTM #
Board of Trustees 14 Aug. 18, 2004
81-1-17 & 18
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I believe we were all at the location
three or four months ago, and this is how we resolved it
should be recreated. So, I'll make a motion to approve the
three vinyl groins at 28', 30' and 28' from west to east
along the shoreline.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. ALL AYES.
(Brief recess was taken)
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING
APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM
THE SUFFOLK TIMES. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ
PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.
PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF.
FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS IF POSSIBLE
COASTAL EROSION AND WETLAND PERMITS
1. Twomey, Latham, Shea and Kelly 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.
MS. KARSCH: I'm Tracy Karsch.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm just going to entertain a motion to go
off the regular meeting.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So moved.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in
favor of the application?
MS. KARSCH: My name is Tracy Karsch from Twomey, Latham,
Shea and Kelly, I'm here on behalf of the applicant, who is
also here this evening.
At the outset, we'd like to say that we would like to
rest on the extensive record that's been made thus far, but
before we do that we would like to make note of the
correspondence which has been submitted to the Board since
our last hearing. There were two letters, one dated July
21, 2004 and the second was dated August 10, 2004, and was
accompanied by some DEC decisions.
One decision I would like to point out to the Board
Board of Trustees 15 Aug. 18, 2004
that was that of Susan Tasker, although the DEC
commissioner's decision was regarding a wetlands permit, I
noted in reading through it a coastal erosion management
permit was issued for Ms. Tasker in 1999 by this Board and I
then FOILed the Trustees'file on the application, and it
was brought to my attention that it is a very similar parcel
to the one at issue tonight. It's located between North
Road and the Long Island Sound in Greenport, and I have a
copy of the survey submitted in connection with the
application, and it actually depicts the coastal erosion
hazard line along the North road, which in effect --
MR. JOHNSTON: Is it landward of the house?
MS. KARSCH: Yes, it is.
MR. JOHNSTON: Sounds similar.
MS. KARSCH: Very similar. I would just like to point that.
out to the Board.
MR. JOHNSTON: I knew that was in process, but I didn't know
if you knew where the coastal erosion line was, correct?
MS. KARSCH: Correct. I have a copy of the survey if the
Board would like to see it at all in considering this
application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure.
MS. KARSCH: (Handing). And I also have the permit on the
application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Doesn't show the coastal erosion line on
the survey.
MR. JOHNSTON: Rob Hermann's partner was the one who
testified on this.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment?
MS. KARSCH: Only that this is the fifth occasion that this
application has been before the Board. It has been 10
months since the filing of the application and the
applicant, as you can imagine, is very eager to move
forward. So we would respectfully ask that the Board render
a decision if at all possible. So, if necessary, he can
seek other administrative remedies.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there any other comment?
MS. KARSCH: Mr. Betsch would like to speak.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely..
MR. BETSCH: I guess just the comment both the DEC and the
Town of Southold code would permit me to have a 5,000 square
foot house on my property based on the size of my property,
over 26,000 square feet; which would mean if I came to the
Board with an existing house of 4,300 square feet you would
approve it, in fact, it is less than 25 percent. My
Board of Trustees 16 Aug. 18, 2004
unfortunate situation is the fact that I am coming with a
very small summer bungalow, so I am feeling that I am being
penalized based on the size of the house I am beginning
with. If I had started with a very large house, the Board
would approve a house which is really incongruent with the
neighboring homes, but it would fall within the legal, the
premise of the law. If I read, according to your code in
the Paragraph 37-413 it says, your existence is for the
purpose is to minimize or prevent damage or destruction to
man-made property, natural protective features and other
resources and to protect human life. The house that I'm
going to build is in compliance with the DEC
non jurisdiction. It's going to be built on pilings. It's
going to exceed FEMA requirements because I want to obtain
resulting insurance reduction and premiums; and, of course,
it's going to comply with the new state environmental and
the wind, the Florida codes. In that case my house is
beneficial to the environment rather than what is existing
now, a 60 year old house that is built on cement block
foundation, which is I'm sure below the suggested FEMA flood
base elevations. I have come to the Board several times.
Previously the Board has suggested I was in a structural
hazard area. We researched it, presented all information
and found out the DEC said no, you are not in a structural
hazard area. At the Board's request you had asked for a
second site visit. I contacted the surveyor, I had the
house restaked, I had representation there, and the Board
came -- not to sound facetious -- but I did hear one of the
Board members say why are we here; that kind of blew my
mind. Originally it was a question of whether there was a
25 percent increase. I presented documentation of two
houses right on North Sea Drive, which you had approved
using Trustee records; that were over 25 percent of
increase, the Perlstein house next door to me, which the
Board had said at the December meeting they would research
and provide document information, and also the Van Zuben
house, which stayed primarily within their footprint, but
added an additional garage which added another 600 square
foot to their property behind the coastal erosion-line. So
there are two instances right on North Sea Drive.
I have a survey which I obtained from the Trustees
office which shows the Perlstein house. Originally there
was 21,000 square feet of their property. They started out
with a nine percent coverage, went to 15 percent coverage
based on the information they presented to the Board; and
the Board approved it, which was 170 percent increase to
Board of Trustees 17 Aug. 18, 2004
their property. Subsequently to that, they did go to and
obtain an additional shed on the property, which also
required a Zoning Board approval, which I don't believe even
came back to this for the shed, came back to the Trustees
for approval.
So I feel at this point in time after starting in
November, it is probably time for a decision. The Southold
Town Code says if it is reasonable and necessary, you have
the authority and responsibility to make a decision. I'm
asking for a decision so I can proceed to build a permanent
home so I can move out to Southold.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment? Well, when
you first applied in October 2003, 1 believe at the first
public hearing we brought up the issue of the 25 percent
expansion under coastal erosion, which you then had time to
look into on your own, which you did.
MR. BETSCH: I did.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We had a meeting with Eric Starr from New
York State, and we asked him about that because this is
something that -- the meeting wasn't about your application
but your application was something that I wanted to ask him
because we had him out here. I still am not sure if I agree
completely with what you're saying about the 25 percent.
Under the definitions of Chapter 37 Coastal Erosion
Hazard Areas, it would be definition 37-6, Major Addition,
an addition to a structure resulting in a 25 percent or
greater increase in the ground area coverage of the
structure other than an erosion protection structure or a
pier, dock or wharf. The increase will be calculated as the
ground areas coverage to be added including any additions
previously constructed under a coastal erosion management
permit, divided by the ground area coverage of the existing
structure as defined in the existing structure
above.
This area that your home sits on is a dune area. In
Chapter 3716, Dune Area, in primary dune areas, non-major
additions to existing structures are allowed on primary
dunes pursuant to a coastal erosion management permit and
subject to permit conditions concerning the location, design
and potential impacts of the structure on the primary dune;
and secondary dune areas, non-major additions to existing
structures are allowed on secondary dunes pursuant to a
Coastal Erosion Management Permit.
I would think that leaves you at exactly what I told
you on the first public hearing, that 25 percent expansion
is permitted in a dune area.
Board of Trustees 18 Aug. 18, 2004
MR. BETSCH: If there was a rule in place which there was no
requirement for the Board to have latitude of authority of
decision, I would understand that; but this Board has the
authority and responsibility to consider other
alternatives. The 37-12 talks about issuance of a permit if
it's reasonable and necessary. If there is no increase in
erosion which there cannot be based on where my house is,
will be, and if it minimizes adverse effects and natural
protective feature, it is your authority to render a
.decision based on that 37-12. And you have in the past
apparently based on the Lasker property presented tonight.
The Perlstein house next to me, which used the Town Trustee
records to document the fact that it is a 170 percent
increase. I do not understand how, when there is precedent
.based on the those two cases and the Von Zuben house, which
added a garage, why I am now-- when there,is precedent
there, when you're telling me because I am starting with
such a minimally sized house, that there is no logic to the
premise of the approval or disapproval.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We didn't write the laws. It's a New York
State law that the Town Board adopted and let the Trustees
administer, we can't address the logic issue. Does the
Board understand what the applicant's point is? It's a
valid point, just a matter of the Board agreeing with
that.
MR. BETSCH: If I go back to my original statement about the
if I started with 4,400 square feet, I could go to over
5,000 square feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's not an argument.
MR. BETSCH: Because I am starting with such a minimal size
bungalow, I am penalized for that. In a neighborhood where
the houses are all --
MR. JOHNSTON: The law says 25 percent more, that's it. Al,
two thoughts from a legal standpoint. One, if you have made
a mistake in other hearings, that is interesting, but should
not carry the day. Just because you made the mistake, you
shouldn't make three more mistakes. I am not sure, from a
legal standpoint what reasonable and necessary means. I
think it's a subjective thing that you as a Trustee, Jim,
Peggy and Ken have a better feeling for what's reasonable
and necessary. There is no legal. I don't have a legal
standard for you like 10 percent, 2 percent, 28 percent or
something like that. So, I'm telling you I can't give you
guidance on a percentage basis for what is necessary and
reasonable. So you're stuck with the percentage you already
Board of Trustees 19 Aug. 18, 2004
rendered; does that make sense?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. Also if I may comment on the
correspondence that we have been submitting since April on
this and talking about the standard, reasonable and
necessary, my research, I did on my own, of course, it is a
subjective standard; and in administering the code, the
three things that under the code you would look at, is it
reasonable and necessary; is it not likely to cause
immeasurable increase in erosion and prevent or minimize
effects on natural protective features. I won't rehash all
that. But that is the standard that we are submitting you
apply;.and reasonable and necessary is where we're caught up
on and since that is a subjective thing to be applied in
this case, I submitted those prior approvals to possibly
assist you, which one would think that on those prior
approvals it was the subjective, reasonable and necessary
which got the applicant to the approval point and we're
submitting that this is reasonable and necessary, and I
won't go through all the points that we made in our letters.
