HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-08/24/2005 Albert J. Krupski,President ��OF SOUTyo Town Hall
James King,Vice-President �� 01
0 53095 Route 25
Artie Foster P.O. Box 1179
Ken Poliwoda Southold,New York 11971-0959
Peggy A.Dickerson G OQ
Telephone(631) 765-1892
cDUNTY,�c� Fax(631)765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD o7; 30P&I
JAN 2 4 2006
MINUTES a�S
ou�Ea�acH
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
7:00 PM
Present were: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President
James King, Vice-President
Artie Foster, Trustee
Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee
Peggy Dickerson, Trustee
E. Brownell Johnston, Esq.
Assistant Town Attorney for Trustees
Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant
Heather Tetrault, Environmental Technician
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 at
8:00 a.m.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to approve,
TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES.
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, September 21, 2005
at 7:00 p.m.
WORK SESSION: 6:00 p.m.
TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve,
TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES.
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of May, June 24, 2005.
TRUSTEE KING moved to approve,
TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES.
Board of':l'nistees 2 .August 24, 2005
I. MONTHLY REPORT: For May, 2004, check for $4,097.61 was
forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
Il. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town
Clerk's Bulletin Board for review.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Welcome to our regular monthly meeting in
August. A little introduction, the Board is Ken Poliwoda,
Peg Dickerson, Jim King, myself and Artie Foster. Lauren
Standish is our secretary, at the end of the row there is
Brownell Johnston, our attorney, Heather Tetrault is our
environmental technician. Jack McGreevey is the CAC
representative who attends our meetings, CAC meets every
month and advises us on our applications, and they inspect
every application.
While we are starting here, at the beginning we have
a few housekeeping things and then we go into resolutions
and administrative permits because they're not technically
public hearings, but if anyone has any comments on any of
these items, please be ready, and we'll try to move them
through pretty quickly because it's a long agenda, and by
the time we get to public hearing in the 20s we'll be around
11:20 or 11:30 or so we want to keep things moving along.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Resolve that the Board of Trustees of the
Town of Southold hereby finds that the following
applications more fully described in the Public Hearing of
the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday August 24, 2005 are
classified as Type 2 actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and
regulations and are not subject to review under SEQRA.
Anthony & Joanne Kropp -- SCTM#143-5-8
Vincent & Eileen Flaherty -- SCTM#92-1-8
Robert Swing-- SCTM#53-6-24
Leo Alessi -- SCTM#92-1-3
Brian McGinn -- SCTM#88-5-61.1
Amelia P. Mancini -- SCTM#51-6-25
Patricia Gilchrist Mancino -- SCTM#117-10-15
John & Patrice Keitt -- SCTM#81-1-19
George & Mary Pavlicin -- SCTM#33-1-13
Josephine Geis -- SCTM#115-17-6.1
Philip & Debra Rybeck-- SCTM#137-4-24
Steven & Andrea Kolyer-- SCTM#81-1-10
Baiaۥd of 1'rustees 3 august 24, 2005
JHL Associates, LLC -- SCTM#56-7-14
David Hoffman -- SCTM#52-2-36
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have the inspector of the LWRP that we
have now a coded agenda thanks to Lauren. So as we go
through, if they're exempt, we will mention it, and if
they're consistent, just say they're consistent and if
they're inconsistent, then we can have discussions if anyone
cares then we can discuss it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: AI, unless even if they're consistent
there are regulations that we may want to note.
IV. RESOLUTION -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
1. SAMUEL & ANNE DELUCA request an Administrative
Permit to maintain the wetland grasses in the area of the
boat ramp, in order to access the boat ramp. Located: 1350
Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM#78-2-31.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I looked at this the other day, and we
talked about the phragmites that they're going to cut 12
inches right on the corner of the boat ramp. I also
recommended that the area on the corner where the
phragmites are, he's going to do some replantings with
native species, and I'm also going to add to the permit that
he can trim between the edge between the dock and the
bulkhead on his boat ramp because it's basically cinder
block.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you mark those areas on the permit or
on the plans so he'll be clear?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I did on here, but I didn't on here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was a motion.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That was a motion to grant him
permission to cut his phragmites to 12 inches to do
replanting and to trim on his boat ramp to the edge of the
bulkhead and the dock.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
2. JAMES BLACKLEY requests an Administrative Permit
to trim the phragmites to 12 inches around the catwalk each
year, remove the existing concrete driveway and fill with
top soil and seed, and to straighten the pavers on the
second driveway and place down a layer of pebbles. Located:
1455 Grathwohl Road, New Suffolk.
SCTM#117-1-13.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were there, we had no problems.
3
Board of`Trustees 4 August 24, 2005
TRUSTEE KING: I make a motion to approve the application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
3. JEANNE & JOSE CASTANO request an Administrative
Permit to trim the phragmites to 12 inches by hand as
needed. Located: 1700 Grathwohl Road, New
Suffolk. SCTM#117-1-11
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
4. Thomas Fitzmaurice on behalf of CRESCENT BEACH
CONDOMINIUM requests an Administrative Permit to expand the
existing 69' by 16' wide deck to the same 69' long, but add
four inches on the width, for total width of 20'. Located:
2500 Maple Lane, Greenport. SCTM#38-7-13
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I looked at this. It's a very, very
small project. They are expanding the deck landward. My
only condition would be on the east side of the deck there
was quite a bit of debris, there were some jet ski floats, a
sunfish, two canoes, and a floating dock that they agreed
they would remove prior to receiving the permit. So I'll
make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
MR. FITZMAURICE: I just want to say, we did remove it, the
two floating docks. Thank you very much.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you.
5. Peter Corbin on behalf of TERRY WATERS PROPERTY
OWNERS ASSOCIATIONS requests an Administrative Permit to
clean up beach property including removal of brush, weeds,
vines and other growth along Watersedge Way and Rambler
Road. Located: c/o Rambler Road and Watersedge Way,
Southold. SCTM#88-5-55
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We were there on Wednesday and we had no
problem on the east side of the entrance as far as clearing
it above the 100 foot, but there was a question on the east
side of your entrance and what I'd like to do is to approve
the clearing that we looked at, Jim, when we were there,
with the condition that after Heather and I go out and check
how close they are to the wetlands that maybe they can come
in and amend for the second part of the clearing. We tried
to measure it off and they also want to replace the
fence. We got down as close as we could, but I'd like to go
4
Board of J'rustees 5 August 24, 2005
out there and flag it with you.
MS. TETRAULT: Can they put on a survey specifically where
they want to do that clearing?
MS. GENOVESE: I'm Joan Genovese, Peter Corbin is out of
town so I'm representing him. I think it's along the whole
road part there, which is marked on the survey. The
property that's owned by the association, we wanted to go in
from where there's part of the road has a fence along it,
and a lot of it is broken and sometimes there's no fence at
all. So what we wanted to do is replace the fence and go in
about 15 feet from the fence.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did you check the 15 feet?
MS. GENOVESE: 15 feet is what we were looking for.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would be inclined to approve the
permit for the west side of the entrance so they can get
started on it, and you and 1, Heather, can go out and look
and they can amend it depending on what we find. So I'm
going to approve the Terry Waters property removal of brush
and weeds and vines -- well, it's non jurisdictional.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We weren't quite sure what the extent of
the clearing was.
MS. GENOVESE: I was there all day waiting.
MS. TETRAULT: But now you're saying 15 feet?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No, that's on Rambler Road, what we came
down. That's the one I'm,--
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But if they do the clearing of the brush
along the 100 foot, do we need a permit? Why don't we mark
it for you? Then you can have that permit then we'll look
at flagging.
MS. GENOVESE: Then we can modify that permit to cover the
Rambler Road?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You won't even need a permit for that
clearing because it will be non jurisdictional.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Which one?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The one along Rambler Road, yes, you will
need to include that in the permit. Down.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm going to approve the permit that
they can clear Watersedge Way, when we go down and mark it,
that they can clear on Watersedge, and Heather and I are
going to flag and check this and then they can amend this
permit?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes.
MS. GENOVESE: Do you think that could happen before the
next meeting?
5
Board of Trustees 6 August 24, 2005
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes.
MS. GENOVESE: Because I don't think we would do the work
piecemeal.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I can go out as soon as Heather can,
tomorrow or Friday?
MS. TETRAULT: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
6. Marian Sumner on behalf of PECONIC LAND TRUST
requests an Administrative Permit to control the spread of
phragmites by wicking the phragmites with Rodeo. Located:
c/o Lake and West Drives, Southold. SCTM#59-1-20.1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This just came in. Is that wetlands area
that's marked on the survey, that's entirely phragmites this
would be done soon?
MS. SUMNER: It needs to be done in October. We talked to
specialists, and they said that's the only time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You'd wait until October?
MS. SUMNER: Yes. We'd wait until October.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You want all the foliage to get treated
and then the Rodeo gets transferred down to the roots and it
kills the roots.
MS. SUMNER: This is in an effort to save the globally rare
flora that's there. We've had specialists come, and they
say if the phragmites continue to spread, we're going to
lose the iris prismatic and the other important flora that
was there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any further discussion. I'll
make the motion; is there a second?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
V. RESOLUTIONS-MOORING & ANCHORAGE/STAKES/DUCK BLINDS:
1. ADELAIDE KNOWLES requests a Mooring Permit in
Deep Hole Creek for a boat no larger than 24', replacing
Mooring #136. Access: Public
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
2. DAVID ZAZESKI requests an onshore/offshore stake
in West Creek for a 12' boat. Access: Public.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
6
Board of'.J.'ru.stees 7 August 24, 2005
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
VI. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS:
1. JLH ASSOCIATES, LLC requests an Amendment to
Permit 5981 to relocate the foundation 15' to the west and
change the side entry garage to a front entry garage.
Located: 315 Albacore Drive, Southold. SCTM#: 56-7-14
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This application is now consistent with
the LWRP as opposed to being exempt. This application had
been modified and actually what we discussed in the field,
it was discussed that with a nonturf buffer behind the
house. It was drawn on the survey to follow the row of hay
bales, and I modified that when I was in the office the
other day to kind of left it an odd place behind the house,
a little odd triangle. So I extended the arrows and drew a
straight line so the whole back of the house is nonturf.
It's current on the one side, on the east side, but on the
west side it left a little odd triangle about 10' by 20' by
nothing, so it just squared it off.
MR. CHIAVETTA: I'm Bob Chiavetta. I live in Southold
Shores. I'm not here to speak against it, actually, there
was no time between last week and the drawing of the new
plans for me to get a chance to see them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would you like to take a look?
MR. CHIAVETTA: I'm just asking --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's where he moved it to. That's where
we talked about the nonturf, instead of making the nonturf
this line, we just squared it off here. So the whole back
of the house is nonturf.
MR. CHIAVETTA: Will there be replanting there, on the side
over there? This was a deck and this was a porch.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, it's a porch area there. He showed us
on the feel inspection.
TRUSTEE KING: And the walkway around.
MR. CHIAVETTA: And that's --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Wood deck.
MR. CHIAVETTA: That's a walkway?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we discussed the deck.
Mr. Hurtado?
MR. HURTADO: After checking with the Building Department,
we were able to move the front yard from 40 feet to 35 feet
because it was under 20,000 square feet. So we gave even
more behind the house from the wetlands. I just wanted to
point that out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I didn't see that.
7
Board of Trustees 8 !august 241, 2005
MS. TETRAULT: Mr. Hurtado came in the office with a list of
plans.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They're actually listed on the survey.
MS. TETRAULT: Okay, just so you know.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the amended
plan.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
2. PHILIP AND DEBRA RYBECKY request an Amendment to
Permit#1191 to remove all of the existing asphalt area
(driveway and area near creek) and repave an area of asphalt
approximately 30' by 32' for parking and basketball.
Located: 1065 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#137-4-24
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any comments on the application?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Artie?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Ma'am?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There was a boat trailer sitting on the
marsh in the back, and there's also a chunk of asphalt still
there in the back of the house, if they could continue
removing those items.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Okay, any other comments? I'll
make a motion to approve the application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: With those stipulations.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Considering the two stipulations
Peggy mentioned, removing of the boat trailer and the asphalt
in the rear. I have a motion and a second, all in favor?
(ALL AYES)
3. JOSEPHINE GEIS requests an Amendment to Permit
#35 to repair the existing 3' by 8' catwalk, 3' by 12'
hinged ramp, and 6' by 20' floating dock, and to transfer
Permit 35 from Mary LePeter to Joseph Geis. Located: 3800
Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM#115-17.6.1
TRUSTEE KING: Actually it should be change the float size
and to transfer. Right now they have an 8' float -- I'm
sorry, a 12' float, and they wanted to increase it to a 6'
by 20'. 1 think it's a matter of stability because the
gentleman that came to the door was older than I am. And I
think it was just a matter of more stability on the
float. I didn't have a problem with it. I'll make a motion
to approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
8
Bogie of`: ni-stees 9 !august 24, 2005
4. GERARD GRALTON requests an Amendment to Permit
5897 to construct a 3' high handrail onto the existing
catwalk. Located: 5710 Skunk Lane,
Cutchogue. SCTM#138-2-34
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve one handrail on
each side of the existing catwalk.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: Aye.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For the record, I'm recusing myself
because the applicant's my father-in-law.
5. Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of JOHN
& PATRICE KEITT requests an Amendment to permit#5883 to
re-shingle and re-roof the entire house and reconstruct
landward entry porch in-kind. Located: 280 Basin Road,
Southold. SCTM#81-1-19
TRUSTEE KING: Conservation Council recommended approval.
I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
6. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of STEVEN &
ANDREA KOLYER request an Amendment to Permit 5672 to expand
the existing fixed platform from 5' by 9' to 5' by 13' and
to add five 8" diameter pilings. Located: 4075 Paradise
Point Road, Southold. SCTM#81-1-10
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Would you like to speak?
MS. MOORE: Very briefly. I understand that most of this
was discussed at another hearing, a neighbor's
application. If you recall the history here, the Kolyers
had originally proposed to locate the dock and make the
fixed platform large enough so the dock could be pushed out
slightly into the basin. At the time, I think you had had
enough of the Paradise Point activities and you pushed them
very far over towards the bulkhead, and it's actually
created problems for them because it does cause the float to
sit on the bottom. It limits the usability of the float and
the ability to have a boat there in the basin. So at the
last hearing I believe it was, the association was dealing
with their configuration of the dock, Mrs. Kolyer stood
up and said listen, this is my problem, I think after some
discussion, the Board suggested, well, why don't you come in
9
Beard of J'r«.stees 1.0 august 24, 2005
with something reasonable, and we'll push you out a little
bit so you have a better use of your dock. She called me.
We got it in right away so we could be at this hearing.
And here we are today, where we're requesting a slight
addition to the fixed platform and the ramp goes
automatically where the float goes. The float will push out
away from the bulkhead by four feet; that will give them
better use of the water. It will allow them to put a normal
size boat there and on occasion you'll have the float that
sits on the bottom and we have a photograph on where the
float sits on the bottom for your records. I have an
original, which I'll give you a copy of. I'm showing you so
you have an original and a copy.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that ice?
MS. MOORE: That's during the early winter. See what we're
trying to do is push this out slightly, so we have the water
depth in the canal. I think you're very well aware of this
boat basin, and it's a pretty straightforward application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we could use a better core section
showing actual --
MS. MOORE: We submitted this right away. I had a day from
the time it could be submitted to the time your notice
schedule was about to expire. So we would make whatever
approval subject to us having it drawn properly, so it's
showing at four foot, with the proper dimensions. In
fairness to you, you should have a better drawing in your
file.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Pat, I'm just questioning the five eight
inch diameter pilings; is it necessary for all of those in
addition to --
MS. MOORE: That actually is the total. We already have the
three. It we already have the three. We just need two
more, and the six inch diameter piles just aren't
working. We need a more sturdy structure, so go with eight
inch. Other people in that community have 10 inch. So
we're actually asking for less than what's customarily used
in that boat basin.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm asking my boaters.
MS. MOORE: We were just concerned with the number of piles
we need to hold this thing up.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I just want to mention that LWRP is
consistent and also the CAC tabled the application because
the applicant should be required to submit professionally
certified plans, which we're asking for the cross-section
now.
MS. MOORE: I mean, this was submitted and approved by the
1.0
Bard of Trustees .1.1 UgLlst 24, 2005
DEC and Trustees in the original drawing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just mentioning.
MR. JOHNSTON: Jack, would you comment, please?
MR. MCGREEVEY: We're concerned about the location of the
pilings in that sketch, and if five pilings are proper for
that, we just questioned that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what we were discussing.
MS. MOORE: What I can show you, the drawing shows we have
this one, here it's there now. We have this one
here. These three are just right now because is stays. We
just need the three on the end.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But the applicant's going to submit an
actual cross-section now showing the dimensional framing.
MR. MCGREEVEY: What I'd like to see, Al, is an overview of
where the pilings will be located.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They did show that, but what we want is a
cross-section showing the dimensional framing. They
did,have an overview of the location of the five pilings.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Jack, I did question the location of
those five pilings.
MR. MCGREEVEY: All I have is an overview of how it
would be configured. That's all I have on my worksheet. So
I questioned the location of the pilings on that sketch.
MS. MOORE: Do you think we need more?
MR. MCGREEVEY: No. I question the location.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They seemed appropriate.
MS. MOORE: Two out of three are where they are now. So
they're working. The other two are needed for the --
MR. JOHNSTON: You didn't have the detailed diagram?
MR. MCGREEVEY: It's not a good diagram, AI.
MS. KOLYER: It came with our permit from the Trustees.
What happened was originally when this process started there
were four 10" piles and as things swirled around and the DEC
approved that, it became three, 6" inch piles and you could
barely build the dock like that. If we go out another four
feet, we are supposing we need two more pilings. If we can
do it for less, absolutely, we don't want to pay for
that. We're just afraid that if it goes out longer, the
structural integrity will not be there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We know. We just need a cross-section.
MS. MOORE: So I understand the cross-section, your
cross-section is here. You want an overall drawing?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, in a dock builder will provide.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the
amendment to Permit 5672 to expand the existing fixed
platform subject to the proper dimensions, cross-sections
It
Board of 1'ru.stees 1.2 August 24, 2005
for the new addition.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
7. MARY ZUPA requests the last One-Year Extension
to Permit#5636, as issued on September 25, 2002. Located:
580 Basin Road, Southold. SCTM#81-1-16.7
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any comments? Any Board comments? I'll
make a motion to approve the request.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
8. Diane Herold, Architect on behalf of NANCY ROSS
and others requests the last One-Year Extension to Permit
5643 as issued on October 16, 2002. Located: 3350 Park
Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM#123-8-22.2
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any comments on this application? Any
Board comments? I'll make a motion to approve the request
for a One-Year Extension.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
9. Garrett A. Strang on behalf of THOMAS & PEGGY
PROKOP requests a One-Year Extension to Permit#5805, as
issued on September 24, 2003. Located: 2245 Little Peconic
Bay Lane, Southold. SCTM#90-1-16
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any Board comments?
TRUSTEE KING: No changes or anything?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No, it's an extension. If there's no
Board comments, I'll make a motion to approve the extension.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
10. PETER N. BENOTTI requests a transfer of Permit
6070 from Reddy Industries to Peter N. Benotti as issued on
January 19, 2005. Located: 930 Clearview Road,
Southold. SCTM#89-3-11.4
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Pretty straightforward. Any Board
comments? I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING
APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE
12
Board of':1'rustees 1.3 !august 24, 2005
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM
THE TRAVELER-WATCHMAN. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE
READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.
PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF.
FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS IF POSSIBLE
COASTAL EROSION & WETLAND PERMITS
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There are a number of postponements, we
will not open them tonight, Number 12, En-Consultants on
behalf of Alan Cardinale; 13, James Murray and Susan Segur,
and Number 22, Larry Kulick has been postponed until
September.
If you would like to make a comment on any public
hearing, please come up and use the microphone, and, for the
sake of all the rest of us, please keep your comments
organized and brief.
1. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of ANGELO
PADAVAN requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit
to construct a single-family dwelling, sanitary system,
gravel driveway, and bulkhead. Located: 22455 Soundview
Avenue, Southold. SCTM#135-1-23 and 24.1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before I ask for comments, I would just
like to mention we received a report today from the LWRP
coordinator. The LWRP is the Local Waterfront
Revitalization Program. Every applicant is required to fill
out a program. It's a Town Board endorsed and sponsored
program that the Trustees are administering for the
Town. LWRP coordinator is not part of our office. It's a
Planning Board initiative and everyone's suffering through
it. I want to read into the record that we received the
report from the senior environmental planner, who is the
LWRP coordinator, today that the proposed action is
generally inconsistent with the following policy standards
and is therefore inconsistent with the LWRP. It's about
five to 10 pages long, and I'm not going to review it at the
moment. It's in the file, so you might be interested.
MS. MOORE: I'll get a copy of it. I guess I'm not
surprised given that he's got to come up with something, and
they're purely subjective policies and I could probably find
you 20 policies that are consistent.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not tonight.
MS. MOORE: Not tonight. I haven't gone through LWRP and
given a laundry list. That's purely a recommendation, and
it's not binding as far as this Board is concerned. And my
13
Board of`:1'rastces 1.4 August 24, 2005
understanding of the LWRP regulation is you have to act
within your jurisdiction, your permit authority and LWRP,
put it this way, it's not a permit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We haven't reviewed it yet.
MS. MOORE: All right. What I wanted to do is I have
several documents here, and when you're reviewing
everything, you can review this as well. I don't have one
for each Board member because otherwise you'd just spend
time reading it. I'll put two in your file. Mr. Johnston
already has a packet, which I gave him earlier tonight so he
would have a few minutes to look at it.
The document that I have -- several items, the first
is a memorandum of law, which deals with the
statute. Interestingly enough, coastal erosion law and
these issues don't have a lot of case law in it. It's
purely statute. And I read the statute, and I read it
literally. And what we've done is we have followed the
statute and our request for this permit is within the bounds
of the statute. Chapter 37 says that you can't approve a
major structure, we all acknowledge that. You should say no
if someone comes in with a major structure. However, the
statute specifically allows for a nonmajor structure, and
the reason for that is that you have a lot of development
along the coastal erosion area. In particular, the
Soundview Avenue, you have homes all along from either side
of Soundview Avenue that fall within the coastal erosion
line. Every house, anything north of the road falls within
the coastal erosion line. And there was a recognition in
the statute right from the beginning, that you have to honor
structures that are already on the property. You have to
allow for certain expansion of the structures provided that
those structures are not expanded more than 25 percent.
