HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-03/25/1998 S�FFO(�
�0 C� Town Hall
Albert J.Krupski,President �Z•� r/y 53095 Main Road.
James King,Vice-President C _fit P.O.Box 1179
Henry Smith y 2 Southold,New York 11971
Artie Foster �y �� Telephone(516) 765-18412
Ken Poliwoda /lfol � Fax(516) 765-1823
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MINUTES
MARCH 25, 1998
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PRESENT WERE: Albert J. Krupski, Jr. , President
James King, Vice-President
Henry P. Smith, Trustee
Artie Foster, Trustee
Ken Poliwoda, Trustee
Diane J. Herbert, Clerks
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 at 12 noon
TRUSTEE KING approved, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, April 22, 1998 at 7 :00 p.m.
WORKSESSION: 6 : 00 p.m.
TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of February 25, 1998 regular.
Meeting.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to approve, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL
AYES
-I ._ MONTHLY REPORT:- The Trustees monthly report for March -
1998 : A check for $3,627 . 86 was forwarded to the Supervisor' s
Office for the General fund.
[ if. PUBLIC NOTICES:' Public Notices are posted on the Town
Clerk' s Bulletin Board for review.
:III . AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES:-.''
1 . Larry Tuthill on behalf ofjCRESCEN_T__BEACH CONDOMINIUMS:
e requests an`Amndmen_t to Permit #4669'1to install splash boards 2
inches apart. Located: off Maple Lane, Orient Harbor. SCTM
#38-1-1 to 22
TRUSTEE KING moved to approve the spacing of splash boards 2
inches apart with original spacing of 1 1/2 ' off bottom, TRUSTEE
SMITH seconded. ALL AYES
e
Board of Trustees 2 March 25, 1998
2 . ATHERINE___HA$T requests. an _Amendment to__permit#48.18' to
place a 4 ' X 20 ' catwalk instead of a 4 ' X 25 ' , a 3 ' X 20 ' ramp
instead of a 3 ' X 15 ' and add a 4 '. X 6 ' section to attach to the
6 ' X 20 ' float. Located: 70 Jackson Landing, Mattituck. SCTM
#113-4-3
TRUSTEE KING moved to approve, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES
3 . Bruce Anderson on behalf of;BARBARA DE_FINA_,r
tPer equests an
; Amendment o _ mit #479 lo ate t 8? to reche proposed second story
towards the center of house, remove existing chimney and build a
set of 6 ' X 10 ' steps towards the east elevation of house.
Located: 192 Willow Terrace, orient. SCTM #26-2-7 . 1
TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES
4 . requests ay Waiver to enlarge an existing
deck. The new deck addition will measure 27 ' X 15 ' with a 4 '
return around the side of house. Located: 125 North Lane, East
Marion. SCTM #31-7-12
TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to approve, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL
AYES
..-. .-.- ---... -----.-- -.5 . V_INCENT__.MANAGO requests a Waiver ;to erect a split rail
fence around the perimeter of his property. Located: 8225
Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM #118-4-10
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL
AYES
6 . Diane Herold on behalf of HU HG J.MURPRt'requests ar7ne
,year extension to Permit--#4577!to raise house & replace
foundation,~ construct-additions, move & upgrade septic system.
Located: 3105 Oaklawn Ave. , Southold. SCTM #70-6-8
TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES
7 . CJOHN F.TRUSSELU requests a Transfer to Permits__#766
from Corrado_MAcina to John F. Russell for a 3 ' X 40 ' dock,
a 3 ' X 10 ' ramp and a 4 ' X 12 ' float with 2 piles . - .Located:
3145 Oaklawn Ave. , Southold. SCTM #70-6-7
S. DONALD ALFANO /requests a one_year_.extension__for_P_ermit/
#4384 for a dock, ramp, and float. Located: 900 Corey Creek
Lane, Southold. SCTM #78-4-13
TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES
9 . Craig Arm on behalf of MARTIN P. REGAIV%requests a transfer/
of Permit _#4254ja Wetland Permit to extend existing bulkhead
"ieturn 10 ' landward and fill with 3-4 c.y. of fill, from Anthony
Tamburrino to Martin P. Regan. Located: 85 Waters Edge Way,
Southold. SCTM #88-5-56
TRUSTEE KING moved to approve, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES
10 . "WILLIAM_PAPPAS _requests a' Waiver/for the installation of
a split rail fence. Located: South west corner of Beverly Road
and Old Cove Blvd. , Southold. SCTM .#52-2-14
TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES
' Board of Trustees 3 -March 25, 1998
TRUSTEE SMITH moved to go off the Regular Meeting and go onto
the Public Hearings, TRUSTEE. KING seconded. ALL AYES
LIY:.:_,`PUBL-IC-HEARINGS:�
THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN. THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING
APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE
SUFFOLK TIMES., PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO
ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.
PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF:
FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS, IF POSSIBLE
1 . F WILLIAM & MIL_LI_CE_NT tUFANO' requests of WetlandTPermitf to
t consruct a hu ose as per plans dated January 29, 1948-.- - Located:
2582 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. SCTM #122-9-7 . 6 '
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Is there anyone here who would like to speak
in favor of the application? Anyone here who would like to
speak against the application? We have a request to read a
letter into the record. (Al read letter, see file) CAC
-recommends . . . . it was tabled, the property was not staked and the
septic system was not included_on the map. I took a look at
this . There' s a cottage on the beach and they want to take this
cottage down and build a large house basically right behind it.
The lot actually extends all the way back here to some sort of
paper right of way. The proposed garage that is mentioned in
the neighbors letter is actually well beyond our jurisdiction.
The new house will be substantially larger than what is
currently existing. I would like to see the non-turf buffer
maintained. They should show the septic system on the survey.
Is there any comment at all?
TRUSTEE SMITH: I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I ' ll make a motion to approve the application
with condition that they have a non-turf buffer between the
house and the bulkhead and that the septic system be put on the
survey.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Second. ALL AYES
2 . En-Consultants Inc. , on behalf of SPYR_IDON_ & LETTAJ
(-KOUZIO�S requests a[Wetland _Permi—?to remove an existing 4 ' X
-10'ramp, a 4 ' X 16 ' dock, a 3 ' X 12 ' ramp and a 6 ' X 10 '
float. Replace existing dock structures with a 4 ' X 48 ' fixed
pier rather than 42 ' , a 3 ' X 14 ' ramp and a 6 ' X 20 ' float with
2- 2 pile dolphins to secure float, and add a 12 ' X 12 '
extension to existing deck on house, . add a 7 ' section of new
bulkhead with 2- 6 ' returns and remove and replace a section of
bulkhead, add a 24 ' section of new bulkhead replacing old
concrete block, approx. 15 c.y. of clean fill used as backfill
up to 6 ' behind the bulkhead and approx. 6 ' X 101 ' of area will
be left as a non-turf buffer zone for filtration purposes, as
per revised drawings and plans dated and received March 16,
1998. Located; 2600 Takaposa Road, Southold. SCTM #87-6-4
Board of Trustees 4 March 25, 1998
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Anyone here who would like to speak in favor
of the application?
'--ROB HERRMANN:i I 'm here on behalf of the applicants . This is
of course a continuation of last month. Trustee Poliwoda, I
guess, met out with Mr. Kouzios on the site and came to some
agreements regarding what could or should be done with the
property and I have prepared plans to reflect those.
Specifically the entire length of the dock has been brought in
by almost 15 ' and it turned out if we could get about a 15 or
20 ' extension from what was there. that we would get 18 or 24" of
water that they need. The difference is if the float is now
turned parallel to the shore line rather than extend
perpendicular outward. Disregarding the bulkhead, it was
discussed also to replace the bulkhead. They probably won't do
it this year but at least they will put it as part of this
permit. The bulkhead is starting to bow outward. They would
extend the bulkhead to either property line and as read in the
description about a 6 ' X 101 ' area behind the replaced bulkhead
is a non-turf buffer in accordance with what the Board typically
requests .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Is there anyone who would like to speak in
favor or against the application?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: In the application they are replacing the
existing dock structure to a 4 ' X 481 , rather than 421 . The
replacement, as far as I could tell on the inspection your
gonna keep the original dock as per the inspection. We didn't
discuss anything about replacing a new dock. You were gonna
add 3 pilings .