MR. JOHNSTON: Al, would you like her to restate four or
five things that she feels is necessary for this; would that
be helpful? And what she thinks is the necessary meeting of
that criteria?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't understand how that would be
helpful.
MR. JOHNSTON: I don't but I'm asking you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think.we're hung up on what's
reasonable and necessary. I think we're hung up on the
black and white part of the code. It's under a major
addition in the code, under a major addition, and a major
addition isn't allowed in the dune area; that's what we're
hung up on, not reasonable and necessary.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If the code said 50 percent, we would be
flexible to go to 50 percent.
MS. KARSCH: So on other applications I guess we can't turn
back to those other applications and ask what the Board was
thinking at the time?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think Mr. Johnston's comments are
correct and interesting, but they're not relevant here. And
if mistakes were made by previous Boards, it still shouldn't
be repeated here.
MS. KARSCH: I was submitting that they weren't mistakes,
rather the Board was either applying 25 percent or greater
or the standards that I keep reiterating from the code. If
it's the Board's approximation that there's absolutely no
leeway here, it's 25 percent or greater is an absolute no,
Board of Trustees 20 Aug. 18, 2004
and the applicant, there's nothing he can do other than in this situation, if he were to remove the garage from his
footprint, we wouldn't be here, but because he needs a
garage to keep his cars in, if this is going to be a
full-time residence, he could put the garage under the
house, but that would raise the house blocking, it would not
be aesthetically pleasing. It would also possibly be in
keeping with the area, but it would also block the view of
the neighbors across the street, which is one thing the
applicant was trying to avoid. So I guess my question is,
if they go outside the 25 percent or greater there's no way
the Board would be able to issue a permit?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's my understanding upon reading the
codes, which is where we were months ago.
MR. JOHNSTON: Heather, were the people from Albany and
Stony Brook, if they had had this case in their
jurisdiction, would they have applied the law similarly, or
not?
MS. TETRAULT: That's what they told us.
MR. JOHNSTON: Who were they?
MS. TETRAULT: Eric Starr and Rob McDonough from New York
State DEC.
MR. BETSCH: I have several comments before you make your a
decision. One is who has the responsibility for the vote,
New York State DEC or Town of Southold?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Town of Southold.
MR. BETSCH: So DEC can make input based on their
interpretations, but the Board of Southold has a
responsibility to make a decision. It shouldn't be based on
what DEC says you should or shouldn't do; you should be your
own person.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were not making a comment based on
that. I brought this up at the first public hearing long
before we ever brought anyone from New York State in. This
is our interpretation of the code, we just wanted to get
confirmation. We were meeting with them on an unrelated
issue, and it made sense to ask for confirmation on our
determination on this while we had them in the room.
MR. BETSCH: I guess I don't understand. Also, by the way,
after presenting in November at the November meeting, it was
a question of not having a nonjurisdiction permit, which
came through and got that. I was sent away to find
additional information; I did find addition information
about the coastal erosion zone. Since that time the Board
requested to come out to visit again. They didn't say no,
we're not going to deny it; we can't do it at that time in
Board of Trustees 21 Aug. 18, 2004
January or the next meeting. The Board asked to come up
out, the last meeting, the Board requested not to vote on it
again because they wanted to have another DEC meeting. So
it's just going on and on. I'm looking for a decision, so I
can progress. I don't know what else to tell you, the fact
that I tried everything possible and it was my understanding
that if the purpose of the Board here is to have a latitude
of judgment. If there are rules in place, I don't think
there's any reason to have a Board. If this is the code
book, and this is it, why have a Board? If there's no
interpretation allowable, there's no reason to have a
Board.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The reason we went out there a second time
is because there are other considerations. There are
environmental considerations in Chapter 97 that we wanted to
consider also. And also under the issuance of the permits
that you brought up, Chapter 37-12, it is not likely because
measurable increase in erosion at the proposed site, other
locations, and C, prevents or if possible minimizes adverse
effects on natural protective features, in this case the
dune. If we're going to be firm in telling you what we told
you at the first hearing, it's 25 percent or less for a
non-major addition allowable in that area, we really wanted
to make sure in the field that we were sure with our
decision. I mean we told you that the first hearing, but we
wanted to confirm that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Al, is it my understanding that the
house itself is within 25 percent and it's the garage that
puts it over the 25 percent, and the house is already
elevated to 13 feet, it's already on pilings?
MR. BETSCH: No. My present house is not on pilings.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I mean-the proposed house. And they
could not house a garage underneath?
MR. BETSCH. Because the existing contours of the land are
high enough that you should not have to raise it 14 feet to
build a garage underneath it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's now 13, correct?
MR. BETSCH: Whatever it is. What I'm inferring from you,
is to say to live with the code, build a square box, go up
as high as you possibly can to the Southold Town Code, which
goes, I believe, 35 foot to the ridge line; which means, if
I wanted to instead of building a house this way, build it
up square, build a square box, stick a garage underneath it,
you're fine within the code, go do it. However, what it
does to the neighborhood is really improper based on the
houses in the neighborhood. I'm trying to keep it in the
Board of Trustees 22 Aug. 18, 2004
r
aesthetics of the neighborhood, the houses that are#here.
That's my whole intent. I can start all over with my
architect again. Build a mausoleum-type structure, square
box, stick'a garage underneath it, but it will look
absolutely horrendous. That's my whole intent on trying to
live within the neighborhood.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is the existing first floor elevation
of your house?
MR. BETSCH: It's very difficult without looking at the
existing survey. You can't visualize it based on --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Off the survey.
MR. BETSCH: If you have the surveys, I don't have to
interpret that. Unfortunately, based on the contours, you
can't visually look at it. I can tell you how many steps it
goes up, but visually it does not comply with what the
contour is. When the DEC did a field inspection, they
marked my property with the 10 foot contour which, I can
tell you where they marked it, it is lower than where my
existing steps are now. It would probably be 12 or 13.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's almost up that high now.
MR. BETSCH: It's very difficult when you look at the
property,to see that. But if you look where they marked it
with the 10 foot marking, it is.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He's at least 11 now, maybe 12, so he's
only going to 13 and a half, he's not going that much
higher.
MR. BETSCH: That is the whole purpose of having the garage
next to the house rather than under it. Anybody who's
familiar with salt air knows what salt air does to anything,
a car parked on the weekend -- I don't to have to buy a new
car every year based on what salt air does. I just see from
the time we're on the property what it does to my aluminum
and everything else. There is stainless, but you'd have to
build it with marine grade stainless, and also the whole
purpose is the aesthetic to the neighborhood. If you have
driven down North Sea Drive, you see what's happened in the
last three years. I'm appealing to the reasonable and
necessary and the latitude of the Board.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have to listen to our legal advisor.
And if you're telling me that we have no room, no margin
here for a garage, then we don't under the code the way it's
written.
MR. JOHNSTON: Al, I must admit that you identified it from
your experience before I identified it, but I must say as
the three town attorneys have all looked at it, and they
confirm your initial feeling that we're open, if somebody
Board of Trustees 23 Aug. 18, 2004
can show us that our interpretation's wrong. Laurie didn't
look at it, but Kieran, Pat and I looked at it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There is an appeals process. It can be
appealed to the Town Board, which can be done within a
month. I don't see how we can -- unless the Board members
see where there's any room to move this?
MR. JOHNSTON: Peggy, did you have a suggestion of where
they should put the garage?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I realized then it was later discussed
there was .not room because of the elevation; it's much more
of an increase than it appeared on the plans.
MR. JOHNSTON: Coastal erosion line goes right on the road
so they can't put the garage on the other side.
MR. BETSCH: I was told to petition the movement of the
coastal erosion line, I would have to petition the whole
North Sea Drive. I would prefer not to have my grown
grandchildren living in the house.
I believe you were waiting for some case studies from
the DEC to understand, and they were not able to provide
any; is that correct for or against rulings like this?
MR. JOHNSTON: I go back to what Heather said before, in
looking at this case they said that they would have applied
it similarly if it was in a place where it was their own
jurisdiction. We're not, as Al said, we're not basing our
decision on that; they're just saying if it was their
jurisdiction they would have applied it the same way. I
asked them to give me anything more reasonable and necessary
where I might be able to help you, but nothing was
forthcoming.
The reason why we went out, Mr. Betsch, the reason why
we went out initially we thought there might also be a
structural hazard area issued, but without going out to your
area we couldn't have ruled it out.
MR. BETSCH: That was actually another month away for me
having to research and incur expense when I find out it was
not a structural hazard.
MR. JOHNSTON: That's why they did a site visit, if it was
and they approved something without going out to make sure
of something then they would be wrong.
MR. BETSCH: It is my understanding that the DEC said there
is no structural hazard areas in the town of Southold
whatsoever. I would think that that would have be known
knowledge by now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's still what we said at the first
public hearing about the 25 percent in the dune area, that
didn't change at all.
Board of Trustees 24 Aug. 18, 2004
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to deny the application
of John Betsch for a two-story, single-family dwelling and
deny the coast erosion permit based on the findings in
Chapter 37, Chapter 37-16, dune area in relation to a major
addition referenced under definitions in 37-6.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MR. BETSCH: I'd just like to apologize to the people here
for taking so long, except this has been a 10 month process
for me. Thank you for your patience.