And every term is defined. Structure is defined.
It's not a house for a house. It specifically says
structures. And it can be any impervious structure, that's
part of your calculation. So when you look at the beach
cabana that's there, the fact that we want to convert it to
a house, as long as we are keeping it within the 25 percent
maximum expansion of the existing, we are within the bounds
of the law. That is why when this application was submitted
years ago with a very different house design and the Town
Board said no, that's because, as I said, it was a very
different plan. It was a very large house on this
particular piece of property.
What we did is we downsized it to the bare minimum.
The existing structures amount to 589 square feet, and we
14
Board of Trustees 1.5 AUgUst 24, 2005
are actually, when we do the calculations, we are asking for
707 square feet. That includes any retaining wall,
anything, so that's all part of the calculation. So our
proposal is actually at less than 25 percent. When we are
doing the number crunching we're at 20 percent.
I have to remind you that you have a piece of
property here that's developed on the east of it and
developed on the west of it. The only thing that's open now
is the Town beach, and it has a large parking area all
within the same coastal erosion area; that's the only open
space; everything else is developed. You have the Padavan
property with two separate tax lot numbers, which have been
merged for purposes of development. So you have an half
acre here of Long Island Sound front property. And the
statute allows you to issue a permit as long as it's
consistent with the statute, and it will prevent this
property from being sterilized and the Town from a
regulatory'taking. That's extremely important because the
decision that's ultimately made when you're asking for the
bare minimum within the statutory guidelines, to say no is
to say, sorry, we've got a park. They don't have a park
there. They have a property that's a building lot just like
every other property to the east and to the west.
My memorandum, I've got various points in it, but
very specifically you have the primary purposes of Chapter
37 are twofold. The first one is to regulate placement of
structures at a safe distance from areas of active erosion.
Well, those, again, are defined terms, and there is no
erosion in the Town of Southold on the sound. It's not an
erosion based on the definition of a structural hazard area
as identified as shore lands located landward of natural
protective features that have shorelines receding at a long
term average annual recession rate of one foot or more per
year. There is no such thing in the Town of Southold. It's
recognized principle by the DEC, by the state, coastal
erosion people and as well should be recognized by this
Board.
The other process that Chapter 37 has you review is
minimum impacts to protect the natural protective
features. We acknowledge that this is one of the issues
that Chapter 37 deals with. What we have is a plan that's
going to take 96 percent of this property and keep it in its
natural state. We're developing four percent of that
property. Of that four percent, you've got three and a half
percent being already disturbed by the structures that are
presently there. So it's easier, if you look at the survey,
1.5
Board of1'rastees 1.6 August 24, 2005
and the survey shows the plan that Young and Young prepared,
shows you how the property's situated. It shows you that
the entire area to the west is left in its natural state.
Certainly you can grant a permit that requires that or makes
it a condition of the approval. It's already part of the
plan. The only portion that's to be affected is the
structure where the structure presently is. We're expanding
it by about the width of the stairs. The sanitary system is
the only area that is has to be newly disturbed area, but
again, you have a half acre piece of property and the area
of disturbance is very limited to the front easterly side of
the property. As far as percentage goes, again, you don't
have to sterilize this property. You don't have to have the
Town of Southold and the tax payers of the Town of Southold
buy this property when limited development can accomplish
the same goal.
Those are issues with respect to coastal erosion.
You also have a wetland permit application as part of this
file. The wetland permit line you have 93.98 feet from the
tie line along the proximate high water mark. According to
tidal wetland definition, that's line we should be marking
it from. And we are 93.98 feet from that line. Again, I
have the survey from Young and Young that identifies all
these setbacks for you.
The standards of the wetlands ordinance, doesn't
adversely affect the wetlands of the town because we are
almost 94 feet from the wetland defined line. We are not
going to cause damage to erosion, turbidity or siltation,
the plan has addressed these issues through engineering. We
don't have'salt water intrusion into freshwater resources,
it's not applicable. We're not affecting fish, shellfish or
other beneficial marine organisms; we're not dealing with
underwater activity. We are again 80 feet from mean high
water, 96 percent of the property is to be left undisturbed.
There's no increase in danger of flood or storm tide damage.
The existing structures have been there since -- and my
client, I believe last time she was here, she said she
believed the structures were there from the '30s, certainly
since prior to zoning. adversely affect navigation or tidal
waters, not applicable. Change the course of the channel,
not applicable. Weaken or undermine lateral support of
other lands in the vicinity, that is a preposterous
statement to think that we are doing anything like
that. Again, the surrounding properties are developed, you
have a house to the east that has been there, again, also
prior to coastal erosion law. The decking and the
16
Board of 1'r«.stees i? AUgUst 24, 2005
activities by the property owners, well, the waterfront for
the motel, keeping in mind you've got about 50 motel owners
who are using the property next door. Mr. Padavan has
routinely thrown people off his property that are motel
visitors presumably, the visitors who are urinating on his
property, leaving trash on his property. Essentially it's
been a nuisance, and he's been a good neighbor to tolerate
it. But with respect to affecting the lateral support or
any impact on that stairway, I believe the structures are
going to be smaller than the existing stairway and the
platform that's there for the motel.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Pat, is there a communal beach for the
motel next to it?
MS. MOORE: Yes, it's a communal beach for the motel and
they have a large stairway and a large platform. I don't
recall if there's a shed on that property or not.
Otherwise adversely affect health, safety and
Welfare of the Town. I think again, it would be well-served
to allow them limited development. Again, this is very
restrictive development and it's been cut back and trimmed
down to the bare minimum. The fact we're dealing with
footprints so we are going to meet the state building code
with respect to the size of the structure because as you
know, I think the dwelling must contain 850 square feet of
livable space; we have a first floor and a second floor, so
there will be sufficient livable space. But the footprint
itself is 707 total, so that takes the retaining wall into
that calculation.
I've gone over the memorandum of law, the points
that I raise in the memorandum of law. I also want to put
on the record and I won't go over it item by item because
it's well presented by Cramer Consulting Group, we had been
presented two meetings ago by a letter from the Louise
Harrison, that is the neighbor's expert, and the letter
really it has so many falsehoods, and each point is
identified by Cramer Consulting point by point and refuted
point by point, and I'll let you go through that letter and
the response to that letter, but essentially the points that
she made many times were irrelevant, not supported by the
record, and I believe Cramer Consulting did a fine job in
addressing all the points.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's all the material that you've given
us tonight?
MS. MOORE: The third item that I've given you tonight is
the full environmental assessment form. Miss Harrison did
point out that there are some inconsistencies with the EAF
17
Board of'17ru.stees 1.8 ,august 241, 2005
and probably from the first time it was submitted the plan
changed slightly so we redid the full Environmental
Assessment Form so it complies precisely with our submission
that's before this Board, so there's no question, and you
have a final completed document when this permit, I hope, is
issued. So I have that in the packet of material that's
been presented to you tonight.
So I have a lot of documentation here, but I urge
you to be reasonable. Keeping in mind that again, this
property is isolated. It's the only piece left undeveloped
off of Soundview Avenue with the coastal erosion line. I
don't think you would question if somebody came in and
wanted to make repairs or renovations of their house as long
as it was within the guidelines of coastal erosion law. Why
punish a property owner that has limited structure. He's
already punished enough by the statutory definitions and
limitations that are already built into the statute, and the
plan reflects that.
So, I thank you for your time. I could have talked
for hours, but I think the documentation seems to be
sufficient for you to review.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, any other comments?
MR. JOHNSTON: Pat, for the record on the last attachment,
the full EAF, can I assume for my own edification that page
11 through 21 is the part of the form that we fill out?
MS. MOORE: Let me look. No, I don't think so.
MR. JOHNSTON: What is 11 through 21? You gave us 10 pages.
MS. MOORE: Oh, yes, 11 through 21 is the agency.
MR. JOHNSTON: The part that we fill out?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
MR. JOHNSON: Good evening, Lars Johnson on behalf of North
Fork Condominium Association. Just a couple of brief
comments. One is I'd like a few days to respond to the
material that was submitted today and sort of generally, of
course, I rely on the memo I already submitted, but from the
other perspective, I would encourage this Board to not be
persuaded by sort of the argument that somehow this is
punishment by requiring an applicant to meet the burdens
that are in the code. It's not punishment it's what
everyone in the town is required to do. Just because you
turn down an application does not mean that the Town then is
is going to have to buy the property as we know, this
individual has applied for a permit before and the Town
didn't end up buying the property; and I suspect that if the
Board turns down it again, that again, the Town will not
have to buy this property. But again, at the end of the
18
Board of Trustees 1.9 August 24, 2005
day, the applicant has the burden of meeting the standards
in the code and if the applicant cannot meet that standards,
it's not an attack on the applicant, it's simple enforcement
of the code.
With that, that's really all I have tonight, and I
request an opportunity to respond to the written materials.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comments?
MS. MOORE: One quick comment, the Town Board when it
reviewed the first submission, one of the bases for the
opinion that was crafted by the Town attorney and the Town
Board was that they should have considered an alternative
project that was a smaller project. That was at least as
far as the opinion of the Board at the time. The submission
was much larger, they felt that a variance didn't have to be
granted and that a smaller project could have been
considered. So at the time after that decision, Mr. and
Mrs. Padavan had to decide do they do an Article 78, do they
resubmit and they came to me at that point. I looked at the
statute and I said, well, it's clear to me that the statute
says that if you are within less than 25 percent, it is
permitable. In other words, this Board can permit it and
arguably there's not even a need for a variance because
it's what the statute allows, in my opinion, as of right.
Because the statute says you keep to a nonmajor structure,
you have the jurisdiction and the authority to grant a
permit. So reluctantly, but certainly, it is a punishment
in the sense that you have a half-acre piece of property and
you're limited to a house that has a footprint of 700 square
feet, not the common application that you see before this
Board. Most houses in Southold right now are tipping the
scales at 2,000 square feet. So given the size of the
property, it is a very limited application, but it is within
the bounds of the statute, and that's what I've been trying
to point out to this Board.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The environmental and physical restraints
of the property though are not the Town's burden nor are
they this Board's burden. The applicant owns this
property. The Board did not ask the applicant to come up
with any sort of development plan for this property. The
burden is all on the applicant here.
MS. MOORE: When you own a piece of property and pay the
taxes on the property, you assume you can use it. It's not
a park. Because if the Town wanted to buy it as a park,
they wouldn't be paying the taxes and the Town would buy it
as a park. I assure you that that is always a option and
condemnation is the form. You know as well as I do that the
19
Board of"Fru.stees 20 August 24,2005
Town can't come and insist that you make your property a
park, you don't develop it. If that becomes what the Town
wants, there's eminent domain powers; there's the right of
the Town to buy people's property rights and convert it to
anything the Town deems appropriate. So to the extent that
this single and separate lot or double lot, there's
development proposal, which is a house in a residential
zone, no different than the house to the east and the houses
to the west, that's the proposal. And the environmental
constraints, that's our burden to show, you're right, our
burden to show that the environmental constraints are
mitigated and that's what we believe we've done with all the
Cramer reports, all the aerials, all the history of this
property, all the documentation. You've been given by
weight, probably about 10 pounds of paper there, and we
think that it justifies the development of this property in
an environmentally appropriate way and that becomes your
decision and --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're here before us, we're going to
decide, not whether or not they can use it but rather how
they can use it. So there are two different issues.
MS. MOORE: It's a single family dwelling or what other uses
in residential zoning are there?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, currently they have a use for it
now. There's a building on it now that's listed as a beach
house, bath house maybe?
MS. TETRAULT: Boat house.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Currently they're using the property.
We're not here to deny them use, and I don't think this
Board is going to say you can't use this property with a
bath house on it. So I don't think it's a matter of us not
denying its use, it's how it will be used.
MS. MOORE: I understand that, but the environmental impacts
of a beach house is really no different than of the
dwelling provided that dwelling stays within the parameters
of the structural footprint of the beach house. Again, it's
area that's already been impacted by development. That's
Why coastal erosion law is written the way it is, which is
taking the footprint and saying, hey, we're not going to let
you build outside this footprint more than a certain
percentage. We recognize that you can expand slightly, but
not too much because that's what the coastal erosion law has
from the state been implemented by the Town.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm glad you said that.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm confused by your definition of
structure. If you had a piece of property with 1,000 square
20
Board of"l.'ru.stees 21. UgUst 24, 2005
feet of asphalt driveway, you make the case that you're
entitled to a 1,250 square foot home?
MS. MOORE: Interestingly, look at the definition of
structure.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Can you make the case?
MS. MOORE: You're talking to a lawyer, I can always make a
case. I actually gave you the definition of structure. I
can pull it out from the code. A structure and
apertinances, so whether or not that blacktop is an
apertinance or not, any walls or anything else, in existence
prior to the effective date of this chapter. So it does
recognize, and, in fact, when you're using the calculation
for coverage, for lot coverages, it does take into fact any
surfaces, any surface structures. So it's a very
interesting definition.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm under the impression, Brownell, that
we're 'going to have to table this because we received new
information tonight. Another attorney hasn't received it
tonight and has asked us time to review it. The Board, of
course, can't review all this information tonight that we
have received.
MR. JOHNSTON: Pat, you have no problem with being tabled,
right?
MS. MOORE: I'd like a permit, but if it gets to the
point of issuing a permit --
MR. JOHNSTON: We just got this.
MS. MOORE: Yes. My goal was to have gotten it to you
before but unfortunately it wasn't the case.
MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you. Al, it's my recommendation that
we table it so we can review the information and give
Mr. Johnson sufficient time to respond. Will you respond in
writing, sir?
MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir, I will.
MR. JOHNSTON: Al, can I ask him to respond within say two
weeks of the hearing so I have time to read it prior to the
hearing?
MR. JOHNSON: Absolutely.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there's no other comments, I'll make a
motion to table the hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
2. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of LEWIS &
HELAINE TEPERMAN requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal
Erosion permit for the existing beach house. Located: 1225
Aquaview Avenue, East Marion. SCTM#21-2-16
21
Board of Trustees 72 AW4LI t 24, 2005
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak in favor of the application?
I have a question before we start the public hearing, was
this application ever amended to include the stair, either
replacement or--
MS. MOORE: Yes, you actually had me do a separate
application amending the prior application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's number 5 under Wetlands.
MS. MOORE: I'd be happy to have it taken out of order
because I really have it ready now. You guys separated it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. General question, stairs are number
5? We will wait and do the stairs. Would anyone like to
speak in favor of the application?
MS. MOORE: But of course. I've given you everything I can
give you at this point. You have aerials, you have
topographic surveys, you've got affidavits, I pretty much
exhausted every avenue of evidence to show you that
everything that was there prior to the restoration of the
structures is there today. In fact, the only difference is
a cutting back for the neighbor because it was encroaching
by a foot onto the easterly property owner part of the
decking around the beach house, that had been cut back. So
to that extent and the only extent it got reduced so the
encroachment would be eliminated. Otherwise, everything is
still the same. We would like a permit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before I ask for any other comments, we
just received the LWRP coordination review from the LWRP
coordinator, and it was the proposed action is generally
inconsistent with the following policies and is therefore
inconsistent with the LWRP. Again, too lengthy to review
here tonight. I don't know if you have a copy of this?
MS. MOORE: Nobody ever gives me a copy of these things.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's available in our file. We just
received it yesterday.
MS. MOORE: I have an objection for the record, LWRP of all
things should be recognizing existing use of the waterfront;
that is the whole emphasis of LWRP, and to have him come up
unilaterally--
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're complaining to the wrong people.
MS. MOORE: I'm putting it on the record that his conclusion
of inconsistency is inconsistent in that it is contrary to
absolutely every regulation, every law, the whole purpose of
LWRP, which is the promotion and the continuation of the
waterfront uses, and to continue the viability of
residential uses of the water, marina uses of the water. If
anything -- he's just giving opinions that are, quite
22
Board of`:l'ru.stees 23 !august 24, 2005
frankly, it's a unilateral opinion by someone who, I'm
sorry, what credentials, -- and I'm sorry, Mark Terry, I
love him dearly, I don't want the word back to him that I'm
beating up on him -- but as far as LWRP is concerned, it's
policy statements. It's a regurgitation of made-up
information, and as I said, 40 policy statements.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyway, this is definitely not the forum
to complain about the LWRP.
MS. MOORE: To the extent that you rely on it to make a
decision.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Again, not the forum because we're not in
control of how we rely on it.
MS. MOORE: What do you do with an LWRP inconsistency; where
do we go from there?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You have to ask the reviewer of the LWRP.
MS. MOORE: Unilaterally? He's not an elected official.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He was anointed by the Town Board.
MS. MOORE: His anointment be it so as it is, still has no
statutory authority other than the fact that we adopt an
LWRP map, an LWRP study.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Law?
MS. MOORE: Law, which was intended to philosophically to
give this Town grant monies for other purposes. It was the
state saying --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry, Pat, again, this is not the
forum. So we're going to table this until this Board can
resolve the --we're actually not going to resolve the
inconsistencies, but we're going to review the report.
MS. MOORE: I'll review the report as well.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And you will review it and we'll table
this.
MS. MOORE: And if this Board deems to override statutory
authority of grandfathering structures that are there prior
to the enactment of the law, we'll be in court over what
LWRP really means. Which, quite frankly, I think Town Board
needs to be put on record what LWRP means to them. It's a
policy statement, it's not a regulatory mandate.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Have to come before them and tell them
that.
MS. MOORE: I will tell them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there are no other comments, I'll make
a motion to table the application.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
WETLAND PERMITS
23
Board of`Frustees 24 August 24, 2005
1. 40 C LLC requests a Wetland permit to construct
a 4' by 55' timber walkway 3.5' above grade, a 3' by 14'
timber ramp, and a 6' by 20' floating dock. Located: 635
Waterview Drive, Southold. SCTM#78-7-10
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This was also deemed inconsistent by the
LWRP coordinator. Is there anyone here to represent the
applicant? Is there anyone here who would like to speak in
favor or against the application? On field inspection this
actually is the second field inspection on this application,
and the Board would like -- I would make a motion to table
the application and have the applicant provide us with some
more information, mainly that the pier line be maintained in
the creek and that we would need proof of that with a
showing the neighboring surveys and the existing docks on
the neighboring properties.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Pier line you're saying?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You want an aerial?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: An aerial would be fine, sure. Then we're
going to have to, based on that, the size of the structure
might change, and then based on that, a consistency report
on the LWRP might change, but we don't know that. I'll make
a motion to table.
MS. TETRAULT: I had a couple of other notes do you want to
put those in the record tonight?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Please.
MS. TETRAULT: There's a wire fence you wanted removed and
that it was too shallow right where they proposed it. Did
you ask for soundings?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We want to establish a pier line before we
review the water depth. I'll make a motion to table.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
2. KAROL FILIPKOWSKI requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a single-family dwelling. Located: 65390 Route
25, Southold. SCTM#53-5-2
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For the record, the rest of the
applications tonight with the exception of one, which we'll
bring up when we get to it, have been deemed consistent or
exempt from the LWRP. So we won't even mention it for
another two hours, if everything goes well.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak in favor of
this application?
MR. FILIPKOWSKI: I would just like to get the building
24
Board of`:1histees 25 A.ugUst 24,2005
permit on that lot.
TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments on this
application? If there's no other comments, I'll make a
motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
TRUSTEE KING: What we want to see is a 50 foot buffer, dry
wells for roof runoff. I think we're satisfied. We need a
planting plan to restore that area.
MR. FILIPKOWSKI: Can you write those things I need to
get?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Come into the office.
MR. FILIPKOWSKI: I need to pick it up at the office?
MS. TETRAULT: That's the best.
MR. FILIPKOWSKI: When should I pick it up?
MS. TETRAULT: Tomorrow between 8:00 and 4:00.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll approve it tonight as soon as you
give us the information, then we'll give you the permit.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve this permit per
those stipulations.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
3. GEORGE & MARY PAVLICIN request a Wetland Permit
for the existing beach stairs built in 1978. Located: 2500
Sound Drive, Greenport. SCTM#33-1-13
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak in favor of this application? Any Board comments?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: CAC comments?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: They approved. CAC recommend
approval. If there's no Board comments, I'll make a motion
to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland
Permit for the existing beach stairs built in 1978 located
2500 Sound Drive, Greenport.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
4. AMELIA P. MANCINI requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a first and second floor addition to the existing
dwelling and to extend the existing deck. Located: 600
Grove Road, Southold. SCTM#51-6-25.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on this
application?
25
Board of'.1'rustees 26 UgUst 24, 2005
MS. MANCINI: I'm here. I just want you to approve it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Would you consider upgrading the septic
or moving the septic while you're working on it?
MS. MANCINI: We didn't because it's been fine and it's two
people in the house, quite frankly.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We were just concerned because they were
so close to the wetlands in the back. It was kind of
obvious as we walked over them.
MS. MANCINI: Well, they were big enough. One is a washer
runoff.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think anyone had a particular problem
with it. If there's no other comments, I'll make a motion
to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the request.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'd just like a row of staked hay bales
in the back during construction and dry wells for roof
runoff should be put in afterwards.
MS. MANCINI: Oh, yeah afterwards.
TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
MS. MANCINI: Thank you very much. Do I bring the building
things back to Lauren like that gentleman said to get the
building permit now?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The previous hearing he needed to show us
more information but because we know what the information is
that we want, instead of tabling it and say we're going to
wait for next month's hearing, we can approve it, and we can
wait for his information. What you're going to have to do
is put hay bales on. You can draw them on yourself. I
mean, he could do that himself also.
MS. MANCINI: Just draw in hay bales?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And dry wells for roof runoff.
MS. MANCINI: Okay, and then just resubmit the building
permit?
MS. STANDISH: Resubmit the plan to us and --
MS. MANCINI: Draw hay bales and dry wells.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can come into the office tomorrow.
MR. JOHNSTON: Do you understand, ma'am, you can come in and
Lauren will help you?
MS. MANCINI: Lauren is very helpful.
5. Patricia C. Moore on behalf of LEWIS & HELAINE
TEPERMAN requests a Wetland Permit to replace or repair the
26
Board of`['ru.stees 27 august 24, 2005
existing stairs, landing and supports. Located: 1225
Aquaview Avenue, East Marion. SCTM#21-2-16
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak on behalf of this application?
MS. MOORE: You have the drawings. I hope they meet with
your approval. Dave Ciccanowicz didn't want to wait out the
evening. They're exactly the same steps in exactly the same
place.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm going to take any other comment before
I take Board comment. Is there any other comment? This is
only for the stairs application.
MS. SAVASTANOVICH: Yes, Nancy Savastanovich, East
Marion. I'm just curious, did they hand in a side-view of
the steps?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, there's a cross-section?
MS. SAVASTANOVICH: And I would like to have the Board
consider since there's the stairs being attached to two
illegal structures I'd like them to keep that in their mind
when they decide this. The house is illegal on the beach
and the deck above it is illegal, that's just my concern.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. What I'm looking at here on
the public notice, it says replace or repair existing
structures landings, supports, etcetera, and the plan is
marked as landing, so the applicant's calling the deck the
landing. So they have applied for everything that is shown
on this survey stamped August 22, 2005; is that correct,
Pat?
MS. MOORE: No. The existing deck landing up at the top
doesn't need to be replaced. It's only the stairs and what
they call the landing is this portion, the eight foot area
here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They're planning on replacing the stairs?
MS. MOORE: Yes, they have to replace the stairs.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But they're not seeking a permit for
what's called the existing 10' by 24' deck landing?
MS. MOORE: That's already part of the original as-built.
That had been replaced under the previous -- let me just
make sure because I have the photograph here. Let me make
sure I have the right one. See Dave Ciccanowicz is supposed
to be here. He's drawn, you tell me, confirm this. This is
the photograph. He took exactly what was there. Here's the
first set of steps. One is the first set of steps down,
then the landing is eight foot, then there is a landing that
goes towards the east, and then the third set, that is the
final eight 6 by 8, those are the areas that is being --
everything else has already been replaced.
27
Board of J'ru.stees 28 UgLfSt 24, 2005
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, not great; right as in I
understand.
MS. MOORE: Yes, it matches the drawing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, I just wanted to make it clear.
MS. MOORE: For the record, I have Stone Engineering, PC,
which provides an opinion for the condition of the stairs,
the need for the replacement.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do we have that?
MS. MOORE: You don't have that. If you want it for your
file, I'd be happy to include it as justification for the
repairs to the stairs, but, not necessary, I have it in my
file. This is what he provided for me was under the
emergency permit basis. So it's up to you if you want the
documentation in your file to show the need for repairs,
replacement of the stairs.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would you go over again, you mentioned
something, while we were having a discussion about it's
called the existing deck landing, 10' by 24' deck, just
seaward of the top of the bluff, you mentioned you had
some description of that?
MS. MOORE: What do you mean description? The work that was
done previously came under the other permit. Everything,
the one that we just dealt with, coastal zone. Understand
there were two sets of work, one that was done without
coming to you first, and I asked for an application -- I
asked for a permit as-built for that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So that's going to be handled --
MS. MOORE: Under the other permit application. This permit
application is for what has not been done coming to you
prior to the work being done to be able to replace it. So
it's what's left needs a permit or in your opinion needs a
permit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You want to just clarify that to make sure
that that portion of the structure --
MS. MOORE: It's everything. If you would like, what might
be helpful actually is this engineering report that shows
what the condition of the existing structures are, which is
the portion of everything that's going to be replaced. If
you want us to number one, two, three on your drawing, it
will conform.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Under which application?
MS. MOORE: The one we have today, the application, now,
right now, we are dealing with the stairs.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I understand stairs, but we want to
include --
MS. MOORE: The existing deck landing?
28
Board.of,`:17ru.stees 29 august 24, 2005
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The existing upper landing in some portion
of some permit somewhere.
MS. MOORE: I believe, at least in my opinion, it was part
of the request, the original request, because it was the
work that was done as-built.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But the description says "beach house."
It doesn't mention decking, retaining wall.
MS. MOORE: It was structure. I guess we went back and
forth what you meant by existing structures what got
replaced. They were obvious from the inspection what got
done. It's up to you, we can include it as part of this
one, we can include it as part of another one. I'm not
making another application, this is it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's not where I'm going. It should be
included in one or the other.
MS. MOORE: In my opinion it was included in the first one;
you weren't satisfied that it included all the stairs, the
replacement of the stairs that are in poor condition right
now, so that's why I asked for it in a separate stairs
application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry, I'm beating this to death.
MS. MOORE: I just don't know what you want from me.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, and I hate to say it, so the
original application does not include this, see, that's the
problem we had about four months ago on this.
MS. MOORE: We talked about existing structures.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It says structure and it doesn't mention a
description of the deck around the beach house or the shower
or--
MS. MOORE: I only had the survey. The survey had all the
existing structures prior to --when Dr. Teperman bought the
property, the existing structures were shown on the survey.
Then you asked me for an aerial, and then you asked me for a
topographic survey that showed all the same structures in
the exact same place.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You applied for-- the LWRP request for
Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit for repairs to
existing beach house, but that doesn't include the decking
or the shower or the retaining wall. We just want to make
sure -- I'm not saying new application. I'm saying at some
point in time everything's got to be included somewhere.
The upper landings I think should be included with the
stairs, and the decking and the shower and the retaining
walls and the two stairs should be included with the
proposed beach house.
MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, I followed you up to a certain point,
29
Board o.f_`.Frastees 30 !august 24, 2005
then I lost you. Here we have the existing deck and the existing building.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What I'm going to ask you to do is amend
your application for the previous --to include the previous
application for the beach house to include the decking, the
retaining wall and the shower, you can do that tomorrow.
MS. MOORE: Okay, it's going to be held up anyway.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What do you mean?
MS. MOORE: You have the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's included in that anyway.
MS. MOORE: Just amend your paperwork in addition to the
structures it describes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You have all your plans, just include it
in the description. This description you want to amend it
to include the upper landing.
MS. MOORE: Okay, you have the drawing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, so we don't need anymore
information.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Al, are you taking into consideration our
concern about the width?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We haven't gotten there yet. I'm trying
to get there. I just wanted to get that.
TRUSTEE KING: Can we get a copy of that report on the
condition of the stairs?
MS. MOORE: My only concern is that we want this permit, we
want to replace what hasn't been replaced. We're not going
to touch the upper deck.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The permit has to include it, the
language.
MS. MOORE: As long as you're not going to tamper with
what we've got, I have no problem with it. But if you are
going to, I will have a problem with it; do you understand?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Tamper as in?
MS. MOORE: As in modify it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That has to be in other permits. We'd
rather have everything addressed in one permit.
MS. MOORE: The work that was done previously, it's easier
to amend where it says beach structures, everything that was
done prior as-built, which would have been this and
everything down here should be in that original application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does anybody have a problem with that,
with including the upper landing with the original
application?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't care where it's written.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's fine. CAC recommends approval with conditions
that the width of the landing be reduced and that there is
no disturbance to the bluff that was our concern also. Normally
30
Board of ).`rustees 31 August 24, 2005
when we approve beach access stairs they're four feet in width with minimal
landings, this has larger than --this says stairs and landings are going to be
replaced, as you stated, they should conform to our normal
standards, which would be four feet wide stairs and no more
than 60 square feet. Actually, there's a vote tonight to
change Chapter 97, and I believe there's a consideration to
increase the size of the platform at the bottom of the bank,
but that hasn't been approved yet because it's only 10 after
9:00, so what we'll do is we'll have to conform to the
current code which is the platforms can be no more than 16
square feet.
MS. MOORE: What are you going to amend it to?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It might be amended to 4' by 8', which is
30 square feet.
MS. MOORE: 24 square feet.
TRUSTEE KING: 32 square feet.
MS. MOORE: 32 square feet, thank you. Given that we've got
existing right now--
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But you're going to replace the whole
structure, so it doesn't matter, we might as well make it
conform to the code.
MS. MOORE: But aren't you about to change the code to make
larger landings?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Maybe.
MS. MOORE: So if you change the code, give us the
opportunity to put landings that meet with the code that
will be adopted tonight if you adopt it.
MR. JOHNSTON: It's not adopted tonight. It isn't going to
the Town Board. It's a public information hearing.
MS. MOORE: All right.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It will still be a four foot width,
regardless. So we would need a new set of plans. This is
existing, but that's irrelevant.
MS. MOORE: We're asking to replace exactly what's there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think the Board is inclined to
approve what is there. The Board's inclined to approve a
four foot wide stair, and if they need a landing in the
middle, I don't know if the Board has a problem with the
landing, one in the middle and they can design it with -- I
suppose with a jog at the landing there. I don't know how
they want to do it, but it would have to conform to the new
code. It would reduce this by 75 percent.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just saying one of the comments when
we were out there in the field.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where the bank's built they might need a
landing to break up the angle. How does the Board feel
31
Board of'Frti.stees 32 AugUst 24, 2005
about that?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Fine.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would like to see a new--
MS. MOORE: You want a drawing four foot wide stairs with a
four by four landing? Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. And make it come out --
MS. MOORE: You understand when we redraw this, when it gets
rebuilt, you're going to end up with stairs that are not
within the area that is existing right now; you're actually
going to be reducing it, but the landing at the bottom that
is five feet and it jogs over, you can't have a straight
stairs. So I think you're going to end up with something
you don't like.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think I'll like it. Because if you look
at it from the picture, Pat --
MS. MOORE: I'm looking -- the picture's easier to look
at.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you come straight down, you lose all
those little jogs, you're right up against the building. It
saves the applicant money.
MS. MOORE: But you're going to end up taking out
shrubbery. You're going straight instead of taking the jog
over where it is already disturbed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, because I think that area was covered
under the clearing violation. We did look at it on Wednesday and we
viewed that. Under one of the considerations was bluff
stabilization and we felt this would be the best way to
protect the bluff, to minimize the structure by making it
straight stair, straight down the bank to the building
instead of the extra jog. Then you'd have to show how the
area to the east of that the structure would be gone
from, you'd have to show how that area's going to be
replanted.
MS. MOORE: You have the notations from Ciccanowicz, which
is through grasses and other--
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any disturbed bluff, erosion, (inaudible)
staked beach grass installed in all disturbed areas six inch
on center-- that sounds fine.
MS. MOORE: Okay. So we're just talking about this drawing,
the first drawing the cross-section's not changing, right?
This drawing isn't going to change; in fact, this one shows
a straight line down.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually this one shows, the way it's --
well, no. The way that deck was rebuilt the existing stairs
end up very awkward. As a matter of fact, I have a picture
of the president of the Board of Trustees struggling down
32
Board oI":l'rustees 33 august 24, 2005
there because the handrail's --
MS. MOORE: Oh, yeah, it's by your knees.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because the deck was built higher than the
original deck.
MS. MOORE: No, it's exactly in the same place it's just the
way it was built originally.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because I doubt they would have started a
handrail a foot and a half off the deck.
MS. MOORE: It's 40, 60 years old, I guess the people were
smaller then. Generations do get bigger. So, as you have
revised it, I'll give you drawings.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments? I'll make a motion to
close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the
application for stairs and one platform four foot stairs to
be redrawn coming straight off the top right down to the
building, four foot wide stairs with one 4' by 4' platform
come from the top, the 4' by 4' platform, I'm sorry, in the
middle, come straight down the bank ending adjacent at the
existing building with the same condition on the other plan
for stabilization and replanting of the bluff after
construct; do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
MS. MOORE: Maybe tomorrow, so I don't take up your time,
maybe somebody can draw on here the position.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The picture that you show, straight down
adjacent to the building.
MS. MOORE: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He's been there.
6. Environmental Survey, Inc. on behalf of DENNIS
HRANITZKY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 25'
fixed dock, 3' by 12' ramp and 6' by 20' floating
dock. Located: 4105 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM#107-9-2.1
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. HRANITZKY: I'm Dennis Hranitzky, mainly to answer any
questions the Trustees have. I also have a certified copy
of the survey that I believe has all the information that
the Trustees have asked for.
TRUSTEE KING: We looked at this before and all we want to
do is move that back over to the left. That's what we were
looking for.
33
Board.o;fTrustees 34 _august 24, 2005
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Who did you buy that house from?
MR. HRANITZKY: Amelia Kaneski.
TRUSTEE KING: They also recommend a non-CCA, and a
turbidity screen, but it's such a small project.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Those are just recommendations.
TRUSTEE KING: It's consistent with the LWRP. So we don't
have to worry. CAC recommends approval with the condition
it doesn't exceed one-third the way across the creek, which
it doesn't, it is seaward of the dwelling. The dwelling is
a long way from the creek. Jack, do you know why they put
that in there?
MR. MCGREEVEY: I'm not familiar with that inspection there,
Jim.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't know why that was put in there, I
don't think it's necessary.
MR. MCGREEVEY: How far is the dwelling?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Very far.
MR. MCGREEVEY: It's got to be a mistake.
MR. HRANITZKY: It's probably 300 feet away.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Then that's --
TRUSTEE KING: I think it was just an error. If there are
no other comments, I'll make a motion_ to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application
based on the new drawing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
7. Latham Sand & Gravel, Inc. on behalf of BRIAN
MCGINN requests a Wetland Permit to remove 126' of old
deteriorated wood bulkhead and replace with 126' of vinyl
sheathing.
Located: 645 Watersedge Way, Southold. SCTM#88-5-61.1
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here who would like to
comment on this application?
MR. HOCHER: I'm John Hocher, Latham Sand and Gravel on
behalf of Brian McGinn. The bulkhead's failing over, I'd
like to replace it in-kind/in-place.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you, I have one question. Any other
comments on this application? I noticed that the stairs
were there, would you like me to include that on the permit?
MR. HOCHER: I have no plans of doing anything with the
stairs aside from removing them to build the structure and
reinstalling them.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I guess as-built. If there's no other
34
:Board of1'ru.stees 35 August 24, 2005
comments, I'll make a motion.
MR. HOCHER: If they can be included.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If there's no other comments, I'll make a
motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland
Permit on behalf of Brian McGinn to replace 126' of
deteriorated wood bulkhead and replace with vinyl sheathing, and
we'll include the set of stairs as-built.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Did you include the nonturf in there?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll stipulate that there be a nonturf
buffer of 10 foot.
MR. HOCHER: Okay.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
8. Searles, Stromski, Associates on behalf of
ANTHONY AND JOANNE KROPP requests a Wetland Permit to
reconstruct the existing shed, construct first and second
floor additions to the dwelling, increase the front deck and
replace the existing sanitary system. Located: 360 Riley
Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM#143-5-8
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak on behalf of this application?
MR. STROMSKI: My name is Robert Stromski, a member of
Searles Stromski Associates, the architect for owner and
applicant. I do have for the record the proof of mailing
and the affidavit of postings; do I hand those in?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes, bring those up here. Thank you.
MR. STROMSKI: At this point, I'd like to state if there's
any questions the Board has on the application, I'd be more
than happy to answer them at this time.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: We'll take any public comments, if there is
any. Any other comments on this application? Any Board
comments?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Needs to show dry wells for roof runoff
and it needs to show a line of hay bales during
construction.
MR. STROMSKI: As far as the design for the dry wells, how
much rainfall do you want to encompass?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a recommendation, Artie?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's kind of tough, it's very shallow water
table there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's says 7-4 by the house.
TRUSTEE KING: Normally figure two inch rain.
35
oaf•d:of'T'ru.stces 36 August 24, 2005
TRUSTEE FOSTER: In 24 hours that's what they figure.
You're normally talking about roof runoff, maybe you should
put 8' diameter dry wells in, but that's overkill, you
probably only need 4' by 4 and a half.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How many? You need a couple.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You would need four of them, one off of
each corner.
MR. STROMSKI: Would you like me to submit calculations for
a two inch rain fall?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't think that's necessary. We haven't
asked anyone else to do it, we're not going to ask you do
it. We're pretty confident that four 4' diameter by four
and a half foot deep leeching rings, one on each corner
would take care of it. Represent four, I don't know how
many different roofs you're going to have, but they will
ultimately lead into probably four or five down spouts, but
you should tie them all in.
MR. STROMSKI: I can definitely do it with underground
piping to get into the containment. One of the corners
might be difficult to have containment just because of the
situation of the septic system.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It doesn't have to be on the corner, just
one represents each corner. It doesn't have to be there, it
just has to pipe to it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And the hay bales line somewhere in the
back yard.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Just along the waterside from one side to
another during construction.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Big back yard so there's plenty of room
for it.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: CAC comments, request a tabling the
application because the project was already started and the
project too close to the wetlands. I didn't see where it
was started, did you?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What phase?
TRUSTEE KING: The garage had a canvas over the roof, that's
all I say.
MR. STROMSKI: Just to clarify, the garage was existing, our
client had decided to start to reconstruct it because the
structure was under structural damage. They were looking to
repair it not knowing they needed a building permit at the
time. The Building Department issued a stop work order.
Subsequently, they came before this Board in 2003. This
Board granted an approval just for that reconstruction of
the shed that is what you see under construction with the
tarp.
36
Board. of]'rustees 37 AugUst 24, 2005
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I remember that.
MR. STROMSKI: At this point what we're actually trying to
do, my client and the owner decided not to go ahead with the
project because they were looking to do an addition on the
house, and at the time they decided to table the job, they
just tarped it, they didn't do any more construction until
we can put this entire package before this Board and before
the other agencies in this town.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Number of years ago I lived in that
house. I don't think we had any other concerns with the
project other than that.
MR. MCGREEVEY: We did make the comment, Artie, that the
project appeared to be too close to the wetlands.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: By today's standards it probably is, but it
is what it is so what do you do with it?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The garage is 87 feet and the current code
I think is 50 feet. So I think they're, okay, pretty
far. It's just that the backyard is so long.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Everybody happy? I'll make a motion to
close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to approve the
application for Anthony and Joanne Kropp for the project as
drawn with the exception that there's four dry wells for
roof runoff and a row of staked hay bales from side to side
during construction on the water side.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
MR. STROMSKI: How many copies of the revised site plans
would you require?
MS. STANDISH: Just one.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You can draw it in too, if you want. You
don't have to go out to a surveyor and have him redraw it.
MR. STROMSKI: I'll take care of it in my office.
9. Samuels and Steelman Architects on behalf of
DAVID HOFFMAN request a Wetland Permit to rehabilitate the
existing boat house and repair in-kind, including stucco at
existing masonry walls, new wood doors, slab, and new
terrace over existing. Located: 1230 Ruch Lane, Southold.
SCTM#52-2-36
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak for this application? Any Board member comments?
Anyone have any problems with it? CAC recommends approval
of the application with the condition that there's minimal
37
Board,cif 17ru.stees 38 ?august 24, 2005
disturbance of surrounding wetlands vegetation and the
project is consistent with LWRP, however it's exempt because
it's a rebuild; is that correct?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It says consistent.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It says "E" for exempt. Any comments?
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the
application for Wetland Permit to rehabilitate the existing
boat house, repair in-kind, including stucco, existing
masonry walls, new wood doors, slab, and new terrace over
existing. And I would also like to stipulate that there be
minimal disturbance to the surrounding wetland vegetation
because it was right in amongst baccharis and marsh grasses;
do I have a upon second?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
10. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of ATHANASIA &
BILL KARTSONIS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'
by 41' fixed timber walk and stairway down the bluff to the
beach. Located: 1790 Grandview Drive, Orient.
SCTM#14-2-3.13
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak-on behalf of this application?
MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann En-Consultants. I think this
Board was ready to make a motion but could not because the
LWRP coordinator had not reviewed the LWRP application. So
I have no doubt that since two months ago, he has done that.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: To answer your question, yes.
MR. HERMANN: Excellent then I have nothing else that I
didn't offer last month.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone else that would like to
comment on this application? Any Board members? It's
pretty much straightforward, straight run. I don't have any
comments either. I'll make a motion to close the public
hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in (ALL AYES)
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland
Permit on behalf of Athanasia and Bill Kartsonis.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
11. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of PATRICIA
38
Board of Trustees 39 August 24, 2005
GILCHRIST MANCINO requests a Wetland Permit to remove and
replace in-place a plus/minus 91' section of existing timber
bulkhead with vinyl bulkheading; construct a 12' westerly
return; and backfill with approximately 25 cubic yards clean
sand to be trucked in from an upland source. Remove and
replace in-place an existing 32' low profile timber groin
with a 32' low profile vinyl groin; remove and replace
in-place an existing 53' low profile timber groin with a 47'
low profile vinyl groin, and construct a 3' by 4.5' timber
steps to beach. Located: 15 Fourth Street, New
Suffolk. SCTM#117-10-15
TRUSTEE FOSTER: And to speak on behalf of this
application is?
MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants. It's a very
straightforward application. It's all basically in-place
repair existing erosion control structures with the
exception of the fact that the outermost six feet of the
angled groin is not going to be replaced because that
section is nonfunctional. If the Board has any other
questions, I'm happy to answer them.
MS. ROGERS: My name is Patsy Rogers, I live to the north of
that property. Since the littoral drift is eastward, if
that last piece of groin is removed, will that not affect
the beach at the end of Fourth Street?
MR. HERMANN: Should I address the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Go ahead.
MR. HERMANN: The typical policy of the State DEC and this
Board is if there is a section of groin that is
nonfunctional, in other words, it is not actually having any
dynamic interaction with littoral drift it is not to be
replaced. Because if it were to be replaced it would have
the effect of a new groin and cause sand starvation
down drift, which would be to the east. So in effect what
we're doing is by not reconstructing that outermost six
feet, we're keeping things in their current state. So
there's nothing about the application that would create a
situation other than what's there.
MS. ROGERS: That piece of groin does exist, although it's
very low.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But the last six feet are nonfunctional,
so it's not doing anything. So if those last six feet are
replaced now--
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It would become functional and have an
adverse effect.
MS. ROGERS: Can someone explain to me why it's
nonfunctional?
39
Board of'I:`ru.stees 40 ?august 24, 2005
MR. HERMANN: Because it's not trapping sand. You can tell
the extent to which a groin functions by where the beach
extends at low tide. So if you reach a point where groin is
basically still in one or two feet of low water during all
low tide, it means it's no longer catching or trapping
littorally transported sand; which makes it by definition
nonfunctional.
MS. ROGERS: Thank you. My other question is, on the
drawing that was given to the neighbors, there's a line to
the east of the property, I don't know how to describe this
exactly, but there's a line in the middle of an area of
dots, and I would like to know whether that is a property
line to the west of which the property belongs to the
applicant and to the east of come it belongs to the Town?
MR. HERMANN: The dashed line that you're referring to that
is to the east of the easterly groin is apparent low water
line.
MS. ROGERS: I'm not describing it right then.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You're talking about that wood bulkhead and
concrete wall? That's not the property line.
MR. HERMANN: The middle line is the property line.
MS. ROGERS: So then, can one assume that the Town owns that
the easternmost half of that area?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It appears that way. We looked at this on
the field inspection last week.
MS. ROGERS: There's a bit of confusion about that because
the former owner assumed that he owned that, and he did
certain operations on it, as you may know, and signed it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We noticed that.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Cement signatures?
MS. ROGERS: Yes. It was done twice, once in 1964, which
was the signed one, then it was done again in approximately
'86 or'87, which is the one that is falling down.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were kind of curious as to what
happened because it's quite a monument sticking out.
MS. ROGERS: I can tell you, Mr. Goodale Senior removed his
cellar floor to replace it, and he took the pieces of
concrete and put them in that location to shore up the bank
so that the water would not come onto his lawn and destroy
it. And as you must have seen when you were there, it is
now being undercut by the water, and it's falling down onto
the beach. And sooner or later the whole thing is going to
fall down. It's pretty messy right now already.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We didn't see it from the beach side, and
I don't think it was about half-tide, so we didn't see the
undercutting, is it undercut the whole way out?
40
Board'of Trustees 41. August 24, 2005
MS. ROGERS: If you look at the end of the street there's a
wooden bulkhead there and just to the west of that near the
end street, I would guess for 10 or 12 feet, there is
undercutting, and it's pretty dangerous actually. It's on
the verge of falling and I would not like to see anybody get
hurt.
MR. HERMANN: I'm going to make a dual response to that, and
inasmuch as I can respond without being an attorney or the
applicant's attorney. The survey prepared by Joseph Ingegno
that was submitted with the application sets forth pretty
clearly, I wouldn't go by our plan, our plan is an
electronic replica of the survey but you would not want to
use our plan as a reference for property rights issues. The
survey that was submitted with the application does show the
meets and bounds of the property quite clearly, and it does
show a set nail at a specific location that is about in the
middle of that concrete area. I can't make any
representations, obviously, as to what a prior owner did in
1964 or any time since then, but I would not think that the
applicant would be within their rights to make any
representations about the portion of property that appears
to be owned by the Town. I can tell you for practical
purposes for this application there is no work proposed east
of where that concrete slab starts. The marine contractor
is not going to try to tinker with that area at least on the
beach front, the Peconic Bay front, I guess you would call
it the south face of this bulkhead, there is no undermining
that structure at all; in fact that's one of the reasons
they're not going to touch it. It is pretty well fortified
and it was the dock builder's opinion that to try to
dismantle that area would cause a much greater catastrophe
than it would prevent. What is going on to the east of the
property line as the beach front wraps up north on Fourth
Street, there is no representations made as part of this
application regarding that area nor can I make any
representations tonight. The client doesn't own that
property, the Town does.
MS. ROGERS: I think that's perhaps true, but I don't know.
I can't tell from what I've seen, but I think it's something
the Town might want to look at pretty soon. I have no
objection to the application whatsoever.
MS. FIELD: I'm Lucille Field and Miss Rogers and I occupy
the same house. As we know out here in our beautiful north
fork, we use the end of the roads as beaches and they are
well attended. The little beach at the end of Fourth
Street, which we used for over 25 years is very well
41
Board,of J.'rustees 42 AugUst 24, 2005
attended. Well, it's gotten smaller and smaller because
these huge pieces of concrete are taking over the beach, and
we don't know what's eroding the beach other than mother
nature, concrete slabs, other construction changing jetties,
we have no way of knowing that, but we do know it's very,
very dangerous. And if the Town owns it then we have a
responsibility. Last year I asked that the wooden bulkhead
at the end of the street be looked at because it was
absolutely falling apart, and I was told that when it fell
then the Town would address the situation. I don't think
that's a good way to deal with our citizens. It is
dangerous, there are children there. There are people
getting hurt by the blocks of cement with jagged edges that
are in the water. Every time there's a storm everything
changes as you know. And the situation never improves, it
gets worse and worse. We assume that the property belonged
to the owners because Mr. Goodale always said you cannot
remove a block of cement because it's my property. Now I
hear that it is not the Mancino's property but it is the
Town property. I ask if you would consider or find or tell
us the way to go with the Town so we could make that area
safe for all our children and grandchildren. Thank you very
much.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Maybe if it's such a problem maybe it's
the state's property.
MR. HERMANN: Again, Brownell, for the record I'm not making
any representations about who owns of the property other
than what's depicted on the survey, which is what I go by.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll take a look at it on field
inspection. If there's chunks of concrete, I don't see why
the highway department couldn't just do sort of a clean-up,
just to push that back underneath and nothing major, just at
least to clean it up a bit.
MR. JOHNSTON: Mrs. Rogers, who did you communicate to, just
for the record?
MS. ROGERS: In the town? The department of highways.
MR. JOHNSTON: So you sent them a letter?
MS. FIELD: No, I phoned. I always had great response from
Mr. Jacobs, but that was in the old days.
MR. JOHNSTON: If you send a letter, would you mind sending
us a copy?
MS. FIELD: Absolutely. I would not mind.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there any other public comments? CAC
recommended approval of the application with the condition a
20 foot nonturf buffer is installed landward of the
bulkhead. We did discuss that in the field, did we not?
42
&and o.f;I,ru.stees 43 august 24, 2005
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We did.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: What was the feeling of the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Fifteen feet. I think that was the area
- that would be disturbed during reconstruction.
MR. HERMANN: There is a back fill area about 15 feet shown.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: 15 would be acceptable. Is that acceptable
to you, Jack?
MR. MCGREEVEY: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One other issue, the fence that runs north
to south on the easterly side of the property --
MR. HERMANN: That's in the concrete area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On top of the concrete area.
MR. HERMANN: But inside to the west of the area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Correct. There's access along that
shoreline is an issue?
MS. ROGERS: There is not access.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We noticed that the way the fence is, it
appears there is no access but you can walk around the
fence.
MS. ROGERS: At low tide.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On top of the concrete.
MS. ROGERS: But you can't get up there because all the
concrete is falling down.
MR. HERMANN: There are actually a couple of groups of
people that were passing through there while I was there
taking photographs.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On top of or below?
MR. HERMANN: Sort of both.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We thought as a Board to maintain access
and that fence did allow for people to pass.
MS. ROGERS: If they can climb the cement.
MR. HERMANN: I would say that's correct. If you were able
on the street side to get upon the cement, you can walk
around the east side of it and the post is not on the
cement.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would like to add that to the permit
that the fence --
TRUSTEE FOSTER: How come that was such a big issue next
door at the Goggins property if you couldn't actually get
through there anyway?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We didn't access it from Fourth Street.
MR. HERMANN: Access along the beach front is not impeded,
whether you were to trespass on this property or whether you
were to go around the public property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just thought it was important to leave
that fence where it was, it allows, you can get around it.
43
Board o:f'T"ni.stees 44 August 24, 2005
MR. HERMANN: As I said, there's no plans to do
anything to the concrete area, fence, concrete, bulkhead or
otherwise.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: No further comments. I'll make a motion to
close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to approve the
application as requested with the understanding that a 15
foot nonturf buffer be placed on the landward side of the
bulkhead replacement. Was there anything else?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
MS. FIELD: I need a point of information very brief, do
people have access up to the high water mark if they're
walking along the beach?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MS. FIELD: Well, there is no way on high tide because the
concrete is there and there's a fence.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Even on low tide, there used to be a beach
there but over the years it's eroded it is what it is. It's
mother nature.
MS'. FIELD: Even though it's blocked by a fence?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's not blocked by a fence. There is
access around the end of that fence if you can get up to the
concrete, but there's no access for the concrete.
MS. FIELD: Thank you
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
(Whereupon a brief recess was taken.)
14. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of
VINCENT & EILEEN FLAHERTY requests a Wetland Permit to
maintain and replace the existing marine
structures. Construct 351' of new bulkhead immediately in
front of and within 18" of existing bulkhead on south side
of property. Remove and replace a portion of existing
wooden deck to allow installation of backing system for
bulkhead. Stabilize 60' of existing east bulkhead by
installing HDPE sheathing below bottom stringer. Repair
hole in short return section of exiting east bulkhead using
HDPE sheathing. Located: 177 Inlet Way,
Southold. SCTM#92-1-8
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would wishes to
speak for this application?
MR. COSTELLO: John Costello, I'm with Costello Marine
Contracting. We are the agents for Mrs. Flaherty on this
44
Board of Trustees 45 August 24, 2005
application.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: What is HDPE sheathing?
MR. COSTELLO: It's a black, poly, plastic sheet. comes in
4 by 8s. You can nail it on, only when the bulkhead is
structural and in good condition.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's like a Band-Aid.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Fasten it on the face?
MR. COSTELLO: Quarter-inch thick, nail it on with stainless
steel nails and it stops leakage and doesn't deteriorate.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Anyone else like to speak for or
against?
MR. COSTELLO: We use it in diving and patching things.
We've even wrapped piles with it. You can get it thin
enough so it is flexible.
MS. TETRAULT: Peggy, just wanted to give the Trustees a
message, there were two phone calls from the Department of
State on this application, just to let you know.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did they say anything specific?
MS. TETRAULT: Just to call them back.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When did they call?
MS. TETRAULT: They called when I was away, and they called
today.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Who called us, specifically?
MS. TETRAULT: Rebecca -- I have it written down. She
called with this, and I called her back.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about CAC comments?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC recommends approval of the
application with the condition the bulkhead remains in line
with the neighboring bulkhead and 10 foot nonturf buffer is
installed landward of the bulkhead.
MR. MCGREEVEY: In addition to that, Peg, we're concerned
with the possibility of a previous bump out. They're making
an application for up to 18" bump-out, and as I understand
it, there's only a one time option.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Actually that was Jim's comment we were
looking for in place --
MR. COSTELLO: That bulkhead, there's only one portion of
that bulkhead that was bumped out. The majority of that
bulkhead was added onto back in the late '50s by Ralph T.
Prestons, and I constructed both of the jetties on the
property probably about 1965, but there's only one section
of the bulkhead that extended off the end of the road that
is the second bulkhead. There's only one. We also intend
to remove the piling on the bulkhead so the total distance
that this is moving out is either six inches if you're going
from sheathing to sheathing, but the sheathing is corrugated
45
Board of`1'ru.stces 46 August 24,2005
and it could be up to 10 inches so it's within the 18".
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think the Board is inclined to have it
in place
MR. COSTELLO: What about the sections of the bulkhead that
were not pre-existing? There's only one. This is only 15
feet from that house, that's the only trouble when you start
excavating it. You certainly wouldn't want an occurrence at
that time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We discussed that we'd rather see it in
place once you get to the west of the house, from Inlet Lane
to the house could be replaced in-place, then once you'd get
to the house, you'd have to step it out.
MR. COSTELLO: There was only a small section, I don't know
the exact footage, but there was a section of pre-existing
bulkhead near the area of Inlet Way, that's where it was,
the original bulkhead, but it didn't encompass the entire
property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Was there a problem of replacing it
in-place up to the house and then going out in front of the
house?
MR. COSTELLO: You could do it without jeopardizing the
house, you're going to lose more vegetation, but it's --
most of it, is just Cape American beach grass.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The deck's going to come up, but I can
still see a problem tearing it all out in front of the
house.
MR. COSTELLO: Let me tell you one of the problems with
tearing it out. Some of the soils, it's a creosoted
bulkhead, I think I've expressed this several other times,
environmentally, the soils that are behind the creosoted
bulkheads have some kind of a contamination, minor, but it
does have it. It is leaching out with the rainwater and
the tides over a period of time, this is over 40 some odd
years. To disturb it and allow it to go out into the
waterways, environmentally, it's your prerogative, but I
certainly wouldn't want to recommend removing creosoted
bulkheads when the water is going to enter the bays.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That bulkhead is well away from the water.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So we're going to do in-place west of
the house and then starting where?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: John, didn't you say you were going to run
a string and do a straight line from one end to the other?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes. I'm going to build it straight no
matter what.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Well, in-place up to the existing deck
and then?
46
Board o:I'Trustees 47 August 24, 2005
MR. COSTELLO: Put a jog in it?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what we're saying.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No.
MR. COSTELLO: I would not recommend that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So we're going to do the bay front in
place.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What do you think, Ken?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I don't know, it's behind the rocks. How
many years do you expect to get out of this bulkhead?
MR. COSTELLO: The new?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes, the sheathing --
MR. COSTELLO: Fifty.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's not in front of the rocks, take a
look at the picture.
(Discussion.)
TRUSTEE KING: You're removing all the old spiles?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, in order to keep it as close as
possible.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else who would like to
speak to this application? I'll make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve Costello
Marine Contracting on behalf of Vincent and Eileen Flaherty
to request a Wetland Permit to maintain and replace the
existing marine structures, construct 351 foot of new
bulkhead immediately in front of and within 18 inches of
existing bulkhead on south side of property. Remove and
replace portion of existing wooden deck to allow
installation of backing and system for bulkhead and stabilize
60 foot of existing east bulkhead by installing HDPE
sheathing below bottom stringer. Repair hole in short
return section of existing east bulkhead using HDPE
sheathing and remove the fence on the east jetty.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And there be no turf behind the new
bulkhead and the disturbed areas replanted with Cape
American beach grass.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
15. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on
behalf of DAVID MCELROY requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a bluff stairway within the northeastern section
of the subject property. Located: 1640 Grandview Drive,
Orient. SCTM#14-2-3.14
47
Board PfTrustces 48 AugUst 24, 2005
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment
on this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental
Consulting for the applicant. We already went through this,
it's a very simple stairway down the face of a bluff to a
beach at the last hearing. The hold up at that hearing was
that the LWRP form was not completed by the Town. I don't
think there's much more to discuss beyond that, but I'm here
to answer any questions you may have.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you. Any other comments on this
application? If not, any Board comments?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Looking through the file, the LWRP finds
it consistent as well as the CAC is approving the
permit. -They both make a recommendation that no CCA lumber
is used.
MR. ANDERSON: Why?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: CAC says no CCA.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: As well as LWRP report.
MR. ANDERSON: Are we just banning this town wide; is that
where this is going?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there any alternative you can use?
MR. ANDERSON: Sure, it just costs more. I think it's a
crazy recommendation because I don't think it's going to go
anywhere.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think the decking would cost
more.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, the decking certainly. Usually you'll
put something like a mahogany decking, I don't think you'd
want a CCA decking, but the support, you would usually want
a CCA for that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mahogany?
MR. ANDERSON: It's cheaper than clear cedar and other
stuff. I would say for the decking, I would think that's
fine.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's the landings that we have the problem
with.
MR. ANDERSON: What do you mean?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The size of the landing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 4' by 16'.
MR. ANDERSON: That's necessary. If you went down and
looked at it, what happens here is at the bottom of the
bluff, there is a 12 foot swale. If you look carefully at
your survey, it shows a crest of gravel on the beach, and
what happens is the water will or an extreme high tide will
wash over that beach, collect in the swale that runs
parallel to the bottom of the bluff. So, if you just
48
Board o:f':I'ru.stees 49 !august 24, 2005
terminate it there, then you find yourself in a heavily
vegetated area that frankly could welcome wetlands because
of the overwash on it. So the idea is to get you down the
bluff and then straight out to the beach. It is identical
to the design of the stairway immediately adjacent to and
east of the property; that's why they're built that
way. It's not something that's designed as a frill, it's
designed because that's the way it should be designed.
There's literally a swale at the bottom of this. You'll see
that out in the field. It's probably about two or three
feet deep and it's about 12 feet wide.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I understand what you're trying to
accomplish otherwise instead of having the landing 16 feet
long, you'd end up going from here to this point, which
you'd stick off the bluff.
MR. ANDERSON: It's a better way of doing it and there's
really no impact of doing it in that fashion.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other Board comments? I'll make a
motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland
Permit on behalf David McElroy to construct the bluff
stairway as per plans using non CCA treated lumber for the
sheathing, decking.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
16. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on
behalf of ROBERT SWING requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a second-story addition to the existing
single-family dwelling. Located. 4295 Bayshore Road,
Southold. SCTM#:53-6-24
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak on behalf of this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental
Consulting on behalf of the Swings. This is a small house
on a small lot at the end of Bayshore Road. It's a tiny
house consisting of 845 square feet. The proposal here is
simply to add within the existing footprint a second story.
The benefit here is that when we go through all this, we'll
be installing the new septic system that will replace the
old cesspools thereby bringing about compliance with regard
to the way septic systems are designed and built and
installed with respect to groundwater and also the distance
to surface waters. When the day is done, it is our view
49
Board of'Trustees August 24, 2005
that it will reflect an environmental improvement rather
than an environmental detriment.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC recommends approval of the
- application with the recommendation gutters and dry wells
are installed to contain the roof runoff and the 10 foot
nonturf buffer is installed landward of the bulkhead.
MR. ANDERSON: That's acceptable.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And it is consistent with LWRP. Any
comments from the Board? Any other comments from the
audience? I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the
request for a Wetland Permit to construct a second-story
addition to the existing single-family dwelling with the
stipulation that gutters and dry wells are installed and a
10 foot nonturf buffer.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
17. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on
behalf of LEO ALESSI requests a Wetland Permit to install a
36' by 16' swimming pool contiguous with the existing ground
floor, wooden deck on the southeastern side of the existing
two-story frame house, and to extend said deck to wrap
around the short sides of the proposed pool. Located: 1700
Cedar Point Drive East, Southold. SCTM#92-1-3.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental
Consulting, for the applicant, Leo Alessi. It is a proposal
for a pool that was 60 feet from the surface waters and
approximately 56 feet from the actual wetland boundary, which
I flagged in the field. Wetland boundaries are very clear
in this application as there is a clear drop off and a clear
delineation as to where the wetlands end, and the uplands
begin.
It appears to comply with your code in all respects,
and we provided you with location of the filter and the dry
wells that are nestled up against the house. I would
suggest that there be a line of hay bales and silt fence
that would surround the area of the construction. And we
think it's an approvable project on its face. I'm here to
answer any questions you may have.
TRUSTEE KING: CAC didn't inspect it. It's not staked,
application because the project was not staked?
MR. ANDERSON: It was staked, I staked it myself. It's
50
Board of':I'rustees 51 August 24,2005
also very easy to visualize, all you have to do it go to the
back of the house and you can see the deck, it's very easy
to understand in the field.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Does your pool have to have a fence
around it?
MR. ANDERSON: We're going to have to do something, we
haven't gotten to that point yet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's an issue with the existing fence.
MR. ANDERSON: What existing fence?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The wire fence down the marsh.
MR. ANDERSON: I'm not aware of any issue.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Here are your pictures.
MR. ANDERSON: What are you talking about?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The fence, goes around the whole perimeter
of the backyard.
MR. ANDERSON: Oh, that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's got to go.
MR.'ANDERSON: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's why we were wondering about a pool
fence.
MR. ANDERSON: Probably.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So are you going to come in and amend this
for a pool fence?
MR. ANDERSON: We are, but we have to go to the DEC.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You don't know how much fence you're
going to put up. I'm just wondering why you're not doing it
at the same time.
MR. ANDERSON: We probably should have.
MS. TETRAULT: You can just add it to the plan.
MR. ANDERSON: If you feel so inclined to have a fence 10
feet around the perimeter.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? If there's no other
comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve it with dry
wells for the backwash of the pool, a staked row of hay
bales during construction and I guess you can modify this
plan to show a fence 10 feet around the pool and removal of
the fence that's in the wetlands.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Aye.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Aye.
51
Board o.f'Frustees 52 August 24, 2005
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I recuse myself.
18. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on
behalf of SIM MOY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
single-family dwelling, attached rear deck, pervious
driveway and retaining wall and sanitary system. Located: 750 West Lake
Road, Southold. SCTM#90-2-1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of
this application? And I'll pass this out.
MS. TETRAULT: Is this the hydrology study?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. Go ahead.
MR. ANDERSON: Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the
applicant, Sim Moy. This is a single and separate building
parcel at the terminus of West Lake Drive in Cedar Beach
Park. The lot itself is 8,861 square feet, and has been
held in single and separate ownership since prior to
zoning. It is zoned residential. It is bulkheaded, as you
know, on two sides. There are a series of groins that
extend out to trap sand along the beach facing Peconic
Bay. It fronts the inlet to the creek to the east -- I'm
sorry to the west. Adjacent to it, there is property owned
by Di Moy, who would be the husband of Sim Moy.
What is proposed here is a 1,061 square foot house,
three bedroom dwelling, with a septic system to accommodate
that dwelling. We have a small house with a very small
wraparound deck on a small lot, on a building parcel,
legally pre-existing building parcel. And the septic system
size is for the minimum septic system for the house, it
contains the minimum number of bedrooms. The septic system
would be suitably elevated above groundwater. It would be
surrounded by a concrete retaining wall to achieve the
raised septic system and the appropriate elevation above
groundwater. We came in and presented that case to you in
May of this year, and two things were requested of us.
Number one, that the bulkhead that runs along the southern
property line of the adjacent property was to be a strip of
sand that was left there, it was an oversight on behalf of the
contractor, and that's all been remedied and the strip of
sand is there. The second thing you asked us to do was the
more important one was that we perform a groundwater study
of this parcel, the overriding concern being the impact of
the septic system on the creek. So we prepared a report for
you, now known as the Groundwater Flow Analysis for the Moy
Property.
In order to do this, we have to determine what
exactly the elevation to groundwater is, and that was
52
Board of"I'rustees 53 August 24, 2005
accomplished by the help of the surveyor and also the
installation of five monitoring wells. The five monitoring
wells labeled 1 through 5 on your survey, surround the
property and surround the septic system. Those monitoring
wells were installed by McDonald Geoscience, and then after
their installation we sent the surveyor out in the field to
measure the top elevation of each of the wells. We then
were able to determine the distance between the top
elevation of the top of each well to the top elevation of
the groundwater. And that was done by inserting an oak
stick down, almost like a dip stick, and measuring the
distance between the water level and the top of the well,
that gives you very accurate measurements, all of which
directly convert back to the underlying datum of the map,
which is the 1929 NGBD datum. Because there were concerns
on error pertaining to the influence of tides on the
elevation of groundwater, there were replicate tests taken
at low tide, mid tide and high tide. In order to secure
appropriate averages for each of the test wells at each of
the tides, three sampling events at each of the tide levels
were taken for each of the monitoring wells yielding 45
different measurements of groundwater elevation.
We then, knowing where the location of the well is,
and knowing its exact depth to groundwater, knowing what
that depth is in relation to tides, we were able to plot
them back onto the survey, creating these isolines that
would determine the direction of the groundwater
flow. Groundwater flow is influenced by gravity and
groundwater flows from its high points to its low points.
So essentially, the lowest points were found to the south
and the southwest of the site.
We were also able to determine the difference in
these groundwater elevations, the greatest difference
meaning that most of the effluent would flow in that
direction. Those results in all three tidal conditions that
is high tide, low tide, mid tide, tell us the groundwater
flows in the south and southwest direction. That means that
the septic effluent leaving the leaching pool of the septic
system will flow into the inlet and into the bay and not
into West Lake itself because the groundwater direction of
flow is away from West Lake. And that's important to
note because your greatest flushing occurs and your greatest
elusion occurs in both the bay and the inlet, that's where
the most movement of water happens.
We also provide you with measurements and
application of groundwater monitoring formulas to tell you
53
Board of 7:'ru.stees 54 !august 24, 2005
the amount of time it takes for septic effluent to flow from
the bottom of the leaching ring to the groundwater table and
that speed of entry is 18.75 hours and that the horizontal
gradient that is between the septic system and what would be
the dug inlet, or Little Peconic Bay, is approximately 3.76
days.
Finally we tell you about the septic system itself,
how does it flow out, how all the studies that we're aware
of shows the contamination of the septic system including
bacteria, nutrients, et cetera, about 99 percent of that is
removed by function of the soil, which acts as a giant
filtration system. And I think we all know that's
intuitively true because in the old days and still today,
most properties are served by private wells and yet have
septic systems and yet the wells are not contaminated by the
septic systems.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Bruce, are you going to go through this
whole thing, because we can just review this.
MR. ANDERSON: I'm almost finished. And finally we tell you
how that relates to the greater watersheds and groundwater
contributing areas. The conclusion is then that the
impact of the septic system is diminimus on the environment
based on the actual measurements in the field, the analysis
of the literature and their application to what is proposed
here.
What remains are discussions that probably aren't of
import here; in other words, that the wetlands we're talking
about here are strictly confined to surface waters, that
there's no wildlife impact because the entire site is
comprised of a mowed lawn mostly surrounded by a bulkhead,
and that is simply an individual building lot with an
inherent right to build on so we've tried to propose a
reasonable sized house given the constraints we have had to
deal with. I'm here to answer any questions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? Yes.
MR. WIGGIN: Merlon Wiggin with the West Lake
Association. Just came to my attention when I arrived
tonight, I was shown a survey of the proposed, and it's a
procedural question, you may remember from the West Lake
application for dredging the channel, they claimed ownership
to West Lake Drive. They were not notified of this meeting.
Also, the driveway is shown on West Lake Drive, so you may
want to verify, assure who owns that West Lake Drive. The
survey I have for the other project shows they own West Lake
Drive, I think West Lake Association owns it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll just ask Bruce, can you answer that
54
Board of`1:'ru-stees 55 t UgLIst 24, 2005
question about the ownership of West Lake?
MR. ANDERSON: I probably can. As far as the notice goes,
we have to notice the adjacent property owners as per tax
maps, there's no tax map number to it. There's no doubt
that we have the right to use it. It's not assessed as a
parcel in any way. I'm sure the deed would tell us exactly
what our rights are to that, and I would be happy to provide
that to you. I think that would be a simple matter to clear
up.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: West Lake Drive is a separately owned
parcel. What about the mechanical issue of notification?
MR. ANDERSON: We have to go to the assessment records and
based on the tax map information and notice adjacent
properties and since it doesn't have a tax map number, and
since it isn't assessed, there's no one for us to notice. I
get the impression that you really haven't had a chance to
read the report in any event, and I have no problem sending it
to Merlon, he represents them, and he can look at the
application if he wants, because it sounds to me like it's
not likely to close tonight any way. I would almost rather
do that to eliminate a technical problem, if there is one.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. JOHNSTON: Merlon, would you provide him with the name
and address of the person, please?
MR. WIGGIN: P.O. Box 672, Greenport.
MR. ANDERSON: I even know where he lives.
MR. CASE: My name is Jerry Case, and I live on
West Lake and all I want to say is that the cesspool is 42
and a half feet from the water. I don't know much about
effluence, there's a lot of nature effluence on the lawn
there, so there must be some wildlife. And I don't know
much about dip sticks, but if it looks like it and it smells
like it, it probably is it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there's no other comment, I'll make a
motion to table the application so we can review this
groundwater analysis flow report.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Bruce, you had a whole section in there
on brown tide because . . .
MR. ANDERSON: In the old days, the brown tide, we formed
entire working groups to study when it first broke
out. This was sort of the underpinning issue that led
eventually to the National Estuary Program. The National
Estuary Program is really more of a comprehensive almost
planning, action document at this point that talks about
watersheds and zoning issues and things of that nature. So
we tried to go right to the cause of what brought all of
55
Board of`C'rustees 56 August 24.. 2005
this in. But the interesting thing about the National
Estuary Program is that in describing watersheds and
groundwater contributing areas that are so large, when you
bring it back to the context of one parcel among hundreds
and literally thousands that would contribute some impact,
regardless of whether they're 100 feet from the wetland
boundary the impact of this parcel in relationship to the
whole is diminimus.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But it's cumulative.
MR. ANDERSON: But then if you have, for the sake of
argument, 4,000 septic systems just in Southold alone that
would contribute into this area, then each one utilizing
theoretically 300 gallons per day, which would be the Health
Department ratable for a single-family dwelling, you're
really talking about 1/4000 of an impact. And frankly, when
you talk about the groundwater contributing area, you're
really'extending an area all the way up to the North Road
because that's'your area of highest groundwater; meaning
everyone's septic systems, everyone's lawns, everyone's
farms everything that is south of that North Road flows
towards the bay and everything north of it flows toward the
sound.
MS. CASE: I'm Tippy Case from West Cedar Point Drive, and I
don't understand Mr. Anderson's talk about water flow and
that, but I believe that your code says that the system has
to be 100 feet from any water, and this is I think 42 feet.
That's blatant to me. Thank you.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Al, there's another point that might be
considered here. In doing an inspection on one of the
properties on that lake a while back, there is a bone of
contention between property owners in regard to dredging that
creek at some time, whether it will be done or it won't be
done. And one of the things that was brought to my
attention when I did the inspection was if dredging is done
it could compromise one of the bulkheads either on the west
side of the creek or on the east side. So if it was
compromised by dredging, how would that affect the drainage
that this gentleman is talking about?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I assume the bulkhead would be
repaired.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: There was talk about a bond being put in
place by the contractor.
MR. ANDERSON: The movement and direction of groundwater
flow on this parcel is not determined by the bulkhead. It's
determined by the hydraulic gradient and the soils
underlying this parcel.
56
Board o:f''Frastees 57 Augnst 24., 2005
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there's no further comment, I'll make a
motion to recess the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
19. Charlotte A. Biblow, Esq. on behalf of VINCENT
& CAROL MANAGO requests a Wetland Permit for complete
removal of the existing 64' wood jetty and restoration of
the beach on subject property with approximately 300 cubic
yards of dredged or borrowed sand. Located: 8225 Nassau
Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#118-4-10
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here to speak in favor of
this application?
MS. BIBLOW: Good evening, I'm Charlotte Biblow, from the
Law Firm of Farrell Fritz. I'm here on behalf of Vincent
and Carol Manago, and I do want to speak on behalf of the
application.
First thing I would like to do is hand up the notice
of posting and mailing. The last time I was here in front
of the Board I believe it was April on this
application. And I would want to do a couple of things this
evening, one is to update you on a couple of things
pertinent in this application. I also want to tell you that
our expert engineer is here again, Gary Mollnar, he's the
person who put our expert report in that you got for the
April meeting. He's here to answer any questions that you
may have. As you may recall, there is a proceeding in front
of Judge Baisley in the Supreme Court, and I wanted to
update you on that as well.
Just briefly, as you may recall we submitted to you
at the request of counsel the summary judgment motion. When
We were here last in April, there was oral arguments
scheduled for May. The oral argument did occur, and as of
today, we still have no decision from Judge Baisley. I'm
not here this evening to talk about ownership of the jetty.
I'm really here to talk about the legality and the damage
that's been done by the work that's been done by their
lawyers to that jetty. As you may recall, there were
unpermitted repairs made to the 50 feet of the 64 foot
jetty, and it's the 50 feet that's inshore. I submitted a
letter to the Board last week citing both page and numbers
and lines of in the summary judgment motions where the
Aloias, Mr. Costello, admitted that these changes to the
jetty were done without permits, from not only this Board
but no permits from the DEC and no permits from the Army
Corps of Engineers were obtained and the changes that were
57
Board €3f'I`rustees 58 August 24, 2005
done to the jetty was that the jetty was widened because a
double row of sheathing was placed in this 50 foot part of
the jetty, the jetty was raised, and I think most
importantly was they took a nonfunctioning jetty and made it
functioning.
The result of this action, the result of the changes
to the jetty has been a starving of sand to the south of
this jetty. And I believe if the Board has visited there,
and I know you were there in April, I believe you were there
in May, I believe you may have been there recently, it's not
just a Manago beach that's being starved of sand, but
practically every house that is south of that jetty no
longer has a beach. I was there this afternoon at high tide
and on the north side of the jetty you have sand, even in
high tide you have plenty of sand. On the south side of
that jetty you have water that is two and three feet up on
the bulkhead.
I believe your code 97-27 C says that shoreline
structures are supposed to have only low profile jetties.
This is not a low profile jetty. If you have seen it, if
anything you want to call it a high profile jetty. It
starts at the bulkhead and goes up 64 feet and so at high
tide this jetty still juts out of the water. This was also
not an inkind or inplace repair. This was not a repair is
that merely refurbished the jetty. This was a repair that
widened the jetty significantly, raised the jetty and as I
said before, made it functioning.
Now, this Board is empowered in our view to enforce
its own regulations, I think that's fundamental. And your
regulations say in 97-34 say that a failure to obtain a
permit to do the repairs that were there done to this jetty
can result in fines, penalties and an order to be restored
to prior to what was done without the permit. We have
provided you with photographs in the summary judgment
motion, and we provided you with photographs in the
application. I have more current paragraphs that were taken
this summer that shows the difference between high tide, low
tide, what the beach is in front of my clients and what the
beach is in front of the Aloias because of the changes in
this jetty. And I'll hand that up now, and they are marked.
Just so you're clear, this is the Manago side, this is the
Aloia side.
I believe the Board always also has received letters
from other people who own houses on Nassau Point, and I have
copies of some of the letters I was able to get copies
of. I also have copies of a letter that was sent by the
58
Board of J'ru.stees 59 August 24,2005
Nassau Point Property Owners Association and part of that
notice, that newsletter for lack of a better term, talks
about the devastating effects that that jetty repair has had
to other owners in Nassau Point. I would like to hand up
those letters as well.
I know the night is late, the hour is late and I
just want to really sum up, since you have been and seen
that jetty, those repairs to the jetty were done, again,
without permits; they were admittedly been done by the
Aloias, there's no question about that. They were done in
violation of your code and they have caused extreme
devastation to the beaches south of that repair. This Board
has the power and I believe has the obligation to make those
repairs -- to make the damage, I should say -- undone. If
that jetty is taken away, if you saw our expert reports, the
natural drift, the sand will be replenished all along that
beach, as it was before 2001, before those jetty repairs
were finished. You also have the ability to order the
person who did those repairs without permits to undo what
they did, and that's what we're asking.
I'm here to answer any questions you have. Again,
our expert is here to answer any technical questions you
have, but I cannot stress enough the damage that has been
done.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It was stated earlier that the DEC forced
the contractor to undo changes that he had illegally
conducted to the jetty.
MS. BIBLOW: What the DEC has done so far—there is
a notice of violation pending that was issued a couple
years ago. What the DEC required them to do so far was to
remove, there was an extra stringer put on top, that was
removed after that. What the DEC also ordered them to do
was to get a new survey because the survey they had
presented to the DEC was a survey from 1984 that had
problems with it, basically there was a real question as to
whether that survey accurately showed where the jetty
was. That goes into the ownership issue. What they did was
they got another survey by Mr. Ingegno, and the Aloias never
presented that survey to the DEC. We provided you as part
of our application, both the survey that the Managos got
when they bought the property and the Ingegno survey that
the Aloias got in 2002, and both those surveys show that the
jetty begins on the Manago property and is on the Manago
property. For whatever reason, and you can ask the Aloias,
they are here tonight, why they chose not to do what the DEC
said to do, which was provide them with this new survey, but
59
Board of J'rastees 60 august 24,2005
I think you can imagine, or you can infer rather why that
was not done. Because it disagreed with what they were
telling the DEC all along.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To get back to my question, what other
work was done illegally by Costello was not undone by the
DEC?
MS. BIBLOW: Currently, the jetty had been widened. There
is now a double row of sheathing where a single row of
sheathing was in place. I believe you have a photograph of
that in the stuff I just provided you, you also have
photographs in submissions that we have done before. So you
had a rickety one row of sheathing before the repairs and
they just opened the jetty and stuck a second row of
sheathing in place. In addition, some of the side stringers
were replaced as well.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The new top area was removed, why wasn't
the rest of the work undone?
MS. BIBLOW: You have to ask the DEC why they haven't
finished the hearing. But the proceeding in front of the
DEC, as far as we know, is still ongoing. We have been
writing the DEC. We provided the Ingegno study, and there
is still an outstanding notice of violation addressed to the
Aloias.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm just trying to get this clear. Is it
clear in the record that this was added by Costello
illegally, a second row of sheathing?
MS. BIBLOW: It is very clear in the record, not only in the
materials we sent you but in the summary judgment motion we
sent you in May and in the citations I sent you in my latest
letter, to pinpoint where in the transcripts in the summary
judgment motion, where both the Costello defendants and the
Aloia defendants admit that they did this work without
permits from any agency.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I just wanted to clear that up
before I took any other comment.
MR. JOHNSTON: Al, is it your position that permits are
necessary for all repairs to the jetty? I make reference --
it's my understanding that some repairs were made in 1995
thereabouts, in 1999, then in 2001, give or take a year one
way or the other. There were three instances of assistance
by Costello, whatever the assistance is.
MS. BIBLOW: In 1995 the outer portion, the 14 feet, the
outer shore portion of the jetty, was repaired.
Interestingly enough -- 14 feet, the Aloias got permits from
this Town Board, got permits from the DEC and got permission
from the Army Corps of the Engineers --that was just 14
60
Board of'Frustees 61. August 24, 2005
feet -- and the permits that are in the record say in-kind
and in-place repair. That's what was allowed, just for that
14 foot section. In 2001 and there's --
MR. JOHNSTON: Can we go back to 1995? Is your position
that permits were necessary for those repairs or activity?
MS. BIBLOW: Yes.
MR. JOHNSTON: It was a long answer, but was it a yes or no?
MS. BIBLOW: Yes. I apologize.
MR. JOHNSTON: Is it your position that a permit was
obtained or applied for and given in 1995 or thereabouts?
MS. BIBLOW: Yes, in 1995 there was a permit and if you look
at the pictures of the jetty there's only a single row of
sheathing there.
MR. JOHNSTON: In 1999 or thereabouts is it your position
that they should have gotten a permit again to do this,
whatever it was, this ordinary or this repair or whatever
the activity was to the existing jetty or groin?
MS. BIBLOW: A permit would be required, and it's not
ordinary wear and tear that's being done here. And had that
been done in either 1999 or 2000 or 2001 when this work was
ongoing, the neighbors would have been informed what was
going on, the Town would have been informed of what was
going on, and all the neighbors would have had an
opportunity to comment on it, and certainly my clients would
have had an opportunity to say, wait a minute, I own that
jetty, what are you doing.
MR. JOHNSTON: Can I make my question simpler then? If it
was repair, is it your position that a permit would have
been required?
MS. BIBLOW: For the repairs that were done, yes.
MR. JOHNSTON: Okay. So, if we just assume hypothetically
that they were repairs, it's your position that they needed
to have a permit for the 1999 one?
MS. BIBLOW: Absolutely, forthe '99 and forward.
MR. JOHNSTON: How about for the 2001 or 2002 or for the
third one whenever it was?
MS. BIBLOW: Yes, they needed permits because first of all
they were taking a nonfunctioning jetty and making it
functioning. They were widening a jetty.
MR. JOHNSTON: First I want it in the record, if it is a
repair, did they need a permit in your position? I want to
isolate for the Trustees what they should be worried about
and the question in my mind is it a repair or isn't it a
repair as opposed to what permits are necessary?
MS. BIBLOW: I don't know how you can describe what was done
to this jetty other than a total reconstruction.
61
Board o.f':i'ru.stces 62 august 24, 2005
MR. JOHNSTON: That's a different issue. In helping the
Trustees I want them to know what they have to decide. They
have to decide is it a repair, not if it is a repair then
they don't need a permit. It's the size, as I said, the amount and
changing the functionality. They needed a permit and they
also needed to own it.
MR. JOHNSTON: Al, for the record, I would just like to
mention what I'm concerned with, just to help you. The old
wetlands law as an exception indicated that repairs to
previously existing jetties or docks did not need a
permit. The new law, obviously that you helped draft and
the other Trustees helped draft, say that they have to be
permitted structures. And through all of these transcripts,
you have to decide whether it was a repair or something more
than a repair, but if you come to just a repair, then a
permit is not necessary. I don't want that to be a
confusing thing.
MS. BIBLOW: Mr. Johnston, I think the old code also said
that you couldn't make a nonfunctioning jetty a functioning
jetty, and that's what was done here.
MR. JOHNSTO,N: I would be happy to have you supply in a note
how you came to that conclusion.
MS. BIBLOW: Sure. And there is a note from the Town
advisory council saying that in 1995 that it was not a
functioning jetty.
MS. BIBLOW: Any other questions?
MR. JOHNSTON: I just wanted to establish for the record.
And, Al,'the last thing, the nature of their application for
a permit is -- I want you to refresh the other Trustees that
they're I think asking for a permit to remove the
jetty. So, if we are considering other items, we might want
to have some amendment of the application, that's all.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment?
MS. BIBLOW: Not until I hear what the other people have to say.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There might be no other comments.
MR. JOHNSTON: One other thing, Al, the transcript from that
court hearing of May 3rd is now in your file, but no
decision, obviously, has been made yet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I want to thank you for reviewing that for
the Board.
MR. JOHNSTON: You're more than welcome.
MS. BIBLOW: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment?
MR. CHIAVETTA: Good evening, my name is David Chiavetta.
I'm residing at 825 Nassau Point Road in Cutchogue, two
houses south of the jetty. I mailed in a letter earlier
62
Beard of 1'ru.stees 63 August 24,2005
this week or last week addressed to the Board about the
devastation that this jetty and the reconstruction of this
jetty has had on my beach. And more importantly, that the
lower sand is undermining my bulkhead and could lead to the
ultimate devastation of my bulkhead and major repairs to
that bulkhead because of the change in levels.
In 1995, just to echo what Charlotte Biblow was
saying, the Town issued a permit for a repair of a limited
portion of the jetty. At that time the Aloias sought a
permit before the Town for the repairs. So in their view, a
repair was necessary for the work to be done. Two, the Town
in that -- and I have that here, I'll submit it to you --
does state that, in fact, that the jetty is nonfunctioning,
and so it was a nonfunctioning jetty. So they got a permit
in '95 and three years later in 2001, when they did a 60
feet of the jetty, they determined that they no longer
needed to go for additional permits.
Two, my understanding of the old code was that a
nonfunctioning jetty could not be made functioning. And
that's in fact what happened and it's a zero sum gain on.
My beach has been devastated. I don't see how the Town
could allow that to happen. I think that there are some
other neighbors who might also be in favor. So I'm in favor
of the Manago application to remove the work. I'm in favor
of the Town issuing summonses for the work that was done, in
my view without a permit, to be undone.
MR. KILBRIDE: Good evening, my name is David
Kilbride, a homeowner at 9045 Nassau Point Road. When this
hearing was scheduled for June and it appeared I would be
unable to attend, my wife and I prepared a letter for the
Trustees which I think set forth our views, our concerns and
is our analysis of what happened here. Our home is 500 to
600 feet southward, downstream of this jetty. I don't want
to take the time to reecho and reiterate all the comments
that have been made. I was swimming at high tide today,
there's two foot of water at the foot of the bulkhead. I
also point out that three years ago my family came to this
Board three times for different permits for work we were
doing, some of it almost trivial, but I do believe in an
environment when we're all living in a fragile eco system
that for reconstruction of a substantial waterfront
structure is the kind of thing that the whole neighborhood
ought to have some voice in, there ought to be due process,
and we were denied that. I would like to support the Manago
application and ask that the Board vote to have the jetty
removed. Thank you.
63
Board of Trustees 64 ?august 24, 2005
MR. GRAHAM: Good evening, my name is George Graham. I
reside at 8625 Nassau Point Road, three houses down from the
Managos. And I would also like to support any effort to
remove the jetty. When I was last here at the April
meeting, I think we had a discussion of what an acceptable
type of jetty is and how this jetty doesn't match its
criteria. But I think something that was not brought out or
thought over is no one has really established that there is
a fundamental need for jetties on the eastern shore of
Nassau Point. It's my understanding that the beach erosion
was minimal up until the point that this jetty was put in.
I mentioned to you last time that we lost 20 to 30 feet of
sand since the house was purchased in 1958. Five years
after it was purchased, this jetty went in and almost
immediately the loss of beach was dramatic.
The surveyor that we had hired, his opinion back
then was that there was no real need near jetty to prevent
erosion. I haven't seen the Corps of the Engineers take a
position on it one way or the other for this section of
beach, and if there is anyone who has an authoritative
source, I would like to know it.
Also, when this jetty was constructed it was going
back into the '60s, it was thrown up by the previous owner
to the Aloias without approval from the state, which was a
requirement at the time. After approximately the landowners
for the lots 10 lots to the south complained to the state, a
hearing was held two years later and the jetty was cut down
to roughly its present size. At that time, the state, the
Department of General Services, allowed the jetty to remain
only because they believed the beaches to the south would be
replenished. Now you can imagine our surprise after all
this time that public officials can sometimes be wrong, but
beaches have not recovered. In fact, after these last
repairs have occurred we've lost literally vertically one
foot of sand or more at the base of the bulkhead. So the
jetty does have an impact. I don't know whether it's all
due to the jetty, global warming or the judging by the Town.
But in an enclosed bay, I can't really see that the natural
erosion should be that dramatic or permanent. Since my
reading of the Town code is that old structures are more or
less grandfathered in and can make repairs, I don't know
what the old code was back when, but this jetty was
originally allowed on the condition that the beaches would
recover to the south, they have not. It should be removed.
Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
64
Board of"l"rustees 65 August 24, 200
MR. FRASIER: My name is Dougle Frasier, and I live at 7955
Nassau Point Road, about three houses to the north. I am
also representing George Frey, who lives next door to the
Aloias, and he asked me to bring in a letter. He's 92 and
his wife is 91 and they weren't capable of staying up this
late. It's a short note:
"My name is George Frey, I live at 8045 Nassau Point
Road. My wife Eve and I bought our property in the summer
of 1955, just a mere 50 years ago. Our property is located
on the east side of Nassau Point between Dougle Frasier to
the north and John Aloia to the south. Our beach is between
two jetties which have been placed there on the advice of
Army Corps of Engineers; both jetties have required repairs
over these 50 years.
"I knew nothing about jetties and thought them ugly
and wondered why we would have a nice clear beach where we
could walk freely from causeway to point, a nice pretty walk.
I began to keep my ears open for information on jetties, et
cetera. My neighbor, Harold Schmidt, was president of the
Nassau Point Property Owner's Association, and later years
Mrs. Schmidt married Mr. Mortimer Chute. Harold Schmidt was
a friendly man, we had many nice talks. When I mentioned my
dislike of jetties, he assured me that Nassau Point would
have the beaches washed away without them and a few more
should be added. A former Trustee or Councilman of Southold
Town, Howard Valentine, told me the same thing. He also
said the United States Government Army Agency Corps of
Engineers have jurisdiction over the waterways. I do not
know this is so, but I've heard it many times.
"Some of my personal observations are as follows:
There is a house on the beach about 300 yards south of us
which we used to be told was used by rum runners during the
years when liquor was illegal. I used to walk from my beach
to Nassau Point past this boat house without getting my feet
wet. I cannot do this now as this beach has lost too much
sand. Possibly one or two more jetties to the north of this
house would have prevented this erosion. If Mr. Aloia's
jetty was removed, my beach would suffer, but due to the
Frasier's jetty north of our beach it would eventually
rebuild itself, but it would never be the same. The beaches
south of me would be far worse off than they would not
improve by the removal of the jetty. The beach to the south
of the Aloia's jetty was adversely affected by the damaged
bulkhead during the last two years of ownership by the
Purpura family during the severe nor'easter. However the
beaches to the south, although they gradually lost sand over
65
Board of`Trustees fib _August 24, 2005
the past 50 years, they have never been as sandy as the
beaches that have jetties protecting them. Possibly there
should be more jetties than eliminating any of the present
ones. The decision to remove the jetty which is seriously
affecting our beaches, bulkhead and property values should
not be determined by us property owners who do not have
expertise in the study of current waters and storms that affect
our beaches. If a government agency with more knowledge
than most of us is not considered, it would be a serious
mistake.
"My wife and I object to the application for a
permit by the Managos to remove the jetty to the south.
Thank you very much for letting me speak my mind. Very
truly, George and Eva Frey."
I'll give you the letter. And I feel the same way.
We find if you get a good storm and all of a sudden, the
Freys' beach on their side fills up like crazy; we get a
storm going the other way, it comes back my way. But
generally speaking, I find it fills the whole beach up
and down very nicely.
MR. NYKAMP: Philip Nykamp from Twomey, Latham, Shea and
Kelley, Dubin, Reale and Quartararo in Riverhead, here for
John and Vera Aloia, who are the owners of the jetty that is
the subject of this application.
I just wanted to remind the Board that this
application is by the Managos to remove a jetty that is not
theirs. I want to address some of the things that have been
said so far and then go into the issues that I think the
Board needs to decide in order to deny this application,
which it should be denied.
The 1995, '99 and 2001 repairs were in-kind repairs
that did not require a permit under the code at the
time. The reason that Costello got a permit for the first
repair in 1995, which was because he wanted to provide a
legal baseline for the jetty from which to proceed because
it had not been permitted before. It had been there for
over 50 years. So that's the reason why he got the permit,
not because he thought he needed to get a permit, because he
wanted to get one to provide that legal baseline for any
future use of the jetty.
The Managos have brought this application in an
attempt to end run around the court who's deciding these
very issues right now. As you heard the summary judgment
motion has been orally argued. It hasn't been decided yet.
We feel confident the summary judgment motion on behalf of
the Aloias will be granted and the case will be dismissed.
66
Board of"I'mstees 67 August 24, 2005
But as I see it, there's three issues that this Board needs
to resolve.
The first issue is ownership of the jetty. The fact
that the jetty now appears, or a piece of the jetty now
appears over the property line on a current survey doesn't
mean that the Managos own this jetty. The New York Real
Property Actions and Proceedings Law provides for this very
occurrence, and what it says is that in this type of
situation, the ownership remains with the long time owner of
the property.
If you agree with me that the Aloias own this jetty
that has been on their property for over 50 years, then this
application can be denied because it's been applied by
someone who doesn't own it.
The Second issue that you need to resolve is that
the Managos claim that the jetty, the recent jetty
maintenance has destroyed their beach has no merit
whatsoever. If you agree to look at the evidence of the
status and condition of the Manago's beach over the years
from the 1980s until the first repair was made and then
photographs from later, you will see that the status of the
beach is relatively unchanged over that course of time.
And then the third issue that you need to analyze is
the standards that the Board needs to apply and in
evaluating the application, and we feel that when you apply
those standards you'll determine that the application needs
to be denied.
With respect to the ownership issue, John and Vera
Aloia purchased the property at 8145 Nassau Point from
Dorothy Chute in 1984, and I'd like to present the Board
with some documents that will prove that the ownership of
the jetty lies with the Aloias.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's going to prove to who?
MR. NYKAMP: To you. Seven copies of the survey. And the
owner of the property at the time of the closing. Seven
copies of the deed and seven copies of a mortgage.
MR. JOHNSTON: Can I see the title policy?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you. What is the title policy, for the
record?
MR. NYKAMP: Title policy insures the title of the property
and the owner of the property at the time of closing. With
respect to the survey which was the first exhibit I handed
up, it was a survey prepared in 1984 of the contracting for
the property by the Aloias. The survey clearly reflects
that the jetty is completely within the Aloias' property
67
Board of'Fru.stees fib `august 24, 2005
line. The next exhibit is the title report. If you look at
Paragraph 18 of that report, it's a letter from Big Apple
Abstract dated May 11, 1984. It reads as follows:
"Survey made by Donick Associates, dated May 3,
1984. Shows premise improved by a one-story dwelling -- "
MR. JOHNSTON: Where are you reading from?
MR. NYKAMP: Paragraph 18 of the title report and it's going
to be at the end, it's going to be an added letter towards
the end of the title report.
MR. JOHNSTON: On the policy of title insurance Schedule A
page, after that?
MR. NYKAMP: Yes.
MR. JOHNSTON: Conditions of policy or what? Where are you
reading from?
MR. NYKAMP: It's the last page. That paragraph reads:
"Premises improved by one-story frame house with an attached
screen porch and an attached slate patio and rear wood
stairs, wood retaining wall" -- then here's the key -- "wood
bulkheads and wood jetty shown in the rear."
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What year is that?
MR. NYKAMP: 1984. Now the next exhibit I handed to you was
the actual title policy which states the exact same thing in
the same paragraph. It's Paragraph 8, it says wood
bulkheads and wood jetty shown in the rear.
MR. JOHNSTON: Where are you?
MR. NYKAMP: Paragraph 8 of the actual title policy; do you
see where I was reading there?
MR. JOHNSTON: Wood retaining wall, wood bulkheads, wood
jetty shown in the rear overhead wires crossing premises.
MR. NYKAMP: That's it. The next exhibit you have is the
actual deed. At the closing Dorothy Chute provided the
Aloias with a deed that contains a description of the
property and that description includes the property line as
running 99 feet along the said average high water mark of
Little Peconic Bay. When you take your ruler and you
compare that with the survey, it also shows that the jetty
is completely within the Aloias' property.
MR. JOHNSTON: Was the words on the left, "Includes all of
jetty," with asterisk, was that on the original or was that
put in there by you?
MR. NYKAMP: I didn't put it there. Let me see. That was
probably put in there by the attorney for the Aloias in the
Supreme Court action.
MR. JOHNSTON: Would this have been recorded?
MR. NYKAMP: Yes.
MR. JOHNSTON: So if we wanted to find out we could go to
68
Board of 1'rustees 69 _August 24, 2005
Riverhead and take a look at this?
MR. NYKAMP: Absolutely, in fact it should have the tax
stamps on it.
MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, I just didn't know whether somebody had
written on it.
MR. NYKAMP: I'm fairly confident that that was put on there
by Nancy Weiner, who is the attorney for the Aloias in the
Supreme Court action.
MR. JOHNSTON: So no probabative action in that.
MR. NYKAMP: Well, the statement that's blocked is very
probative.
MR. JOHNSTON: Okay.
MR. NYKAMP: So the deed clearly transferred title from the
subject jetty to the Aloias from Dorothy Chute, and that's
important because under the RPAPL, this now is a written
instrument pursuant to which they obtained possession of the
jetty. If you look at the next document, which was the
mortgage, the mortgage includes the same property
description, the same schedule A as the deed, and as such
the mortgage is an additional written instrument pursuant to
which the Aloias obtained possession of the jetty.
Now this is important because there's two reasons
now under the RPAPL, Real Property Actions and Proceedings
Law, why despite these recent surveys you may have seen that
show a portion of the jetty outside of the property line, do
not mean that the ownership of the jetty has in fact
transferred. There's two-ways that the RPAPL provides by
way of adverse possession that that jetty remains in the
ownership of the original owner as it has for 50 years. One
of those ways is adverse possession based upon a written
instrument. And Section 511 of the RPAPL provides that
where the occupant or those under whom he claims entered
into the possession of the premises under a claim of title
exclusive of any other right founding the claim upon a
written instrument as being a conveyance of the premises in
question, and there has been a continued occupation and
possession of the premises included in the instrument or of
some part thereof for 10 years under the same claim the
premises so included are deemed to have been held
adversely. So what this means is that the deed, the
mortgage, the policy of title insurance and all the written
instruments provided prior to the closing of title on this
property, including the title report, the survey, all
demonstrate that the subject jetty is solely within the
Aloia's property line. And pursuant to the RPAPL, they now
acquire that jetty by virtue of adverse possession based
69
Board of Trustees 70 August 24, 2005
upon a written instrument, notwithstanding that a current
survey may show that a portion of that survey may show that
a portion of that jetty is over the property line. Even if
there weren't written instruments that they have, you still
acquire adverse possession in another way.
If you do not have written instruments, there are
six elements to acquire property by adverse possession. The
possession must be hostile, open and notorious, actual,
exclusive, continuous and under a claim of right. And the
Aloias have satisfied all of the elements of that in this
case even without any written instruments.
With respect to the element of actual use, the
Aloias have established their actual possession or use by
continued use, repair and maintenance at their sole cost of
the jetty. With respect to the element of hostile
possession, the Aloias maintained, repaired and used their
jetty, this showed that their possession was open and
notorious, and constituted an actual and constructive notice
to others that they own the jetty.
Now, in this case, it may be argued that there was a
mutual mistake that the property was actually always a
little over the property line. And the courts have held
that parties' mutual mistake concerning the location of the
borderline between properties doesn't negate a finding of
adverse possession. Even if there's a mistake of where the
boundary line was, that does not mean that the Aloias do not
still have ownership of this jetty by adverse possession.
With respect to the element of continuous
possession, it is undisputed that Dorothy Chute, the
predecessor/owner, had the subject jetty built in the 1950s,
and during her ownership of the jetty she maintained it and
repaired it at her sole cost. And after the Aloias
purchased, they did the same.
With respect to the element of exclusive possession,
Miss Chute exercised exclusive control over the subject
jetty by arranging for the construction of the jetty and by
bearing the entire cost of construction, repair and
maintenance up until the time it was sold to the Aloias.
After the Aloias purchased the property, they did the same.
So thus the element of exclusive possession is satisfied.
With respect to the open and notorious element, the
construction of the jetty by Miss Chute in the '50s, the
maintenance and repair of the jetty from the '50s until
1984, and the repair and the maintenance of the jetty after
the Aloias purchased the jetty constitute open and notorious
possession for the required time. And with respect to the
70
Board of Trustees 71. August 24, 2005
claim of right, there's no dispute that the Aloias and their
predecessor owner held possession and claim of right.
Dorothea Chute had the jetty built on her own property
repaired and maintained the jetty. The Aloias purchased the
property including the purchase with all the documents that
I have just submitted as exhibits which proved that they
have a claim of right to the property. And based upon these
two avenues of adverse possession, notwithstanding that that
jetty has now been shown on a survey to be partially over
the line, that does not mean they own the jetty; the Aloias
still own the jetty by adverse possession. And we're very
confident that these same arguments that we have made in the
Supreme Court are going to carry the day as well.
I'd also like to show a few pictures, these are
pictures --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: A question about what you were just
discussing. If all that you say is true, why has Judge
Baisley, who I might or might not have had dealings with 20
years ago, why is he having such a problem issuing a
decision on this?
MR. NYKAMP: I don't think he's had a problem issuing a
decision on this. I think it takes sometimes a long time to
write an opinion. The opinion could be very long. The law
department that actually writes the opinions and then
submits them to Judge Baisley and for his review before
signing off on it may be backed up. Ordinarily it takes
some time after motion papers have been submitted and
orally argued to get a written decision even if it's an easy
answer. I've waited six months for a one paragraph opinion
on a motion for summary judgment that says granted or
denied.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay.
MR. JOHNSTON: It's three and a half months.
MR. NYKAMP: He wanted to bring people in for oral arguments
because the issues were so complicated. These are pictures
of the Managos' new bulkhead after they moved in in 1996;
and these pictures show conclusively that the Managos when
they put this new bulkhead in understood that the jetty was
on the Aloias' property line. As you can see from the
pictures, the bulkhead pilings, retaining walls and return
are clearly constructed to the south of the Aloias'jetty.
So there can be no dispute that this jetty is owned by the
Aloias. For that one reason the application has to be
denied.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. NYKAMP: If you have any questions before I move on to
71
Board of`I'm-ste;es 72 August 24, 2005
the merits of the application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I will have to request, because the nature
of the material that you have submitted this evening, that
it's going to have to be reviewed by our counsel and then
the Board would be advised as to its content. So I would
suggest if you could submit your other comments in writing
to this Board because we're not going to make a decision on
this this evening. First of all, we don't do it actually by
how much paper weighs, but there was a lot of material that
was submitted tonight; there is going to be other comments
that are going to come in, brief, of course; there is going
to be again, discussion with our legal counsel; and also,
there's one mechanical flaw in the application of the
Managos in that an LWRP form hasn't been submitted yet.
MS. BIBLOW: It was submitted in June, June 14th. It was
sent by Fed Ex.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry, my mistake. It was submitted,
it hasn't been reviewed for consistency, which is a matter
you can take up with the reviewer not with this Board.
MR. JOHNSTON: And Phil, for the record, we also have 73
pages that you did submit in addition to the pages you did
submit here, which I got yesterday, I guess it was
yesterday.
MR. NYKAMP: I believe it was the expert report and the oral
argument.
MR. JOHNSTON: And your memorandum as well, which I don't
know what your policy is of submitting or making that
available to the opposing counsel, or do you want them to
have to FOIA?
MR. NYKAMP: No, not at all. I was going to ask Charlotte,
if you want to, do you want to start cc-ing each other?
MS. BIBLOW: I would like to start cc-ing each other, and I
would like to know what you've submitted. Certainly
whatever we submitted we sent to your client as part of the
notice requirements, but I don't know what you submitted.
MR. NYKAMP: But there were recent letters just on an
ongoing basis. Okay, we have agreed. If this hearing is
going to go past today, and to next month.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MR. NYKAMP: Well then, I'm going to reserve my comments on
the merits and the standards that need to be applied until
then.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MS. BIBLOW: I certainly will be submitting certain things in
writing since you're going to hold open this hearing. I
wanted to make very brief comments as to what Mr. Nykamp has
72
Board of'.1"ru.stees 73 August 24,2005
said that I think is very important for the Board to know
before they leave tonight, which is although he gave you the
title policy and the mortgage and the deed, in the summary
judgment documents that we sent to you previously, you will
notice the title company disclaimed coverage for the lawsuit
and said they were not insuring the jetty, and are not
defending the Aloias because of that. So I think that's
important to note.
In addition, I think you raised a very interesting
issue about the judge is struggling. The summary judgment
was submitted in March and it wasn't until he had a period
of time to read the papers that he requested oral argument,
which in Suffolk County is a very unusual thing for a judge
to do, and he still hasn't issued an opinion. So I don't
think the issue of ownership is as straightforward as Mr.
Nykamp would have you believe. But even putting that aside,
the bottom line here is those repairs were done without
permits. And I think the Board cannot lose respect as to
that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're going to have deliberation on those
comments.
DR. ALOIA: My name is Dr. John Aloia. I own the property
at 8145 Nassau Point Road. It's my property that's being
discussed this evening, and what you have before you is an
application to damage our property. We have lived there for
21 years and until recently have enjoyed our home very much
and enjoyed our neighbors to the north and south. We're
currently being sued by the Managos, the suit was not
brought by us, it's brought by the Managos, and it will be
decided in Supreme Court. Our neighbor next to the Managos,
Shiff, has also joined in that suit and they're suing us for
damage.to their beach.
Some of the things I've heard tonight make me feel
like some of the speakers are from outer space, and they
have said the Trustees have walked on the beach, and if you
do that, you know that there's extreme exaggeration. We've
lived on Nassau Point for 21 years. We understand what
happens on waterfront property, I know you all do. Nassau
Point is in an erosion zone. I have no question that there
is erosion on Nassau Point. My neighbors far to the north
also will tell you that their beaches have been eroding, and
they have that despite their being protected by jetties.
The south, the sand on Nassau Point moves from the south --
I'm sorry from the north to the south. There's continuous
movement of sand, the point. As I drive my boat around the
point, I can see that Nassau point is enlarging from the
73
Board of J'rustees 74 August 24, 2005
sand moving in that direction. In the '50s a number of
property owners decided that they wanted to protect what
sand they could have in front of their beach -- or their
home, rather, and they built jetties. There were a number
of jetties built on Nassau Point. Our jetty is not a jetty
in isolation. It happens to be the last jetty before a
number of houses that do not have jetties. And the reason
they do not have jetties that the property owners that
preceded them decided not to make an investment and build
jetties, so the beaches that are there to our south have
less sand, and they have had less sand through at least 50
years that I've talked to people about.
Again, because I hear things that just aren't true, I need
to personally address them, and I appreciate the hour
along with all of you. I have to comment on the Manago
property and our property. There was never a good
beach in front of the Manago property. As a
matter of fact, as you look at Nassau Point, we were not
talking about long stretches of white sand beaches; we're
talking about a little bit of sand in front of a
bulkheading. But the previous owners of the Managos
property going back 30 or 40 years, never swam on their
beach. They used to come down to Chute's house, use our
beach because there was less sand, they have a rocky beach.
I would like to also point out that the Managos purchased
their almost one and a half acres of bay front property in
1996 for$325,000, which was certainly a great
bargain. It's a lot of money but for 1.3 acres of bay front
property, it's not very much money. And part of the reason
I would assume for that is that there isn't much sand in
front of that property. So, they knew when they purchased
their home that there was no jetty to the south and that
there beach wouldn't be protected. They have a rock jetty
that's an inadequate jetty that's really not very far from
our own jetty that was put there by the previous owner. If
you look at that jetty, you'll see it catches sand, so sand
passes. I mean there's absolutely no question that sand
goes over our jetty all the way down to Nassau Point. As a
matter of fact, if our jetty were removed, what would happen
is our beach would become the same as the Managos' beach and
sand would eventually just keep passing by to the next jetty
at the end of the point which collects sand.
I want to then just stress that removing our jetty
would damage our beach, would damage our neighbor's beach.
Mr. Frey couldn't be here tonight because he's elderly and
infirm, and you heard a letter from him. This is a jetty
74
Board of Trustees 75 August 24,2005
that's been in existence for almost half a century. Because
some things have been said tonight, I really feel I need to
say a few words from my perspective about ownership of the
jetty. We bought our home from Dorothea Chute. She told us
the story of how she built the jetty. She asked the
Purpuras, who were the previous owners of the Managos' home
if they would like to chip in with building a jetty or if
they would like to build it further to the south, and the
answer was, no, we don't want to spend the money on building
a jetty. So it was sold to us. So the jetty was sold to us
with the home. We were very close friends with the previous
owners of the Managos' home, Dr. Purpura, who always told us
the jetty belonged to us because it was put there by Mrs. Chute.
So, for all the other legal reasons and we feel confident that when
Judge Baisley makes a decision it will be deemed to be our
jetty, but regardless of that, it's clear to us that this is
something that we bought. We had a survey done. The survey
showed the jetty totally on our property. That survey is on
file in the Town. It's a survey that we have used for any
work that we've done on our home.
Now, I have to say something about the statements
about repairs and the statements that we are not law-abiding
and that we have some devious plan to build this monster
wood structure that's going to rob all our neighbors of
their beaches. First, all the work that we've done has been
done by a marine contractor, so it's been done by Costello
Marine. To my knowledge, all the permits that are necessary
have all been obtained, and I have relied on the contractor
to assure me of that. But I've been assured by other people
that that's true as well. The jetty was always functional,
whatever functional means. The jetty always trapped sand,
we can show you pictures of the jetty when we bought the
house. It looks exactly the same as the jetty does now.
It's no different in height, it's no different in length.
It's been that way for 50 years. If you look, at what we've
done with the jetty, there was a severe ice storm in 1995,
the ice storm actually picked up the pilings at the end of
the jetty and because of that, we had to have it
repaired. All the permits were obtained to do that. The
Town looked at the jetty, issued the permits and approved
the work. Subsequent to that, the only thing that's been
done is replace sheathing, and in some instances for part of
the jetty, what Costello did was put new sheathing in front
of old deteriorated sheathing. But we could have in '95,
under the permit that we had, replaced the entire jetty in
terms of putting new sheathing in. Putting in new
75
Board of'Frustees 76 August 24,2005
sheathing, it's really just repairs, and it's not really
changing the size of the jetty. So the jetty, and you can
just look at pictures of the jetty and see that despite what
you've heard, it's no different.
We've had a repair done in 1999. We had had a
stringer damaged, and the stringer was damaged when the
Managos repaired their bulkheading. The contractor had
heavy equipment and went over our stringers and damaged it.
I didn't say this to the neighbor, I did say it to the
contractor and ordinarily don't make a fuss over things like
that, and I told Costello when you repair our jetty-- this
is in 2000, in 1999 rather--when you repair our jetty, why
don't you replace the top stringer because it's cracked.
What he did instead was put a six inch stringer on top of
the jetty. That stringer didn't collect sand, but it was
nonconforming, and that's correct that it was nonconforming,
and he was ordered to remove it, and he did remove it in
2001. So the only thing about this jetty that was different
was for short time there was a stringer that had no effect.
And the double sheathing is really just putting sheathing on
next to the deteriorated sheathing. The jetty collecting
sand has to do with its height and length. All the
sheathing does is protect it from waves, the fact that it's
somewhat stronger than it was before.
We've had certainly no interest in damaging anyone's
property. We've only been repairing our own property. I
feel that we certainly have the right to that. We have been
been told by our contractor that these are ordinary repairs,
that is the replacing of the sheathings and at that time did
not require permits.
Finally, I just wanted to make a few remarks, and
the ownership of the jetty is going to be determined in
court, whatever's determined so be it. I think entangling
the Town with the judiciary, obviously you need to decide
that, but it sounds to me a foolish thing to do, and I don't
know why this has been brought here, but it's been brought
to the DEC, which has not issued a fine to Costello. It's
in the Supreme Court, we're being sued for a lot of money
and it's now before the Town, and I apologize for being
here, but I didn't bring it here.
I want to stress that the jetty has been there for
50 years. It's no different in size than it ever has been,
and it's no different in size from most of the jetties
along Nassau Point. Alteration or removal of the jetty will
definitely cause harm to our property. No one can question
that. If you look at the arguments that everyone else has
76
Board of Trustees 77 UgUst 24,2005
made, it's clear that our property will be damaged. I don't
know how, what you're being asked to do is to damage our
property, and you have a petition from an individual who
doesn't own the jetty to ask you to do that.
I also think that the jetties along Nassau Point and
anywhere else are part of a system. I mean a single jetty
doesn't have tremendous effect, you have to consider it
along with all the other jetties beach conditions. If the
Town decides that it wants to revisit jetties and doesn't
think that jetties protect our property, then that should be
applied throughout the town. So if there's a new plan and
that you're going to look at 50 year old jetties, remove
them or change them, then you really ought to do that to
everyone in Southold town, not because some homeowners are
upset because their beach doesn't look as nice as the
beaches next to them.
I would just ask you and I know you're not going to
do this tonight because, but I would ask you to deny this
permit for two reasons. One I think it's unlawful for
someone to apply for a permit for something they don't own;
and also, this clearly would damage our property values
and it will damage Mr. Frey's property values. All the
jetties do is hold some sand in front of the houses where
they have built them. This has no impact on erosion on
Nassau Point. You take down our jetty, the sand is just
going to pass along all the way out to the point. I'd be
glad to answer any questions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It was policy for years, it was consistent
with DEC policy and now it's Town code that any jetty
replacement or reconstruction would involve changing the
jetty into a low profile jetty, which would allow for sand
build up to continue on your property but it would allow it
to pass over the top of your property once it reaches the
height of the jetty and continue on down the beach in
whichever direction it would go. So that's been Town policy
for years consistently applied throughout the town.
DR. ALOIA: That was in 1995 when we repaired our jetty?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For some reason that wasn't applied. I
don't know. That's why I was curious to see if the file was
here, but it's not. That should have been applied then, you
should have been to ordered to reconstruct it in a low
profile manner the same as all the jetties. We have never,
in all the jetty reconstructions, we've never had a problem
with anyone coming back saying, Oh, this has become a
problem because I changed my jetty height.
DR. ALOIA: But let me make sure that I make clear than the
77
Board of Trustees 78 August 24, 2005
jetty is no different in size. It's absolutely not
different in size than it was when we bought our
property. It's the same height and the same width.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But that's not what I said, though. I
said that all the jetties like this, whether they're built
this size or higher and some were built much higher, once they
have been reconstructed into a low profile configuration,
we've never had somebody come back and say -- a year later or
ten years later-- that this is has been a problem. So
reconfiguring it doesn't mean that you're going to suffer
any property damage.
DR. ALOIA: I understand what you're saying. I also know
that along Nassau Point there have been numerous similar
size jetties that have been reconstructed -- not
reconstruct, repaired, and they haven't changed the size of
them and they're all permitted. But I understand what
you're saying.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I have a comment, actually. For both sides
of the fence there's been a tremendous amount of emphasis
this evening put on illegal repairs, permits so forth and so
on, and for the record I would just like to read out of the
code 97-12 for exceptions. And it says the provisions of
this chapter shall not effect nor prohibit nor require a
permit for the following. I won't read everything that's in
here, but I go down to number 5, and it says the ordinary
and usual maintenance or repair of a presently existing
building, dock, pier, wharf, bulkhead, jetty, groin, dike,
dam or other water controlled device or structure. So there
wasn't any work done illegally on that structure because a
permit was not needed. Now that's prior to February 24,
2004 when we adopted our new Chapter 97 code. So anything
prior to that, the illegal work wasn't an issue. It wasn't
required. Just for the record.
MR. BERG: My name is Dave Berg. I'm also a resident of
Nassau Point, living on Nassau Point. I think the ownership
issue that has been discussed tonight is something that will
be decided someplace down the road. But I think what my
point is here is my understanding is this was determined by
the Town at one point to be a nonconforming jetty, work was
then done on this jetty -- excuse me, not a nonconforming
jetty, it was a jetty that did not effect anything, and
since then work has been done on that jetty, and as a result
of that work, that jetty is now functioning. It is
functioning to the point where it's damaging the properties
to the north side.
78
Bard «f`'ru.stees 79 August 24, 2005
Now, I have listened to what people have said
here -- south side, you're absolutely right, south side,
just like everybody, it's been a very late night here.
With all due respect to the people that have talked
here tonight, and the experts, we all know what jetties do.
All somebody has to do is go look the Goldsmith's jetty.
You put a jetty out, sand builds on one side, it takes away
sand on the other side. The result is sand does not move
down the beach, and there is no sand down the other side;
that's what's happened. I've lived there for 50 years so I
can remember probably 40 of those 50 years. I know that as
a result of the jetties that have been built the people to
the south have suffered.
So, what I go back to, if this was a jetty that was
nonfunctional, the town determined it was nonfunctional at
some point. Subsequent to that work was done on that jetty,
it's now become a functional jetty, I'm asking the Board to
address that. To wait for a decision based on the courts
will take months, perhaps years, the damage continues to
happen. That damage will not wait for a decision of the
courts to determine who owns this. So I think what this
Board needs to address is not the ownership, I know that's
what the application is which makes it very difficult, but I
go back to ignoring the application right now, the fact that
this was a nonfunctioning jetty that became functioning
because of the work that was done.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Who would conduct the work?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Who do we issue the permit to?
MR. BERG: If the jetty was returned to the condition, in
other words the sheathing was removed that was put in by
Costello or whoever, doesn't matter, if that work was done,
then sand could now flow through, and the gentleman is
absolutely right, just like Mr. Frey, his beach would suffer
because what would happen is the sand that's built up on
their beaches that should have gone if there wasn't a jetty
or a functioning jetty, to the people of the south would
then move that way.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Who would conduct the work?
MR. BERG: To remove the sheathing?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MR. BERG: That would be up to the people who had the work
done to begin with, right?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It should be up to the owner. Who owns
it?
MR. BERG: It was done by an individual who thought he owned
it at the time. He was under the understanding and his
79
Board of 1'rustees 80 A.UgLlSt 24, 2005
lawyers have said, there's no doubt in their minds they own
it, absolutely they own in their mind. They did the work,
they paid for it, in my mind, they're the ones that should
pay for the cost of the removal.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. GRAHAM: My name is George Graham, I live on Nassau
Point Road. Sir, you misquoted the Town code. Section
97-13A and it says no permit required for maintenance or
repair of a presently permitted, not existing as you said,
jetty or groin.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I didn't read section --
MR. JOHNSTON: Let him finish then we'll tell him. Go
ahead.
MR. GRAHAM: My question now to the Town council is is this
jetty now presently permitted? And does any future repairs
require a permit or not?
MR. JOHNSTON: Do you realize that what Mr. Foster said was
under the old law, which is what he read. You're reading
under the new law. The new law says permitted, the old law,
which Mr. Foster read, said existing.
MR. GRAHAM: I thought he mentioned that that was the new
law.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I said prior to February 24, 2004 no permit
Was required.
MR. GRAHAM: My question is under the current law is this
jetty presently permitted?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: A permit wasn't required when it was built.
It would get a permit, and then the permit would be issued
to do the work as well. Right now it's not permitted.
MR. GRAHAM: So in the future, any repair whatsoever will
require a permit from this Board?
MR. JOHNSTON: If it doesn't have a permit then any
repair on any groin, jetty or whatever under the new law
needs a permit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The owner would have to apply for a
permit.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Repair work on a jetty that is permitted is
not required to have a permit as long as the structure is
permitted.
MR. GRAHAM: That's not the case here and your argument is
that under the previous law it didn't require it. Going
forward from now on, if the Aloias wanted to repair this
jetty, they have to get a permit.
MR. JOHNSTON: If they don't have a permit.
MR. GRAHAM: I'm sorry to rebut some things that Dr. Aloia
so
Board c>:f 17rustees 81. ?august 24, 2005
unfortunately said, we've been living on Nassau Point
continuously since this jetty was constructed in 1962 -- not
the 1950s, in 1962. It was originally built without state
approval. The only thing they had was a permit from the
Corps of Engineers, who only said it was not a menace as to
navigation, and to their credit no freighter has hit it
since then. But when they built that thing, it was five
feet high and it extended 75 feet into the bay. In one
year, half the beach was destroyed. To say that we were
just cheap and not to construct a jetty, for the last 40
years we have stopped at least three property owners from
constructing a jetty to the south of this one. It is the
largest jetty on the east side of Nassau Point. And if you
want to walk the entire distance, you'll see. This jetty
has caused the erosion of our beaches. It has caused us to
lose 30 feet of beach. Yes, if it came out, his beach would
be worse than the Managos, but collectively all our beaches
would be much better. His would probably be a little bit
worse.
The fact is that the motion of the sand is being
blocked by this jetty far and away above whatever sand is
being trapped by the Aloias. From 1919 to 1958 there was
only four feet of erosion in front of our lot. From 1958
until now, 30 to 40 more feet have disappeared.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MS. DIVANI: Hi, my name is Maria Divani. My parents are
John and Vera Aloia at 8145 Nassau Point Road. I haven't
been there quite as long as Mr. Graham, but I've been
walking down that beach for 20 years now, and yes, there has
been erosion, but not quite the drama that they're all
discussing tonight.
I keep hearing about this changing jetty. So I do
have, not at the advice of counsel, a photo that I found
of my husband the first year that my parents bought the
house, and he's standing in front of the jetty, it's in
1984, and it looks exactly the same as it looks now. I'd
just look like to show it to you, if I could (handing).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. In 1995 what happened with the
jetty is that it lifted out of the water due to an ice
storm. So it was not reconstructed, it was basically
repaired. It's the same dimensions, nothing has changed.
I'd like to address the erosion issue to the south.
There's a couple of other issues that are not being
discussed, one of which are the bulkheadings down south that
are built out quite a bit. I'd like to show you a
photograph, this is facing south. This is my parents'
8.1
Board of`1'rustees 82 August 24, 2005
jetty; this is the Managos' rock jetty, which helps maintain
quite a bit of sand for them. It also maintains seaweed as
well, which they don't like. The other thing I have here
are some photographs of bulkheads that have been built out,
that is this bulkheading over here, and that was built out
five feet into the bay. This photograph is of my son
standing in front of the jetty south to us, and this was in
'02. And what you can see here is a jetty that has holes in
it and what happened is that the holes got filled up with
rocks, and this was '02, there was in that year the wind was
coming out of the north all summer long. So that year the
sand built up on the north side of the jetty and then
dropped pretty dramatically down on this south side of the
jetty. And that was '02, but then if you look at pictures
going forward, it starts evening out. '03 was a little
better; '04 was much better, then by '05, I submitted some
photographs to Heather, you can see that the Managos really
built up a lot of nice sand on their beach.
MR. ALOIA: My name is John Aloia, son of John Aloia. One
of the arguments I noticed being made by the people in
support of the application is that there was a finding in
1995 after the ice storm that the jetty was
nonfunctioning. The jetty was then repaired. It seems that
the other side is saying that this jetty continued to be
nonfunctioning even after the repair. Anyone who's lived on
this beach and has walked on this beach can see that this
jetty did retain sand, that at no time was it rickety, did
it have any major holes in it. I don't know what the
technical definition of nonfunctioning might be, however,
the jetty performed the function of a jetty which is to
retain a moderate amount of sand on the property where it is
placed. So I don't know who here has an engineering degree
that they're determining that it was rickety, I don't know
if that's a technical term either, but I just wanted to
clear that up because I don't think the nonfunctioning
aspect goes in perpetuity.
MR. NYKAMP: That was a good point, and just to clarify the
functionality, in mid June of 1995 you have an advisory body
that I believe did advise you that the jetty may be
nonfunctional, you didn't listen to that advisory body and
then seven days later you issued the permit to repair the
jetty, and thereby this Board here determined that it was a
functional jetty as of 1995. And I think this is the file
you were looking for earlier.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We didn't have jurisdiction in the bay or
sound until 1991 thanks to coastal erosion law.
82
Board of1'rustces 83 Ugast 24, 2005
MR. JOHNSTON: So even if they wanted to get a permit, they
couldn't.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: So if we issued a permit in 1995, that
means it's a permitted jetty.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The permit is to rebuild in-kind/in-place
14 feet of offshore end jetty, rebuild a 3' by 3' access
stairs from existing platform to bulkhead, install a 3' by
8' set of access stairs from bulkhead to beach and plant
behind the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Permit wasn't even required but apparently
it sounds like it's a permitted jetty.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It would have been required because --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What is the date on that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: '95. It would have been required under
coastal erosion which put the bay and the sound into Chapter
97.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Under the wetland code?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, under the wetland code. Because
you're installing stairs and you're building access
stairs.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Rebuilding stairs in-kind/in-place.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It says install a 3' by 8' set of access
stairs. So for whatever reason --
MR. JOHNSTON: How long was the jetty?
MS. BIBLOW: The jetty was 64 feet.
MR. JOHNSTON: And they got a permit to rebuild the 14.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's to rebuild the 14, it hasn't been
added to.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll chew that one over.
MS. BIBLOW: That was what I wanted to point out, I believe
Dr. Aloia misspoke when he said he had a permit to repair
the entire jetty in 1995; they had a permit to in-kind and
in-place repair 14 feet, the outer 14 feet. They did not
have a permit for the other 50 feet. And you mentioned, Mr.
Foster, about ordinary repair of the jetty, I would submit
to you that repair of 50 feet of a 64 foot jetty where you
are widening and raising the height is not an ordinary
repair.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It says normal and ordinary repairs.
MR. NYKAMP: It wasn't 50 feet at one time and it wasn't
widened and it wasn't heightened. Any additional height was
taken away.
MR. ALOIA: I'm Mark Aloia, I just wanted to say one thing.
I'm here to support my parents. I'm an attorney, I'm not
here as an attorney, but I would point out, this
application, an application like this being granted is
83
Board of 1:`rustees 84 August 24,2005
setting a real bad precedent. If you grant an application
like this, then anybody along the point who doesn't like the
way their beach looks, whether or not they own the jetty,
and in this case we have an ownership issue being determined
by the court, can make an application to you to tear it
down. That's all.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. If there's no other comment,
I'll make a motion to table the hearing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
20. Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc. on
behalf of PARADISE POINT ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland
Permit to allow the repair and/or replacement of existing
docking facility. Located: Basin Road, Southold.
SCTM#81-1-16.10
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak in favor of the application?
MR. ANGEL: I'll start. Stephen Angel, Esseks, Hefter and
Angel, for the Paradise Point Association.
I think this particular dock replacement application
has been heard before you at public hearings maybe three or
four times, and I did not have the pleasure of appearing
before you on those prior occasions, my associate Tony Pasca
did. But Tony's on vacation and I'm filling in. If I had
known it would be 12:30 1 may have made him come back from
vacation.
My comments are going to be very brief. I think you
people are pretty well aware of the application, and I'm
going to introduce Jim Walker from Inter-Science, who will
recap a little bit what's been done before you. As you
indicate when you summarized the application, the
application was to replace in-kind the existing docks at the
Paradise Point basin, and that is still the preferred
alternative on the part of our client. There are members of
the association who strongly feel that that is the best
alternative.
As part of this process before you, however, you've
solicited and we have supplied you with other alternatives,
and there's one particular alternative that is before you
that moves the existing docks closer to the basin or a
little bit further away from the southerly shoreline, I
think it's the southerly shoreline. And we would request
that you do your deliberations, if you haven't done them
already, and grant us an approval so we have either the
replacement in-kind or an alternative, which allows us to
84
Board of"thistees 85 August 24, 2005
dock the number of boats that had been previously docked at
the existing facility.
I should point out to you that your application is
the first application we're making. As you are well aware,
we have to make a whole series of applications after this,
DEC, Department of State, Army Corps, and because there
already has been a proceeding before the Zoning Board of
Appeals in connection with the docks in which the Zoning
Board held that the existing docks were nonconforming marine
use in the area, I think we may and probably will have to go
back to the Zoning Board of Appeals, especially if there's a
modification to the existing facility. I'm just saying that
for informational purposes, we would obviously have to do
that if you made a determination to change the configuration
of the docks.
That being said, let me introduce Jim Walker who
will recap where we are, and I think our comments will be
brief.
MR. WALKER: The plan that's mounted on the board is
alternative 3. That dock was discussed at the last public
hearing. Since the last public hearing I staked out that
dock location in the field, both at the end of the proposed
outer pier and at 13 and-a-half feet off of that, which
would be the width of the beam of the boat tied up to the
dock with the bumpers in place.
All the information that the Town asked for has been
shown on those plans, and I believe the Board of Trustees
directives have been complied with. That's all the
information that I have for you tonight, except I would like
to answer any questions that you have and listen to any
directives that you might have. We would like to close the
public hearing, move to a decision on the project. So if
you have specific directives, I'd like to hear them, if you
have them tonight. Other than that, we put a lot of effort
into it. The project has been squeezed from three sides,
it's less further out into the boat basin than it was. It's
further away from the bulkhead to the far side, and it's
squeezed in on all three directions. I believe the facility
is about as efficient as it's going to get. The Board may
have slight modifications to improve the project. But the
idea was to compress the facility, have one dock and the
have it extend approximately one-third out into the creek.
That's what drove the design, and that's what we have in
front of you. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to
answer them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll hear other comments first. Any
85
Board of`Fru.stees 86 August 24, 2005
other comments? Could you bring that up, please? Is there
a number of boats that in an ideal world the association
would like to have utilized?
MR. WALKER: This dock had 12, this dock had two
(inaudible).
TRUSTEE KING: So you want a facility for 14 docks?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 14 vessels. If there's no other comment,
Board comment? Comment in the back?
MR. DEAN: I'm Tom Dean, we live at 3895 Paradise Point Road
which is between the Boyd and Kolyer property and we are in
opposition to this configuration.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have your letter.
MR. DEAN: Yes. Which pretty much explains it. We feel
like when we bought the property, we bought it mainly with
that water view, and this configuration completely destroys
that water view, and we appeal to you to deny this
application. We actually have spoken to the association,
and they have offered to come up with different
configuration, and I would appreciate this other
configuration to be presented prior to any approval.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment? This is
like an auction, when it's over it's going to be over, so
don't hold on for that last bid, anyone? Mrs. Kolyer.
MS. KOLYER: Mrs. Kolyer. When I look at the Inter-Science
map, I notice this month two additions were added to it, one
is my name as the client, the other one is the disclaimer
box saying that nothing on this map can be guaranteed of its
accuracy and that a survey prepared by a licensed New York
surveyor would be a must. And I feel like there is an
insufficient procedural foundation to go forward without a
survey. I don't see how we can do this. I think it's a
healthy thing for everybody to have a survey so we all know
exactly, have a licensed person putting their name on the
line to talk about the measurements in here instead of
he-said/she-said and then call the lawyers in the morning.
It's a complete waste of time and money.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone else?
MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano and I'm here representing
the interests of a neighbor, the Zupas. My first comments
are with respect to the Inter-Science plan revision date
6/23/05, which I believe is the plan that Inter-Science has
presented to the Board.
My first observation is that the distance
representing the width of the body of water, which is
purported to be 288 feet, was measured at the widest point
of the body of the water. The distance at the proposed
86
Board of Trustees 87 August 24, 2005
location of the reconfigured dock is approximately 240
feet. You do the math. The reconfigured dock length
overall from the low water mark is approximately 130 feet,
Which represents 54 percent of the width at that point, and
that figure is exclusive of the beam of the boat intended to
be docked at that particular location, I think that would be
the westerly end of the proposed structure. And I hope
you'll indulge me, your code Chapter 97 states that the
width of the creek being defined is the distance across the
creek from mean low water to mean low water perpendicular to
the main channel directly in front of the subject
parcel. The area of the proposed structure is approximately
925 feet, which is in excess of the cumulative area of the
existing structure. The stern of a boat -- the stern of a
25 foot boat hypothetically --the stern of a 25 foot boat
docked at the new 3' by 20' float, which would be the finger
piers on that would be the southern side of the proposed
dock, if a boat of 25 feet in length were docked at that new
quote, 3' by 20' float, the stern of that boat would end up
sitting where the southern side of the existing long dock is
located. Net end result is zero.
The Inter-Science disclaimer on the survey I find to
be quite interesting. I've been before this Board many,
many, many times over the past 12 years, and I don't mind
having my feet held to the fire, but I would expect equal
treatment, and I really have to read this because this has
never been found to be acceptable in any proposal I have
brought before this Board, stating: "This is not a survey.
The information contained hereon is based upon the
information and/or data provided to or obtained by
Inter-Science Research Associates during the course of work
being undertaken for the client. While efforts have been
made to insure the accuracy of this drawing information,
Inter-Science acknowledges that any final
analysis -- emphasis -- must be made on a survey prepared by
a licensed surveyor in the state of New York using
up-to-date and site specific information for the property
being analyzed. Accordingly it is cautioned that the
information contained hereon should be used for preliminary
analysis purposes only and be used with caution.
Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc. assumes no
responsibility or liability for errors contained in this
drawing."
My other comments, and I have to quote directly from
your code because I think it gets me to where I think I need
to be, the name and address of the applicant and the source
87
Board of'I'r«stees SS August 24,2005
of the applicant's right to perform such operations. First
and foremost in your requirements for what constitutes a
complete application:
"Furthermore, it shall be the policy of the Town of
Southold that all docks shall be designed, constructed and
located so as to reduce a dock's potential adverse impacts
to navigation, public safety, waterway congestion," et
cetera. "Any application for a dock to be constructed at
the end of a right of a way or commonly held land requires
the written consent of all parties having an interest in the
right of way regardless of how property interests in the
upland parcel may be divided among the parties. No dock
shall be erected or extended if, in the opinions of the
Trustees, such structure would adversely affect navigation
fisheries," et cetera. "Within creeks and other narrow
waterways no dock length shall exceed one-third the total
width of the water body. Determination of the length of the
dock must include the dimension of the vessel. Only one
dock or mooring is permitted per residential dock no larger
than 6' by 20'. In determining the permitted length of the
proposed residential dock, the Trustees shall seek to
maintain lengths consistent with the other docks in the
waterway which meet the requirements of this law."
The other docks in this waterway range between 40'
and 60'. They maintain 6' by 20' floats that hold, that
dock two boats. And I won't go on to read all the items
under your review and approval of dock applications because
there is no item under that section of your code that this
application complies with.
Chapter 97 provides no basis for approval of the
application as presented. No proof has been offered to
support the pre-existence of the structure. Alternate
remedies have not been adequately explored. I've suggested
a couple significant reconfigurations, which was ignored.
I've also suggested at least considering relocation of the
association's dock on association property to the west of
the west jetty. I have heard no discussion of that. No
facet of this application complies with the letter or the
intent of Chapter 97. And I agree with the gentleman from
Inter-Science that this hearing should be closed, and that
the Trustees should make a decision because I don't think
the Trustees have any basis for approval of anything based
on the application that is before you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment?
MR. BRESSLER: Eric J. Bressler on behalf of Zupas. I have
listened with great interest to what has been presented by
SS
Board of"Trustees 89 August 24, 2005
the applicants. I have observed the written submissions
such as they are. I think the question before the Board is
not whether this application meets the standards of Chapter
97, but rather whether even one aspect of the application
meets even one of the criteria of Chapter 97. And it
doesn't. I'm not going to reiterate everything that Miss
Mesiano so capably said. Chapter 97 speaks for itself. The
deficiencies in the application speak for itself. There's
no jurisdictional basis for this Board to go forward. The
applicant's own expert says you can't act on what I gave
you. That would seem to dictate the answer to the question
before the Board this evening, and I think it's fair to say
that were the Board to go forward and approve an application
on documentation that their own expert say they shouldn't
act on, you got built-in error. You got to go back; you got
to tell them no, and you got to tell them if they want to
make an application that they have to come back and their
experts have to submit something that they're willing to
stand behind and tell you that you can rely upon. That
seems pretty self-evident.
I just want to speak briefly to several other
issues. As far as this nonconforming issue would go, Mr.
Angel would have you believe that the Zoning Board has made
a determination and that's that. He knows that's not so and
I know that's not so; that's currently on appeal at the
Appellate Division Second Department. That matter is by no
means settled nor do I believe it to be binding in any event
on this Board. This is an unpermitted structure, and your
code does not grant anything to unpermitted structures and
that's exactly what this is.
This project goes so far beyond anything that I have
ever seen this Board approve, I can't imagine that there
should be anything other than a denial and an insistence on
some sort of a proper submission. The Board has only to
look at that plan to determine that it is no better, and
indeed it's worse, than what exists in terms of navigation
and obstruction of the creek. One only has to draw the line
from the Zupa property to the line of navigation to see that
this doesn't pass muster. That matter is currently pending
before Mr. Justice Cohalan. You cannot put up a dock that
cuts off someone's riparian right to get directly to the
stream of navigation, and your code recognizes that. You
can't interfere with navigation. This application has got
to be rejected out of hand. If they want to come back to
you with something that conforms to Chapter 97, that's
something different, but that's not before you. Thank
89
Board of"C`rustees 90 AUgUst 24,2005
you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment?
MS. ZUPA: My name is Mary Zupa, I'm the owner of 580 Basin
Road, Southold. I wish to inform you that the application
you have before you has never been signed by myself. I have a
copy of what is necessary in order for you to consider an
application. One of the items is the property owner's
permission for the Trustees to come across the property,
and, of course, the property owner's permission for an
application to be submitted. It's very elementary and I was
never consulted, have never been consulted about it. And I
wish that it is put on the record that this has never had my
permission, and I don't know how it has come even this
far.
Also, I have never seen a posting of this
application, the way you have to post. I believe where it's
posted is down on Briar Lane. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Brown, is there any merit to Mrs. Zupa's
comment about her having to give permission for them to
cross the property or to submit an application for a dock?
MR. JOHNSTON: I would have to take a look at it, Al, off
the top of my head, are they actually going onto her
property?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. They're using the right of way that
they have over her property.
MR. JOHNSTON: She can sue them for trespassing or
something.
MR. ANGEL: On that issue, on the issue of consent, let me
give you -- I have a copy of the deed, let me hand this up.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Maybe Mr. Angel is going to help us out
here. Go ahead, sir.
MR. ANGEL: I'd like to address the consent issue,
initially, if I may. I just handed up to you a deed. It's
a deed from the predecessor in title to Mrs. Zupa. It's
recorded in Liber 1080 -- looks like 4 doesn't it, 1 or 4?
Page 555, it's dated February 29, 1989, and it contains the
easement by which the Paradise Point Association has
authority to cross the property for the purposes of
maintaining the structures in the basin. You'll notice that
the deed runs to the Paradise Point Association, Inc. and
the description of the easement is by meets and bounds. And
the last line on the first page it starts to describe what
the easement's for, and it says in part, "Said easement to
be used by the party of the second part,"which is the
Paradise Point Association, "for free and unobstructed
access to the basin and canal as shown on the aforesaid
90
Board of'("rustees 91 August 24, 2005
filed map for the construction and maintenance of bulkheads,
cribs, jetties, docks, et cetera, as may be deemed
appropriate by the party of the second part." And it keeps
on going. I think that that is the authorization, and I
think that legally that gives us the authority and satisfies
whatever condition you have. That's a written authorization
that runs with the property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. ANGEL: Now, the issue of the disclaimer on those plans,
those are alternatives that were done by Inter-Science, I
believe your file -- I know I commissioned it, but I believe
your file has a meets and bounds survey by Young and Young
of the basin, and if you were to accept a particular
alternative, obviously we could super impose that on the
meets and bounds survey. I'm quite sure a survey was
submitted of the basin and the land around it, and so the
file maintains that. I think most people who submit to you
plans with alternatives of docks have those plans drawn by
their environmental consultants and there is little practice
where you would always have the proposed docks transposed to
a survey by a surveyor before they were approved.
And I would point out that it seems to me that
there's a groundswell of antipathy towards the alternative
that we're proposing, and you have to remember my first
comment. The preferred position of the applicant would be
to replace in-kind the existing docks, and Mr. Bressler and
I do disagree, as you well know, the issue of the
nonconformity of the docks was presented on several
occasions to the Zoning Boards of Appeals, most recently in
a decision that was rendered within the last year or two, an
action was brought, a proceeding was brought to set that
aside. It resulted in a decision to dismissing the
petition, and a decision by Judge Loughlin of the Supreme
Court of Suffolk County, specifically finding that the
marina use as then existed was a nonconforming use. Yes, a
notice of appeals has been filed but appeals aren't always
successful. And a judge and the zoning board that sits
right where you're sitting tonight have all made that
finding. So we're starting with the proposition that we
have a legal dock under zoning, and that can't be dismissed
lightly. I don't think it's a nullity. I think it's a very
important both administrative and now judicial determination
that I think you have to acknowledge.
What we have done is we have offered alternatives
that we thought were consistent with what you wanted us to
do because we wanted to be reasonable, and we still want to,
91
Board oflhistces 92 August 24, 2005
but I want to again emphasize that we have no problem with
replacement in-kind of the existing facility.
If you have any further-- Jim, do you want to add
anything to that?
MR. WALKER: Just a couple things.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Go ahead.
MR. WALKER: In terms of the comments that were made, the
disclaimer that's on that site plan is a standard disclaimer
that we add all the time. I think it's pathetic that it's
the challenge that's being brought out at this
hearing. It's late at night. I'll let it sit at that. But
those drawings are based on actual surveys. They are the
design that was discussed at the work session. I think it
was very good attempt at trying to meet the concerns of the
Town and the adjacent property owners. The dock is not a
residential dock. It shouldn't and can't be held to the
same standards that a residential dock is held to. We
showed the distance down the center line of the dock at 288
feet, and we showed the one-third line across at 96 feet,
and we tried to comply with the directives that the Board of
Trustees provided. We have one dock; it's pushed in on all
sides; it provides roughly the same slip configuration but
it certainly is smaller in all respects than the existing
dock facilities, and it's a very good attempt at meeting all
the Board of Trustees directives head on.
Obviously, if the Board of Trustees approved the
plan, it could certainly be added to Howie Young's survey.
There was a reference to a survey of the easement area, that
was submitted for a previous project. The survey that was
submitted for this project is for the boat basin, which is
owned by the association, and all the normal survey
information was added to those plans. They're a standard
set of plans similar to plans I've been processing since
1984. And in all my years, I've never heard a disclaimer
discussed in a hearing process. I think it's unfortunate.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We think we've heard it all. But any
other comment?
MR. BRESSLER: Briefly.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's still another public hearing to
come yet.
MR. BRESSLER: Briefly. On the issue of the deeds, as
usual, the presentation that has been made to you is
partial. What was left out was the issue of whether or not
there's even a right of way is the subject of
litigation. It's currently before the Appellate
Division. This issue came on and was tried before Justice
c��a
Board of`ftu.stees 93 August 24, 2005
Catterson. He said, yes, you have an easement. The
Appellate Division turned around and stayed his order. So
there is no substance to the argument that all you have to
do is look at the deed and that constitutes a consent.
Moreover, your own regulations call for a consent, and they
didn't even ask for it.
Secondly, a most interesting legal proposition.
Something is up on appeal before the Appellate Division, but
you ought to give weight to the decision, even though it's
not a final judgment. I didn't learn that in law school. I
never knew that to be the law. These issues are up in front
of the Appellate Division. You are to give no weight to it,
unless and until there's a final judgment, nor is anybody
bound by it until there's a final judgment on it.
Finally the Young and Young survey. How
interesting, the Young and Young survey doesn't comply with
your own Chapter 97. There are no current soundings; all
you have to do is look at that and see that there are no
current soundings. The soundings were knocked off from a
2001 Bobby Fox marine survey. They're four or five years
old. They're useless. They don't comply with Chapter 97.
What has been submitted to you is nothing more than a
compilation, whether there's a meets and bounds survey of a
claimed easement area has nothing to do with your
requirement that there be current soundings and other data
set forth. Ladies and gentlemen, you are flying blind on
this application, whatever the application may be.
Mr. Angel tells us it's one of many. The expert tells us at
the last session, we're asking you to consider alternative
3. Whatever it is that you're considering, or whichever of
the two agents' theories you go along with, they have not
presented you with the information that you need nor have
they met the requirements on Chapter 97, no matter what it
is that's before you. You got to say no to this, and you
have to require a competent application so we know what
we're talking about. If they submit one, whether they will
ever meet the standards of Chapter 97 in this basin area is
a matter for another day. I don't think they can, but
that's not before you right now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. ANGEL: I'm not going to deal with the merits of what
Mr. Bressler just said. I just want to say one thing. I
believe that Mr. Bressler's statement of the law that a
final judgment issued by a court in which he's filed a
notice of a appeal in is a nullity, is absolutely wrong, and
I will submit law on that to you tomorrow or Friday so that
93
Board of`trustees 94 august 24,2005
you know that it is wrong. I just had to say that. The
final judgment is a final judgment. The fact that you filed
a notice of appeal, even perfected an appeal doesn't change
the impact of the final judgment until he's successful,
which he's not been so far; that's just an incorrect
statement of the law, and I can establish it. And if Mr.
Bressler wants to submit something to the contrary, I
suggest that he do it at the same time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: I just wanted to state on the record that
we're not opposed to association docks of some size and
capacity, but I would like and I do think it is wise to get
a survey of that basin because I measured that basin on
Saturday morning or Saturday afternoon at 12:08, which was
high tide and that was measurement of 288 is incorrect, that
it is overstated.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For the record, what was your measurement?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: 276, same exact location. I took several
measurements. We were fortunate to have a full moon Friday
night, so that should be the maximum tide we'll ever get.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments?
MS. MESIANO: Just in response to that, your code requires
that that measurement be taken at low tide, I think it's
median low tide.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. If there's no other comment,
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And this Board will reserve decision.
21. Catherine Mesiano on behalf of MARY S. ZUPA
requests a Wetland Permit to install a 4' by 30' fiberglass
grid walk at 2.5' above grade, 3' by 6' ramp and 6' by 20'
float and two 8" piles. Located: 580 Basin Road, Southold.
SCTM#81-1-16.7
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak in favor of this application?
MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the
applicant. We have discussed this at a prior hearing.
We've met at the site and discussed this. So basically I'm
here to answer your questions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there's no other comment?
MS. MESIANO: Except I am here to answer your questions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I'll take any other comments
first before the Board makes a comment.
MR. ANGEL: Stephen Angel, Esseks, Hefter and Angel,
94
Board o.f'Fr«stees 95 August 24, 2005
Paradise Point Association. I've got to fulfill my duty
here as you would well expect to oppose this application. I
would ask that you make as part of the record in this
application or include as part of the record in this
application a copy of that deeded easement which refers to
the association's rights over the area in question, which
makes the Zupa rights subservient to the association's
rights to maintain the docks and the basin. I read it to
you before, it refers to an easement for the free and
unobstructed access to the beach and canal as shown on the
aforesaid filed map for the construction and maintenance of
bulkheads, cribs, jetties, docks, et cetera as may be deemed
appropriate by the party of the second part, which is the
association.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: At your request, we'll include the whole
document in your file. You won't have to repeat it all.
MR. ANGEL: Thank you. Also, I think you have an
application before you for a dock on a piece of property
that is currently occupied by our use, the marina use for
the benefit of the Paradise Point Association. What you
have is an application for a residential dock without a
residence. So, from a zoning viewpoint, I think that the
dock is not properly permitted. It would be accessory to a
residence but as of now there's no right to put a residence
on that property, as you are probably well aware from the
Zoning Board's determination.
If for some reason you do approve a dock by this
applicant, I would ask that you clearly make sure that the
proposed location doesn't interfere with whatever dock you
approve for my client on the prior application, the prior
hearing. I don't know exactly what would it would require,
but may involve the limitation on the size of the use of the
vessel, et cetera. And also any dock application that would
be approved in this particular situation, would also
realistically have to await the paramount use of the basin
by the Paradise Point Association pursuant to the easement
that is now part of both records. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. BRESSLER: Well, I guess I've heard it all now, the tail
is now wagging the dog. Mary Zupa is the owner of the
property. You've granted a permit to her to construct a
residence, we now want a permit to construct a dock it's
incidental to that. Whatever litigation there may be over
other people's requirements is not germane to what you are
doing. Mr. Angel has the temerity to tell you that whatever
you may grant, the owner of the property in conjunction with
95
Board of 1'ru.stees 96 august 24, 2005
the proposed house has to be subservient to what outsiders
are going to do. And that we have to be subservient to that
and that you have to consider what you're going to give
them, if anything, first. That is utterly preposterous. I
would suggest to you that what you have to do is consider
this application on its merits and grant to the owner of
the property something that she's entitled to by law. Then,
if there's a problem with any interference, do what you have
to do to those folks, not to the owner of the property. We
think she's entitled as owner of the property to a
dock. Your code says she is. If the Zoning Board has a
problem with that, let the Zoning Board deal with that;
we'll deal with that. We're already dealing with those
problems, we'll deal with one more. That's not a big deal.
But you've already indicated that there are no environmental
reasons why these folks should not have a residence, and
there is no environmental reason why these folks should not
have a dock. There's every reason why you shouldn't grant
the prior application, and there's every reason why, if you
do, and it does stand up, there's every reason why that
should be subservient to what we're entitled to do on our
property. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any Board comment?
I just find it curious there's all this talk about submitting
surveys, and this is the third application in Paradise
Point basin this evening that's come before us
with a plan not on a survey, just for the record. Any
approved dock in this area is going to be required to be
placed on a survey, that includes the previously approved
Kolyer dock, which was applied for without a survey. I make
a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Board will reserve decision.
OTHER:
1. Proposed amendments to Chapter 97-Wetlands and
Shoreline, and Chapter 37-Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas, of
the Southold Town Code.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to make a comment?
MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen, resident of Cutchogue. I don't
want to make any assumptions, but I'm gathering that
anything underlined is being added; is that correct?
MR. JOHNSTON: Anything in red is being added.
MR. BERGEN: Well, there's nothing in red on mine. Anything
underlined is an addition?
MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, except in the very first page where it
96
Board of Trustees 97 August 24, 2005
says, "a local law in relation to" that's not being changed.
MR. BERGEN: If I could draw your attention to 27-C, looks
like J -- there's no page number-- I'm sorry B, Shoreline
Structures, 1 J, where it says "Individual residential
stairs are prohibited on bluffs if the property is part of
an association that maintains a common stairway." I need
some help with clarification. Does this mean if I live on
Paradise Point, whether or not I'm a member of their
association or not and they have a common stairway, and I'm
a waterfront property owner on Paradise Point, that I am not
going to be able to have stairs to the beach because the
association has installed stairs someplace else along the
beach?
MR. JOHNSTON: .If your deed or your property is a member of
that association.
MR. BERGEN: My question is for rights of a private property
owner, and I'm living on Paradise Point, and the association
has steps to the beach, maybe it's a half mile down the
road, and I have a house on the beach, I have an objection
to any law that states I cannot put steps from my house or
my property to my beach because the association a half mile,
or a mile or three miles away has a --
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's probably in the covenants. A lot
of those developments put a covenant in that use a deeded
right of way. And if the stairs are built that kind of
gives you your right of way to the beach. For future
reference that prevents say 30 or say 100 homes are being
built and 100 different sets of stairs go down the bluff,
blow out the bluff and destroy all the houses. That's why
it's deeded in. Same with the docks. If you have 100 homes
going in, you don't give them 100 docks.
MR. BERGEN: So if membership in the association is
voluntary, and I choose not to belong to the association,
then can I go ahead and do steps from my property, my house
to the beach? Nassau Point Association is voluntary. You
don't have to belong to the association to live in Nassau
Point.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It seems in that area everyone has a set
of stairs.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There are stairs on association property
there also.
MR. BERGEN: Correct. And that's my concern here with this
property. I live on Nassau Point, the association on one of
the right of ways has steps to the beach, is that saying to
me then, I cannot apply to have stairs from my bluff to the
beach? The right of an individual property owner who owns
97
Board of'l ru.stees 98 _august 24, 2005
property who does not want to be a member of the
association, I feel as though those individuals should have
the right, if it's not causing any environmental issues, in
other words, applying for permits as needed, to have stairs
to the beach. They shouldn't be told, sorry, you can't get
access to your own beach that you're paying taxes on, you
can't have access without going half mile or mile or three
miles down the road. On the record I'm objecting to it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comments? Any
comments on Chapter 37, including the definition of
structure?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You have to define it so it cannot be
used when you're defining 25 percent increase in home size.
(Discussion)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve those
changes as amended and submit them to the Town Board for
enactment.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to go back to the regular
meeting.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? (ALL AYES)
Time,erad.ed:,.:.1.M30Wa:r )
98