ROB: Where it says rather than 42 ' , that is what was originally
proposed, that it be a 4 ' X 42 ' fixed pier. Rather than that we
are proposing 4 ' X 48 ' fixed pier, but pull the float in
parallel to the shoreline. What's to be done with the dock is
just to replace the old dock with new material .. In other words
right now from the bulkhead to the fixed dock portion there's
kind of a ramp that they want to replace just add with the fixed
catwalk. In other words rather than having it be around just
have it be part of the fixed catwalk and if they have to rip
that out he's just gonna replace the existing wood with new
wood.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: He' s gonna keep the original structure as
is right now. Correct? Except for the outer part.
ROB: In terms of extending the outer portion of it. Now as far
as the inner part, that' s what has always been proposed to
removed and replaced. In other words its right now, a kind of a
ramp to a fixed catwalk that goes out to a float. What we're
proposing is to make that entire structure a fixed dock. It' s
not remaining it' s being removed and replaced inkind inplace
with the exception of extending the fixed walk. I don't
understand your objection to replacing the old wood with new
material .
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It' s not gonna go beyond the point you put
in the water, because that was my reference. I think it was 331 .
ROB: We show on the plan, and you can see there' s about 26 ' of
entire structure that would go out 26 ' further. The plans show
Board of Trustees 5 March 25, 1998
the existing dock structure. The existing structure is a ramp
to a fixed walk to a ramp to a float. He' s replacing the ramp
to the fixed catwalk with a new fixed catwalk and then
installing a ramp and a float. All which will go out to the
distance that we discussed on site, which is about 15; closer
into shore than we had originally proposed. The existing
catwalk extends about 26 to 27 ' off the bulkhead including the
landward ramp.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That sounds correct. 15 ' from original
proposal .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : One of ,the things is as you know we routinely
for single family usage we would approve a 6 ' X 20 ' float not 6 '
X 30 ' .
ROB: Is it possible to have a 24 ' float?
TRUSTEE .KRUPSKI : The problem is then, someone says, "well, we
have a 28 ' float and then a 36 ' . " The 6 ' X 20 ' has been the
standard size.
ROB: See I had been told that there had been a couple of
floats . . . . .see again, it goes back to the last hearing. It's a
27 ' boat and the draft is about 18" .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : The size of the board. . . . .he' s basically
_gonna be docking on our property. So it doesn't matter the
size of the boat. He could get an 85 ' boat and put it in but we
only really allow a 6 ' X 20 ' . float. Because then there' s not
limits .
ROB: So that's the maximum length for residential is 6 ' X 201 ?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : ' Yes, 6 ' X 20 ' is standard size. And
something I just notices now, the bulkhead doesn't extend to the
property lines. I don't think we would approve any new
bulkheading. What was put in there, was put in there without a
permit. The cement blocks that were there. I don't see any
reason to approve new bulkheading where one single row of cement
block would be.
ROB: Well, he's got tremendous out planking on either side of
that bulkhead. And again, this is . . . . . .the applicant purchased
this property as is, this year.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : When he extends the bulkhead to the property
lines all he' ll do is erode the neighbors.
ROB: In that area of the creek there is not active erosion
being caused by the bulkhead. It' s just that flooding that
there. On either side it's all marsh. So the water is going up
and is just eroding that land over time. His property, like any
other, it's a bulkhead with a blank turf behind it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Well we don't want to move that erosion to the
neighbors . That hasn't been our policy.
ROB: There' s no erosion of transfer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Yeah, its ' dug out on the corners of each
side. You can see it from the pictures here.
ROB: That' s because it' s not marsh, it's a residential lot with
turf on it. The marsh on either side of this lot is not gonna
eroding because of this bulkhead. And the area of this property
is not eroding because of the bulkhead that' s on it. It's
eroding because it' s upland turf. If that were all marsh it.
would be behaving naturally the same as the other two lots.
Board of Trustees 6 Plarch. 25, 1998
It's not like there some wave energy from Corey Creek that' s
scouring, it's just the natural lapping of the tides that' s
undermining this guy's backyard. Which will continue to
happen. There' s massive flooding on his property that the Board
has seen there several times . There' s no erosion transfer at
this site.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I don' t see how we` could approve the new
bulkhead application to add on to this . . . . . (changed tape)
ROB: I don't quite get your point, Al .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : It's unnecessary. If there' s no erosion like
you said, then it' s unnecessary.
ROB: I don't want to play games with you, Al . I 'm not saying
there' s no gradual recession of this guy' s property from the
lapping of the tide. I 'm saying there' s no active wave erosion
that would be translated like if your talking on an ocean beach
.or the sound somewhere. When your talking about an area that is
gradually flooding. His back yards is literally flooding
because the prior owner put in all of these structures without
permits, and I think we more than cooperated with you and Ken
and the Board to clean up this site, and the Kouzios have been
very cooperative in getting everything that the Board has
asked. And what they are asking now is just to abate the
flooding problem on the property. It' s an application that is
similar to any one that comes before the Board every month.
Except that the prior owner put this in without a permit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : But we don't allow. . . . . .but if there is no
bulkhead there to start with. . . . . .
ROB: There is .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Because there' s prior use we usually allow the
owner to rebuild it, inkind/inplace. But when the neighbor
wants to put a bulkhead in, we wouldn't allow them to put one
in. So why would we allow Mr. Kouzios to put in a new
bulkhead. I 'm being honest with you, I don't think we would do
that. And re-vegetating, again, we realize Mr. Kouzios '
bought this the way it is . We're not. blaming the applicant for
the de-vegetation in front which is his protection. The
neighbors aren't eroded away because they have the marsh
vegetation in front. Part of this permit is going to include
re-vegetation of his property in front of the bulkhead, which
would more than enough to stabilize his property.
ROB: I ' ll pass that along. You know the flooding that occurs
on this lot around that bulkhead, so what the Board' s decision
would essentially do is say that that lot will continue to be
completely flooded on a regular basis every year.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : When the tide comes up that ten foot extension
will not stop it.
ROB: It' s not gonna stop the flooding on the property?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : How can it?
ROB: There's a 24 ' gap right now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : It' s gonna flood up on the neighbors side
and come right over.
ROB: But the neighbors side is all marsh. Your talking as if
two properties that are in completely different states are the
same. They're not. This is a developed property.
Board of Trustees 7 'March 25, 1998
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I don't see where that bulkhead extension is
gonna stop any flooding.
ROB: I don't know what else to say.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: On inspection we discussed a non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I don't know if the other Board members heard
what I said, and if you agree with me. What he' s got there I 'm
ready to approve that but I don't want to see it extended any
further. It doesn't seem necessary: Then the neighbors will
say, "well you just gave him a new bulkhead, now I want a new
bulkhead. " That's how it starts .
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You have to replace what's there, and not go
any further. What' s gonna happen to all those cement blocks
are where it' s all eroding away.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : He' s gonna have to re-plant that. My
concern is, and Rob and I have been going back and forth with
this . My concern is that some of this erosion in this corner
and this corner is due to the bulkhead. If you put it here, you
transfer that energy to the neighbors and you make their
property 15ook like this. Which is what you usually see on a
bulkhead. It doesn't seem right to do that to the neighbor. I
don't mind him replacing what he's got, but that would be it.
Re-plant the beach with vegetation like the neighbors . . . .
ROB: Just as long as it's on the record that the Board
recognizes the fact that the two properties are in completely
different states .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Correct. No question about. it.
ROB: So, number 1 there is no energy to be transferred, and
number 2 the flooding on this property that causes the erosion
of soil and turf is not gonna have the same effect on a
property that is a full inter-tidal and high marsh. Which will
always remain that way.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I can't agree on that. I do hope, looking at
the pictures here in the file, you can't look at it and say that
wall didn't cause that gouge on either side. And at one point
it was inter-tidal marsh, the same as what the neighbors had.
ROB: I 'm not sure how you think that that bulkhead is causing
the gradual recession of that lawn.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : We see that in every bulkhead application.
That' s why people come in to have the returns . . . .
ROB: Well sure, you see it on high wave energy environments,
where it occurs by active erosion. You don't get that on a
tidal creek. Your talking about wave refraction and reflection
where there are no waves . Your talking about a sound principle
that occurs all over the place, but your talking it out of
contexts .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Yet, it' s right here in color. The pictures
you provided us with. I can't see any justification for
approving a new bulkhead.