WETLAND PERMITS
2. BARBARA HOCH requests a Wetland Permit to replace 12
pier support piles and repair sections of stone and concrete
seawall, 2 plus/minus cubic yards of concrete and stone over
50 plus/minus square feet waterward of the apparent high
water line. Located: Hedge Street, Fishers Island.
SCTM # 10-7-14.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anybody here to comment to this
application?
MR. NEILSON: Yes. My name is Keith Neilson, I'm the
president of Docko, Incorporated located in Mystic,
Connecticut. We're representing Barbara Hoch and the Hoch
Family Trust on this issue tonight.
TRUSTEE KING: We were over there last Thursday and looked
at it. I don't think we had a problem, with the exception
what are you going to do that repair work where that patch
work needs to be done looking landward to the right of the
dock, a lot of the concrete stones are falling into the
intertidal area. They also have done that yard clean-up and
thrown all the brush into the intertidal area. We'd like to
see that cleaned up, and when you do the repair work, pick
up the stones and things in the intertidal area. And if you
look to the right further, there's a nice little wetland
area in there. I think after you do the repair work, if you
planted some spartina right in front of that repair area,
you'd have a nice little wetland, that would take off there.
I think it's a great potential nice little spot there. I'd
like to see some spartina planted.
MR. NEILSON: Is that to the west of the pier or east of the
pier?
TRUSTEE KING: Looking to the house to the right.
MR. NEILSON: Northwest of the pier.
Board of Trustees 25 Aug. 18, 2004
TRUSTEE KING: Northwest. That's all we talked about,
wasn't it?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, just about the brush.
MR. NEILSON: I'd like to make a response to those comments.
First of all, absolutely the brush will be cleaned up.
Secondly, after the repair was done, would the Board have
any objection to some of the stones that are in the
intertidal area being placed against the toe of the wall?
TRUSTEE KING: No, that's a good move, sure.
MR. NEILSON: I think it's impractical that we get a low
sill bulkhead in there for scour protection, but we have
plenty of stone if you would be agreeable to that.
TRUSTEE KING: Sure.
MR. NEILSON: If the spartina is planted, would that preempt
future wall repair work in that area?
TRUSTEE KING: No, I don't think so.
MR. NEILSON: We'd have the latitude to work through the
spartina?
TRUSTEE KING: I looked at what is next door, it's a nice
little fringe there and I think it would help keep some of
the erosion down too.
MR. NEILSON: On behalf of the family trust, I'll agree to
all those stipulations.
MR. JOHNSTON: Are you anticipating then deeming the
concrete wall with this application to be a permitted
concrete wall?
TRUSTEE KING: It's been yes, it's been there a long, long
time.
MR. JOHNSTON: Keith, the reason I wanted that added, as you
know, repairs and maintenance would have been an exception.
Our concern here was we didn't see the concrete wall, we
only saw the dock-- I'm sorry, the pilings. So, had we
seen the concrete wall on the permit it would have been much
easier to say it's a repair.
MR. NEILSON: On the original permit from '92?
MR. JOHNSTON: Whenever the original --
TRUSTEE KING: I think there was a grandfathered permit for
the dock. And there was no mention of the wall.
MR. NEILSON: Right, at that time the wall didn't need
repair.
MR. JOHNSTON: But had it been mentioned in the permit
process, we could have said it was a repair and maintenance,
and therefore, you wouldn't have had to come all the way
over to Southold. We're trying to save you time five years .
from now.
MR. NEILSON: I appreciate that, thank you.
Board of Trustees 26 Aug. 18, 2004
TRUSTEE KING: Are there any 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 application
with the modifications noted.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
3. ERNEST H. SCHNEIDER, SR. requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 1,395 square foot single-family dwelling with
second story balcony, second story deck, stairway with
platform and sanitary system. Located: 915 Lakeside Drive
North, Southold. SCTM # 90-4-5 and 6.
'TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here that would like to
speak to this application? Any Board comments? Heather,
was the planting done?
MS. TETRAULT: It hasn't been done yet, so if you want to
give them their permit, it has to be based on first they do
their planting before they start any construction.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Al, approve it stipulating that the
planting is done, and they will receive the permit once
proof of the planting has been done. We'll hold the permit
in the office until the planting has been completed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here to represent the
applicant? It will be in the permit and it will go to the
Building Department. They can't issue a house permit until
the plantings's done.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: CAC?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think the CAC would have seen this
plan, right?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No, it was prior to that. We'll approve
it with the stipulation based on final plans? I'll make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL'AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Peggy, in your motion could you add on one
year inspection for survival until the spring?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve Ernest H.
Schneider, Sr.'s request for Wetland Permit to construct a
1,395 square foot single-family dwelling with second story
balcony, second story deck, stairway with platform and
sanitary system, based on the recommended planting plan of
the Trustees and with a one-year inspection for survival of
the planting plan.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
Board of Trustees 27 Aug. 18, 2004
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I will amend my resolution for Ernest H.
Schneider, Sr. for a hay bale line at the 50 foot line and
dry wells and gutters.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES
4. DOROSKI FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP requests a Wetland
Permit for the subdivision of three (3) lots and the
proposed construction of pervious driveways and homes on the
proposed lots. Located: Soundview Avenue, Southold.
SCTM # 69-1-9.1 and 59-8-6.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here to speak in favor of
the application?
MS. MOORE: Yes, good evening, very quickly a little bit of
history for the record. The Doroski family owns almost 41
acres of property here. The family had come in for a
conservation subdivision back in 2002 and sold the
development rights of 33 of those acres leaving behind seven
acres for future subdivision.
The intention was to have three lots all of them were
conforming at the time and wetlands were minimally on these
properties. From 2002 there's been a lot of development on
Soundview Avenue, in particular some properties to the west
that changed the grading and the water patterns or flow, it
ultimately resulted in the expansion of the wetlands on
these properties.
The access points have been combined to make common
access points. The house building envelopes have been
placed on the property in such a way so that they are a
minimum of 100 feet from the wetlands. And we want to be
sure that before we complete the subdivision process that we
have permits for the common driveways and the homes and
sanitary, so that we don't create a situation where lots are
created that we come back to you and say we have a problem
with the driveway. So we're trying to be prospective in our
development here.
If you have any questions, I have Mr. Doroski here.
MR. DUFFY: My name is Mr. Duffy, and I'm in one of the
newer homes, I never received any notification of this, and
I'd like to know why. I did go to my neighbors and look it
over, and I'll be very truthful, I don't have a problem with
it. But I would like to be kept in the loop, and in the
future, make sure you get me my mailing stuff. I think
that's almost a plus for you, but that's what we're here to
do to spend our night.
Board of Trustees 28 Aug. 18, 2004
MR. MOORE: Well, we certainly didn't want to exclude anyone
that had to legally be included in the notices. We did
notice many people that were surrounding all adjacent
property owners. If there was for some reason, I think
maybe in this instance there might have been a tax map
parcel between his property and --
MS. TETRAULT: There's a right of way.
MS. MOORE: There was a right of way that was actually owned
by someone. It was an ownership parcel, but the property
was posted, and I'm glad he's here and I'm glad you don't
have an objection, and we appreciate that, and if you have
questions, we're here to answer them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are we good on that notification?
MS. TETRAULT: It's the right of way she sent it out to.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Is there any other comment before
the Board makes comments? Is there any possibility of lot 1
and 2 having a common driveway?
MS. MOORE: A common, one driveway for both, is often a
problem. We have limited our access, the Planning Board
makes us have common access points where you have the two
driveways adjacent to each other, but generally you want to
have sufficient width because each driveway, I believe
usually a driveway width is 12 feet, and you have to have a
legal access of 15. So generally you will end up with a
wider driveway if you're going to have a common access.
Generally, it doesn't work well with neighbors to have a
shared driveway. Where you have a common curb cut where you
have two driveways next to each other, that works better,
but where you have a common driveway, there tends to be
trouble later on. I don't think that was a preference here.
That is actually it's a slope,'it's not a wetland, if
you're looking at that shaded area between 1 and 2, that's
not a wetland.
These are going to be pervious surfaces for the
driveway so that's not a problem.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's good.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One comment. During construction on Lot
2, the wetlands are very close to the driveway, we're going
to have hay bales placed along the driveway during driveway
construction.
MS. MOORE: That's not a problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there's no other comment, I move to
close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the
Board of Trustees 29 Aug. 18, 2004
application with the condition that hay bales be placed on
Lot 2 adjacent to the driveway during construction on the
west side where the wetlands are close to the proposed
driveway.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES
7. En-Consultants, Incorporated on behalf of JENNIFER
AND PHILIP STANTON requests a Wetland Permit to remove
existing 54' long plus/minus 245 square feet fixed dock, and
construct fixed timber dock consisting of a 4' by 50' fixed
timber catwalk, 3' by 14' hinged ramp, and a 6' by 20' float
secured by two (2) 6" pilings. Located: 720 Town Creek
Lane, Southold. SCTM # 64-1-14.7
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment
on this application?
MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicants. What I just handed up to Chairman Krupski
is a revised plan that reflects the changes that we
discussed at the site, specifically the overall length of
the dock is reduced by five feet such that it would extend
approximately 66 feet from the landward edge of the existing
fixed dock to be removed. Hopefully you'll find that
consistent with our discussion and I can make haste.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Does anyone else have a comment on this
application? Any Board comments?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If not, I'll make a motion to close the
public hearing.
,TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland
Permit on behalf of Jennifer and Philip Stanton reflecting
the revised plans, which are a 4' by 45' fixed timber
catwalk, a 3' by 14 ' ramp and 6' by 20' float, and the new
dock will extend approximately 66' seaward of the landward
end of the existing fixed dock, which is to be removed; do I
have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES
8. JMO Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of
BELVEDERE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT requests a Wetland Permit to
remove and control the growth of Giant Reed phragmites
australis from Breeders Pond and Northeast Pond and their
adjacent areas utilizing the herbicide Glypro. In both
Board of Trustees 30 Aug. 18, 2004
areas the Giant Reed will be cut in the early spring and
cuttings shall be removed to an upland site for disposal and
the herbicide shall be applied in the fall. When the root
mass of the Giant Reed is sufficiently decomposed, native
vegetation shall be planted. Located: Robins Island, New
Suffolk. SCTM # 134-3-5
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone who would like to speak
for this application?
MR. JUST: Good evening, Glenn Just, JMO Environmental
Consulting on behalf of this application. Any questions of
the Board?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't think so. I think members of
the Board got over there last month and met with you and I
don't think anybody had any problems with it or questions
with it, Jim and Artie I think went. Any other comments,
anyone else like to speak for or against? I'll 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
request for Belvedere Property Management for a Wetland
Permit to remove the Giant Reed phragmites from the ponds on
the plans on Robins Island, New Suffolk.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES
9. Land Use Ecological Service, Inc. on behalf of JLH
ASSOCIATES, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
single-family dwelling with attached garage, open porch,
pervious driveway and sanitary system. Located: 315
Albacore Drive, Southold.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this
application?
MS. CANTARA: Kelly Cantara, Land Use Ecological Services,
I'm here to answer any questions anyone has.
TRUSTEE KING: CAC recommends approval. I think all we
talked about was moving the house closer to the road, if I
remember right, about 40 feet more.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you compare it with the other adjacent
properties, see if that buffer would be consistent?
MS. TETRAULT: Right. We wanted to keep that --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: -- consistent.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you know what the setback off the road is
in that area; what it can be; what is the minimum?
MS. CANTARA: I don't know.
TRUSTEE KING: We'd like to see the house closer to the road
Board of Trustees 31 Aug. 18, 2004
if possible.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Good, go ahead, please.
MR. HURTADO: I'm John Hurtado, the owner. The setback in
that area is 40 feet, and the house to the left of the
proposed house is at 40 feet, the house two lots over to the
right is at 40 feet. So moving the house closer to the road
is going to look a little awkward to me.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It wasn't so much the setback off the
road, we were trying to maximize -- we wanted to make the
buffer area in the back consistent between the two lots,
that was our concern
MR. HURTADO: Between the lots on either side?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
MR. HURTADO: I think they are consistent.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We saw the hay bales on the next lot that
they just put in. We want to make sure that that hay bale
line is going to meet this hay bale line.
MR. HURTADO: I think it is, at least that's what they were
told to do.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was our concern, whatever it was we
measured it.
TRUSTEE KING: Is this house going to have a basement?
MR. HURTADO: Yes. The house to the left does not have a
basement, but in my estimation he put that house too low and
that's the reason for it. The house to the right one lot
over has a full basement.
TRUSTEE KING: Drainage seems to be a problem in that
area.
MR. HURTADO: The way it was done to the house to the right
two lots over, there was no problems. We didn't even hit, I
about the built that house and we didn't hit -- the water
table was at least two feet below the footings, and we put
two sump pumps in, and we had no problems with it. It was
completely dry. I don't remember the elevation but the Town
had me raise the house two lots over because I guess they
wanted to keep it out of a flood area or something. So I'm
going to be keeping this house -- because that street is so
flat, I'm going to be keeping this house the same as the one
two lots over and there should be no problems.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you going to be doing any, bringing
soil in to raise the grade?
MR. HURTADO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's not on the application. See our
concern is when you bring the soil in on any lot, then
you're going to affect the neighbors on both sides.
MR. HURTADO: The lot, if you look at it off the road, is
Board of Trustees 32 Aug. 18, 2004
lower, and we will meet the existing grade that's on the
right side, which is there already, and we will meet the
existing grade to the right even though it's an empty lot.
I also own that lot so I will make sure they're the same
level.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We issued you a permit for that, correct?
MR. HURTADO: Yes, I have a building permit for that.
TRUSTEE KING: CAC said maximize the buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's the same as the other one.
MS. TETRAULT: How many feet is the house from the wetlands?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 28.
MS. CANTARA: 28 from the buffer or from the limit of
clearing. It's probably about 40 feet from the line of the
wetlands, give or take.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is the soil conditions, does it pay
to put in drainage for roof runoff or not?
MR. HURTADO: It does pay. I did it for the other house.
It's still like a tomb because it's-all clay, but we dug
down and put sand, and put dry wells on each corner. I
think it pays mostly because of the street. It will go out
to the street and stay there. There's no drainage in that
street. It's from one end of the house to the left all the
way down almost to the corner there's not even six inches
pitch so it just sits there. There is a catch basin, but it
doesn't get there.
TRUSTEE KING: Any 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 application
with the dry wells for roof runoff and the buffer to be
consistent with the buffers on both sides of the property.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
10. 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 on behalf of this application?
MS. CANTARA: Kelly Cantara for Land Use Ecological
Services. Hopefully this is what you want.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I didn't think it was going to be this
long. I like this part.
Board of Trustees 33 Aug. 18, 2004
MS. CANTARA: When we changed the plans. We put the catwalk
just landward of where the vegetated wetlands end, best way
when we go to DEC this is most likely how they would approve
it.
MS. TETRAULT: This just came in today.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The seaward end of this, this is the
location that we discussed in the field, by field
inspection. I had an issue with this plan view last week
when we were looking at this. I think we looked at it in
the office. If you compare it to the survey that "L" shape
that comes down goes out to the east. It's really square in
the field, that channel is cut straight out to the south and
that old channel goes off, and this drawing shows more of a
gentle curve. I don't think that's accurate as to what's
really in the field. It's almost like a 90 degree angle
there. And this high ground.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There's no wetlands here, it's
intertidal. It's beach.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. It's beach here (indicating). That's
why they originally put it here because it's open beach
here. But if you move over to the west a little bit, it's
vegetated but it doesn't show it here, unfortunately -- can
you come up?
MS. CANTARA: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Unfortunately there's a blank spot here,
see the channel comes in, it's almost like a 90 degree turn,
and we talked about putting it right in this corner, which
is fine. We think this comes over more like this
(indicating), more of a 90 degree turn here and then there's
room and there was high ground here. Remember I walked up
there, and I said if they started over here instead of over
here where the beach is and went straight out like this. We
never measured it, did we?
MS. CANTARA: Where we were standing when we were out there
was 16 feet from the low water, which was the higher ground.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To the upland?
MS. CANTARA: Yes. To where we were standing. I measured
it after you left. I'm just concerned that if we end the
catwalk in here, DEC's going to say that's right in the
middle of the wetlands, there's no way.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's not intertidal, that was above
intertidal. I'd rather approve it-- I'm uncomfortable with
this drawing here.
MS. CANTARA: We did it after doing soundings.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It seemed like in the field it's more of a
90 degree angle.
Board of Trustees 34 Aug. 18, 2004
MS. CANTARA: If you look at the high -- I can go out there
again and take the high water.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I hate to go out there again, this is like
four times, but I'd rather get it right. I'm sorry, could
we table this again? I'd rather get this right.
MS. CANTARA: Sure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm going to make a motion to table the
hearing. Look at the survey, see if we're right about that,
it disappears here, but we think it's straighter, more like
a 90 as opposed to coming at an angle, then coming at
another angle. I'll make a motion to table the application.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
12. Patricia C. Moore on behalf of 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 POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment
on this application?
MS. MOORE: Yes, we have the measurements of the adjacent
homes, but unfortunately the Building Department does
request that the front yard setbacks of all homes within 300
feet of the proposed structure is what's needed; and John
Metzgar, I think there's one more house over to the right
it's Slotkin's office, so that measurement has to be put on
here. I did ask John Metzgar.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Doesn't it front on the Main Road, the
doctor's office?
MS. MOORE: It's possible. That's a good point. Thank
you. I guess I have to go double check because I'm not sure
if they are considering that a front yard setback or not.
The Building Department sometimes they don't distinguish
where the front door is, it's where the setback is. That's
a good argument either way.
Nonetheless, the worst case scenario is he's complied at
50 feet, I think it's a 50 foot front yard setback, excuse
me, this is 40 feet, but let's assume they have a larger lot
it's 50 feet with a 10.4 and a 6.2, 1 think we can go much
closer and still be conforming, so my thought was, if you
wanted to push the house forward 20 feet, I think we have
room for that and still be at a safe distance. Anything
closer than 20 may not be advisable anyway, although you
have the homes that are very close, you may want to keep a
little bit of a front yard, particularly with the sanitary
system in the front. I know you have expressed the desire
Board of Trustees 35 Aug. 18, 2004
to push the house forward, my recommendation would be 20
feet, but we're willing to listen.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments on this application?
Any Board comments? As far as the CAC they recommend
approval of the application with the condition that the
large trees are protected, a 10 foot nondisturbance buffer
landward of the bank. No Board comments?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No just put dry wells and hay bales.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Does that sound feasible?
MS. MOORE: Yes, that's all very reasonable. Dry wells, 10
foot nondisturbance. `
TRUSTEE POLIWODA` As well as the bank is nondisturbance,
obviously.
MS. MOORE: Yes, seaward of the 10 feet. I understand. Did
you want to move the house forward?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes.
