HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-02/20/2002 1 Albert 4.Krupski,President Town Hall
James King,Vice-President COSVFF��/�'C 53095 Route 25
r Artie Foster �� �G P.O.Box 1179
Ken Poliwoda 1' Southold,New York 11971-0959
co
Peggy A.Dickerson y 2
Telephone(631) 765-1892
Oy �� Fax(631) 765-1366
.fj�1 � dap
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MINUTES
Wednesday, February 20, 2002
7:00 PM
PRESENT WERE: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President
James King, Vice-President
Artie Foster, Trustee
Peggy Dickerson, Trustee
Lauren Standish, Senior Clerk
Scott Hilary, CAC
Bob Ghosio, CAC
ABSENT WAS: Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee
CALL,MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 at 8:00 AM
TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve, TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL
AYES
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 at 7:00 PM
WORKSESSION: 6:00 PM
TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of January 23, 2002 (not available)
I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for January 2002. A
check for $5,635.31 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the
General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's
Bulletin Board for review.
v
t ¢ 2
III. AMEN DMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES:
1. ROBERT MOSQUERA requests an Amendment to Permit#5297 to
construct a 20'X 20' extension to the dwelling and a 20'X 21' garage.
Located: 370 Hobart Rd., Southold. SCTM#62-3-6
TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application with the condition of a
25' non-turf buffer and drywells for the garage, TRUSTEE FOSTER
seconded. ALL AYES
2. REYDON SHORES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC. requests an
Amendment to Permit#4704 to replace deteriorated wood sheathing and
bottom whaler only with C-Loc vinyl sheathing. Bottom whaler 6"X 6"
creosote. Located: End of Reydon Dr., Southold. SCTM#80-3-21.1
TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application with the condition that
the pipe is removed from the bulkhead, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded.
ALL AYES
3. CHARLES BURST requests an Amendment to Permit #2003 to change
the existing dock and ramp to a floating dock and two piles to hold the
dock. Located: 705 Windy Point Rd., Southold. SCTM#87-4-6
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Table the application until a new dock plan
is received and another inspection is made, TRUSTEE FOSTER
seconded. ALL AYES
4. ROBERT ALCUS requests an Amendment to Permit#4279 to move the
existing float north 6'. Located: 1457 Cedar Point Dr. East, Southold.
SCTM#92-1-2.1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application with the condition
that a new plan is submitted showing the dock relocated 6' to the north
and 3' inward, TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES
5. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of FREDERICK VON ZUBEN requests
an Amendment to Permit#5344 for the renovation of the existing single-
family dwelling, including the placement of the house on pilings,
construction of a new deck, replacement of the sanitary system, removal
of concrete walls along property lines and construction of a new gravel
driveway. Located: 1125 North Sea Dr., Southold. SCTM#54-4-13
TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve the application with the condition
that the dune is restored with beach grass and Rosa Rugosa, TRUSTEE
DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES
6. Mill Creek Builders on behalf of GRACE KEHLE requests an Amendment
to Permit #5317 to allow for the removal and reconstruction of existing
foundation found to be deficient. Located: 450 Strohson Rd., Cutchogue.
SCTM#103-10-20
M
ti r
3
TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE FOSTER
seconded. ALL AYES
7. JOHN & KATHLEEN BOWER request a Transfer of Permit#5260 from
Norman Wamback to John & Kathleen Bower to construct a single-family
dwelling, sanitary system, and driveway. Located: 12710 Horton's Lane,
Southold. SCTM#54-7-1.3
TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING
seconded. ALL AYES
8. JOHN EDLER requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #4825
and Coastal Erosion Permit #5065. Located: 130 Cleaves Point Rd., East
Marion. SCTM#38-2-32
TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING
seconded. ALL AYES
9. ANTHONY NAPOLITANO requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland
Permit#4828 and Coastal Erosion Permit#5068. Located: 200 Cleaves
Point Rd., East Marion. SCTM#38-2-33
TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING
seconded. ALL AYES
10. FRANK TOMASINI requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit
#4827 and Coastal Erosion Permit#5066. Located: 290 Cleaves Point
Rd., East Marion. SCTM#38-2-34
TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING
seconded. ALL AYES
11. NORMAN TAYLOR requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit
#4826 and Coastal Erosion Permit#5067. Located: 300 Cleaves Point
Road, East Marion. SCTM#38-2-35
TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING
seconded. ALL AYES
12. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of SALT LAKE ASSOCIATION
requests a One-Year Extension to Permit#5133, which will expire on
March 22, 2002. Located: Old Salt Rd., Mattituck. SCTM#144-5-19
TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE
KING seconded. ALL AYES
13. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of WILLIAM MANOS requests a One-
Year Extension to Permit#5147, which will expire on February 24, 2002.
Located: 12035 Soundview Ave., Southold. SCTM#54-5-46.1
TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE
DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES
L
� r
4
TRUSTEE KING moved to go off the Regular Meeting and onto the Public
Hearings, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING
APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE
OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF
PUBLICATION FROM THE SUFFOLK TIMES. PERTINENT
CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.
PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF.
FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS IF POSSIBLE
1. JOAN LACAILLE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 1' high
retaining wall approx. 60 linear ft. on northwest side of catwalk and
approx. 30 linear ft. retaining wall 1.5' high northeast of catwalk. Located:
1255 Waterview Dr., Southold. SCTM#78-7-17
POSTPONED UNTIL MARCH AS PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST
2. SUSAN MAGG requests a Wetland Permit to add a 2" layer of topsoil to
plant grass within 100' of the wetlands. Located: 495 Halls Creek Dr.,
Mattituck. SCTM#116-7-4.1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of
or against the application?
JAMES ORIOLE: That's my wife. I'm here to answer any questions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we went out on field inspection last month and
there was a violation issued in June of 2001 to stop all work and place hay
bales in line to stop any erosion. Apparently, that was never done.
JAMES ORIOLE: But the job had already been finished. That's probably
the question that you have. The job was already done. That's one of the
reasons why it wasn't answered because the job had already been done.
The two inches had already been spread and that's one of the reasons
why you even saw the pay loader there. I own it. So the job was already
done and you sent me this to stop and basically I was done. It's probably
my fault I didn't answer it. You then sent the police on a Sunday morning
and issued me a summons. We went to court and then in court they
postponed it and said to file an application, which we did, and here I am.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It took a long from June of last year for all of that to
happen. Did the CAC review this?
SCOTT HILARY: Yes we did. We recommended Disapproval of the
application.
5
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When this development was being developed we
delineated the path that was there to be the, the landward side of the
path...
JAMES ORIOLE: We didn't go any further east of the path.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well actually it shows, what you submitted, it
shows that you did.
JAMES ORIOLE: Well the path is still there. You can see the pay loader
parked on the path.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well that was part of the problem. That's supposed
to be non-disturbance. You shouldn't have anything stored there.
JAMES ORIOLE: Why?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because it's a non-disturbance buffer area and the
whole purpose of a non-disturbance buffer area is to protect the creek and
that's why we set that path as a consistent buffer area for all of those
houses as they were built in that development.
JAMES ORIOLE: That path was a right-of-way to a farm.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's an old farm road but we used it as a delineator to
define the setback line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All of those houses in that development had the
same setback line.
JAMES ORIOLE: The path is there but I didn't go past the path.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure, there's material stored there, there's a pile of
gravel or dirt, the path has been filled in with leaves, actively filled in with
leaves that have been placed there, not just fallen there, because leaves
don't fall a foot and half thick.
JAMES ORIOLE: You can see that my property is practically leaf free and
they just blow that way. You can come in and look at the property and
there's not a leaf there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were there. But I'm inclined to disapprove the
permit and make that area restored because that's a buffer area and it
should be restored.
SCOTT HILARY: We recommend the same.
JAMES ORIOLE: So tell me what you want because if I'm going to start
the pay loader up, I'm going to clear the area and put the buffer back. Tell
me how deep you want me to make the buffer. It can be done in a half an
hour, if that's all it is.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what it is. The original road has to be
restored to what it is. The buffer area is the landward side of that road.
JAMES ORIOLE: Right, I mean I understand if that's what you want for the
road. That's why I'm here and that's fine. So you're granting me the
permit to put the 2" of topsoil that's down there already then?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, we're denying you the permit because that
topsoil got spilled out into the buffer area. We want everything removed
from the buffer area and have that restored. You would have to give us a
plan on how you're going to restore that buffer area to its original state.
JAMES ORIOLE: Ok, so I'm going to submit a plan for the road.
' Y 6
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct.
JAMES ORIOLE: Ok.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As per your original permit for the house.
JAMES ORIOLE: Well the original permit for the house was a building
permit and so we brought fill in and that's probably one of the reasons why
we didn't file a permit to put 2" of top soil in the back because we had a
permit to bring in fill on my original permit. But again, it's just bringing that
road back to original grade or spec, so that's what I'll do.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Deny the request to place 2"
of topsoil within the non-disturbance buffer. So you'll have to give us a
planting plan, a restoration plan for that area.
JAMES ORIOLE: Well nothings going to be planted, just cleared.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it has to be restored to what it was.