TRUSTEE SMITH: I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I ' ll make a motion to approve the application
of the Kouzios ' for a 4 ' X 48 ' fixed pier, a 3 ' X 14 ' ramp and
a 6 ' X 20 ' float with 2- 2 pile dolphins, a 12 ' X 12 ' extension
to the existing deck onto the house, approval to remove and
Board of Trustees 8 Aarch 25, 1998
replace the existing bulkhead inkind/inplace leaving a 6 '
non-turf buffer behind it, and the beach in front that has been
previously be de-vegetated should be vegetated with spartina
alternaflora on 18" centers .
TRUSTEE SMITH: Second. ALL. AYES
3 . En-Consultants Inc. , on behalf of RICK AND _BOBET--TE_.
U_TE0requests a � etla_n_d P_erm_i_Vto construct a fixed timber
dock consisting of a 4 ' X 30 ' fixed catwalk, a 3 ' X 14 ' ramp and
a 6 ' X 16 ' float and resheath an existing 102 ' retaining
wall . Located: 3575 Wells Ave. , Southold. SCTM #70-4-5
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Is there anyone here who would like to speak
in favor of the application? CAC recommends approval and they
want a non-turf buffer maintained.
ROB: The buffer would go landward of the wall?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : There is already a non-turf buffer there and
we would just like to see that maintained.
TRUSTEE SMITH: I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE SMITH: I ' ll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES
4 . En-consultants Inc. , on behalf ofdfINDA_ DAMBASSIS_requests
a Wetland=Permit_(to construct a new 55 ' timber bulkhead return
within applicants property lines . Located: ROW off Oregon Road,
Cutchogue. SCTM #83-2-7 .2
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Is there anyone here who would like to speak
in favor of the application?
ROB: The Board will recall we discussed this a . couple of months
ago and we were having a problem getting permission or
cooperation from the neighbor to the east to extend the return.
As that does not appear to be forthcoming at any point. So we
have revised the proposal as one of the alternatives proposed by
the Board a couple of months ago which was to construct a return
within the applicants property lines and that's what has been
proposed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : What is showing there is existing already? If
there a bulkhead and a return?
ROB: The entire bulkhead and easterly return was constructed
onto the property to the east and I submitted a copy of a letter
to the Board originally with permission of then owner Pete
Calamaris . When we had applied to extend that return
landward, we ran into a problem with the current owner refusing
to allow the work on that because it was in fact on their
property. What is proposed on the plan is where the lines are
attached.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : So what' s there, is that gonna remain there?
ROB: It will have to remain, but for all intensive purposes be
abandoned by Ms . Dambassis. But that' s the choice the
adjacent owner has left us with.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : What started out as a pretty straight forward
application, but as you know it is complicated by the straight
property line. Has the neighbor seen this plan?
ROB: No.
Board of Trustees 9 _Karch 25, 1998
TOM SAMUELS: We built the original bulkhead with Mr.
Calamaris ' permission. The property has since been sold and
the property has been offered to Ms. Dambassis to purchase.
In any event, it is directly exposed northeast as you see and
over the years since it was originally built, which is now 8 or
9 years, the bluff is eroded and the return has to be extended.
The attorney's got involved etc. etc. , and is going no where.
So the idea was if you want to stay within Ms . Dambassis '
property line and she can't afford to have the balance of her
bulkhead, and if you've been there, you can see entire rods are
washed out and eroded behind the bulkhead. It's a considerable
investment .just in the delay in the this delima of intransigence
on behalf of the neighbor. I really don't understand because
the return would actually would protect her property as well as
Ms . Dambassis . But be that as it may, it seems one of those
insoluble problems with Solomon who would be welcome to join in,
but he isn't around. So we came up with this alternative which
would serve Ms . Dambassis well. That part of the structure
that remains on the adjacent property, will remain there. Ms .
Dambassis has no right to take it down apparently to remove
it. I imagine if she removed it she would probably be served
-. with trespassing. I won't remove it of course without
permission. Another question is lawyers battle with this of the
right of domain that has been there over 7 years with the
agreement of the previous owner. So probably it could be won in
court and so on and so forth, but there's no point in going in
there. So we're gonna do this which is called 'cutting off
your nose to spite your face. '
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Are you planning on armoring this at all?
MR. SAMUELS: If we do that than we have to move it back further
on the Dambassis property in order to make room for the armor
because I wouldn't dare put a stone on the neighbors property I
don't want Ty Cochran to come down and put me in handcuffs .
ROB: Also the return is going essentially into the bluff and
going back, so it's . . . . .
MR. SAMUELS: We're gonna try to preclude for some time.
We're planning in advance. We don't want to go to this exercise
in futility more than once in a ten year period. So we're
gonna actually invade the bluff and then re-build the bluff,
plant, etc. , etc. Ms . Dambassis has been an excellent keeper
of her property as far as bluff vegetation and protecting her
property. I 've known them for a long time and every suggestion
that we've ever made they have followed and have been very
successful . Until this return got flanked and this impasse
occurred. It is relatively a small project and doesn't deserve
the scrutiny given by the lawyers, but that' s the way it is
these days . I wouldn't object to armoring it. You know my
thought s about armoring returns, but she' s already invading her
property. She'd be cutting it back even further. It would
change the angle which I don't like. It may not be necessary
now and it' s certainly an option be viewed in the future. The
problem here is if it was a new application the new bulkhead
we'd build a return we won't be armoring within the neighbors
property. We don't have that situation here.
Board of Trustees 10 March 25, 1998
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Rob, could you just amend this to include the
planting?
ROB: Yes .
TRUSTEE SMITH: I ' ll make a motion we close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I ' ll make a motion we approve the application
that we approve the new plans as submitted dated and received
3/25 .
TRUSTEE SMITH: Second. ALL AYES
5 . En-consultants Inc. , on behalf of NEIL_M_C WE-DRI-Cl
requests aWetland_ Permit�'to hydraulically dredge an irregular
area 55+/- ' (max. width) through the inlet of Hall 's Creek to
a max. depth of 5 ' at MLW, at a 1 . 3 slope. Approx. 2,000
c.y. of 100% sand spoil to be pumped 1) up drift of existing 80 '
groin .on subject property, and 2) down drift of groin at end of
Dean Drive to east. Extend existing 70 ' groin on west side of
inlet by 80 ' to minimize future shoaling of creek mouth and
inlet. Located: Private Road off New Suffolk Ave. , Mattituck.
SCTM #116-4-16 .4
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Is there anyone here who would like to speak
. .in favor of the application?
ROB: I don't have anything new to add to the record from the
last meeting. The Board had asked for some information and
asked for soundings, which I submitted this afternoon. That' s
just a rough aerial sketch of the approx. locations and then for
the groin fields I have attached 3 more aerial photos the Board
can hold onto which shows the entire groin field and that's
fresh. Other than the same issues that were discussed on record
of the last meetings I have nothing new to add to that. Tom
Samuels may have something on the situation of the water samples
on the east end. We got together with GNS to set up the
stations . I ' ll let Tom take over at this point.
TOM SAMUELS: I went and met the mayor of Dean Drive on Sunday,
a Mr. Taylor, who some of you may know. We went over the
possibility of filling the groin field in front of Dean Drive.
I took photos of the groins . I also came up with, actually
inadvertently, in the coastal geodesic survey. The last time
the Federal Government was in Peconic mapping and doing
soundings, was in 1979 and low and behold, what do I see but a
channel dredged into Hall ' s Creek crossing the .Deep Hole Creek.
Undoubtedly at that time it was done by the County. Because the
County had those two big dredges . You can see where they
actually cross (indicating on map to Trustees) . They dredge
well out into the Bay in those days, 12 ' deep X 100 ' wide. They
no longer dredge any deeper than 6 ' because of DEC' s
jurisdiction stops at 6 ' . It' s outside their jurisdiction. So
if they were to give you a permit to dip to 12 ' today you
wouldn't ' get a DEC permit. The problem is you've got to get
through the first 6 ' to get to the 121 . So you have another
incident where you need Solomon or Pandora' s Box or something
else to get beyond the regulatory mechanism. The only other
comment I 'd like make is, is when you look at this whole
situation, if your gonna build groins you can't build isolated
Board of Trustees 11 March 25, 1998
groins . You have to build groin fields. Because if you don't
build a groin field then you have effects on neighboring
property. Theoretically groin fields are the way to go. I
might point out that some of the more successful ones on the
beach at Paradise Point is probably the best one that I can
think of. Their all low profile groins . The intention of this
one is. it' s gonna be a low profile groin. So that we' ll have
wave wash over it and the intent is not to build the beach on
Mc Goldrick' s side but merely to maintain the channel for
some length of time. You can't give any guarantees as to what
length of time that channel will stay open. But, again, we
looked at it with the idea that the groin protects two and half
times its length. That' s the Corps of Engineers doctrine. In
other words 100 ' groin protects 250 ' of property. That 's the
way they decide how long the groin should be on the Atlantic
Ocean or where ever they build. A groin 80 ' in length will
protect back to the middle groin on the Mc Goldrick property
which is presently buried. It was buried in the last dredging
and the reason for that is at that time, and you know, Al,
you've been around a long time now, this application originally
was before the Board when Jay Bredemeyer was here, and so on and
so forth. In any event, the 80 ' will have a shadow, get back to
the middle groin on Mc Goldrick property, hopefully we won't
have to do this again and again and again. The middle groin on
the Mc Goldrick's property was not repaired because the DEC
insisted that the dredge spoil go to the up pit side. Which is
the wrong side. That' s not unique. Wickham is another one
where they put it on the wrong side for 40 years . In any event,
I think we're finally getting to the position where everybody is
so sick of it the rationality of what we're tying to do seems to
be pretty consistent with the Coastal Management Plan that was
proposed by the Town and the State, and so on and so forth. I
think its a good project. I spoke to my grandchildren about it
because they went last summer to the Cedar Point program at
Cedar Point about the value of wetlands . It's amazing how much
they have learned up there. And here we have. a Town Creek,
although there is some question of part of ownership, and I
really don't want to get into that, because it doesn't make 'any
difference to God, of a creek which is putrefying, as high
bacterial and fecal and coli counts, the soundings have started
again. We can't around in there because we can't get a boat in
there. But we're not taking soundings with bottles off the
bridge and around the edges, which is not the best place to take
them because the water is too shallow. We're using wadders and
stuff to get out a little bit. But you will readings before
dredging is done and readings after it' s done. If we can get
this creek flushed twice .a day, the baymen should be really
happy and should be opened up again. I 'm sure the DEC will open
it up again. And I have hopes in the future that the County and
the State will do water quality testing in the creek. They
can't do it now because they can't get a boat in there to do
it. I spoke to Jay Bredemeyer some time ago and he thinks that
they can be included in the program because they are doing water
quality testing all the time for the State. They claim they
Board of Trustees 12 March 25, 1998
don't have enough money to do it themselves. In any .event I
think it' s a very good project and I think it' s environmentally
sound and it' s in the best interest of the Town and the
environment. The immediate property owners on either side of it
(changed tape)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Can you tell us which is the down drift
there. There doesn't seem to be any down drift.
TOM: Well look at the other jetties, look at the pictures I
gave you tonight. What side is it building on? That' s shoal .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : But why is that there?
TOM: Because the channel ' s been closed. There' s no
interchange. As Ken pointed out at the last meeting, that the
outer channel remain viable. Where we started. I would have
liked to start it further out into the Bay into that. When . I
went down and did the soundings at your request, the outer
channel is still viable. That' s all we're trying to recreate.
It' s not a major dredging project. But it's definitely down
drift west to east. I could have asked Mr.. Taylor to come
tonight, because he complained to me that various people from
the DEC would come around and claim the literal drift was in the
other direction. But if you look at the groins, it' s as obvious
as the nose on your face. I think. I 'm not disparaging anybody,
that disagrees, but that' s the case.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I think, from what you submitted, it looks
like the shadow would be on Mr. Mc Goldrick' s property. It
would create via a new groin.
TOM: It will build out to the end of that groin in a scallop
fashion back to the center groin. Some of it will bypass in
time. This is not a one time thing. It' s gonna have to done
again, just like all the creeks .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Extended again, or dredged again?
TOM: No, dredged.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I think our big concern here is it' s effect on
neighboring properties, not only on Mr. Mc Goldrick' s but to
the east and west. Would it be unreasonable to grant a permit
with a condition that if it causes severe erosion on the
neighbors property then it has to be removed.
TOM: You can always do that. That seems to be the way things
are going in Southampton, where the same. . . . . . . .the big problem
is with stipulations on removal, you can make all the
stipulations you want, and then when the time comes it is so
difficult to prove and then the homeowners get litiginous and
there you go again. The problem is as I see it is that this
Board or any other Board has to face making a decision. The
decision here is not. . . . . .the beach front properties . The
decision here is that tidal wetlands for Halls ' s Creek worth
saving. That' s the decision. I say it is . I say take a chance
that it is gonna have to be dredged again.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I think that' s why. . . . . .and I don't if we're
convinced that that' s much more of a cure than what' s there
already. It' s not just gonna fill it again in a month and
then your gonna be back again.
TOM: It won't fill in a month. And it won't fill in in a
year. And it won't fill in in two years . But I have to have
Board of Trustees - 13 March 25, 1998
something to work with. Last time, I didn't have anything to
work with.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : That would be my concern is that it' s damaging
to neighbors properties.
TOM: Which neighboring property? Down drift, or up drift?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Any neighboring property.
TOM: Well if it' s down drift it's gonna help them. Because
we're in a pre-filled groins that exist. For the first twenty
years that I have been in this business, when you apply for a
jetty like in Paradise Point, that groin field, that low profile
groin field, which has actually saved their beach with no down
drift affects at Cedar Point, the Corps of Engineers always
require that the jetty be pre-filled. By that I mean you
build a jetty you fill it. . . . . .your not stealing sand from
.somebody else. The Dept. of State comes along and says, 'Oh no,
your killing bentic organisms because your putting sand in the
for-shore. So they stopped that. Despite the fact that the
Corps of Engineers have studied and studied in Vicksburg,
recovering of bentic organisms in this situation. Ken
probably knows what the answers are. A year and a half total
recovery. Nature abhors a vacuum. If your gonna put a beach
_underwater, your gonna have bentic organisms growing on
them. We're not covering eel grass . So give it a shot and save
one of Southold' s wetlands . I personally think the wetlands
along New Suffolk Ave are the prettiest in the Town with the
exception of possibly some in Orient which you can't see because
the phragmites is as high as an elephants eye.
ROB: What we're trying to accomplish here is just to minimize
or mitigate the amount and the pace at which the sand is gonna
come down as it travels from west to east into that creek.
Obviously we have to dredge it to clear it out. What we're
trying to do with the groin is to minimize the frequency of
times that that has to be dredged. We're not suggesting that
that very healthy system is suddenly gonna loose sand and the
creek will never have to be "dredged again. But what the groin
will do, it will trap more of that sand. That' s the very reason
why this Board and most of the other agencies. always denied
groins because they say it will keep sand from getting down
drift. In this case that' s exactly what we want to do. In
every case that' s exactly what the applicant wants to do. In
most cases there is not enough sand down drift so it ends up
scouring those beaches down drift. So the only time you can
really establish that you can extend a new groin or build a new
groin without damaging the down drift beach is. to establish that
there is enough sand in the system that it will avoid that. I
think that you now have close to two dozen aerial photographs
that I just handed Mr. Foster, there' s a shoal that extends
almost 200 feet out to sea down drift. There' s a ton of sand,
literally in that system. There is no way. . . .you would have to
work very hard to convince someone to look at those photos and
say that that' s a starved down drift beach or that that beach
can become starved by extending this one groin. That' s all
we're trying to do. We' re trying to minimize the number of
times it has to be dredged as long as it doesn't do any damage.
Board of Trustees 14 March 25, 1998
I think that without saying anything here, those aerial
photographs substantiate the fact that there's enough sand in
that system that there will be no damage to the down drift
beach. Obviously groins don't and can't damage beaches because
those are the beach that replenish it.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: How and wide is this 80 ' . How did you come .
to the 80 ' figure?
ROB: I came to the 80 ' because I looked. . . . . .it was a subjected
decision based on examining all those photographs and looking at
that system and just the experience of looking at other groin
systems . If you extend the groin too short it's not gonna
make a substantial enough difference and it' s not gonna
mitigate the situation enough. If you make it too long, then
it's gonna reach the point where if it was extending out say
200 ' instead of 125 ' then you get to the point where your
gonna be increasing that up drift shoal way too far out and
your gonna be changing the whole system substantially. I came
up with somewhere in a range between 70 and 90 ' that would be
able to function accordingly. And that' s where the 80 ' came
in. If the Board feels that 5 ' or 10 ' shorter or longer would
be better we would be willing to consider it. It's an attempt
without harm.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I want ask Tom what do you think about the 80 '
in your experience, in 30 seconds or less .
TOM: Yes, this is not rocket science. It's not terribly
difficult. You have to make some educated calculated guess .
And that' s what everybody does . Your dealing with silly putty.
Your dealing with the shifting sand bottom. It changes every
day. The soundings I took two weeks ago are different now.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well this is your field Tom. You should know
if any body does, that's why I asked you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : My suggestion would be to get a survey of
beach elevations before the project. Your not talking about
pre-filling are you?
ROB: No.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Get a beach elevation before and after. At
that groin. Also at the one to the east. Just east of
Suter' s house. And give it two years or 5 years and see how
the beach elevation has changed and if it dramatically changed
I 'd ask you to remove that 80 ' .
TOM: On the deliverance of those elevations,. as you know summer
is approaching and piping plover season is approaching. We' ll
give you those elevations . I 'm interested myself.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Well actually we should have it on both groins
of Mr. Mc Goldrick' s and then the one to the east. We
really need them.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Since the range is 70 to 90 ' why don't we go
to 70 ' ?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well they did their homework, and it won't make
that mush difference.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I think if scours Mr. Mc Goldrick' s
property that' s gotta be his call.
TRUSTEE SMITH: I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES
Board of Trustees 15 March 25, 1998
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I ' ll make a motion to approve the application
of Neil Mc Goldrick to dredge in an irregular area 55 ' in
width in the inlet of Hall ' s Creek to a max. depth of 5 ', MLW
at a 1 .5 slope, approx. 2,000 c.y. of 100% sand spoil to be
pumped up drift of existing 80 ' groin on subject property; and
down drift of groin at end of Dean Drive to the east, extend
existing 70 ' groin on west side of inlet by 80 ' , and survey
elevations to be taken on two existing groins on Mr. Mc
Goldrick' s property and one existing groin to east that
extends out into the Bay before the project is started.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES
6 . J.MO. Consulting on behalf ofVILLAGE-MARINE requests a
r .Wetland-Perm t to reconstruct within lV ,-34-0+% of timber
bulkhead--and--backfill with 75+/- c.y. of clean sand from upland
source. Located: Bay Ave. , Mattituck. SCTM #122-3-15 . 1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Is there anyone here who would like to speak
in favor of the application?
TRUSTEE KING: Are they gonna straighten that out where it is
really bellied out?
GLENN JUST: Yes .
..-.:.__TRUSTEE SMITH: I ' ll move to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KING: I ' ll make a motion we approve the application.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Second. ALL AYES
7 . J.M.O. Consulting on behalf ofFWILLIAM_D-. j_REED requests a
nd Wetla Permitkto construct a single family dwelling, sanitary
system, water line, driveway, patio and garage. Located: ROW of
Peninsula Road, Fishers Island. SCTM #10-3-12
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Is there anyone here who would like to speak
in favor of the application?
:_dLEN:1 I 'd just like to point out a few items that aren't clear
on the plan. There will be a 35 ' natural buffer area between
the tidal wetlands line in which this particular case is MHW
mark. The second is that they maxed out the distance for the
sanitary system. It' s well in excess of the required 100 ' by
the Health Dept.
TRUSTEE SMITH: I ' ll make a motion we close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KING: I ' ll make a motion to approve the application.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Second. ALL AYES
8. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of, CYNT_HIA__ W._SPURDLE 'requests
a Wetland Permit to construct a 4 ' X 100 ' fixed dock to be 3
1/2 ' above marsh, a 4 ' X 20 ' ramp and an 8 ' X 20 ' float, cut a
4 ' X 50 ' path and construct a 4 ' X 15 ' set of stairs to access
dock. Located: Clay Point Road, Fishers Island. SCTM #3-1-6
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : This application will be postponed until the
April meeting.
9 . Proper-T Services on behalf oCif6 1 RD_ E.ILENBERG•/requests a
Wetland--Permit to construct a deck attached to house and a 12 ' X
Board of Trustees - 16 March 25, 1998
24 ' swimming pool with surrounding deck, and fence around pool .
Located: 800 Goose Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM #78-8-1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Is there anyone who would like to speak in
favor of the application?
IM FITZ_GERALD: I don't have anything to add that isn't already
in the file._ _
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : .That was our concern, on the original permit
for the house you have a 35 ' non-turf buffer and non-disturbance
zone. The lawn comes right to it and this pool almost comes
almost to it. Our concern is that that should not be
disturbed.
JIM: Fine.
TRUSTEE SMITH: I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE SMITH: I ' ll make a motion we approve the application
with condition that a 35 ' buffer be maintained.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES
10. Proper-T Services on behalf of PETER IZZOnrequests a
-Wetland-Permit,,1to construct a fixed walkway 4 ' X 107 ' a hinged
ramp 4-'`X -16-1 , a floating dock 6 ' X 20 ' and install 2- 2 pile
__..__. . dolphins . Located: 805 Meadow Beach Road, Cutchogue. SCTM
#111-10-1 . 1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Is there anyone here who would like to speak =.
in favor of the application?
JIM: Nothing to add but available for questioning.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : It's long because they have to cross quite a
bit of 'wetlands .
TRUSTEE KING: Move to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I ' ll make a motion to approve the application.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Second. ALL AYES
11 . Bruce Anderson on behalf. of GEORGE MAYERI requests a, Wetland_
R"Permit#to construct a single family dwelling, driveway, septic,
well and raise first floor elevation to eight feet using 387 . 2
c.y. of fill. Located: 1800 Park Way, Southold. SCTM
#70-10-61 . 1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Is there anyone here who would like to speak
in favor of the application?
BRUCE ANDERSQN:: I 'm here to represent the applicant. If you' ll
notice that it lies in a flood and it requires a first floor
elevation a min. of 8 ' that refers to the bottom of the slab.
It' s a Building Dept. thing, and the reason why the grade has
been brought up to the elevation 8 . The driveway will be
gravel. These are all the setbacks for the purposes of this
proceeding. The only one we are talking about I would think is
the fill because the house actually lies at 75 which is the
jurisdictional boundary. You should look at it from the entire
project.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Well we measured it and it's only 74 . 9 ' . Why
wouldn't you put the house on piles and eliminate all that fill?
BRUCE: You could but you'd wind up with is something that is
very different than what you see in the area. Most of time when
Board of Trustees 17 March 25, 1998
you put something on piles you usually talking about things down
on the ocean. I think the community would best by building it
this way by nicer homes and grounds .
�BEATRICE SMALL:i President of the Southold Property Owners
Association:—We have some questions. Its a lot of fill and am
I correct that that fill will only be used to bring the level of
the property to the level of the' adjoining properties?
BRUCE: I was there clearing a path and on my way out a Mrs .
Hilbig who lives to the north adjacent to the north; and what
I suggested we do is survey the contour elevations of both the
adjoining parcels . Not maybe the whole parcels, but maybe half
the parcels . Because what I 'm trying to accomplish here is
serving even grade among what will be all three parcels. Mrs .
Hilbig expressed to me her concern that with the fill we might
direct storm water onto her property. I think that is a
legitimate concern. I talked to Mr. Mayer and suggested he do
that and prevailed upon him to do it and pay for it and he
agreed to do so. I think what we should probably consider doing
is allowing me to have that work done. If it has to be higher
because flood plane reasons I think we have to make some
accommodations to help mitigate the problem. I think that is
completely reasonable.
MS. SMALL: So in answer the question, it will not be higher.
BRUCE: I don't know that, but it is not intended to be higher.
MS. SMALL: That' s interesting. I have a question on the first
floor elevation. You have a copy of our covenants which I
presented to you this evening. The foundation of this house
according to the Southold Covenants cannot be more than 2 1/2
concrete blocks or 20" of poured foundation shall be showing
after the .grade. No foundation will be constructed higher than
existing adjoining foundation. How high is this first floor
going to be? Because if it' s going to be a raised ranch. . . . .
BRUCE: No, it is not. The grade is at 8 ' above sea level .
Everything on the survey references means sea level . That' s the
surveyor bench mark. The grade of the house is 10 ' , and that
includes the bare floor, the grade that is established by fill
is 8 .
MS. SMALL: You were talking about putting the house on stilts .
Not allowed in Southold- Community. It's in the covenants, which
dates back in 1953 . You've answered the question about the cess
pools which is too near Mrs . Hilbig' s property. But we have a
question about the well . You've got that well right down on the
creek practically. Do you really expect to get fresh water
sitting next to a salt water creek? Because you would have to
go awfully far.
BRUCE: What' s gonna happen is what is missing from the, and
we're gonna have to ask the neighbors to help us with this, is
the location of the adjacent wells .
MS. SMALL: Also the adjacent cess pools .
BRUCE: Yes . Your right. You don't want to bring it down to
that extent. I don't like that at all.
MS. SMALL: Well we don't have Suffolk water. I don't believe
we want it.
Board of Trustees 18 March 25, 1998
BRUCE: The point is you are correct when you say the well is
down by the water and we intend to maximize that separation.
That' s what we've achieved here. Upon determining where the
adjacent wells and septic system is, that may change. That' s
not really what we're here to talk about tonight.
MS. SMALL: How high will the house be above the crown of the
road?
BRUCE: We don't have elevations at this point, but we. . . . . .
MS. SMALL: Do you have a house plan yet?
BRUCE: No I do not.
MS. SMALL: But your applying for a permit for the house.
BRUCE: I am applying for a permit for a house, as this Board
doesn't require full building plans in order to make
applications back. Many applications I have applied for start
with this Board with every other wetlands Board that request
that that be made.
MS. SMALL: If your property level is raised, we may have
trouble with flooding. Our fresh water pond we have across the
road on the Ludwig property is a fresh water pond and we really
would not like it flooded. It' s below grade. Actually the road
is below grade and it would be very nice if the Town would raise
.- .-. --the level of the edge of the road to prevent this from happening.
BRUCE: If you look at the survey very closely, you will see
that the crown of the road, there are two spot elevations . The
one up towards the north is at 7 .2 ' , the one on the south
adjacent to the southern property is approx. 6 . 9 and you' ll see
that the fill, the most frequent fill line is at 7 . The point
being that from the house to the street it is essentially flat.
MS. SMALL: I am not comfortable with this application at this
point in time. I would really like a lot more thorough
information.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : What specifically in regard to our
jurisdiction?
MS. SMALL: Well he' s being very vague about the fill. We have
no house plan, we don't know whether a 1,300 foot house will be
within the required 15 ' of the property line, because we don't
know really where the house will be placed. This is all very
casual. I 'm not comfortable with this . I would like to see a
little more information. I don't object to Mr. Mayer wanting to
build a house on this property, that is his prerogative. But I
would like to see a little more information on this .
BRUCE: My response would be that I looked at Schedule A which
was given to me. I believe I have complied to everything on it.
TRUSTEE SMITH: We don't look at house plans as per se on this
Board. We go with a foot print of a house. We have nothing to
say whether it is one story or two stories or. what. We just go
with what we have is a building envelop where a house can be
built.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Our concerns is towards the wetlands . they've
left a 50 ' buffer there where it won't be any disturbance. That
buffers the house activities from the wetlands . If every house
in Southold Town on the water had a 50 ' buffer the wetlands
would be a lot healthier. This shows that. That' s our big
concern. Is run off and affect of the house on the wetlands .
Board of Trustees 19 March 25, 1998
TRUSTEE FOSTER: This gonna be full basement?
BRUCE: You won't even have that.
MS. SMALL: You have to be on a slab. You can get water one
foot down.
BRUCE: It' s not a question of hitting water, it' s a question
that the flood plan regulation that is really a Building Dept.
matter. It simply cannot have (cannot hear him)
TRUSTEE FOSTER: The flood plane is 10 ' . The finished floor has
to be 10 ' above mean high water.
BRUCE: Well, it has to be 8 but the 8 refers to the lowest
structural member. And what you see here is 10 ' because that ' s
the bottom of the slab verses the first floor and even in this
instance your gonna have all your mechanical on the ground
floor, without even efficient room to do that without bringing
the house up and causing other problems that the neighbors might
concerned about.
MS. SMALL: Mr. Gallagher wishes to know if phragmites
breeds within 50 ' of the water line are going to be disturbed.
BRUCE: Phragmites . No.
MRS. GALLAGHER We have a flood now in the road, in a minor
rain storm. What' s gonna happen if you have a house 8 ' off
ground, never mind what' s gonna happen to the other
property. In a serious storm that whole property has been known
to flood. I 've lived down there for 22 years, and I walk every
day, and I can tell you that is a very wet piece of property.
It floods now. It floods to the point where traffic can't come
around that bend and that's at a moderate rain storm.
BRUCE: We're not putting a house 8 feet in the air. The grade
underlying the house is at approx. 5 . The finished grade as it
touches the surround of the house is at 8 . That' s a 3 foot
difference. It tapers back to the road which is at 7 . And the
grade of the property adjacent to that road will also be 7 .
There' s nothing about this application that- should contribute to
any flooding in the road in any specific way. I thought
flooding to the side and mostly I though flooding perhaps to the
property of Gallagher and Hilbig might be an issue if the
slopes surrounding on the sides might carry storm water run off
that was running in that direction. I 'm confident your not
gonna see, based on these elevations, flooding towards the
road as a result of this building.
MS. SMALL: We already have flooding towards the road. This may
sound very simplistic, but frankly, I would like a sketch of
what is gonna be done to see how you are going to do it. Draw
me a house, Mr. Anderson. .
BRUCE : The point is, if I draw you a house that would not add
anything more to the question of flooding. For example, when we
employ engineers to evaluate these things, we don't do houses,
we do surveys just as in front of you.
MR. GALLAGHER: Talking about this flooding in that corner. I.
addressed the Town Highway Dept. just the other day, on the curb
of the road where Parkway does meet Beachwood, there is
flooding. There is a pond on one side, and an empty lot on the
other. And the water has to go somewhere. The Town has never
elected to put in drains, or a drain near the fresh water pond,
Board of Trustees 20 March 25, 1998
or out towards the salt water. If this dwelling is built and is
graded to that grade that this gentleman is speaking of, it will
stop any of the water that doesn't naturally flood onto that
land and go down hill now, and keep it on the road and push it
over on my property which now gets flooded and I have moss on my
so called grass, and it will also go across the street into that
pond. I think there is an issue there even if he stays at
street level, as the street level is called now. It will
stop. . . . . . .and dissipate somewhat in that direction. I don't
think the Town will alleviate because there is no where to put a
drain anywhere.
rIVANCY HILBIG:� On the other side. . . .and just this past week
end you were there on Friday. I wish you could have been there
on Saturday, because it was totally underwater where the
proposed well will be. The whole foot land area was
underwater. I just cannot believe no matter how I 'm .told by
several people that according to your survey is gonna be
graded that I 'm not gonna have a problem. I don't believe it
because I have a problem now. So if it' s filled in even more
why would I have not have more, of a problem?
BRUCE: Maybe if I were to address this in a slightly different
way. The property owners responsibility is to maintain their
drainage on site. You can't build something that runs out onto
other people ' s property. If a Town road drains onto my
property, or to adjacent, the property owners are higher and
they drain onto my property. I 'm not held responsible to
control runoff that doesn't come from my property. I don't have
a responsibility. Mr. Merrit does not have a responsibility
to not build on his property so that it can be effectively used
as a neighborhood sump if you will . All ' s I can say is to the
extent that this property or development causes flooding from
runoff, it generates onto other properties . I have to be held
responsible for that and that is why I 'm offering to serve on
the adjacent parcel so that they are even. But I don't have
that responsibility to maintain a sump as a receptacle for other
runoff. That' s the best way I could put it.
MS. SMALL: Could we ask the Trustees possibly to hold off on
making a final decision on this until Mr. Anderson does a little
more work and finds out where the wells and cess pools are on
the other properties in relationship to the property in question?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : We're not concerned because the septic system
is out of our jurisdiction. We only have jurisdiction within
75 ' .
MS. SMALL: But if that septic system floods on somebody else' s
property and you have given permission you are responsible.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : We're .not because it' s not within our
jurisdiction. It' s a Health Dept. ' s responsibility to place the
septic system and well. And it' s out of our jurisdiction. Now
as far as the flooding on the road there' s a septic system
detail here on the survey. It shows the finished elevation 6
1/2 ' . Now if the crown of the road is 7 .2 and 6 . 9 ' I don't see
how that property could flood across the road.
Board of Trustees 21 March 25, 1998
MS. SMALL: Perhaps the level of the road has fallen. Because
why does it flood then every time it rains? If the road were
flat, it wouldn't flood. It were even with that property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Are you saying it floods across the road?
MR. GALLAGHER: To put it a little more specifically. The
Road Parkway itself. . . .that road going south flows to the corner
of Beachwood. That particular corner is a little lower than
the rest of the Parkway. That is where the main water comes
from. I do agree with Mr. Anderson that this case he is
pleading with you has nothing to do with where the water goes on
the property, however, I think the entire environmental picture
of that area should be considered. My own property, the pond,
Mrs . Hilgig property and possibly the other people across the
street too. No allowing this to be a sump. I 'd hate to hear it
being used that way, as a sump, but in reality it is. If it' s
not going to be used as that, where is the water going to go?
You say it's not your responsibility; possibly as a Trustee your
concern is with the tidal lands, but you are in part in the part
of Southold and somewhere somehow you would have to get together
with other departments where it is a concern and iron it out. I
think maybe postponing this until such a time that that could be
._done would be advantageous to all concerned.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Does anyone have an original sub division map?
MS. SMALL: Yes. No, I don't have it with me, but I have it
back at the house. .
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Because that will help. Obviously that was
deemed a buildable lot when the sub division was formed.
MS. SMALL: It was a buildable lot at the time because the
builder William Kellyak of New York retained Mr. Gallaghers
property and Mr. Mayer's property were. the two smallest lots in
the sub division. They were basically little squares . Mr.
Kellyak retained all of the waterfront property at that time
in that area. It has since been deeded over. We can't find a
record of when it was deeded over. We've been looking, but have
been unable to find the record of when it was deeded so that .it
became part of the current Gallagher property and the current '
Mayer property. When the sub division was approved, there was
no water front on those two lots.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: That would tell a lot because the original
fined map would indicate which lots are buildable, where the
low. . . . .you know there's a good possibility and it slips through
the cracks many times . And I 'm not saying this for any other
reason other than it does happen because I 'm involved in this
kind of construction business, and I run into this occasionally
where permits are put in to build on a lot on an old sub
division where the original filed map will show an area like
that, that doesn't indicate that it is buildable. Or that will
not be a lot or have a designated lot number or that' s a natural
recharge area.
MS. SMALL: We have no idea whether Mr. Kellyak property was
deeded. We were going through the Town records to see if we
could find it and help us along in this. But those two lots
were very tiny, and he had a big swap that went all the way
around on the creek. They were not water front lots at the time.
Board of Trustees 22 March 25, 1998
TRUSTEE FOSTER: So the map was amended.
MS. SMALL: And we haven't been able to find out when.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You would have to go to the Bureau of Records
in the County Center.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Well the water that comes down this road, where
does the water come from? Does it come from Beachwood?
MS. SMALL: No, it doesn't come from Beachwood. It comes
probably from Parkway and sometimes it comes off that lot. It
depends on how .bad the storm is .
TRUSTEE SMITH: When it comes down Parkway and it forms this
puddle here, does the water run down this lot?
MS . SMALL: It goes in both directions .
TRUSTEE SMITH: What do you mean, both directions?
MS. SMALL: Both sides of the road.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: So you've got a road elevation of 7 .5 and an
elevation of 4 at the 50 ' set back line. That' s 3 1/2 ' lower.
BRUCE: If you look at the test hole your ground water is about
at 0 . You have grades here at about 7 and a shoulder of approx.
10 or 15 '- here. It is Town property. I think Mr. Foster is in
the drainage business, but this is an ideal situation where the
Town can probably go in and put in leaching pools . But that' s
not something that we are really here to talk about in the
context of this application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Interesting the way the survey shows the
property not extending into Beachwood or Parkway Lane but it
looks like it extends into it.
BRUCE: The road shoulder is owned by the Town. So that' s the
map.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : But when we were on the site it seemed to be
that there was an elevation rise at the beginning of the
property by the road.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: The only reason I asked is the elevation of the
road is 7 .5 and out at the 50 ' line it' s. 4 and I just couldn't
imagine the water would have to build up pretty high to run from
4 ' to 7 1/2 ' .
MS. SMALL: When I walk, I 'm a puddle person, I go through
puddles not around them. In fact, you can't go around them
actually. When I walk after a bad storm it covers the tops of
my sneakers .
TRUSTEE FOSTER: As far as the environmental issues about the
septic system and so forth, that will all be addressed by the
Health Dept. because they won't issue. . . .you can't get a
Building Permit until it clears the Health Dept. and they' ll run
you through the hoops . So that' s something that will be
addressed at. . . .we really don't have to be concerned with as
long as their not down in the wetlands . The Health Dept. will
take care of all the setbacks and the neighboring wells,
cesspools and everything. They make sure that that' s perfect
before they issue any papers that will get you into the Building
Dept.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : We require that the house is gonna have
drywells and gutters because the house runoff is contained on
the site. It looks to me that the elevation will be brought up
to grade and every property will be maintaining it's own water
Board of Trustees 23 March 25, 1998
and not running back and forth. Does this look accurate to you
Artie?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well it shows elevation 7 just over the
Gallagher line, and elevation 5 on Hilbig' s and it will come
up 8 . . .. . . .well it's gonna slope away from the house,
especially on the water side, and you' ll have to contain the
water.
MS. SMALL: How is that measured?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: This elevation 4 is 4 feet above sea level.
And if you go up to the front corner marker it' s 6 .7, the other
side 7.4 and they show 7 .5 towards the middle of the road where
the lamp post is .
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: This is for the adjacent property owners.
When your house was built, was your house raised up?
MRS. HILBRIG: No, (could not understand her) .
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Do you get water during the storms, up on your
lawn?
MRS. HILBRIG: On the lawn. (could not hear her) .
MR. GALLAGHER: I also have a full basement, and I 'm two and a
half blocks above the ground. I do not have any water problems
like Mrs . Hilbrig does. It does come up over my lawn but
that's life. Water does come up in that whole area and I could
not walk from my back yard to Nancy's backyard in a nor'
easter. It couldn't be done.
BRUCE: My client is willing to survey the grading on the other
side. I would think I could work it out with. . . . I recognize
that a responsibility.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : It's too bad Mr. Mayer couldn't build on
piles, it would eliminate a lot of problems .
BRUCE: You wouldn't want to anyway. It's not a good way to do
it.
MR. GALLAGHER: Someone tried it 25 years ago. Someone wanted
build a house on piles across the street next to 320 Beachwood
Lane. The Board here 25 years ago turned it down. Absolutely
not, it' s non conforming. That brings up the question about the
cella. The gentleman says that they're gonna put the house on
a concrete slab. There are 52 homes in Southwood and everyone
of them has a basement. This house would be non-conforming. If
your gonna put it in a wetland area I don't see the advantage
of that.
TRUSTEE SMITH: I 'm sure if they could put a cella in here they
would, but they can't, it' s against the law.
MS. SMALL: How far from the creek is the pool gonna be, the
septic pool .
BRUCE: (could not hear him) The fill extends 12 ' seaward of
the house. The fill line is 80 ' from the shoreline.
MS. SMALL: What is the angle of the pitch of the fill as you go
toward the creek and the wetlands?
BRUCE: About 20% over the 12 ' .
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's about a one on four slate. For every 4 '
you go out, it goes down 1. And according to the plan it only
goes* out 12 ' . It' s about the same all around.
Board of Trustees 24 March 25, 1998
MS. SMALL: The creek could be polluted. Also if he has a lawn
back there and he feeds that lawn and puts crab grass stuff on
it, all that stuff will flow into the creek.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : That's why he has a 50 ' buffer area. Like I
said, if every house on the creek had a 50 ' non-turf area on the
creek we would have a lot cleaner creeks . I recommend that
everyone who has water front. Put a non-turf buffer area. We
let the applicant hand clear for a view. Don't forget the
finished elevation is not gonna be what your gonna see
standing on the property, it' s gonna be quite a bit higher.
So they are allowed to clear for a view but their not allowed to
to clear the underbrush which filters everything that comes off
the property before it gets to the creek.
MS. SMALL: We thank the Trustees for their patience.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE SMITH: I ' ll make a motion to approve the application.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES
12 . Craig Arm on behalf of CLIFFORD_ & RUTH COORNELL_erequests a
;Wetland Permit�to construct a single family dwelling 2 stories
with deck and garage. Located: Private ROW off N. Bayview
Ave. , Southold. SCTM #79-5-20. 9
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Anyone like to speak in favor of the
application?
'`CRAIG ARM I 'm here to speak for the Cornell 's.
TRUSTEE__KING: Move to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I ' ll make a motion to approve the application
with condition that all the conditions of the buffer be adhered
to and that the disturbance to the existing wetlands on the site
be minimized.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES
13 . Catherine Mesiano on behalf of[RUSSELL & ROBERT MC CALL
requests a{We£1and7Permit4to construct a single family dwelling
with attached:2 car garage, well and septic system. Located:
10543 New Suffolk Ave. , New Suffolk. SCTM #116-1-6
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of the
Mc Call ' s?
[GA WICKH_A�'_N!: I 'm here to represent the Mc Call ' s . I have
-Bob Mc Call here who is contract vendee.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : We went on field inspection last month and we
couldn't find the stakes . I went out again. It' s a fairly
straight forward application. Again, we couldn't find the house
stakes and I saw what looked like property line stakes, but I
couldn't find any house stakes or septic system stakes.
GAIL: My understanding is that it was staked by the surveyor
but when I was there they hadn't been put down yet.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: There were stakes in there but we were trying
to figure out what they were. I think we found or what we
thought were rear corners and then one down towards the creek
and that was it. I think there were only 3 stakes on the whole
place.
Board of Trustees 25 March 25, 1998
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Again, it's a pretty straight forward
application but it should be staked.
GAIL: I ' ll make sure that gets done.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : What we're gonna require, like we did with
the last one, is require 30 or 40 or 50 ' buffer area where there
will be no disturbance and be able to clear for a view and it
will be a non-turf buffer. That will be about it.
GAIL: I think the property lends itself to that kind of natural
setting.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I ' ll make a motion that we recess this until
April.
14 . Samuels & Steelman on behalf of WALTER & MILDRED
LSILBERNAGELirequests a Wetland Permit to do renovations to
existing house and garage, well & septic system. 'Located: 10543
New Suffolk Ave. New Suffolk. SCTM #118-1-4 . 1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Is there anyone who would like to speak on
behalf of the application? CAC recommends disapproval because
project can cause further encroachment into a buffer zone.
Their building out onto the lawn. There' s really no buffer zone
there.
F_SCOTT HILARY ' I guess our members reasoning was there were two
structures already there within the 75 '. buffer and just allowing
for another structure that seemed like it was kind of a lot for
that .system.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : The way I looked at it it' s not gonna have
a. . . . .OK. Any other comment?
TRUSTEE SMITH: Motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I ' ll make a motion to approve the application
provided we have a staked row of haybales at the edge of
wetlands during construction.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Second. ALL AYES
15 . tJOSEPH & ELIZABETH B_RIT_TMAN;requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 4 ' X 30 ' dock. Located: 80 Glenn road, Southold.
SCTM #78-3-10
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Is there anyone here who, would like to speak
in favor of the application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : CAC recommended a non-turf buffer, put
plantings along the edge of the creek instead of having a lawn
go right to it, about 6 or 8 feet.
TRUSTEE SMITH: I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE SMITH: I ' ll make a motion to approve the dock.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES
16 . WI LIL�P,M_&_ CHRI$TINE__EISENREICH' requests a(LWetl.and_.P_ermit,;
to construct a single family dwelling with sanitary system, and
driveway. Located: 805 Bayshore Road, Greenport. SCTM
#53-3-10
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Is there anyone here who would like to speak
in favor or against the application?
Board of Trustees 26 March 25, 1998
MR. MYSILBOR_SK_I : I 'm here to voice my opinion against this.
I just want to express my views with relation to the septic
system in proximity to my well in the front. And there's only a
100 ' separation. It needs 150 ' . So he has to get a variance
from the Board of Health. So it's only 2/3 of what it should be.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Actually on this it shows the septic system.
Our jurisdiction is only from the wetlands .
MR. MYSILBORSKI : I realize that, I just want you to know my
feelings .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : CAC recommended approval with a non-turf
buffer. I think we said 30 ' from the top of bank.
TRUSTEE SMITH: I ' ll make a motion ,to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I ' ll make a motion to approve the application
with condition that haybales be placed at 30 ' upland from upland
from the top of Bay and it be a non-turf non-disturbed buffer at
top of bank where haybales are.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE SMITH moved to go back to regular meeting, TRUSTEE KING
seconded. ALL AYES
FV. RESOLUTIONSc7
1 . Docko Inc. , on behalf of, FISHERS ISLAND FERRY_DISTRICT
s+` requests a -Grandfather Permit to stabilize the existing 400 '
steel bulkhead, reconstruct inkind inplace 350 ' of timber wharf,
ramp, counter weight towers & 2 dolphins . NOTE: Also to
rescind resolution made at the February 25th meeting denying
without prejudice the request to waiver the $100 Grandfather
Permit Fee, due to the fact that the Ferry District is a tax
exempt agency. Located: west end of Trumbull Drive, Fishers
Island. SCTM #12-1-10
TRUSTEE KING moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH
seconded. ALL AYES
2 . i"_INNA HOULB Q requests a--Grandfather_P_ermit " for a 58 '
bulkhead-built in 1971. Located: 210 Knoil Circle, East
Marion. SCTM #37-5-16
TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE KING
seconded. ALL AYES
3 . JOAN EGAN� requests a Grandfather Permit for an existing
bulkhead, to be repaired and replaced inkind inplace as needed.
Located: Knoll Circle, East Marion. SCTM #37-5-12
TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE KING
seconded. ALL AYES
4 . �g WO ARD REICH .requests a FGrandfather Permft;tfor an existing
165 ' bulkhead and dock. Located: __'180_-Bayview Drive, East
Marion. SCTM #37-4-3
TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE KING
seconded. ALL AYES
Board of Trustees 27 March 25, 1998
5. William Goggins on behalf of P_ETER_WARNSt requests a
`Grandfather Permitifor approx. 96 ' of bulkhead. Located: 8740
Peconic Bay Blvd. , Mattituck. SCTM #126-5-2
VI_. MOORINGS
1. ; F K JANE LYNNi requests an on-shore,off-shore moor_ing' in
Town Creek for a 17 ' outboard. ACCESS: Private.
TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES
2 . —VELORIS_ U_ LLMAN requests an on=shore/off-shore mooring_:'
for -a 7 1%2 ' dinghy on Corey Creels.— ACCESS: Association
Beach.
TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL -AYES
f----.-'--
3 . , SIEVE B LLLAVIA_;reauests a mooring_ __in Deep Hole_ Creek` for a
26 .5 ' --inboard with a 150 lb. mushroom. ACCESS: private dock
TRUSTEE KING moved to approve, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES
4 . ROBERTffUCTE1 requests a mooring; for a 23 ' inboard/outboard
with a_150_lb.___mushroom. ACCESS: Public
TRUSTEE KING moved to approve, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES
5 . THOMAS MURRAY' requests an on-sh_o_re/off-shore.__stake.-' for a 12 '
outboard boat in Narrow River.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL
AYES
Meeting Adjourned At: 10 :20 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted By:
Diane J. Herbert, Clerk
MIME
Tcev�� lcr1�, a-yz.
MAR 23 '98 12:24 FR NETRISK 203 618 1255 TO 15167651823 P.02/02
. Richard A. Curcio
526 East 20t` Street,#1E
New York, New York 10009
March 23, 1998.
To: Board of Trustecs,
Town of Southold
Sub
ject: w&M Tueano MAR 2 3 f998 '
SCTM#10004 22-9-7.6
To the Board: SOUTl �
I am most concerned about the proposal of my neighbor,W&M Tufano to build a house
and garage.-reference #1000-122-9-7.6. My main concern has to do with the size!and
use of the building.labeled "proposed garage." Past. experience with W&M Tufano
indicates to me that their. `proposed" use and the actual use will probably be quite
different.
My specific concerns are:
1. What is the height of this`proposed"garage? Does it contain a"second story?" .If it. ' :
does - then how will the town ensure that,this second story will not be used as a
residence?
2. Since this is a "proposed" =.how.can the town prevent the. entire structure
garage
from being used as a residence?
3. What recourse exists if the structure is built as a garage-and later is modificd.to be a
: . residence?
4. :The size of this !!Proposed"garage is enormous! One thousand square feet,(1000) if
one story and two thousand square.feet(2000):if two'stories this is.larger than their
entire current.residence! This.leads me to.believe.their intended use is.well beyond
that of a garage.
Please let me know in writing what safeguards are in place-to prevent this '`proposed"'
garage from becoming another:residence on this property.
Thank you,
Richard A. Curcio
�oic TOTAL PAGE.02c