MS. MOORE: So 20 feet is fine?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes. Pat, I'll just make it easy and say
a 50 foot nondisturbance buffer from the wetlands.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The house will be 63 feet.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 13 feet behind the house. You can have
13 feet backyard, turf, patio, after the house is moved.
MS. MOORE: I was going to say because you're going to have
construction activity--
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Sure, that's 13 feet. We've seen it done
with six feet.
MS. MOORE: Okay. I don't like violations.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We'll have a hay bale line at that.
MS. MOORE: The hay bale line is there now; did you want it
moved forward?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: To the 50 foot mark.
MS. MOORE: Okay. Fifty foot from edge of wetlands?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes. Okay. I'll make a motion to close
the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Make a motion to approve the Wetland
Permit on behalf of Michael Liegey, as Contract Vendee, to
construct a single-family dwelling with garage and sanitary
system, located 480 Ackerly Pond Lane with the stipulation
that the house be moved forward so that a 50 foot
nondisturbance buffer may be created from the wetlands
delineation line, and dry wells and gutters will be included
on the plan.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On the house and garage?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: House and.garage, yes. That's it.
Board of Trustees 36 Aug. 18, 2004
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
13. Patricia C. Moore on behalf of LISA EDSON requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling on
piles, swimming pool, service driveway, sanitary system with
concrete retaining wall, 450 cubic yards of fill, dry wells,
and 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 who would like to speak in
favor of this application?
MS. MOORE: It's my understanding that Heather went out and
verified the wetland lines that were originally mapped on
the plans, these lines were confirmed. There was a small
area that I have highlighted, but it's east of a bermed
area, you can see contour lines that go from 3.2 to 6 to
4. There is some, it looks like maybe when the canal was
dredged that may have been dredge spoils that had
accumulated there. Just east of that spot there was a small
area that was noted that seems isolated in that it's not
connected to any of the other wetlands. What I proposed was
to take the same square footage of that spot, whatever
dimensions the Board would be feel would.be acceptable, and
we could either take that and replant it or increase the
wetland edged by the same square footage in an appropriate
area. Because no matter where we were to build here, and if
you recall the sanitary system was very carefully placed
here by the Health Department, the DEC and by this Board in
keeping the sanitary at least 100 feet from the closest
point of any edge of wetlands, that was very carefully
mapped and the sanitary system is a firm spot on this map.
So that alternative seemed to be a good practical
approach to protecting wetlands and taking any impact on a
wetlands area and relocating it. So that was a proposal we
made. I didn't have the exact dimensions, Miss Tetrault can
either give that to me tonight or if you need to go back and
measure it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments?
MS. MOORE: I'm trying to listen for input.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll take all the comments first.
MS. KIRSCH: My name is Mary Kirsch. I'm the neighbor
adjacent to the Edson property.
First I would like to mention that there is a man-made
berm around the entire perimeter of the Edson property.
This berm impacts the natural flow of water and is basically
Board of Trustees 37 Aug. 18, 2004
one of the only reasons why this entire parcel is not
wetlands. It kind of created a dyke, and I'm sure this
probably happened a long time ago when they dredged in front
of Victoria cottages.
Another thing I discovered was I spoke to a botanist
over at Cornell and I showed him a particular species
called --which is throughout the footprint and the building
packet. This species is called baccharis or high tide bush,
an indicator of wetlands. This species is protected
federally and is also protected locally by the DEC and in
the Town Code Chapter 97-11 B mentioned as definition of
tidal wetlands. So in a way this species is reclaiming
what's his. This high tide bush is clearly everywhere down
there now.
Again, in conclusion, this parcel is extremely
sensitive. The building package has been so manipulated
through variances and above-ground septics that it just
seems inappropriate and environmentally unfriendly, and an
expired permit. The whole environment has changed
drastically down there, and I just again, really request
that a Wetland Permit isn't permitted, it's denied.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment? We can ask
Heather. Ken, you have any comments?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: My comment's going to be based on
Heather's report.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We asked Heather to go out, and just for
the record we issued a permit back in 2001, and when the
permit expired it was reapplied for; the Board went out to
reinspect the site; it looked completely different. The
Board, we had difficulty identifying the project
on-site. We asked the applicant to make some paths and to
stake it, which the applicant did, and then we asked our
environmental analyst to verify the wetlands lines on the
site. And?
MS. TETRAULT: We did go out a couple times and verify all
the distances, the stakes that were out there and even
though the bachrus is all over the site. It has come into
an upland area that is now, without doing from this studies
on hydrology and distance to water tables to see what else
is going on there, it's growing in an area that's upland
now. So the wetland lines that are stakes there are pretty
accurate to what's actually tidal.
MS. KIRSCH: I thought there was one particular area that
would actually affect their building package because there's
one spot that wasn't mapped.
MS. TETRAULT: Right on the other side of the berm, that
Board of Trustees 38 Aug. 18, 2004
phragmites is not --
MS. KIRSCH: It's not on the map, it's not on the blueprint,
it's not on the survey, it's just omitted. That should be
considered.
MS. TETRAULT: I know and I don't know if that's changed
from when it's originally flagged a couple years ago.
MS. KIRSCH: It's nice to conveniently leave out wetlands.
That's what seems happened. It's so sensitive, and the
package has been manipulated so, it's just terrible. Every
piece of wetland that's there should be mapped. They should
have their setbacks, and that's the only fair thing that I
think, that's the fair thing to do. I mean, that's the
code.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What's your take on that? Do you want to
see that wetland on the map?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: . I'd like to see it on the survey.
MS. KIRSCH: Even in the Southold code misrepresentation,
the Trustees could deny this right here and now.
MS. MOORE: I would object to any further comments with
respect to the flagging and the professionalism of the
people that have been involved in this process. I asked Rob
Hermann when we were in the hallway, and he did not recall
seeing anything. He went out with Chris Arfston, in fact,
he originally went out and mapped the center portion, the
southerly portion of the wetlands and when this plan was
reviewed with the DEC, they sent Rob back because of that
berm that's there. He didn't realize that on the other side
of the berm there were additional wetlands that are
primarily on what used to be the Bitzes' property. He went
back out, that's why the flagging has two different dates,
he went back out and reflagged the westerly perimeter of the
property all in the presence of the DEC. So this mapping
and this property was inspected not only by our own
consultant, Rob Hermann, but also in the presence of the
DEC. So it was done very professionally and very carefully
and what Mrs. Tetrault has placed on the record is that the
allegations that she made that these wetlands had deviated
is not true,that this, in fact, had been properly
flagged. What I'm suggesting is that a small pocket, which
from the record you stated are phragmites, that that small
portion, this let's assume worst-case scenario it exists
there, the reality is that construction on this site, that
disturbance of this site is going to impact that small
pocket. What would make sense in that instance is to
relocate that square footage, which is a very common way of
addressing an isolated pocket of wetland that could have
Board of Trustees 39 Aug. 18, 2004
occurred from clay pocket or from material accumulation or
multiple sources. Rob and I were trying to figure out how a
pocket would be created at that point, it could be multiple
reasons. The expense to the applicant of having this mapped
is about $1,500 just for a pocket of wetlands that nobody's
given me an idea of the square footage of it. But if we're
just trying to delay this for the sake of delay, and Miss
Kirsch has been through the process from day one and is the
reason why Rob Hermann called me in was because he got so
frustrated with the process. She bought this property
knowing that the property to the south would be
developed. She in turn also developed her property at
distances which exceed, which are closer-- I don't want to
misstate it -- which are closer to wetlands and the parcel
is half the size. So this piece of property, the percentage
of development here is minute in comparison in relation to
the size of the property. Ninety percent of this property
is being preserved. The house is 30 foot building envelope,
which abuts a sanitary system and the structure is accessory
structures.
So it makes more sense to be proactive here and take
the square footage and suggest an alternative location then
just to create obstacles that delay the process and incur
expense to an applicant needlessly. So I would ask you to
please consider what the thoughts are here, what the
proposal is here. We are mitigating impact to the wetlands.
She is going to continue to come here and object and object
until you finally hopefully give--
MS. KIRSCH: Pat, everybody's been extremely accommodating
to the Edsons. The Zoning Board, this Board, the Building
Department, the code enforcer. I have spoken to everybody
along the line, and having a permit expire. I mean, the
Edsons have only been in the real estate business decades
here on the north fork. You made my building package. You
taught me how to make a building package. You know what
they should be able to build down there? Maybe a tree
house, not the Taj Mahal. You can talk the talk but I'm
speaking the truth.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. The suggestion's been made that
because Heather Tetrault and Chris Pickerell found this area
of wetland on the project side of the berm, and the
suggestion was made by the applicant to try to maximize the
buffer elsewhere that the suggestion was made that the pool
either be eliminated or else pulled in very close to the
house and to increase the buffer on that side of the house.
MS. MOORE: I'm not sure I follow. Explain to me which
Board of Trustees 40 Aug. 18, 2004
buffer. There's buffers all throughout, there's 75 foot
buffers throughout the entire site, maybe you can point it
to me.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Either take the pool out and get a larger
buffer here, actually all the way through here you need a
larger buffer.
MS. MOORE: We already have 80 feet. Why do you need a
larger buffer?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because if we could maximize it. You
could even turn the pool instead of having all this decking,
turn the pool if the pool is really necessary, and put the
pool right in here then you maximize the setbacks.
MS. MOORE: Okay. I guess I'm just trying -- I was
suggesting taking this phragmite and replanting it in any
other area, or plant something, a better buffer.