JAMES ORIOLE: Sure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Submit it and we'll review it.
JAMES ORIOLE: Ok.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Deny the request to place 2"
of topsoil within the non-disturbance buffer.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
3. JASON & LISA LUHRS request a Wetland Permit to install a stone
driveway to the garage. Located: 1132 Chestnut Rd., Southold.
SCTM#59-3-16.5
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of
the application?
JASON LUHRS: I'm the applicant.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you in favor of it?
JASON LUHRS: Oh, yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone else like to comment on the
application?
JASON LUHRS: I'm just here if you have any questions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What were the CAC comments?
SCOTT HILARY: We recommended Disapproval solely on the project
wasn't staked and that's just a policy. When we saw the inspection, there
was no stakes to reference the proposed project, so we recommended
Disapproval.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: There were stakes there when we got there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were there Wednesday and it was staked.
SCOTT HILARY: You'll see on this agenda that there's probably another
five or so like this so we're going to have to figure out something.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When do you go out?
BOB GHOSIO: Usually the Sunday before our meeting.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It was staked on Wednesday. We were there
Wednesday.
' 7
A
SCOTT HILARY: Right but we go out before you guys.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If it wasn't staked you would not have known where
you were.
SCOTT HILARY: Well I didn't see this one myself.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh, you didn't go out?
SCOTT HILARY: No.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ok, because I was going to show you where you
were in the woods. If it was not staked, you wouldn't have had a clue.
SCOTT HILARY: Well that's why we Disapproved the project.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We looked at it and it's something that you'd
approve of. It was staked.
SCOTT HILARY: I think we need to work on that. Maybe a note to the
contractors to stake them earlier. It's a waste of everybody's time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think that's a problem. We spent a lot of
time on this one. Do I have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to Approve the application.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
4. ROGER SIEJKA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 12' fixed
dock with stairs leading to a 6'X 15' fixed dock. Located: 130 Willis Creek
Dr., Mattituck. SCTM#115-17-17.8
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of
the application? They submitted new plans showing a 4' wide to an 8'X 6'
platform so he made is about as minimal as he could. We'll include stairs
in the description. What was the CAC comment?
SCOTT HILARY: We recommend Approval.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you see the new plan? It's about half the size.
SCOTT HILARY: Do I did not.
BOB GHOSIO: It's even better.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It doesn't show the stairs but we'll include the stairs
in the description. Do I have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES. I'll make a motion to
Approve the application to adhere to the recently submitted plan changing
the configuration.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
5. JOSEPH & ELIZABETH BRITTMAN requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 25'X 35' addition to the existing dwelling. Located: 80 Glenn
Rd., Southold. SCTM#78-2-10
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in
favor of the application? The CAC recommended approval. Is there
anyone else who would like to speak before we take a Board comment?
The only condition we put on is that we need drywells and gutters to
contain the roof run-off.
JOSEPH BRITTMAN: Is that for the house also?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's advisable. You could put in a big drywell and
you could connect the gutters to that.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Where's the septic system on that house?
JOSEPH BRITTMAN: It's in the front.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On Glenn Rd. Bayview?
JOSEPH BRITTMAN: Glenn Rd.
TRUSTEE KRUPSK: Do I have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We should also get hay bales during construction.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with a line
of hay bales and drywells and gutters for the roof run-off.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
6. DONALD & HELEN RYND requests a Wetland Permit to replace the
damaged bulkhead. Located: 1165 West Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#110-7-
2
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any one who would like to speak in favor of
or against the application? The CAC recommended Approval with a non-
turf buffer behind it.
SCOTT HILARY: And that construction be in-place.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well that's what I'm looking at here.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: They have it tucked in as far as they can get it I
guess.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you think they can take that piling out? It
seems like they could take that old piling out or do you think it should be
in-place?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Haven't we done it before where we put the pilings
right next to the old ones and then pull the sheathing and put new
sheathing right behind it?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On his plans, he's got water coming up to the
bulkhead, and now there's sand because the County dredged. Do you
have any comments on this?
TOM SAMUELS: Mr. Rynd is in Portugal and he couldn't be here tonight.
He just applied to the DEC. The County just did nourish that beach there.
It has changed a lot from what it was three weeks ago but I would have no
problem with you Tabling this because the DEC's application has yet to
be...he's trying to do it all himself. I think if you want to Table it, I'd like to
take a look at the situation again. I'm not authorized however to ask you to
Table it but it's a suggestion. There's no great rush on it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'd rather not Table it just because I'd rather keep it
moving along, even if the DEC makes them change it. We don't have a
problem with them amending the application.
' 9
TOM SAMUELS: If I can help you with any answers I will.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we were just wondering whether, there's a
comment from the CAC to replace it in-place. I'd be more inclined to
Approve it, take the old piling out and go right in front of the old sheathing
because then you're only bumping out 12" tops.
TOM SAMUELS: I don't know what the DEC is going to say about 18" on
that beach especially now since they nourished it because now he has a
beach where he hasn't for years. If you want to specify piling removal
that's fine.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve the application but
that during construction the existing pilings be removed in order to keep
the structure as tight to,the old structure as possible and that there be a
10' non-turf buffer behind the new bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
7. JOHN ZOUMAS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family
dwelling with attached two-car garage, deck and driveway. The house will
also have a foundation and septic tank with cesspools. Located: 1250
Esplanade, Southold. SCTM#88-6-13.48
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of
the application? Is there anyone who would like to speak against the
application? The CAC recommends Disapproval because the buffer
should be at least 1 00' from the upper edge of the wetlands and the
wetlands should be flagged. I think those wetlands were flagged.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: We measured them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We measured them but there were tags down there.
SCOTT HILARY: I saw a ribbon or two in the woods but nothing to really
reference. We requested 100' out because there was at least 100' to work
with. When it's there, we recommend to go to the 100'. As we said at the
meeting last week, it's optimal to have a 100' buffer for the natural
requirements of those wetland species and the data substantially shows
that 100' is optimal.
BOB GHOSIO: We also recommended keeping the cedars in place.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any comment?
JOHN ZOUMAS: I'm John Zoumas.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Alright, so you heard the comments from the CAC.
Basically we agreed with those comments. There seems to be a 50'
building setback in that neighborhood.
NEIGHBOR: Right.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would like to see the house moved closer to the
road so we can maximize the setback.
JOHN ZOUMAS: I don't know if the Towns going to allow that though.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: A 50' setback?
10
JOHN ZOUMAS: I already have 50' now. You're saying go to 40'?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, keep it at 50' but put the garage on the other
side or something. We saw the same thing that the CAC saw in the field.
Our field comments say 84' from wetlands to corner of the house.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's pretty much what they show here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If the house were at 50' it would be in line with the
neighbor's house.
JOHN ZOUMAS: But you're telling me to switch the garage on the other
side but I don't think it would help because we're still at 50' right?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But then you could move the house towards the
road.
JOHN ZOUMAS: But then I would have less than 50'. The zoning is 50'
and then I'll have to go for a variance.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're not asking you to move it closer than 50' to
the road. Artie, can you explain it?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well there's no other way to explain other than you
have to change the design of the house.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're trying to maximize the setback there from the
wetlands.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: If you flip the house, mirrored it, went upside down
the other way, you would actually be closer because the back of the house
protrudes even further behind the garage so you would actually be going
closer.
JOHN ZOUMAS: Originally the house was farther away but the DEC
made me flip it so we could get 85'.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: If the garage was taken from where it is and moved
over to the side of the,house, you could move the house forward but that
would be changing the whole design of the house, which I really don't
have anything to do with. But that's the only way. You're not going to put
that house on that lot and gain anything by moving it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well maybe that's the problem.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: The only thing you could do, would be to put a
different house there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well that's a suggestion. You have a comment sir?
NEIGHBOR: I don't know if you realize but there's a covenant in there.
There's a 50' setback so from the road you have to be 60', in actuality.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's 50' from the property line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our concern isn't so much for the size of the lot or
the size of the house. It's more for the protection of the wetlands in the
back. If the house is one size and the lot is one size, from our standpoint
it's got nothing to do with the road or the house, it has to do with the
wetlands.
NEIGHBOR: I understand but I didn't know if you realize that this area
requires a 50' setback.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're the neighbor to the north?
NEIGHBOR: No, I'm across.
• 11
TRUSTEE KING: The garage seems to be the sticking point here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right now there's a 75' clearing and ground
disturbance line. That's DEC imposed?
JOHN ZOUMAS: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That only allows you 10' to work on. Is that enough
room to work in there?
JOHN ZOUMAS: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: A 75' buffer is a good buffer.
SCOTT HILARY: We recommend the 100' because it was there, but as
optimal. We weren't looking at size of house or size of lot. We couldn't
see a 10' building envelope being able to work in there with. Usually it's
minimum 25'.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a small area to put a foundation in.
JOHN ZOUMAS: Yes, but it can be done.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you building this for a customer?
JOHN ZOUMAS: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But you could say it's this house or this house.
JOHN ZOUMAS: We've been working on this house for a year. The
customer designed it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're from the Association and you're happy with
this?
ASSOCIATION: Yes. We have no problem with this.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's a first when the neighbors approve.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't really have a problem with it if they maintain
75'. Put the hay bales along the 75' line.
TRUSTEE KING: That's a decent buffer area.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: But there's no disturbance seaward of that
conservation easement.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The DEC requires markers used by the Dept. to
delineate the boundary of the wetland be left undisturbed for one year
following completion of the project and any work storage material should
be confined within the limit of clearing and snow fence shall be erected
prior to the commencement to any permitted activities and shall be
maintained until project completion and prior to commencement of
construction activities a continuous row of hay bales shall be staked from
end to end at the base of the snow fence.
SCOTT HILARY: Has the delineation been identified yet?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: We measured it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We did see the flags in the wetlands. They were
pretty conservative. We didn't know who flagged them. You've got to put
the snow fence up before construction and we'll put on as part of the
permit that the snow fence has to be inspected before construction begins.
SCOTT HILARY: And that 75' buffer non-disturbed?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. That will be the same as the DEC permit.
Would anyone else like to speak? Do I have a motion to close the
hearing?
' 12
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application and
maintain the presently noted conservation easement with snow fence and
hay bales and to observe the restriction of the clearing limits. This will also
have to have drywells and roof gutters to contain all roof run-off.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Once the snow fence is in place and the hay bales
are in place, this office will have to inspect it to make sure they are in the
right location.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
8. JOHN HENRY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 9'X 36' ground-
level deck, remove window and install an overhead door, and construct
stairs from the existing deck to the ground on the south side of the house.
Located: 2360 Village Lane, Orient. SCTM#26-1-15.1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This project apparently wasn't noticed property and
so we'll open the hearing if anyone would like to comment and then we
have to Table it until next month.
MR. CHRISTENSEN: I'm representing John Henry's house. Is there
anything I have to do before the next meeting?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It hasn't been noticed properly but if anyone came
tonight we would let them comment on it and then we'll just Table it.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: The only comment I had on it was that I think I would
want a silt fence from property line to property line 15' out from the house
to contain the construction area, not being out on the beach and in the
high-tidal area. That was the only stipulation I had. Also, they're not really
changing the footprint of the house itself, just putting in a bay window and
adding a door but it wouldn't be a bad idea to put a drywell in for the roof
run-off on the bay side.
MR. CHRISTENSEN: There's no run-off on the bay side. It all runs toward
the road. It's a shed roof.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I didn't notice that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? Then we'll Table the
application until next month.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
9. POSILLICO CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. requests a Wetland Permit for
the existing single-family dwelling under construction and proposed 24'X
28' detached two-car garage. Located: 3040 Kerwin Blvd., Greenport.
SCTM#53-4-44.35
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the
application?
TONY POSILLICO: (inaudible) and I'm here to answer any questions you
might have. We did place down the hay bales and I have notice of
postings that I would like to give you.
13
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? The CAC
recommends Disapproval and recommends the applicant re-establish 100'
of native vegetation, a non-turf, non-fertilization buffer. We visited the site
and in that case we were satisfied with a 50' buffer. We staked it off with
the applicant. Did you move the hay bales?
TONY POSILLICO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So the hay bales are at the 50' buffer and we will
also condition drywells and gutters for the house.
SCOTT HILARY: Why wouldn't you recommend a violation for this?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It wasn't a violation of the permit because there
wasn't a permit. There were no wetlands shown on the survey so all the
permits were issued based on there not being wetlands. They showed up
later in the course of clearing and that's when the whole thing came about.
The DEC and the marine police went down there and then he applied for
the permit. The house is up and everything is already there and it was
already done. It wasn't a violation of the permit because there wasn't one
and it wasn't indicated on the survey.
SCOTT HILARY: So whose responsibility is it to indicate it on the survey?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well it was an old survey that didn't show it. The
wetlands over the years might have grown as they do.
SCOTT HILARY: Don't you require an up-to-date survey?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we did get something up-to-date because
originally when we looked at it, it was pretty crude. When did you get a
building permit on this?
TONY POSILLICO: I think it was the beginning of January but I can find
out for you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is happening less and less but this is one that
happened. You know, they received the building permit based on that
survey.
TONY POSILLICO: The original subdivision map showed a pond area off
the lot.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's an old subdivision map and all the surveys are
done off the original subdivision map.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I guess what well need then is if you could put on
the survey, and I'm trying to find which one, the line of hay bales and a 50'
non-disturbance buffer on the other side of them. So, have that drawn in
on the most up-to-date you have. I have four here. I assume it's going to
be your most up-to-date survey that you have showing the garage.
TONY POSILLICO: I have a survey showing the house as it exists and I
have the proposed garage location.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ok, so show it on that survey.
TONY POSILLICO: Can I take advantage of the precedence set earlier by
the other gentlemen and I could draw it in right now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. Is there any other comment? Do I have a
motion to close the hearing?
14
TONY POSILLICO: I have a couple of questions. During the site visit, I
pointed out a tree that is dying and I made a request to remove that tree.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I thought we decided that tree was shot. The whole
core was hollow.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I thought about that. I was inclined to leave it alone
since that is the buffer area.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I thought we said, yes you can take it down if you
take it down by hand, without machinery.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It provides habitat in the wetlands.
BOB GHOSIO: That's why we recommended that he re-vegetate the
area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm inclined to agree with Peggy on that. Artie, we
don't let people put a fence in the buffer zone so it should be left alone.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well that's what we said that we were going to leave
it alone and let it re-vegetate because it will be back by April.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well leave the tree alone too.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well whatever you decide.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In the buffer zone, we've denied people to put a dog
fence in it because it's a buffer zone.
TONY POSILLICO: I understand but if the tree does go down and the
wetland area starts to re-vegetate, it will only disturb it again.
TRUSTEE KING: We should see what it looks like in a year from now. If it
falls down then he can remove it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Leave it alone for a year and let the new owner, if
he has a problem, come to us.
TONY POSILLICO: Again, I would like to make my point that once that
area does start to re-vegetate, you'd have to disturb it to go in there and
remove the dead tree. If it's already dead, doesn't it make sense to
remove it now so that area can be re-vegetated and left undisturbed?
BOB GHOSIO: Is it going to be in the non-disturbance buffer?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
BOB GHOSIO: If it falls, it becomes habitat for something.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In some cases I don't have a problem with it but in
this case, it is just part of the woods and should be left alone. That's my
feeling.
BOB GHOSIO: If it's in a non-disturbance buffer, you can't take it even if it
falls down, right?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, because it's non-disturbance.
TONY POSILLICO: Before I let the issue go, I want to make a point once
again that there is a waterview from this house and the tree is in the way
of the view. I could remove it by hand.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know, we haven't made exceptions in the
past. Just like the last one, Mr. Zoumas. He has all of those cedar trees
and we're not going to let him take any of those cedar trees out. He's got
a heavy stand of them.
' 15
TONY POSILLICO: At the site there were at least two or three Trustees
that agreed to take it down.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There was some discussion towards that. I said
that we should probably think about it. When it dies, it will fall down and
then it's out of the way. It could still live. With the last applicant, Mr.
Zoumas, we wouldn't let him take those cedars down. We've had a lot of
problems with non-disturbance buffers in the last two years. We'd rather
let it remain non-disturbance. If you take it out then Mr. Zoumas is going
to want to take it out and then the next guy says he wants to take them out
too.
TONY POSILLICO: It's a difficult thing for me to accept because just a
year ago in the road dedication process of the subdivision I was asked to
go in and take perfectly good trees out in the sump area, which is probably
more of a habitat area and that made no sense to me at the time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We had no part of that.
TONY POSILLICO: I understand that but from my point of view, I had to
spend a lot of money to do something that was much more of a
disturbance and in some cases they were right in the water. I'm asking
you to let me go in, by hand, and cut a dead tree down and remove it. I'm
not going to bring in any heavy equipment. I'll gladly let the Trustees
inspect it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't question your work and everything but it's
just that...
TONY POSILLICO: I'll do it under your guidance and supervision.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we should just leave it alone. I think that's
the feeling of the Board because we've had, not with you, but we've had
some problems with these buffer areas in the past and we'd rather see
them left undisturbed. We're trying to be consistent. It's not you or your
tree but it's the whole concept of the buffer area.
TONY POSILLICO: Can dead limbs be trimmed?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'd rather not see anything touched in there
because that's the whole non-disturbed buffer concept. It's been a big
problem for us in the past two years. Like I said, it's got nothing to do with
you or your operation. It's the problem the Board has had with other
people in other areas. Any other comment? Do I have a motion to close
the hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
10. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of WILLIAM H. PRICE,
JR., ESQ. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 1725 sf. single-family
dwelling with a 550 sf. attached deck, an 865 sf. gravel driveway, septic
system and waterline; and place 125 cy. of fill to elevate the septic
system. Located: 100 Bay Rd., Greenport. SCTM#43-5-10
� s
16
POSTPONED UNTIL MARCH AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST
11. Docko, Inc. on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND YACHT CLUB requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a 7'X 72' wood pile and timber dock with two
5'X 30' finger docks, construct 225 (+/-) LF of floating dock, all with
associated tie-off and restraint pilings, reposition an existing 6' X 90'
LF float with new hinged ramp, include all associated restraint and
mooring line piles, all waterward of the apparent high water line. Located:
Central Ave., Fishers Island. SCTM#10-1-9
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to comment on this application?
Does this need Coastal Erosion? I think it does. Is this all new? I'll make
a motion to Table the application.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
12. James H. Rambo, Inc. on behalf of ERWIN RODGER requests a Wetland
Permit to reconstruct inkind/inplace 85 linear ft. of timber bulkhead,
excluding ramp. Backfill with clean fill from an approved upland source,
only as necessary. Replace 16 wood piles 16'X 10", 6' on center; minimal
disturbance for replacement of existing piles, inkind/inplace, and restore
the lawn as exists. Located: 225 East Side Ave., Mattituck. SCTM#99-3-
20
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the
application? The CAC recommends Approval with a 10' non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE KING: Remember we talked about the tie line and whether or
not it was the property line? I talked to a surveyor today and he said that
the tie line is not necessarily the property line. Here's your ordinary high-
water mark and there's the tie line, outside. That's not the property line.
It's a way of connecting two points. I was on the phone with a surveyor for
a half an hour and he tried to explain all of this to me and all he did was
get me more confused.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, we had that discussion about the property
line.
TRUSTEE KING: I went down there and this thing is about 40 years old.
It's all there. I don't have a problem with it the way it is, in-place with the
plastic.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We looked at a survey and we wanted the
bulkhead to be straightened. Is there any other comment? Do I have a
motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with a 10'
non-turf buffer landward of the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
13. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of CATHERINE A.
MCGOVERN LUCARELLI requests a Wetland Permit to remove +/-70' of
' 17
concrete bulkhead and to reconstruct in place 70' of C-Loc 4500 Vinyl
Sheathing and to backfill structure with +/-20 cy. of clean sand to be
trucked in from an upland site. Located: 830 Oak Ave., Southold.
SCTM#77-1-4
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the
application?
GLENN JUST: If there are any questions, I'd here to answer them. I have
the green cards for Lauren. Last month there was a question as far as
who owns the property. There is a paper street, Cedar Rd., which is north
of Oak St. I went to the County Center yesterday and got copies of the
deeds and I guess the Town Attorney has to review them. I don't see any
mention myself as far as...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ok, the Town Attorney says, in regard to the
ownership issue of the roadway area in Goose Creek, the following action
should be considered prior to final determination. Documentation which
shows ownership, which is a survey, and once correct ownership is
determined, the Trustees can define what is reasonable use of the
property and therefore set and hold a public hearing. This application
seems to be quite similar to the Timothy Hill application.
GLENN JUST: I think that's one of the adjacent neighbors.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But what they did was they put the dock out and it
wasn't from their property.
GLENN JUST: I supplied you with an updated survey and a copy of the
deed and again, you had mentioned before tie lines. Your describing
beach and the mean high water and it changes twice a day, 700 times a
year. It does show in the survey submitted and the deed that the paper
road is well seaward of the declared property lines that are shown. So,
the bulkhead would be on the property and not on Town owned bottom.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The CAC had a comment. Didn't we clear this up
last month? Scott, your comment about the 200 cubic yards?
SCOTT HILARY: I'm not sure if it was cleared up. There was discrepancy
in the amount to be excavated that was a reference of 20 cy. on the permit
but there was 200 cy. needed.
GLENN JUST: We said 20 cy. in our application. Why 200 cy.?
SCOTT HILARY: That was a comment from one of our council members.
GLENN JUST: We're not looking to raise the height of the bulkhead but
another few inches. We'd be digging up old concrete and that concrete
wall I think is going to be 36" and it's shaped like that. It's going to be 12"
wide on the top and maybe 24"-36" on the bottom. The line that we are
reconstructing is the landward end of that concrete so it's going to be
concrete taken out and no reason to replace it seaward of the bulkhead. A
lot more has to come out than what has to go back in because the C-Loc
is very narrow material.
SCOTT HILARY: It wasn't a big issue. It was more of a discrepancy in
the language.
18
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What do you think about yardage, Artie? Give it a
ball park figure.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I can't it needing any more than that. The new
bulkhead is going to be the same height as the concrete that's there now?
GLENN JUST: Yes.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You don't fill right up to the top of it? 3", 4",6" or
whatever. It might be off by a couple of yards but certainly not any more
than that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application and
establish a 10' non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
14. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of CAROL CLANCY requests
a Wetland Permit to reconstruct in place +/-62' of existing concrete
bulkhead, to construct a +/-38' section of new bulkhead in place of
dilapidated concrete bulkhead. Existing concrete bulkhead would be
replaced with C-Loc 4500 Vinyl Sheathing and structure shall be backfilled
with +/-20 cy. of clean sand which shall be trucked in from an upland
source. Located: 280 Oak Ave., Southold. SCTM#77-2-3
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the
application?
GLENN JUST: It's almost the same exact situation. I supplied the
Trustees with new copies of the survey as well as the deed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken recommended approval, CAC recommended
approval. Is there any other comment? Do I have a motion to close the
hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application and
establish a 10' non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
15. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of PETER & JANET
DORAN request a Wetland Permit to construct a +/-94' bulkhead with (2)
8' returns. Existing soil to be used as backfill. Located: 9575 Nassau
Point Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#119-1-3
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of
the application?
GLENN JUST: I'm here on behalf of the applicant.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? Peggy and I looked at
it this afternoon. Is there any re-vegetation plan?
19
GLENN JUST: We've asked the Suffolk County Soil Conservation, for
lack of a better name, and we have sent them the soil types and they'll
come back with what vegetation plan (inaudible).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's in their best interest.
GLENN JUST: Most definitely.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The CAC recommended approval with the condition
that the bank be stabilized. Is there any other comment? I'll make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to Approve the application
with a re-vegetation plan.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And with lack of an approved plan and just to re-
vegetate with American Beachgrass, 18" on center.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
16. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of JAMES GRATHWOHL requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a two-story, one-family dwelling with attached
porch and pervious driveway; install a sanitary system with approx. 240
cy. of clean sand fill to be retained with concrete retaining walls. Connect
to public water service; and establish a 25' non-disturbance/non-
fertilization buffer adjacent to the tidal wetland boundary. Located: 545
Williamsburg Rd., Southold. SCTM#78-5-16
POSTPONED UNTIL APRIL AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST
17. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of BEACHWOOD COLONY OWNERS
ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace
(inkind/inplace) +/-72' and +/-89' existing timber groins. Located: 335 &
505 Beachwood Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#116-4-23&26
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of
the application?
ROB HERRMANN: Yes, on here on behalf of the applicants, the
Beachwood Colony Owners Association. This is a fairly routine
application, one that would have qualified for a Grandfather Permit if that
program was still in place with the Board but with the abandonment of that
program, we are here for a Wetland Permit application. I know the Board
may have some thoughts on the application so I'll take those before
responding to any questions the Board might have.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right now I'm reading the letter from Mr. Taylor. We
just got it so I'll read it to the other Board member. (Letter on file.) Our
observation on field inspection was that the tide was flowing out and our
observation was the tide seemed to want to flow to the east. A suggestion
was made that if that westerly most groin was shortened, the tide would
be able to flow past it increasing the water flow out of Hall's Creek and
helping to keep the creek open.
3
20
ROB HERRMANN: That comment was the one I had passed on to Mr.
Taylor which induced him to prepare that letter and interestingly, what I
had done at about the same time is review with Mr. Taylor and other
association members some basic, well really coastal geomorphic logical
concepts of inlet migration and I realize that in some cases that discussing
such theory might be limited but in this case I think it's interesting because
we actually have aerial photographs that provide a historical prospective
that the theory of inlet migration is actually occurring here and is one that
is reoccurring on a typical basis and it's that same process that Mr. Taylor
has observed. Basically the idea is that the geomorphology of any inlet is
primarily attributable to the relative influences of tide action and wave
energy and whether the inlet actually migrates depends on the long shore
sediment transport and the idea is that there is a strong preferred direction
of long shore drift, you're going to get an inlet that's going to migrate down
drift in response to that. Basically, as that inlet channel migration occurs,
you're going to have an erosion of the adjacent shoreline and that's
certainly what has been happening at Hall's Creek for as long as the life
long residents can recall. It's obviously a creek situation that this Board is
intimately familiar with. What you're looking at right now, and I think
probably to keep this brief, and a picture is worth a thousand words, I'm
just going to give you a diagram that shows the process of inlet channel
abandonment. Now unfortunately this diagram is an exact mirror of Hall's
Creek so you're going to have to reverse the picture of the drift in your
minds. What has happened at Hall's Creek is that the inlet channel has
migrated eastward has literally transferred sands from the west that
caused the continued built up and eastward extension of the upward
beach and to what has become effectively a barrier spit right in front of the
entrance to Hall's Creek. At present, the further down drift migration of that
channel has basically stopped at the Reinhardt groin, which is the up-drift
most groin in the association and it's one of the two groins that we're
asking to replace and it's actually that groin that you're talking about
cutting back. So what's happening right now is that the channel is actually
trying to continue to move down drift as that entire inlet channel migrates
but its has hit that groin and it's being pushed out, which is exactly what
you're observing. But, what will happen is, basically you're drawing a
conclusion that well if we shorten that groin, the channel is going to be
allowed to do what it wants to do and that's going to somehow improve the
flow to Hall's Creek. My argument is that there is actually no cause and
effect between the two. You have the dynamic of inlet migration and
eventually what happens, as in that sketch, is as that spit gets pushed
farther and farther down drift, eventually it's going to lose it's gradient
advantage and there is going to be cut right through there, closer to the
center of Hall's Creek, a channel probably during a storm because then
inlets are migrating typically the channel gets straightened out during a
storm. What's kind of fascinating about the pictures that Mr. Taylor has
and that he's referring to, is if you look on the sketch that shows Stage 2
21
extension, that's pretty much exactly what you're looking at now and that
was also the case in 1988. If you look in this photo you had essentially the
same...you can actually see the exact same thing that was occurring in
1988 and you see how the channel comes out and this is the Reinhardt
groin right here so you have all of the surface water accumulating but then
in 1990, this has blown straight out through the center and you see the
Reinhardt groin now there's a couple of hundred feet of beach between
the Reinhardt groin and that groin. If you compare this picture to what's
shown as stage 2 and then this picture to what's shown as stage 3, and I
brought some aerial photographs from 1997 that basically bring us back to
stage 1. These are various angels which basically show in much greater
clarify, the same phenomenon that, here again, the main channel is
basically straight out and this Reinhardt groin here has all this beach in
front of it. So, the point I'm making is that general cyclical process of inlet
channel migration then abandonment and basically reconstruction back to
the center, has occurred, and Mr. Taylor has lived there for 8 decades and
he's watched this cycle occur over and over again and these groins have
been here since the 50's. So, they are vitally important to the association
because during this stage, which in 1988 and then you see again today,
this groin is basically the last fashion of defense against that inlet further
migrating in the nearshore area, the association beach. So, shortening
that groin would allow that inlet to migrate farther into their beach and
erode their beach whereas as it is now, you actually have historical
evidence of what is basically a reasonable stable cycle and the natural
practice that will continue despite that groin. Now, no doubt, the
excessive long shore transport of sand, I mean you have a long shore
sediment transport rate that far exceeds the onshore/offshore transport
which is why you have this whole problem with Hall's Creek and of course
we went through lovingly I think for several years with.Neil McGoldrick.
That is a problem. But, shortening this groin is not going to improve upon
or take away from that process whatsoever. It's an independent dynamic
cycle that basically what that groin serves to do is stabilize the beach in an
emergency situation when it's at the stage that it's at now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I disagree with you on...I agree with the whole
concept and I agree with Mr. Taylor's letter in that it's functioning to hold
that beach and they have quite a beach there. I don't have a problem with
that because the groins functioning. But, I disagree, if it weren't
bulkheaded, and I agree with your diagram, that's what happens, that it
weren't there it would be (inaudible). If all this bulkheading and groins
weren't there the creek would in fact come right here, wouldn't it? It would
want to come this way.
ROB HERRMANN: Until it over extends itself and it goes back through
the center. That's what I'm saying.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It does constrict it because it wants to go this way
and it can't.
? a 22
ROB HERRMANN: Well what it does is it hits the groin and then goes out
and then over but either way it still over extends itself and then breaches
through, which is what you see in these photographs. All I'm saying is that
this groin is not inhibiting the natural process that's occurring but it is
stabilizing the beach in emergency times. Basically the associations
immediate response to the thought was, well,wait a second this structure
is 50 years old and these other groins farther down drift, this Board has
grandfathered in the past, why we would we not be allowed to continue.
But, that's not the approach that I want to take. I'm trying to go through
this to explain that... I'm not saying you shouldn't shorten the groin just as
a matter of right. I'm saying to shorten the groin isn't going to have the
effect that you think it's going to have. Other than the fact that if you cut
this back, the inlet will migrate down and cut through this beach but so
what. You're going to have an erosion of this beach in the meantime and
then eventually this channel is going to cut back out this way anyway.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's just a suggestion that we made. We made that
observation in the field similar to the 1988...
ROB HERRMANN: Right, because that's the situation that's there now.
The whole idea here, given historical evidence that's it's a relatively stable
beach, over time, the natural cycle that your looking at there tends to
occur over time, why change that portion of it if it's not broken. I don't
know if Mr. Taylor has anything to add to that.
MR. TAYLOR: I'm in agreement with him, as I explained in the letter that
you just read, and there's nothing more that I have to say.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there any other comment? Do I have
a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to Approve the application.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
18. Proper-T Permit Services, Inc. on behalf of ANGELO PADOVAN requests
a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, partially on pilings,
with on-site sewage disposal system and public water. Located: 22455
Soundview Ave., Southold. SCTM#135-1-23&24.1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the
application?
JIM FITZGERALD: I'm here for Mr. Padovan. I would be interested to
know what conclusion you arrived at.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is one that we inspected two months ago.
After inspecting this in January, because it's Coastal Erosion, we made a
call to the New York State Coastal Erosion people to try to get a
determination from them and we were unable to get an answer from them
in two months. Let me just read the CAC comments before I get into the
Code. The CAC recommends Disapproval because the applicant should
provide details of grade stabilization. The proposed project would have a
23
negative impact to the existing road area. There is also a concern with the
proposed septic system. The project is within the Coastal Erosion Hazard
Area. If the Town is in the business of approving houses being built within
the wetland boundary, the Town needs to establish guidelines to address
houses being built on the beach. After reviewing the Code, I think the
Board is inclined to consider that the proposal is to be built on the beach
and the beach is defined in Chapter 37-6 Definitions is the zone of
unconsolidated earth that extends landward from the mean low water line
to the waterward toe of a dune or a bluff, whichever is the most
waterward. It goes on to say about no dune or bluff exists, but there is a
bluff there. Further on in the Code, 37-1,5 Beach Area, all development is
prohibited on beaches as specifically provided for by the Chapter. So I'm
inclined to send this back with the applicant's application fee because it's
really, it seems black and white, prohibited by the Code, and I don't want
to take their money to review something that's very clear cut in Chapter
37.
JIM FITZGERALD: I'd be happy to have the money back, however, the
Code provides for variances to be granted by the Board of Review, and in
Southold Town, it's the Town Board. If you deny it and I go to the Town
Board, they're going to say to you, "what do you think?" and that's what I
would like to know. Aside from the regulations, and I know the regulations
say you can't build this house, but I would like to know what you and the
CAC thinks will be a tribute to the adverse effects on the environment of
building that house in that location.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well it's not a matter of what we think, it's actual
black and white Code though.
JIM FIITZGERALD: But if I go for a variance, they're going to be interested
in what you think.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Aren't you getting a fair indication of that just by what
he said?
JIM FITZGERALD: What Al did was read the regulations.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's not what we think, it's in black and white.
JIM FITZGERALD: I'm interested to know if you think that there would be
some adverse effect on the environment by building this house.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Honestly, we didn't review under Chapter 97 at all
so it's hard for me to give you a list of concerns. Our concern was over
the Code itself and Chapter 37, the way it was written. I feel it's unfair for
us to take $200.00 from an applicant and say, oh by the way, the Code
prohibits it, so oh well. That doesn't seem right.
JIM FITZGERALD: Can I apply for a variance and still get the $200.00
back?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well I don't know what the fees for applying for a
variance are. You'll have to take it up with the Town Board. If the Boards
agreeable to that, we'll send him his money back.
BOARD: Sure.
' 24
19. Proper=T Permit Services, Inc. on behalf of STEVEN KRAM requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a 13'X 8' +/- extension to the existing house;
construct 4'X 57'+/- overall fixed open walkway free-standing dock with
steps to grade at landward end. Located: 100 West Lane, Southold.
SCTM#88-6-12
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the
application?
JIM FITZGERALD: Yes, I would. I think the part of the application to
construct an extension to the house is pretty straight-forward, unless you
have any questions. (changed tape) (inaudible) Let me go back if I may.
The part of the application that refers to the dock is pretty straight-forward
too. Do you have any comments?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll read the CAC comments. The CAC
recommends Disapproval of the application because all proposed
structures were not staked. In order to achieve the appropriate water
depths, the structure would have to go much further out.
JIM FITZGERALD: To achieve what water depth?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It doesn't say a specific number...resulting in
negative impacts on the entire area including limiting access to the public
resources and interfering with navigation. The proposal is for a 68' dock
reaching 2 Y/2' 4". That's the CAC comments but let me take any other
comments and then the Board will talk about it. Is there any other
comment?
RICHARD ENGERT: I'm a Trustee with the Angel Shores Homeowners
Association of which we have 41 property owners. I'm sure you've
inspected the area. Our private beach is right adjacent to this property
and then also on the other side of it there are three more beaches that
belong to one of our property owners. On behalf of all 41 members we
vigorously oppose the construction of that 57' dock. We have no problem
with the other structure but we have three major concerns. One has to do
with the...we're on the east side of that dock about 15'...each property line
is about 15' from that dock and from what people tell me, and right now I
wish I had that gentleman who was speaking on number 17 because I
didn't understand a word he said but from what I understand, the water
flows from east to west and there is a concern with beach erosion. There
is a jetty all the way down and when you walk down there on the east side
of that jetty, the beach is totally gone and it's just a hole there. Our
second concern that we had is that in our covenant which was registered
in 1995 with the Suffolk County, on page 41, the Southold Planning
Commission put in there that Lots 42, 43, and 44 can not construct a dock
or any other structure out into the Peconic Bay so to be consistent with it,
if we can't do it, why can the adjacent property owner. Would you like to
see this?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I believe you.
RICHARD ENGERT: Our third concern that we have is that during the
summertime, we're going to have about 40 families with small children that
25
use that beach frequently and if you put a dock up, you're going to have
boats coming in, jet skis and who knows what. There is certainly a grave
certain about safety. We've got kids in the water, their parents in the
water and accidents do happen. Once again, those are our three major
concerns and if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them for
you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, that's pretty straight-forward. What
were the CAC comments?
SCOTT HILARY: In the original application, they referenced a 68'
structure and when you do the distance to the beach from the bulkhead
seaward, that's approx. 40' right there so the structure wouldn't be going
into the water too far. That area on the bay is historically known as...you
really need to go out far to try to achieve any water depths. That was one
concern. We didn't have any problem with the proposed addition but we
do have a problem that, that area is not consistent with having those types
of structures and it would limit navigation as well as public access.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Does the Board have any comments?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well I kind of thought that was what we discussed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. Now I spoke to Mr. Fitzgerald and we were
getting some other information, I believe, on docks in the bay from the
Baykeeper and we're waiting on that. He's on vacation now so he wasn't
available so I had asked Mr. Fitzgerald earlier today if we couldn't split this
application off, and review the house addition separately from the dock
because we didn't want to hold up the house application because it's
going to require a building permit and whatnot, from the dock review. I
don't know if the Boards inclined to do that or do you just want to vote...
BOARD: That's fine.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you think that's appropriate?
JIM FITZGERALD: Yes, that's fine. May I comment on the dock?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
JIM FITZGERALD: Let me ask you this. If that dock were in a creek,
would it be acceptable, with all other things being equal?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It depends on the exact location. It's impossible to
put that dock...you can't superimpose it in any creek because every
location is completely different. You and I have been out there in a kayak
and know you really have to look hard at every location.
JIM FITZGERALD: I'm not quite clear on why the Board is interesting in
gathering more information. It must be because you think that it's not an
appropriate place for a dock, correct?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We do. We do feel it.
JIM FITZGERALD: Why is that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We feel it's inappropriate because exactly the
reasons the homeowner's association stated. Those are some of our big
concerns, safety and navigation. The fact that it's public bottom and it's
going to monopolize public bottom where, historically, there is no other
docks in that immediate area, and of course, the effect of the environment
26
in that specific area. There's a number of reasons for us to be un-inclined
to approve it but if we're going towards the disapproval, we want to make
sure that we have all of our facts and figures straight and we don't want to
rush into it.
JIM FITZGERALD: I think all of the things that you say, with the exception
of that there are no other docks in the area, could also apply to a dock in a
creek. Safety, navigation, and the environment. I think that dock in that
location is less, from an environmental standpoint, is less intrusive then a
dock in the creek. That's not a great bottom there for food production or
shellfish production and what have you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The last couple of years, if you noticed, the length
of the catwalk we've been approving in the creek is basically to the edge
of the water and not much further. This in fact extends some 30' into the
water and so we don't approve too many fixed docks 30' into the actual
water. You can't compare this dock with a dock in the creek.
JIM FITZGERALD: The only I'm comparing them is simply because docks
in the creek almost are routinely approved with appropriate review and
discussion. What I'm trying to get at is the reason for your thinking in
terms of disapproving this one merely because it happens to be in the
open bay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There is also a history of docks being built on the
bay and there are very few in Town for the reason that it's very difficult to
keep on a dock in the bay because of the prevailing southwest winds in
the summer time. Our experience is that docks, once approved, require
amendments to make them larger because there is insufficient water
depth and then the dock needs extra pilings to tie the boats up because of
the rough water and then the dock needs an "L" or a "T" at the end with a
wave curtain because of water conditions. These docks, from my
experience on the Board, have been, the docks that we've approved on
the bay, in my experience, have been mistakes because they've grown
from just a dock to almost marinas and have certainly created an impact.
JIM FITZGERALD: Well it would be very simple for the Board to put a
condition on the project that says "no future extensions". You could put a
condition on it that says, because this is the next thing that's going to
come up, that if it's not used for two years, then take it out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No but see, because there's got to be a ...it's not
like black and white, here's the dock, it comes in this size only. Now, the
dock can come in any size so already before this dock is even been
shown at a public hearing, there's already a request to add pilings to it so
that's just an example of how these docks start to...
JIM FITZGERALD: No that was a late...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, but I called that one before it happens. These
docks tend to grow and here's a request for mooring piles.
JIM FITZGERALD: Between you and me, you didn't call it between the
time the owner called me and asked me to make that addition.
11 7
27
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But I suggested that to you before I knew about the
addition. That's been the history of docks on the bay. So that's my feeling
from what I've seen as a Board member for years.
NEIGHBOR: I'm a homeowner in the association and I have three young
children. I just wanted to differ with his opinion about it being no different
than a dock in the creek in as much as the adjacent property is a
recreational beach so that really is my major concern. The dock invites
boat traffic and that's not appropriate next to a private beach that's utilized
by 49 families.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
JIM FITZGERALD: From the standpoint of the... I think on the things that
came up from some discussion was the visual instruction of the dock in
the pristine waterfront. While there aren't many docks in the bay
throughout the Town, there are an awful lot of groins and jetties and they
don't look very different from a distance than a dock does. The other thing
is that during the summertime, there are a lot of boats moored there and
some of them are moored very close to public beaches. So, what's the
deal there as far as the comment the gentleman just made? Is that a
matter that the Trustees take into account when you get an application for
a mooring that's next to a public or association beach?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: At this time, the Town of Southold does not regulate
moorings in the bay. We had about a half an hour discussion about
mooring in the bay at our worksession this evening, which is one of the
reasons why we started so late. It is becoming a big problem. We
attempted to regulate moorings in the bay a number of years ago and we
were basically shattered down by everybody who was interested in it and
received absolutely no support for it. Now, there's seems to be more of a
concern because it is becoming such an unregulated activity and
justifiably so since the mooring are taking place on public bottom, but
that's another issue.
JOE GREGO: I'm also a homeowner at Angel Shores. From what I'm
seeing of the diagram, this free-standing dock starts at the high-water
mark, not at the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct.
JOE GREGO: It goes out 57' plus or minus.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what I'm looking at here, yes. I did have a
different plan here a minute ago.
JOE GREGO: According to the diagram, at mean-low water, that's 2.4'
correct? From my recollection in that area, mean-high water is 3.6' above
that. That means this free-standing dock is going to be approximately 8'
above mean-low water, and you're looking at it, because you're going to
have to come above the 6' level. What I'm getting at is that at low-water,
there is going to be approximately 6' or 7' of dock in the air and there is
going to be barnacles on those poles eventually and like he said, people
have small children and even adults, they get a boat wave and gets
pushed against one of those pilings with the barnacles, you've got a rough
r 28
cut. This is a big safety factor. And another thing, fine they're not going to
tie a boat up, but is there a restriction in the Town for boat lifts to pull them
up out of the water?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No.
JOE GREGO: Ok, that's something that could happen, so I think the Town
should take all that into consideration.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I think the Board is still inclined to
gather more information on this and we would be happy to split the
application and approve the addition to the house tonight. I'll make a
motion to Table the public hearing until next month.
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve the application portion
of it to include only the addition to the house.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
20. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of GUSMAR REALTY
requests a Wetland Permit re-seed and re-grade existing area, fix
sprinkler system, install wood chip access path, and install chain-link
fence. Located: Shipyard Lane, East Marion. SCTM#38-7-12
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the
application?
DAN HALL: Good evening, I'm from Land Use to speak on behalf of the
applicant. This project is a remediation that was required by the DEC as a
settlement for activities involving repair of a utility line and they had to
create a buffer area and it appears in the file that your jurisdiction is 100'
from the wetland zone and the high-water mark at this site so it really
involves the planting of the beach grass.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct, that's the limit of our jurisdiction. Is
there any other comment? Is there a CAC comment on this?
SCOTT HILARY: There was no inspection and no comment.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ok, thank you.
TOM KRAUS: I'm speaking as a representative of the Crescent Beach
Condominiums on the adjacent property to the project. Our concern is
based on the fact that the declaration of covenants and restrictions for
Summit Estates specifically prohibits what it is they are applying to do. I
have copies of the covenants and restrictions for the Board members. This
specific site that's in the site plan is referred to on page 4 and continued
on page 5 as the land running along the land now or formerly Cleaves
Point Condominiums for 540' to the high-water mark on Gardiner's Bay
and then across the Cleaves Point Condominiums and up Crescent Beach
Condominiums. The site plan is also known on the site map of Summit
Estates as a park and recreation area parcel B. If you go to the next
page, it says "the fence which extends in the park and recreation parcel B
is to be removed". (inaudible) They also raised the property by erecting a
concrete wall 4' high so the grades that you see on the site plan stop of
29
the elevation 6' but when you get up past the planting area, it's about 4'
higher.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Which was, landward or seaward?
TOM KRAUS: Landward. The land up here is a lot higher than the contour
lines talked about because of this concrete wall up here, approx. 4'.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry but I have to interrupt you. Our jurisdiction
is only, and they have it marked here, a 100' from high-water.
TOM KRAUS: Is the fence within your jurisdiction?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. Anything landward of that 100' would be outside
of the jurisdiction of this Board. Whatever is possible to happen and
whatever happens there is out of our jurisdiction.
TOM KRAUS: Well ok. I want to refer you to something in the covenants
and restrictions. It says that the entire area of area B, page 8, "these
areas shall remain in their natural state and maintenance of the natural
vegetation is the only use". The only people that can change this is the
Town Planning Board. What we ask you as Town representatives is to
alert the Planning Board to the fact that you had before you an application
to violate their covenants and restrictions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Has no one alerted them of this?
NEIGHBOR: I think the folks here are asking you whether or not you can
send a memo to the Board.
TRUSTEE KRUPSK: Well we would be happy to send them a memo but I
don't see where...and this is under, of course, a two-minute review that
we've just given this.
TOM KRAUS: Well if I could just point out to you, the reason that this is in
violation here is that the fence starts approximately say 101' from the high-
water mark. If you refer to the covenants and restrictions and I will take
you to page 8, which by definition a structure includes the placement of
fences.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But the fence is out of our jurisdiction.
TOM KRAUS: But you were asking why I as saying it's a violation of the
Town Planning Board covenants and restrictions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No it very well might be but that's strictly for the
Planning Board to decide. We have no authority over that at all.
TOM KRAUS: I know you don't have authority. I also know that you've
been at the site because you inspect sites.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct.
TOM KRAUS: You have in your possession an application that includes a
site plan that details the violations that they are about to commit. The
applicant has a history of committing the violations first and asking for
forgiveness later rather than permission. We would like to alert through
any form of Town government in any way we can and as many as we can
that this is an intended violation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well if you want us to forward this information to the
Planning Board I think we could certainly do that.
TOM KRAUS: Ok, thank you very much.
30
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What this Board is concerned with is the re-
vegetation of the disturbed area with the planting of the 3000 sq. ft. of
existing transition zone, Cape American Beachgrass, on 18" centers and
3000 sq. ft. of spartina patens on 18" centers and that would really be the
extent, and the path located through that. The 4' wide woodchip path is
something that we would normally permit in a non-disturbance area to
provide access to the water. When someone has a non-disturbance area,
we permit them to have a 4' wide path. That's standard.
TOM KRAUS: So the, I guess I misunderstood from the agenda, but the
permit request was for the right to erect a fence. I thought therefore you
might have a dealing with that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It does say that but we would not be able to act on
that though. We would not approve it and based on this plan, it shows we
really wouldn't have to approve it because it's greater than 100'. Thank
you for point that out though. I hadn't noticed it.
TOM KRAUS: Again, we would appreciate it if you would forward that
information onto the Planning Board.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. Is there any other comment?
NEIGHBOR: Is there anything in the agenda description that you're going
to be voting on?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, the replanting. The restoration of the disturbed
areas.
NEIGHBOR: Is that reseed and regrade existing area? I don't see any
reference to replanting anything.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What happens is this is an old application and over
the course of time, this goes back to May of 2001, and over the course of
time, these applications evolve, and that's just an old description. We
wouldn't be approving the old description. What we would be doing
is...and what happens is also, during the course of public hearings, the
applications can change also. We would only approve what we want to
approve and exclude the rest.
NEIGHBOR: You may or may not recall but the reason this happened
back in 2001 is because the applicant proceeded with re-grading and not
making the proper allowances.
DONNA GERAGHTY: That is absolutely incorrect. The reason that there
was activity taking place in May is in fact that one of our kind neighbors,
as myself and the applicant were driving down there one day, only to find
that they were planning to pull out physically, two gentlemen, with their
hands, the electric wires. We further had a lot of problems and our wish
was never to put a fence up, but we have had problems with our
neighbors in cutting our trees down so they can get a water view. These
are issues that we would like to be a nice neighbor but, and we've
approached them on several occasions, and I feel really offended that you
people can continuously keep coming here and asking if we're doing
something against...and we all have beautiful beaches there and all of you
have the right to use your beach, but for some reason, you don't want, in
31
other words, I'm here and we don't anyone else, and that's really what's
taking place here. I realize that this is not the place to even vent this
because your jurisdiction is only 100' but the fact that they are bringing up
these issues, these are not things that we want to do. We are trying to
restore what our neighbors are trying to destroy. When we do, they bring
us back here for an application. This is continuously happening. I don't
know what the next issue is but probably a legal matter. That's the only
way we can go with this. I don't want to keep,coming back here to restore
what we had.
NEIGHBOR: You're accusing us of doing something.
DONNA GERAGHTY: There is two gentlemen, I can knock on doors,
but...
NEIGHBOR: You are assuming that those people are owners, but you
have to have some type of proof when you make a statement like that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we kind of got off the subject of our
jurisdiction.
DONNA GERAGHTY: The reason I brought that up was because that
specific issue is what made us have to back and repair a wire and it wasn't
re-grading and it wasn't restructuring. It was trying to correct what was
going on there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well in any case, we're here now and we're here to
satisfy what happened.
NEIGHBOR: May I make a comment?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Only on what's happening within 100' on the survey
because we have to keep it within the bounds of what we're doing here
tonight.
NEIGHBOR: Ok. We go back to 1978 to 1982. That was all wetlands.
The owner at the time brought in fill and raised that land right down to the
beach, and put in a 4' concrete wall on each side and raised it.
Subsequently, we had to invest $40,000.00 because of the water run-off to
put in a French drain. We have had problems with these people since
then.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But you're getting off of the subject here. We're not
really interested in what's going on besides within our 1 00' jurisdiction
because that's what we're concerned with here tonight, and there are
other people that are waiting for their applications, and in all fairness to
them, we should move on.
NEIGHBOR: We understand that that portion beyond 1 00' will be referred
to the Planning Board.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, we have no jurisdiction there at all.
NEIGHBOR: Excuse me but I have a picture of the way the land used to
be in 1970. My name is Patrick Regina from Crescent Beach
Condominiums. I have a picture right here because we used to vacation
there and now we are owners, in 1972, of the way the land, right to the
water, used to be. I'd be happy to show this.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
• 1 I
32
PATRICK REGINA: If you want these pictures, you can see how the land
was flat right to the water. I just wanted to bring that to the attention of the
Board. You can keep those pictures if you want. I appreciate your time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? CAC comments?
SCOTT HILARY: We had no inspection.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the proposed 3120 sq.ft.
of planting of American beach grass and proposed 3000 sq.ft. to be
planted with spartina patens on 18" centers and a 4' wide woodchip path
to the existing dock.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
21. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of CHRISTOPHER
O'CONNOR requests a Wetland Permit to construct a recreational dock
facility consisting of a 4'X 40' fixed CCA timber dock, a 3'X 20' aluminum
ramp, and a 6'X 20' float. The fixed dock is proposed to be elevated a
min. of 4' above grade in the area of the wetlands vegetation. The ramp
and float are proposed to be seasonal. (6) 4"X 4" CCA timber dock posts
and (4) 6" dia. CCA timber piles are proposed to support the fixed dock,
and (2) 8" dia. CCA timber piles are proposed to support the float. A 4'X
50' +/- natural wood chip access path is proposed from the facility to the
upland. Located: 3390 Cox Neck Rd., Mattituck. SCTM#113-8-3
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf
of the application?
DAN HALL: I'm here to represent Chris O'Connor in case there are any
questions or comments the Board might have.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We had some comments but, is there any other
comment on this application before we take Board comments? What were
the Board comments on this one?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't think there was any. It was pretty cut and dry,
wasn't it?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does the CAC have any comments? The CAC
recommended Disapproval because the project was not staked.
TRUSTEE KING: It wasn't staked when we inspected it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's true, it wasn't. This is a pretty straight-
forward one in that it was between two existing docks. It was obscenely
larger. Do I have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application
provided that it doesn't protrude past the line between the two docks on
either side.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
33
22. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of SOUTHOLD PARK DISTRICT
requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct 235' of existing functional
concrete bulkhead, maintenance dredge slips and adjacent area to —4'
MLW for access, reconstruct open fixed dock on the south and east sides.
Located: Young's Ave. Park, Southold. SCTM#64-1-10.1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to make any
comments on behalf of the application?
CATHERINE MESIANO: I'm here on behalf of the applicant. You have
questions?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have a bunch of questions.
CATHERINE MESIANO: Why don't you ask your questions because the
application, I've given you specifications of the applications, but if you
have questions ask and I'll answer what I can and Mr. Latham is here to
help me.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually, we've been entertaining this for years.
We've been taking about this for a number of years. We were kind of
curious as to the nature of the whole set-up down there. Who gets a slip,
how do they get a slip, who gets the fees, because it was under our
impression that the whole docking facility was on Town owned bottom.
We were kind of curious to how that all works.
CATHERINE MESIANO: Well I'll tell you as much as I know. Southold
Park District is a taxing authority that gets its authority from the New York
State Legislature. Southold Park District has authority over what's
recognized as the old Southold School District so it doesn't service
residence of Peconic so it's the old Southold School District. The slips are
rented by lottery. The notice is in the local papers and there's a deadline
date given and people who wish to be considered submit their application
to the park district by a certain date. When the lottery is drawn, they
generally pull 22 or 23 names and I believe there are 18 slips so they have
several alternate names on the slips. The slips on the east facing side are
rented at$100.00 per year and the south side is $50.00 per year and the
money goes, I believe, into the general fund because the park district is a
taxing authority. They are a taxing authority so it goes back into the
general fund. That's what I know about that. I'm curious, if you don't mind
my asking, what this has to do with the permit process?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well because public access is such a big issue in
Town and all of the boats are moored over public bottom, and it's not just
the park district bottom, it's the Town's bottom. It's really our responsibility
to questions what's past practices or current practices, to try to see what's
fair for the Town itself, because the boats are parked over a Town
resource. Not that we want to burst their bubble and I'm not saying we're
going to burst their bubble but I'm just saying that we wanted a clarification
as to exactly what was going on there and how it was set up.
CATHERINE MESIANO: Ok, I spoke with Mike Hagerman and asked him
how it was determined who gets assigned what slip and that's how it's
determined.
34
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any comment on that?
CATHERINE MESIANO: I asked the question and that was the answer I
was given. If you have any further questions on that, ask away. I intended
to have a representative of the park district here but no one was available.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It seems like a nice facility.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: We had some comments about the application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually there were some suggestions during field
inspection, one of which was to build a bulkhead behind it and then
remove the concrete from in front of it. It was certainly minimize the
impact of it growing into the creek.
CATHERINE MESIANO: I understand that there has been some
discussion with the DEC and rather than spend a lot of time talking about
the hypotheticals on how it might be done. I think that we should defer the
discussion about the bulkhead because after my discussion with the park
district last week, I brought up some issues with them that they needed to
deal with and identify the answers to. They are doing more investigation.
So, the bulkheading aspect of this project is not as important to me right
now as the dredging is so what I would like to do is deal with the dredging
and Table the bulkheading aspect of this because they weren't fully
prepared to commit to a couple of items that need them to be committed
to such as your discussion of building a bulkhead behind vs. building a
bulkhead in front vs. taking out completely what's there and putting inplace
a new bulkhead.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is that existing wall going to withstand any amount
of dredging in front of it?
CATHERINE MESIANO: I have Mr. Latham here.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It looks pretty deteriorated along the base. Are you
going to be able to dredge in front of it without...
MR. LATHAM: Not directly in front of it.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: No, you would have to leave a shelf there. Then,
when it's replaced later on, naturally you'll have to take the concrete out
so they do the rest of the dredging at that time?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI:.Another concern was that on the south side, if you
went out to 4', to a 4' water depth out to the existing piles, you basically
would be creating a big old hole there.
CATHERINE MESIANO: The problem that we have right now is that it
appears that the run-off from Youngs Ave. and Mechanic Street is
funneled into this creek.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's what fills them all up.
CATHERINE MESIANO: I know where now here to address what the
Highway Dept. ought to be doing but many times I have come before you
and we've had this discussion that a lot of my clients problem is the
problem that's created by the Town's Highway Dept. and I know if the
DEC looked at it they wouldn't be happy about it either because they don't
want your run-off going into the water. So, yes it is shallow and again, Mr.
Latham would have to address any of the technical aspects of that.
35
Basically what we're looking to accomplish is to dredge to 4' at mean-low
water and I suppose if there are variables that we need you to take into
consideration, and some temporary (inaudible) on the south side, we have
to consider that, but the intention was to dredge the area where the piles
are out to the channel which from my discussion with Mr. Latham, would
probably be about, what would you say...
JOHN HOCKER: I would say you would have to get outside of the existing
piles.
CATHERINE MESIANO: It would be about 20' or 30' outside of the
existing piles. Now the manner of which direction it would be done would
be done by land as well as barge. (inaudible) We anticipate it to be
approximately 1000 cy.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think what we would like to see on the dredging, if
you could put poles in, to the extent that...and it necessary on the south
side to go to 4'?
CATHERINE MESIANO: Probably. (inaudible)
TRUSTEE FOSTER: 3' more then there's now? A total of 3'?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's only a half afoot there. You only have 2' and 3'
out there. You have 3' here. If they only went to 3' here or even 2 Y2' it
would accommodate a lot of boats.
CATHERINE MESIANO: Mr. Latham feels that it would be appropriate to
dredge to 4' because once that dredging is accomplished the silt is going
to fill in the surrounding areas and he's not going to end up with a 4' depth
because the silt will migrate into that area. It's going to fill in to 3' anyway.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Probably the best you could hope for is 3' when
you're done.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And what would the extent to the north be? How far
would you go towards that dock, the neighbor's dock?
CATHERINE MESIANO: As far as the pilings go.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ok, so could we have that staked out? Could you
put poles in the water where the extent of the total dredging would be? It
doesn't really show here and it doesn't show how far it would go out to the
east. Why don't you call up the DEC and have them meet us out there
and we'll discuss the bulkhead situation. Whatever day, it doesn't have to
be the field inspection day, and we'll discuss the bulkhead situation,
because the bulkhead is pretty poor in a couple of sections.
CATHERINE MESIANO: We all recognize that and we recognize the end
solution before there's that major storm that's going to wash the whole
thing out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well I don't know if you're going to wash it out.
CATHERINE MESIANO: I think you would do sufficient damage if you had
a bad enough storm with a high enough tide, I mean that's one of the
things we were talking about. What happens when the "what if' occurs.
What if we get that major storm?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Plus you have to consider all of that run-off that's
going in there from the land at the same time.
1
36
0
MR. LATHAM: (inaudible)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
23. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of ALLEN KRAUS requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a 28'X 60' single-family dwelling, on-site sewage
disposal system and pervious driveway. Located: S/E Corner Second
Ave. & Huntington Blvd., Peconic. SCTM#67-4-20.3&20.4
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the
application?
CATHERINE MESIANO: Well we met at the site and we had the
discussion regarding the buffer area and Mr. Kraus is more than happy
with your suggestion of the 30' non-disturbance buffer and then a 20' non-
turf buffer landward of that. I'll get a revised map to reflect that and submit
that to you. I understand that there was a comment by a neighbor.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We just received two comments. (Trustee Krupski
reading letter on file from Sarah and David Evans.)
CATHERINE MESIANO: Well the incorrect information that they are citing
reflects as much as we were able to know at the time the survey was done
and I don't think it's relevant to this application. The property is by rights a
property that can be developed and we are developing this property in a
responsible manner and until issues such as sewage disposal and water
supply are approved by the Health Dept., no construction will be taking
place and since both of those systems will be outside of the Trustees
jurisdiction, I don't think there's too much to discuss.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: They're going to make you get an approved well. Do
you have to do a well in there?
CATHERINE MESIANO: We'll have to go for a variance for the septic
system.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: The water down there isn't good you know. I live
there and that's why I know.
CATHERINE MESIANO: The likelihood of public water coming down
there is not in our lifetime.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Doesn't appear to be that way.
CATHERINE MESIANO: No.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have another letter here. (Trustee Krupski reading
letter on file from Gail Doroski.
CATHERINE MESIANO: Well again, we'll be building to Town Code. It
won't be any higher than the 35' that the Code allows. Again, her concerns
are in areas that are outside of your jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The CAC did not see it.
SCOTT HILARY: No we did but the proposed project was not staked
when we did our field inspection so we disapproved it but would ask that
the Trustees request the maximum buffer.
37
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We did. We requested a buffer and because of the
location, we thought that was certainly adequate. It's kind of a heavily
impacted area. Is the house going to be on pilings.
CATHERINE MESIANO: No.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I see the test hole only has 6' to water.
CATHERINE MESIANO: The house would be built on a foundation, not
pilings. It's an AE elevation 8' so the first floor elevation will have to be a
minimum of 11'. (inaudible)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about the amount of fill?
CATHERINE MESIANO: At this point, he's using what comes out of the
excavation for the foundation. He's looking to do minimal disturbance on
this lot. He doesn't want lawn, he doesn't want manicured areas, and he
wants to clear enough to get the house within that building envelope and
has come up with a plan that will give him what he wants within that area
that will meet variances for the side and front yard, with minimal
disturbance to the lot.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You couldn't put fill in that lot anyway.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? Do I have a motion to
close the hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with a
30' non-disturbance buffer and 20' non-turf buffer and drywells and gutters
for the roof run-off.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KING moved to adjourn the meeting, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded.
ALL AYES
Meeting adjourned at: 11:00 PM.
Respectfully submitted by,
Lauren M. Standish, Senior Clerk
RECEIVED AND FILED BY
TFIE, EJOUT:y 1OLD TOVil� 021"11C
]DATE , 6� Houn 10.:30
Id
Town Clerk, Tcwn oz' c'ouffilllold