MS. TETRAULT: Just keep a buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Maximize this buffer which would protect
more of an intertidal area, which is the dredge canal and
connecting wetlands to that. Maximize that buffer here by
either eliminating or turning the pool, tucking it in.
MS. KIRSCH: Eliminating the pool wouldn't be such a bad
idea.
MS. MOORE: That's not your choice.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Eliminating some of the decking.
MS. MOORE: Maximize by 10 feet or so. We now have to
redesign everything.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just the pool and the deck.
MS. MOORE: I understand that. I'm going to have to take it
back to the surveyor. If you tell me a general distance.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, well, it's 75 here, so if you move
the pool here, you could probably get 80 or 90, right? Then
if you move this, you get 100 that way. If you get 100 this
way, it's 88 already or 83, either way it is a lot of
decking here, then you could get 100 here easily.
MS. MOORE: This area here try to maximize to 100?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. Then once you did that, it would I
think automatically maximize this. Put the pool here.
MS. MOORE: This is the only living area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're not getting into the living area,
just the pool. Then you'd maximize this by going to
probably 80 or 85 or 90 feet. It would just happen when you
maximize that.
MS. MOORE: All right, I'll go back and try to accommodate.
MS. KIRSCH: Show me where the wetlands are.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, try to maximize from 80 feet to 100.
Try to maximize the intertidal area. The wetland here is
Board of Trustees 41 Aug. 18, 2004
really high value. Heather, you want to back me up on that?
MS. TETRAULT: The tidal area is more valuable tidal land.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what we want to try to
maximize. Taking that out and giving us no disturbance
across here, it will minimize.the impact on this and the
phragmites there I don't think are that high. Well, are
they high value?
MS. TETRAULT: No.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to end the hearing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the
application of Lisa Edson with the condition that -- I'm
going to go through all the conditions of the old permit
also.
MS. MOORE: We'll accept the same conditions that we had
before.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Construct on pilings a two-story,
one-family dwelling, deck, swimming pool, pervious drive,
sanitary system, retaining wall. The driveway plan will be
the same as what was approved initially. Approximately 450
cubic yards of fill, install dry wells for roof runoff
establish -- here's the difference -- establish the buffer
for tidal wetlands subject to receipt of new plans. The .
distance between the pool and the wetland of the dredged
canal will be 100 feet from any disturbance and that will
maximize the setbacks from the tongue going into the north
from the -- I don't know if it's clear.
MS. MOORE: Why don't we make it from the point where it's
shown as 83 feet, maximize that to 100 because I don't know
how it's going to affect the other precisely.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. And that will move the pool closer
to the house and eliminate a substantial amount of decking
around the pool. Anything else?
MR. JOHNSTON: How much fill did you give?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 450. Same as the old permit.
MS. TETRAULT: And the buffer that was on the original
permit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The buffer will be increased from the
original permit, subject to receipt of new plans before a
permit is issued. All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: How long is this permit good for?
MS. MOORE: Is it from today?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
14. Frank Notaro on behalf of LEONARD ROSENBAUM requests
Board of Trustees 42 Aug. 18, 2004
a Wetland Permit to demolish a portion of the existing
two-story dwelling and construct a new two-story addition
over the garage and utility area of the existing first
floor. Located: 965 Osprey Nest Road, Greenport.
SCTM # 35-6-24.1.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment
on this application?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We needed clarification on that, right?
And we can't get that tonight, right?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Was that an issue whether they're going
straight above the garage and not expanding the footprint
over the side into that right of way. The right of way is
going to remain intact. It's a standard, straightforward.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here to represent the
applicant? Okay. Do you know what our question is? There
was an issue over the right of way adjacent to your property
that shows up on maps but doesn't show up on your survey?
MR. ROSENBAUM: There is a right of way, but we're not going
into it, we're going straight up.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When we were inspecting the site, we
didn't see it on your survey, we saw it as an adjacent
neighbor.
MR. ROSENBAUM: There's a right of way in between us and
our neighbor, but we're going straight up on the same
footprint, basically raising the roof about two feet,
approximately.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments from the public? Any
Board comments? Dry wells and gutters.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Dry wells and gutters for roof runoff, to
contain the roof runoff.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: CAC recommended approval with a 6'
nonturf buffer installed landward of the bulkhead. We'll
deal with the buffer on the bulkhead the day you come in for
a new bulkhead down the road.
MR. ROSENBAUM: That should be quite a way down the road.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That should be a 10 foot nonturf buffer.
With your construction include dry wells and gutters to
contain the roof runoff.
MR. ROSENBAUM: Dry wells to catch the water?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes. Have the gutters run into a dry
well. No other comments. I'll make a motion to close the
public hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You'll have to show us that on the plans.
MR. ROSENBAUM: The dry wells.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Whoever's drawing the plans, draw the dry
wells and gutters on it. Frank Notaro, it's in the code
Board of Trustees 43 Aug. 18, 2004
it's got to be on there. We'll issue the permit and he's .
got to take the plans and put the dry wells and gutters on
it. He'll know what size and when you're doing
construction, someone can install them for you.
MR. ROSENBAUM: Is this something new? There's already
gutters. You want to add the dry wells?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, and connect them to the gutters.
It's something we go house by house.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Make the motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in that favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I make the motion to approve the permit
on behalf of Leonard Rosenbaum, to demolish a portion of the
existing two-story dwelling and construct a new two-story
addition over the garage in the utility area of the existing
first floor to include dry wells and gutters to contain the
roof runoff.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
15. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of
BRUNO FRANKOLA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
1,120 square foot single-family dwelling and sanitary
system. Located: North Field Road, Southold.
SCTM # 71-1-19.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak for this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson Suffolk Environmental
Consulting for the applicant.
I'm going to hand up two sets of exhibits which I think
will help you in your regulatory efforts for this
property. First set will be comprised of a tax map followed
by a survey submitted with this application that you already
have a copy with, as well as an alternative survey showing
an alternative house location. The second set will involve
a couple of simple photographs.
I'd first like to start with making a couple
observations. The first observation is if you look at this
tax map before you, you'll see highlighted in yellow is the
lot. This particular lot is approximately half acre in
size, and you will note that the lots across the street in
the general area size lot we're dealing with here is
consistent with the size and the majority of the lots found
in the neighborhood.
The second thing I want to point out is in blue is the
surface water of the creek area. It really has service
Board of Trustees 44 Aug. 18, 2004
which I would call really a true wetland. The third
observation is if you look at the tax map number for Lot 18,
which is just to the northwest, you'll see a dashed line
which indicates a swale that eventually leads to the blue
area. What we have is a swale that moves to the northwest,
and that swale in front of this property is dominated by
phragmites.
The wetlands boundary on this property is shown on the
survey and it's important to note that the rear of the
property is actually lawn and that lawn appears to be
maintained by the property owner adjacent to and south of
the property. If you look at the photographs, what we show
here is the rear of the lot and we've located the
approximate property boundary. So you can see this swale is
really a combination of phragmites and mowed lawn.
The boundary there we feel is accurate. You'll notice
the wood pile in the foreground of the first picture, which
is also shown in the survey. As applied for, we had a
property, a house that measured 28 feet by 40 feet and that
would have been located 23 feet from the wetland boundary,
which is essentially defined as phragmites. There is some
ground soil in there. I had an opportunity to meet with
your staff this morning, I understand you've been out on the
site at least twice as far as I know; and there was some
discussion apparently of siting the house along higher
ground. So we have provided you with an alternative plan
that accomplishes that, and that's the second survey you see
before you. It's still the same size house footprint,
however, in cocking the house and moving it somewhat to the
northwest, we're able to extend the setback from the -
previous 23 feet to 51 feet from this area. We provided for
a 15 foot side lot line setback, which is compliant with the
zoning code of this town and also 40 foot setback from the
road, also compliant with this town's zoning code.
The last portion;which I think is of interest to note
on the survey, either survey you look at, is that the
original house location was sited 245 feet plus or minus
from the landward edge of tidal wetlands as mapped by New
York State DEC. So, what I had the surveyor do was take the
DEC tidal wetlands maps, locate the high marsh as per the
tidal wetland code, place it on the survey at estimated
distance from the house.
So our argument here is really what we have is a
remnant of a wetland that doesn't really function in the way
that wetlands do. There's very little value to it, wildlife
or otherwise, and that the wetlands of interest are actually
Board of Trustees 45 Aug. 18, 2004
quite distant from the property, as born out by both the
tidal wetland maps and the tax maps before you. We did
provide for I think a fairly substantial buffer, to the
wetlands fragment, let's call it, and note that this
particular buffer would exceed all buffers found in all the
adjoining development lots.
I'm here to answer any further questions you might
have.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else here who would like
to comment?
MR. HAMILTON: Yes. My name is Art Hamilton and I live
adjacent to this property. And the first exception would be
his saying that there's no wildlife. I would like to know
what those five deer were doing in my driveway this morning,
or what that raccoon who got in my garage and got into my
garbage did the other night, but that's besides the point.
If the police came running in here right now it's because my
wife wants to know where the hell am I.
My first point I want to make is in the survey that
they provided us there, you'll note that the cesspool set up
is five feet from the road. Now, we're not a metropolis and
there's not a tremendous amount of traffic, but we do have
UPS and Fed Ex and the garbage trucks and your maintenance
trucks and other trucks going through there. And I feel
five feet from the road having had an experiences where my
cesspool did cave in when I lived in Nassau that the
vibration might lead to a fault where you would have an
environmental problem.
The second thing is, I don't know where they are
looking at with the tidal flow, but here is a presentation
of what the actual tidal flow is, and where that dot is on
there, this dark area is where all the impact would be with
any kind of a storm. The spot noted there is where they're
attempting to build, which is right in the shaded areas.
Now, about three years ago, I received a one-page note
from my mortgage company telling me they required me to put
up $2,800 for flood insurance because we were in a flood
tidal impact area there. I was able to beat FEMA and them
by having it resurveyed and whatnot, but the impact is still
there by the fact that any construction in there might
change and deviate which way the flood is going to come
through there.
One other thing which is kind of peculiar with you
people is that I have a driveway which is pervious because
I'm not allowed to build within X number of feet of the
pond, and this here structure is going to be well within the
Board of Trustees 46 Aug. 18, 2004
confines as you lay it. Oddly enough, your road comes
within five feet of that same water but that's beside it
all. Thank you.
MR. BRIDGEN: Mark Bridgen, I live in North Paris Drive
across the street from the property. This evening before it
got so late, we had 14 neighbors here at the hearing
representing 11 households in the vicinity who object to
this permit, and I already wrote you one letter, and since
then some of the neighbors talked about other things. I'd
like to highlight some things.
I don't know if one of our neighbors, the landowner
that has the wood pile, has given you pictures, he's lived
there several years._ He said he was going to mail you
pictures.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Of the flooded areas.
MR. BRIDGEN: So he has sent you pictures of how this lot
has flooded over the past years being a tidal wetland. So
some of our comments are is that as a tidal wetland, it is
subject to flooding, especially during heavy storms and
hurricanes, and we're concerned about the environmental
impact this would have especially on the cesspools as well
as the environmentally sensitive areas. I know you visited
the site, but if you go directly to the west of there
there's Mr. Hamilton's house and there's an area that the
town has designated as an environmentally sensitive area,
and we're worried what will happen to that when the water is
diverted.
In addition, in the Board of Trustees application form
we had several questions. First of all, the application
states that no excavation will occur, and we wonder how this
is possible for asingle-family dwelling to be built without
any excavation. Second of all, the application states there
will not be any fill added to the site and there will not be
any material removed or deposited. Again, in order to build
a house suitable to withstand severe weather, how is this
possible. And third, the application states no impact to
the wetlands are anticipated due to the project design and
location; is this possible?
As far as flooding is concerned, the Health Department
will be concerned certainly with cesspools and any in-ground
structures. The lot would have to pass a perk test and if
it does not, they would have to fill to facilitate
drainage. An above ground mound is very unsightly, and if
they're going to do this, how are they going to do this if
they are not going to bring in fill, like we just discussed
previously.
Board of Trustees 47 Aug. 18, 2004
So, in addition, according to the survey of the
property, the test hole is made at the southwest corner of
the house not where the five cesspools are to be located at
the northwest corner of the house or from the lot, excuse
me. This is as Mr. Hamilton mentioned, is five foot from
the road. According to the survey that the applicant
submitted, the southeast corner of the dwelling is only 29
feet from the wetlands. It appears that this morning he has
changed this and now is 51 feet, but I question whether or
not just if the maps say it's a wetland, certainly when it
floods that whole Northville Lane will flood on the road.
So I don't know if these boundaries are actually legitimate.
And considering the close proximity to the wetlands, I
think it needs to be clear to the landowners that if this
permit is given, that no deck or patio should be or can be
constructed on the sides toward the wetlands because they
with project into and possibly interfere with the wetlands.
If the permit's approved, the Town should state this in the
agreement, in the rules.
Mr. Anderson's comments saying that there's little
value to wildlife, there are a lot of wildlife there. In
addition to raccoons and deer, there are several bird
species, several plant species, several wetlands plant
species like phragmites, and there's also a willow tree,
which requires large amounts of water to survive. And he
was also referring to no remnants to the wetlands, and
certainly there are lots of remnants to the wetlands.
So we ask as a group of neighbors surrounding that area
that this permit be denied.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you, is there anyone else that
would like to speak?
MR. RUTHKOWSKI: Good evening, Adam Ruthkowski, I live on
Dayton, which is on the end of Northville.
There's a number of other people who are going to speak
tonight. It's late. We all want to go home, so I'm not
going-to recap and beat a dead horse, but I've heard that
you have been there twice, and you've observed the lot and
observed the area. It's a very special place, it really
is. The rear of the property which abuts the Harbor Lights
area is just beautiful, pristine wetland area, and this
thing is going to be absolutely threatening that area
forever. It's very sensitive and again, as I say, I'm not
going to beat a dead horse. You've been there, you know
there probably are problems that have to be overcome. All I
ask is that you not jump to a rash decision on this, that
you take your time, that you go through the process, listen
Board of Trustees 48 Aug. 18, 2004
to us, and you really observe the property and do what needs
to be done to preserve this beautiful piece of land. Thank
you very much.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. Is there anyone else who
would like to speak?
MS. WOOD: Good evening, I'm Miss Wood, I live on Northfield
Road. I want to second all of that, but also I want to
point out that it was these esteemed Trustees who put up the
sign saying environmentally sensitive area that's on the
Harborview end of the fresh water pond. I know we're
talking about salt water wetlands that are tidal, and the
tides fluctuate.. But what really worries me is you've seen
that the road comes down from this lot that we're talking
about, and down from the other end of Northfield to the
point where the pond, which is a freshwater pond has to
actually accept that runoff. So that any runoff that comes
from this tidally fluctuating salt water wetland, will come
down in to the freshwater pond, which is already designated
environmentally sensitive.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where is this freshwater pond?
MS. WOOD: The pond is at the lowest point of Northfield
Lane, and it's on both sides of the lane, the road was put
through it. So I'm very concerned about the sort of
integrity of the freshwater pond, which my property has and
also which adjoins Mr. Hamilton's.
MR. HAMILTON: The town and I own the other pond.
MS. WOOD: So I'd like you to take that relationship of the
pond to the wetlands that you're talking about, I'd like you
to take that into consideration. Thank you very much.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else who would like to
speak for or against this application?
MR. BRIDGEN: They just gave us the revised blueprint. We
just wondered is there a height restriction on this?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As far as we're concerned there is none.
MR. JOHNSTON: There could be a Building Department one, but
not us.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have a question for the applicant.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm referring to the revised plan. You've
got an elevation of six to eight in the proposed house
location. What would the first floor elevation have to be
there?
MR. ANDERSON: Eight, that would be your slab elevation. If
you look closely at your survey, you'll see that the flood
plain lies, splits the property and above that line is zoned
Board of Trustees 49 Aug. 18, 2004
X, and in the X zone there are no required first floor
elevations. Below that line to the south is, as indicated
to the survey, is an AE/8 elevation, 8 which requires a low
structural member of the house to be 8 feet in order to be
e
flood compliant. Because the house straddles the 8 foot
line and does not extend to or below the 6 foot line,
utilizing the 2 foot contour doesn't appear on the map
because there's not enough grading to be reflected on the
contours. You will get some minor grading here, but it's
simply not picked up if the contour interval is at 2 feet.
I would like to take just a moment, I think I've heard
the issues and I can address each and every one, very
quickly.
First of all, the pond which was under discussion
which the last person spoke of, you'll see that's indicated
on the survey from the pipe on the northwest corner of the
property to the pond is approximately 150 feet, in other
words, out of the jurisdiction of this Board. The second
thing I've heard is a question about cesspools being five
feet from the front lot line on Northfield Lane, please be
advised that that does comply with the applicable Health
Department regulations. Five feet is the minimum setbacks.
The septic system was placed there to maximize its distance
from the wetland boundaries; that distance is 100 feet, also
placing the leaching pools and approximately half of the
septic tank out of the jurisdiction of this Board, so you
don't regulate that.
The neighbors should not be concerned about the roads
and the trucks on the roads because the actual edge of
pavement is approximately 10 feet off the front lot line.
So the distance between the nearest leaching pool and septic
system and the road is 15 feet.
As far as tidal flow, I can tell you there is no
regular tidal flow into this wetland. There may be flooding
under extreme conditions, nor'easters. There's certainly
runoff that goes in as a result of rainstorms and things of
the like.
With respect to the design of the this house, you'll
notice on your alternative plan, we show two dry wells, one
on the east side of the house, and one on the west side of
the house. Those dry wells are sized at 8' by 4' and
greatly exceed the 2" design criteria, which is what's
required by applicable regulations. So this is a project
that features full runoff control.
There isn't excavation per se because there can't be a
basement because you issue in the AE/8 flood plain; and so
Board of Trustees 50 Aug. 18, 2004
those concerns don't exist.
As far as a height restriction it's not in the purview
of this Board, but for the benefit of the folks here
tonight, Town codes regulates the maximum height obstructors
at 38 feet above grade, grade being measured from the
street. We don't have such designs at this point.
And one final point, as far as septic systems go, we
note next door you'll see a couple cesspools that are
essentially substantially closer than what's being applied
for here.
It's my position that given the constraints on this
property and taking into account some of the suggestions I
have heard today, that this is a project that's designed as
well as it can be designed given the size of the property,
and the location of the wetlands boundary. And again, as
far as wetland as a resource is concerned, this is not what
a biologist would consider of extraordinary value because of
its plant communities, because of its distance from surface
waters, the value of the phragmites and the like.
MR. BRIDGEN: May I make one comment in reply to his
comment? First of all, I am a professor of horticulture at
Cornell University. First of all, this plant material is of
value, any kind of wetlands which is disturbed affects all
of our natural resources, all of our water; and I think that
Comment is incorrect.
Also, his comment saying that because this is 150 feet
from the freshwater pond it's not within your jurisdiction.
It may not be legally, but as Trustees for the Town of
Southold, I'd say, yes, it is.
And thirdly, his comment about it may flood but rarely,
when you Trustees were there in July, you were going to go
look at the property, but it wasn't posted so you didn't.
The day before we had some rains, and if you were to look at
the property then, there was standing water at the footprint
of that house, of course now it's been moved, but it still
indicates that that wetlands is farther west and north than
actually indicated by the DEC.
And lastly, I just want a clarification of when say
it's a Zone AE and E/8, that means it's 8 foot up -- what
does this mean?
MR. ANDERSON: Eight feet from mean sea level using a 1929
MBDG data. It's a flood plain requirement. So, if you are
in a flood plain in this case AE/8, the lowest floor can be
no lower than 8 feet, which is why you can't have a basement
here.
One other point that I do want to mention that I forgot
Board of Trustees 51 Aug. 18, 2004
to, we do have a test hole here. You'll see that test hole
was placed below the house, which is actually at a lower
elevation, and when you look at the soil profiles, it
consists of sandy loam, loamy sand, medium sand and coarse
sand. These are suitable soils for the siting of the septic
system. Indeed, the soil survey would indicate it to be
suitable soil for the siting of this family dwelling.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else who would like to
speak? I'm going to make a motion to table, I think we need
to revisit it since we just had our plans tonight. We'd
also like to do a short environmental form, and we'd like
the house staked.
MR. ANDERSON: You mean the alternative staking?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. And we'd like to see a line of the
buffer area on the plans.
MR. ANDERSON: It is on the plans.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you show us?
MR. ANDERSON: It's just the stakes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Anything else? And stake where the new
house is going to be. So we'll go back in September.
.TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can come in the office and get a copy.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to table.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES
16. Bryan Villanti on behalf of LEO OLSEN requests a
wetland permit to construct a single-family dwelling with
garage and deck. Located: 3590 North Road, Greenport.
SCTM # 35-4-28.12.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment
on behalf of this application?
MR. VILLANTI: Good evening, my name is Bryan Villanti on
behalf of Leo Olsen.
With regard to the survey that you have and the
application, I would like to amend, modify and clarify in
regard to where they have the proposed water line, back in
'97, this Board had approved the water line. There is a
septic system in there. For some reason the survey doesn't
show it correctly. We would just like to take that system
that is in there and was approved and just modify it.
And the other thing is on this footprint on the house,
it reads 33' by 58', I'd like to go one more foot landward
to make that 40 foot on that setback to the road, and if
possible another foot to the rear yard where it says 51, so
I can keep it at 50 foot.
The other thing is in regards to you have these two
Board of Trustees 52 Aug. 18, 2004
entrances, an entrance and exit on the north side for the
road, I'd like to kind of just connect that and use that as
a driveway. I think it's a great safety feature and it
would aesthetically look correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I didn't understand that last comment.
MR. VILLANTI: There's an entrance on the east side and also
on the west side, it's kind of like a natural half-circle
driveway.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Create a pervious driveway?
MR. VILLANTI: Yes, like pea grit.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's fine. Won't create a runoff
hazard.
MR. VILLANTI: And the only thing I'd like to get this
survey modified about those couple things that I had
mentioned. I don't know if I have to designate if it's a
one-story or two-story.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments? Does that sound good
to the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know. There's a septic system on
the property now, correct?
MR. VILLANTI: Yes, I staked it. It's in the middle of the
road.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's in the middle of the house, right?
MR. VILLANTI: The septic itself, that would be excavated
and relocated landward.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about drainage for the house, we need
dry wells and gutters?
MR. VILLANTI: Sure,.that's not a problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All the roof runoff.
TRUSTEE KING: Move the septic system towards the road more,
it's only about 40 feet from the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would that be possible, if you're going
to have your driveway--
MR. VILLANTI: I think it's a lot more than that, I think
it's about 10 or 15 feet from the west side of the property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The last guy said he could put the septic
five feet from the road. Why don't we do that?
MR. VILLANTI: That doesn't matter to me because the pools,
the rings that are already there, they're maybe 10 feet from
the road.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Might have a tough time though, look at
the elevation of the property.
MR. VILLANTI: I don't have any objection to making that
landward.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: CAC recommends approval of the
application with the condition that the large tree on the
Board of Trustees 53 Aug. 18, 2004
southwest corner of the property remains. There's a large
tree there?
MR. VILLANTI: There's a willow tree, kind of grows
horizontal to the ground, I think it's right in the middle
of the envelope. I'm glad you mentioned about trees. Just
landward of the walkway there's 11 cedar trees, I was
wondering if I could excavate those and put those landward
on the west side of the property line kind of fill in over
on that side, because they're maybe 12, 14 feet tall. You
could hardly see the water. Plus, I think with the bulkhead
the root system is a lot greater now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That would be fine, then you can have a
nice 15 foot nonturf buffer. Put that on there, 15 foot
nonturf buffer behind the bulkhead to be installed.
MR. VILLANTI: Okay. It's really landscaped beautiful. I
don't think it's going to be disturbed too much.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The bulkhead had a little runoff problem,
a little bit to the east where it comes down that one/
driveway. It seems it gully's out and goes under the
bulkhead.
MR. VILLANTI: I thought the little excavation left I could
grade that up. There's some planking up in there I think
that should be replaced with better planking to hold it
back. You know, like 6 by 6 as opposed to I think it's 2 by
12's that's already there.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The sheathing is gullying out. You might
have to have some sheathing slid behind the bulkhead.
MR. VILLANTI: That's not a problem, just if you could
designate what area you're referring to.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other Board comments? If not, I'll
make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland
Permit on behalf of Leo Olsen to construct a single-family
dwelling with garage and deck with two minor footprint
changes, moving the proposed house one foot closer to the
bulkhead, one foot closer to the road, providing a driveway
that will be pervious material from one entrance to the
other entrance; providing a 15 foot nonturf buffer around
the bulkhead. Have dry wells and gutters placed on the
proposed house to catch the roof runoff, push the septic
system as close as possible to the road. Anything else?
And as far as allow sheathing to be placed behind the
bulkhead to prevent the runoff from entering the creek; do I
have a second?
Board of Trustees 54 Aug. 18, 2004
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES
17. LAWRENCE TUTHILL requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 6' by 40' floating dock 2.5' by 10' ramp and
catwalk. Located: Schoolhouse Creek, New Suffolk.
SCTM # 117-5-47.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in
favor of this application?
We spoke with Pat Finnigan, the Town Attorney, and she
said that someone's got to prove one way or the other who
owns it. What she suggested was a title search that would
prove someone owned it
MR. TUTHILL: One with the title search is if you go back to
my father's deed, which both are split, that's where it
comes from. Other than that, none of the deeds would be any
good. That's besides the point. Have you received this
yet?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. Hopefully that will solve all the
problems.
MR. TUTHILL: I think my own personal opinion is there's a
few other things that should be resolved by the case, and
probably it would be best if we went to court on it, and
freed you people, but I mean there's two other things that
are wrong. He has built a bulkhead on my property extending
to the west, and the other is when they allowed him to go
out into the canal, that's a no-no, and get all this stuff
straightened out. If I don't do it now, my heirs will have
to do it later. We might as well settle it now.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: How far did he go in the creek with his
bulkhead?
MR. TUTHILL: Length-wise or distance out?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Distance out?
MR. TUTHILL: He went into two feet. So that's -- and then
in the canal or so he probably went out two, two and a half
feet into the canal, and that's a no-no. But I mean you
read this?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We just got it tonight.
MR. TUTHILL: So that's what we'll do.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to table the
application.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Schultheis, can we have your help when
the court case is, although I'm recusing myself because of
my wife's -- your wife can tell you why I recuse myself, she
Board of Trustees 55 Aug. 18, 2004
knows -- when the court case is finished, would you come
back so we can resolve this?
MR. SCHULTHEIS: Definitely.
MR. JOHNSTON: The point is we're not going to be writing
you letters on a weekly basis or daily basis or monthly,
whenever you get this resolved, can we have your word that
you'll come back, so we're not bird-dogging you? We want to
resolve the thing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can't, that's the problem.
MR. SCHULTHEIS: Unfortunately, in speaking with the
assessor, the real property tax office, only way to resolve
this is through litigation. There are two deeds; they both
say the same thing. It's gone on too long, and it needs to
be litigated to be determined.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
MR. SCHULTHEIS: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. JOHNSTON: Keith, we had a question when we did your
permit, we wanted to know what the pipes were on the side of
the dock.
MR. NEILSON: They were set the way they are to accommodate
a float, and somehow or other I had miscommunications from
Miss Hoch about having a float included in the application.
MR. JOHNSTON: Al, would you be willing to reopen the
hearing to add that correction?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MR. JOHNSTON: Are you requesting that we amend your permit?
MR. NEILSON: I would respectfully request that you consider
the addition of a float to this pier system at the request
of Miss Hoch on behalf of her family, and we're agreeable to
the 6' by 20' size.
MR. JOHNSTON: You were asking for 8' by 20'.
MR. NEILSON: 8' by 20' would be better.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 6' by 20'.
TRUSTEE KING: Make a motion to amend the permit to include
a 6' by 20' float for the application for Mrs. Hoch; do I
have a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MS. STANDISH: Bring in a revised plan.
MR. NEILSON: I'll bring in a revised plan, also the
neighbor had already reviewed the request, and even though
his letter is dated tomorrow, I brought it with me.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Adjourn the regular meeting.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES