HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-06/26/2002 Albert J.Krupski,President Town Hall
James King,Vice-President �O$VFI'��/i'C 53095 Route 25
Artie Foster �0 �G P.O.Box 1179
Ken Poliwoda 1J� Southold,New York 11971-0959
Peggy A. Dickerson y 2 Telephone(631) 765-1892
O
Fax(631) 765-1366
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MINUTES
Wednesday, June 26, 2002
7:00 PM
PRESENT WERE: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President
James King, Vice-President
Artie Foster, Trustee
Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee
Peggy A. Dickerson, Trustee
Bob Ghosio, CAC Member
Lauren M. Standish, Senior Clerk
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 at 8:00 AM
TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 at 7:00 PM
WORKSESSION: 6:00 PM
TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of March 20, 2002 and April 24, 2002.
(Held until July.)
I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees Monthly report for may 2002. A check for
$4,642.86 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin
Board for review.
III. AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES:
2
1. DOUGLAS & CAROL RYAN request an Amendment to Permit #5220 to add a
railing and benches to the dock. Located: 3210 Beebe Dr. Extension,
Cutchogue. SCTM#103-9-2
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application to add a railing only,
and no benches, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES
2. JOSEPHINE ALIPERTI requests an Amendment to Permit#5039 to add a 14'X
12' deck onto the rear of the house and to maintain a 40' buffer area to the rear
of the house. Located: 400 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#114-12-13.1
TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application to temporarily move the hay
bales back 10' away from the northwest corner of the house with the condition
that drywells are installed immediately and once all of the construction is
complete, the hay bales must be moved back to the 50' non-disturbance buffer
line and the 10' area restored. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES
3. MATTITUCK INLET MARINA& SHIPYARD INC. requests an Amendment to
Permit#5198 for the relocation of ten 6'X 24' floats and the installation of nine
pilings at the southern most dock. Located: 5780 Mill Road, Mattituck.
SCTM#106-6-13.3
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Deny the application, TRUSTEE DICKERSON
seconded. AYES: TRUSTEE FOSTER, TRUSTEE KRUPSKI. ABSTAINED:
TRUSTEE KING.
4. JOSEPH & CATHERINE BARBATO request an Amendment to Permit#5435 for
the existing 8'X 12' shed. Located: 200 West Lake Dr., Southold. SCTM#90-1-20
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE
DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES
5. WARREN CROON JR. requests an Amendment to Permit#5130 to install a 16'X
21' patio off the rear entrance to the house. Located: 2500 Ole Jule Lane,
Mattituck. SCTM#122-4-12
TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve the application with the condition that if
the project creates additional run-off, management of it must be addressed.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES
6. Mark Schwartz on behalf of ROBERT SOMERVILLE requests an Amendment to
Permit#5383 to change the building footprint of the house, as per survey dated
April 30, 2002. Located: 485 Breezy Path, Southold. SCTM#89-2-8
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING
seconded. ALL AYES
7. Land Use Ecological Services on behalf of DAVID G. BOSTIC requests an
Amendment to Permit#5301 to reconstruct in-kind and place 26 linear ft.
"smooth" face timber bulkhead/retaining wall, top elevation to match existing. The
existing 18'X 8'6" elevated timber deck is proposed to be removed as well as the
deteriorated wood deck and platform previously utilized as boat storage. A 4'X 4'
3
timber landing is proposed for transition from the existing concrete steps to the
proposed timber stairs. 4'X 5' +/- timber stairs are proposed to be reconstructed
in-kind and place for access to the proposed 18'X 21' timber platform which is to
be reconstructed in-kind and place. The 18'X 21' platform is to be supported by
(24) 4"X 4" CCA timber posts with a depth of penetration of 6'+. A 2'X 5'
removable ladder is proposed for access to and from the water. Located: 2635
Laurel Way, Mattituck. SCTM#121-4-13
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application with the condition that
CCA is not used on the posts and there is Y2" spacing on the deck. TRUSTEE
DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES
8. Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of ANDREAS KARACOSTAS requests an
Amendment to Permit#5400 to install rock armor in front of the bulkhead.
Located: 21275 Sou ndview Ave., Southold. SCTM#135-1-2
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Table the application and the Board will re-visit
the site on July 16, 2002. TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES
9. VICTOR & MARY ZUPA request a Waiver to install 123' of 4' high black vinyl
chain link fencing with one double driveway gate. Located: 580 Basin.Rd.,
Southold. SCTM#81-1-16.7
TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to Approve the application with the condition that
there is an 8" space on the bottom. TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES
10. The OYSTER FACTORY requests a Waiver to erect a fence to protect the
property prior to and during the demolition of the buildings because the Town has
instituted an unsafe building action on the property. Located: 2835 Shipyard
Lane, East Marion. SCTM#38-7-7.1
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE
DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES
11. PETER & BARBARA SWAHN request a One-Year Extension to Permit#5211.
The only work left to do is remove and replace the 48' groin. Located: 2100 Park
Ave., Mattituck. SCTM#123-8-8.1&8.2
TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING
seconded. ALL AYES
12. NICOLO DIBARTOLO requests a One-Year Extension to Permit#5207 to
construct a second-floor addition on the same footprint, add an attached garage,
and add an open porch and second-story deck. A one-year extension is required
due to delays and complications with the DEC. Located: 475 Condor Court,
Laurel. SCTM#127-3-6.2
TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE POLIWODA
seconded. ALL AYES
4
13. JAMES & KAREN HOEG requests a second One-Year Extension to Permit
#5038 to install an in-ground swimming pool. Located: 350 Willis Creek Dr.,
Mattituck. SCTM#115-17-17.10
TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE DICKERSON
seconded. ALL AYES
14. BETH A. VENTRANO requests a Transfer of Permit#1989 from Donald
DeLalla/Michael Perlmutter to Beth A. Ventrano. Located: 5545 Skunk Lane,
Cutchogue. SCTM#138-2-18
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application with the condition that
the new ladder on the north side of the dock is removed and the two boats not be
moored on that side because they are shading and damaging the inter-tidal
marsh. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KING moved to go off the Regular Meeting and go 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. PECONIC DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION INC. requests a Wetland Permit to
remove dead and diseased trees and brush within the 50' buffer area. Located:
57958 Main Rd., Southold. SCTM#66-2-2.4
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this
application?
DAVID LECLAIRE: As a concerned citizen of Southold, I just want to be sure that
only the dead brush and only the dead tress will be removed, if it is granted.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you. Does the Board have any comment?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment on this application? I think
we've been over it enough ourselves.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Deny the application and to let it
remain as a natural non-disturbance buffer area.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
5
2. GARY GERNS, as Contract Vendee requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
single-family dwelling. Located: 1680 Brigantine Dr., Southold. SCTM#79-4-25
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this
application?
GARY GERNS: We have the revised survey showing the 50' buffer zone.
(inaudible)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can make an allowance during construction and then
you can re-vegetate that disturbed area after construction.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What about the CAC?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think the CAC has reviewed this new plan.
BOB GHOSIO: Not the new plan, no. We were looking for a 100' setback the
last time we looked at it. We felt that there was a problem with the building
envelope that it wouldn't be achievable.
(changed tape)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're trying to be consistent with the non-disturbance
buffer. Is there any other comment?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with hay
bales and 10' relief during construction to be re-vegetated after construction, and
drywells and gutters on the house.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
3. MICHAEL A. CHUISANO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family
dwelling. Located: 575 Diamond Lane, Peconic. SCTM#68-2-10
TRUSTEE KING: Would anyone like to comment on this application?
CHUCK BOWMAN: I think you've been brought up to date. We have provided
you with a survey with 2' contours. We've also provided you with a driveway plan
that you requested that was done by Joe Fischetti, P.E. who is also here is you
have any questions on how the driveway will be constructed. The wetland's flags
as I have flagged this small area, this depression area shown on the map, and I
have also discussed this with Chris Pickerall, which the Board has asked me to
do, and Chris is going to go out and look at the flags, which he said he promises
to do within a week. But, he did have one of the concerns that I have, was that
the vegetation (inaudible) as you can see from the test holes. The reason we
have a couple of high-bush blueberry in there is because that low area dips down
within a foot of ground water. It's a real nice area as far as dune vegetation and
it's diversity and I think the house, the way it's situated now, is behind the
Coastal Erosion Hazard Line. The sanitary system, we are looking into changing
its configuration to bring it more southeast west, so we can bring the fill behind
the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line, which is something that would be required
under those regulations. We have also filed an application with the Zoning Board
of Appeals for front yard and rear yard relief for the house. Gail Wickham is
here, the attorney for the applicant, and we discussed also the potential for
discussing with the ZBA turning the house as well therefore being able to
maximize the setbacks from the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line and from that little
6
depression area. The driveway could also be snaked around that small
depression area. These are all of the things that we are working on and I hope
that the Board perhaps has had a chance to review what we submitted, perhaps
not. But, certainly we're here to answer any questions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well actually we're just going to answer that briefly. What
was submitted was submitted today, so no, we didn't have a chance to review it.
I'll keep taking comments in the meantime.
PAUL MAGGIO: I'm here with my wife Barbara and we are the owners of the
subject property and I'd like to clear the air because we were not at the last
meeting and there were many comments made that I'm quite offended by. In the
first instance, we are not land speculators who just picked up a piece of land
somewhere and tried to flip it a year later. We've owned this property since 1975
and we bought the property subject to the issuance of a building permit by the
Town of Southold Building Dept. and an environmental conservation permit
issued by the NYSDEC, which was indeed issued, and a Suffolk County Dept. of
Health sewage permit, which was also issued prior to our taking title to the
property. Now, it's my understanding that there were comments made here at
the last hearing that the Maggios were trying to put something over on the Town
when they quote "knew that property could not be built on". I was highly offended
by those comments. I want the record to show that that property did indeed have
all of the required permits issued in 1975 to construct a one-family home, 300'
back from the high-water mark, which is what the applicant is seeking now.
Nothing different. We could have gone in there in 1975, brought in our
contractors, constructed the house, and it would still be sitting there today. I also
want to point out that this parcel is more than one acre in size. Some of the
comments have been made by people who have homes on substandard lots only
5000 or 6000 sq. ft. who want to enjoy the scenic vistas and use of the property
that we have been paying the taxes on for these last 27 years. No one sent back
out tax check saying, oh, you don't have to pay taxes on this property because
you can't build on it. Those taxes were accepted every year, paid every year,
and at one point, we even took the property off the market when the Peconic
Land Trust indicated an interest in it and kept us sitting for two years without the
courtesy of a phone call or letter saying that they were not interested in the
property. At that point, we put it back on the market. There were some of the
nearby neighbors who tried to poison the well, so to speak, by coming out when
prospective buyers were looking at it and giving them false information until they
were notified by me that they would be hearing from my attorney if they dared
spread any false information that harm my economic interest. I do want this
Board to understand where we're coming from here. If you look at the survey,
you'll see Lots 1 & 2 are both approximately 7,000 sq.ft. There are other lots in
that whole Acres of Diamonds subdivision that are only 4,000, 5,000, or 6,000
sq.ft. and what the applicant is seeking to do here is to have a home of similar
size to the homes that already exist on a parcel that's more than 1 acre in size.
MRS. MAGGIO: From the perspective of the neighbors and the other people, we
have for 28 years, been going to that property, not too frequently now, but in the
earlier years, and since it has all grown out, you can't park a car there anymore,
but that doesn't mean that the property doesn't still belong to us and you couldn't
clear it and put our car there. We have just simply not gone out there very often.
We didn't start as a young couple buying this property for our future use,
intending to retire, using money that we could've used for raising our family,
paying for this, and going all of these years (inaudible) Beatrice Hoggins, who
passed away and then her brother, who gave us a mortgage and Mr. & Mrs.
Meyers who were the people who lived on the next property, Lot#1, were well
aware of our intentions to build a home there. We spoke with them many times
over the years. They were a very nice couple. So, I don't think anyone can say
that they had no idea that anyone actually owned that property that they have
been using for 28 years. Thank you.
MR. MAGGIO: One other thing I would like to point out is that the owner of Lot
#1, perhaps thinking that we were a senile old couple who didn't know what the
value of the property was, said that she would give us $60,000 for it, a one acre
Long Island soundfront, $60,000. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment?
CARMEN RAMIS: Good evening. I am an adjacent property owner to the lot in
question. (Reading letter in file.)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone else like to comment on the application?
ALFRED KNAPP: Have you had a chance to review the letter. Is that what-'your
talking about?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, we have a lot of letters.
ALFRED KNAPP: Ok, this one here concerns my property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would you like to read it into the record?
ALFRED KNAPP: Well, it's issue of absence of additional structures in the
vicinity and it says that there are two cottages in the area. I happen to own those
two cottages and I think I made a few errors. Number one, they are saying that
the two cottages are located on two separate lots. That's not true. They are one
lot of nine acres on the sound. The second thing, they misrepresented position
of the cottages. These cottages are further east than they are on this. Thirdly,
one cottage was built in 1930 and the other cottage was built around 1960. One
has been moved twice since the 30's, because of the erosion. Lastly, both
cottages are used by my friends and relatives and if it's occupied more than 20
nights a year, it's a lot. Lastly, the cottages are about 15'X 30' sq.ft. altogether.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment?
HUGH SWITZER: I am very respectful of the owner's economic interest in the
property and his desire to have economic benefit from it. What we haven't talked
about yet is the fact that there is another alternative to developing this piece of
property, which is the County acquiring the property and adding this to the
County Park. It seems to be just such an ideal opportunity for us. I would like to
have it before you officially and recommend that as Board, that you take a
position with that as the preferred alternative and at least pursue and see how
real that alternative can be made so that we know the details of that and give the
owner the opportunity of understanding the economic impact of that as well.
Thank you.
8
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. That's a good suggestion. Mr. Maggio, do you
understand that?
MR. MAGGIO: With respect to that suggestion, as I indicated, we took this
property off the market for more than two years because the Peconic Land Trust
said they were interested in buying it to expand Goldsmith's Inlet Park. They
didn't have the courtesy during that two-year period to say "oh, we changed our
minds and no longer have an interest". It was only when I called and said, "why
is this thing taking so long", that I would told that "we no longer have an interest
in acquiring that property". It was not until the people who live on Lot#1 say real
estate agents and prospective buyers walking on the property that all of a sudden
they were excited about the County making an offer to acquire it. Indeed, we
were called buy the County after we had gone to contract, and they were told,
sorry, you're too late. I think we've done everything that a responsible citizen
ought to have done, and at this point here, we should not have our economic
interest injured because people want to continue the free use of someone else's
property, the scenic vistas, the walking through the undisturbed vegetation, while
someone else is paying the taxes on it. We see that all too often. Someone
owns a quarter of an acre doesn't want the 20 acres of their scenic vista
developed. Of course they always had the option of buying that property.
Indeed, the people who lived on Lot#1, as I said, perhaps thinking that we were
a senile old couple, and said, we'll give you $60,000 for that one acre soundfront
property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have to agree with you on a lot of what you said. But, the
people in that part of Peconic have had a pretty good record of land preservation.
There are some people who have letters in this file that have put their money
where their mouths are and really have a proven track record of land
preservation. So, maybe there are some people there that you can work with in
that respect. You're right about other people just wanting to use the property and
whatnot, and you have a point there, and that comes before this Board quite
often. We've often advised people, neighbors and whatever, to get together and
purchase the property in question, because that's the only way they can really
truly see it preserved. But, it's just that this is an option, the County is an option
that Mr. Switzer wanted you to be aware of.
MR. MAGGIO: Well we are already in contract. The contract vendee has
expended considerable sums of money to forward his interest in the property and
frankly I would say that at this time, it's too little, too late, as far as the County in
concerned.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we tried to make it clear to the contract vendee that
this is an extremely environmentally sensitive parcel.
MRS. MAGGIO: It was environmentally sensitive 28 years ago and it hasn't
changed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But, everything else has changed around it. That parcel is
still a pristine beautiful spot...
MRS. MAGGIO: Because we didn't build on it at the time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Exactly. But the whole world has changed around it.
9
MRS. MAGGIO: And now we're being penalized. There has to be a last end to a
park. There will always be...if this property goes, then the next property will be
the end of the park. The park does not go on forever and ever. There has to be
an end and there will be and end.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No question about it, but my point is that this Board is
operating under Chapter 97 right now.
MRS. MAGGIO: I love land too. That's why we bought it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ok, and we took this over in the 70's. We also operate
under Chapter 37-Coastal Erosion, which we took over from the State in 1991.
So, all of these different Town Codes are in response to what was happening in
Town. I just want to tell you because I've told the contract vendees, this is going
to be a long intensive review process on this application and we can't guarantee
you an outcome, we can't say next month, or next year. We're going to review it.
We are asking for information. Right now I'm working with the people in Coastal
Erosion in the State to try to get a determination on a structural hazard area, and
I've called them how many times and we've wrote them a number of letters, and
we're trying to work with them to get an answer on the structural hazard area.
The wetland review itself...when the applicant gives us a survey, and this is
without a lot of review because it just came in today, but when the applicant gives
us a survey that shows a wetland area with the driveway going through it, we
can't just say, well this is fine. This obviously has a lot of problems. Don't expect
a vote on this tonight or for a while because we're going to have to look at
absolutely everything that's going to be impacted by putting a house out in the
middle of an area that's not impacted right now.
MR. MAGGIO: Ok, lets clarity that. It's not going to be in the middle of the parcel.
The building envelope would begin 300' south of the high-water mark. So, the
land that has been in pristine condition for the last several centuries, 300' back
from the high-water mark will continue in that condition. The applicant has
already offered to mitigate any of the environmental impacts that you chose to
sanitize and I'm sure they would be able to do that. But, this is still America,
people still have property rights, we understand the environmental concerns, we
understand ecological concerns, but at the same time, we also understand
private property rights.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we're pretty strong on backing those up. But, we
just wanted to be fair with you and say upfront that it's our responsibility to review
every aspect of this application and that's it's not going to be a quick and easy
review any step of the way. It's not because there are 17 people against it.
We've got another application on here tonight that's just as every bit as difficult
and there is very little opposition but we're just as concerned about it as a Board,
and we've been working on it for a long time. So, it's not that it's just you or you
because there's a lot of people here writing a lot of letters. I mean, that gives us a
lot of support, and they raise a lot of interesting questions, but it's not just you.
We're going to be here until 12:00 tonight on a lot of different things like this.
That's where we're coming from. It's not like we're against you or we don't like
you. It's got nothing to do with you personally.
10
MR. MAGGIO: Ok, just a final comment. Ms. Gotbetter was told by me that if you
and your neighbors really have interest in preserving this property, why don't you
all get together and raise sufficient funds to buy it at market value and I will be
very happy to sell it to you. Well I now have a contract vendee whose ready to
pay market value and he has the right to buy that property and to use it. Ms.
Gotbetter and her supports had that chance.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh, that's fine. I'm not disagreeing with you there.
MR. MAGGIO: We don't expect a decision tonight, but certainly we also don't
expect to be denied the use of our property to the extent that our rights and due
process is violated.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I hope that we don't disappoint you.
NEIGHBOR: One of the things that happened was that the people in the
neighborhood did not know what was going on. There are people that live within
that area that all of a sudden became aware of the fact that this property was in
jeopardy, there was Mrs. Hubbard and Mrs. Switzer, who as you said, have had
a track record beyond belief in preservation. It's not like it was our little
neighborhood with our little cottages on it. What happened was that our
neighborhood became aware of what was going on. The story changed when
people up and down the block realized what was going on. We didn't have it,
that's right. He would be compensated fully. It's not like he's not going to get his
money. Thank you.
MARION GOTBETTER: I'm the other adjacent property owner and I'll be really
brief. I just wanted to clarify something and I fully agree with Mr. Maggio's
frustration. We've been working on this for approximately five years with the
Peconic Land Trust. We just did not have the means to purchase the property
ourselves. Actually we made Mr. Maggio a significantly higher offer than
$60,000, which I will not get into right now. What happened, and I'm not even
sure Mr. Maggio is aware of because we weren't, the County had a freeze on all
acquisitions because of things that were going on in their organization. We
weren't aware of this and it delayed the process and I understand his frustration
and his being discouraged with the Counties acquisition, however in your file you
have a copy of the legislation that was finally passed in January. Unfortunately
we didn't know about it until March. Also, we've read in the paper that the County
has looked at their whole process of acquiring property in terms of expediting it
and not letting this things go a long, long time, and I would just like to read a
couple of sentences from a letter of September 2001, which also tells you how
long this has been going on. The letter is from Peter Scully. (Reading letter in
file.) Adjoining property owners are willing to contribute significantly toward the
acquisition and that includes Carmen and myself and now fortunately since we've
raised more attention, other people who also have means to do this, to help the
County as need be and to compensate Mr. Maggio adequately. The owner, at
that time, of the subject parcel, had expressed interest and willingness to
consider a structured bargain sale involving the Peconic Land Trust and I hope
that Mr. Maggio would have it in his heart to readdress this and look at it
(inaudible).
11
LESLIE WISEMANN: I wasn't going to speak this evening. I know some of you
from other situations in which I've seen the Trustees exercise incredible
conscientiousness in attempting to adjudicate very complex situations with very
fragile land that is often pitting against individuals economic interests, which are
legitimate, attempting to build on fragile and sub-prime property, issuing permits
that then become violated, where with all due respect, permits are issued with
sensitivity toward preserving the land and then wetlands are filled in, or non-
disturbance buffer zones are cleared, and then after the fact because you haven't
got staff and money to implement and enforce the particular permits that you
grant, things become unraveled. I'm here out of respect for your stewardship
over the environment. I'm speaking out tonight because I understand how difficult
the challenges can be. Tonight we have heard comments which have attempted
to create a win lose situation where private interests, which are legitimate, and in
which individuals with all good faith purchased property with certain expectations
of gain to which they are entitled, find themselves 25 years later with a situation
that in which we understand environmental impacts in ways that we were
clueless over. When I hear situations about building on sub-prime property being
described in terms of variances all over the place, you automatically know that
the impacts will be of profound consequence. That they are attempting to
manipulate within the laws that have been passed to create variances in order to
build something on property that probably shouldn't be built on. That's the
challenge all of you on this Board have continuously been faced with. I've
watched you do it. I've seen you walk on property. I know you've been down to
that piece of property and I know you understand it's environmental value. This is
a situation that begs a different kind of question where it should be
conceptualized differently because we are in a rare situation of win, win, where
the individual property rights of the owners can be compensated for appropriately
while all of us can benefit from the preservation of that land, not just one
individual who wishes to put an individual home on a piece of property that could
belong to all of us, for all of our pleasure and enjoyment. No one loses when that
land is preserved and not built on it. All of us lose if one individual is the only one
that gains. I believe that you are our advocates. You are the stewards of this land
that makes all of us want to live here and it's a rare situation where you can act
with moral conviction and consciousness where you'll have the imperative to
actually create emphaticy where you have the legal and ethical responsibility to
do so. I ask you on behalf of the Town of Southold, as a property owner myself,
as someone who believes in the work of the Trustees, that you carefully consider
the alternative options that will compensate the owner for all that they expect to
achieve over all the years they've paid their property taxes, while ensuring that
we here can walk that property in pleasure in seeing this pristine area left in tact.
I've been a professor of architecture for more than 3 Y2' decades. I've taught
students how to build, where to build, and when not to build. The question here
is, to build or not. It's not screwing around with the little details of the building
envelope, it's 200' here, it's this wide, it's that long, and the issue before us is a
much greater issue. This is a piece of property that need not be built on, and
should not be built on, and I implore you to exercise your responsibility as
12
stewards of the environment, on all of our behalf, without jeopardizing the interest
of the owners. Thank you.
NEIGHBOR: (inaudible) and I am staying at 302 Diamond Lane. As I have many
times since 1973 when he and his wife bought the property. You'll find you have
a letter on file from me urging that no variance be granted to Michael Chuisano or
no one else and I give you my reasons. Frankly, I was appalled that the permit to
build was still under consideration. I've also put together for the Board a visual
record of what will be destroyed and lost forever if construction of a house and its
inevitable access road is permitted on Peconic dune. I always thought that no
new building was ever to be allowed on the dune, an excellent ruling, so I can't
understand why there should be any continuing debate here. The Board has the
power to protect the Peconic dune. Please, use it. Finally, may I urge the Board
to pursue the possibility of having this parcel added to the adjacent Suffolk
County Parks parkland for the enjoyment of the future generations. Thank you.
CHUCK BOWMAN: I understand and I think we all understand the neighbors'
desires and frustrations. I don't think the applicant or the owner of the property
can really speak to the question of acquisition. Like the owner said, I believe that
he certainly went down that road and got nowhere with it and now has a
contractor that Gail certainly speak to. So, what we're going to try to do is take
this data, which we just received today, and submit to the Board a report detailing
how we are changing the site plan to reduce the impacts as far as we can. To
answer your question about the Coastal Erosion Hazard area, what I would
suggest that we do, and I'll be happy to set it up, is to get Eric Starr out here to
meet with the Board on the site. That I know I can get him to do, as he is the
local representative. Just for your information, there are no structural hazard
areas on Long Island.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have the authority to designate them, locally.
CHUCK BOWMAN: That may be. But that has to go through a whole hearing
and procedure just like the maps did and the mapping procedure in order to
designate them. Just as if I came and wanted to change the Coastal Erosion
Hazard maps as they exist now. There is a process that has to be done.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But in relation to that, the State has just spent I think
$600,000 to study that part of Long Island coastline. It's not like this is a new
area that's kind of obscure and no one has ever considered an erosion problem
there. This is an area with a long track area of an erosion problem. Therefore, it
becomes a good candidate for that kind of, looking into that kind of information.
CHUCK BOWMAN: I have no problem looking into it. I would like to set up the
meeting with Eric Starr and all I'm trying to do...there are a lot of areas on the
north shore of Long Island that actually have a lot worse erosion problems.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not was well documented as this one.
CHUCK BOWMAN: It's the western areas (inaudible), it's much worse, but
regardless, and I will set up the meeting. I will also confer with Chris Pickerall
and then modify my report because I want to make sure that we are in
agreement, and we usually are, and I respect his opinion, and I think he respects
mine, so that we have something that isn't controversial, if you will. I think that's
all we can do at this point is to just to try and do that and get you that information.
13
GAIL WICKHAM: I just want to speak very briefly because we will be obviously
coming back with additional material for you to consider, but on the question of
the acquisition, Mrs. Moore stated at the last hearing that, I believe she said that
all elements in the County acquisition are in place, and other people have
mentioned that, and we don't have any indication that that is the case. The owner
has not received any kind of offer or communication recently, and unfortunately
we know that the County acquisition program at this point is stymied by the
recent developments and I just don't know how long that would take. We have
other projects that have been stalled because of that and we do intend to pursue
with environmentally litigating with (inaudible) until something shows up because
we have nothing right now that would indicate that that is an alternative.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But along those lines, you've heard the offer the
community has made also to try to work it out.
GAIL WICKHAM: I don't have anything specific other than general information.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MARION GOTBETTER: Can I address that really quickly? We were told that any
effort of the County would be put on hold because Mr. Maggio is in contract with
Mr. Chuisano. We were also advised by Pat Moore that we as a community,
should not or could not make Mr. Maggio any offer at this time also because he's
in contract. If that was not the case, we would put a package together. I think
we have enough property owners who would be willing to put up private money in
the hopes that maybe we would be able to get back at least some of the money
from the County if that is or becomes a viable alternative. We believe it is an
alternative at this point. We know the County process is a mess. We have been
told that things are better. So, maybe you can tell us, if we can put a package
and offer together now, we will do that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That would be between you and the property owner.
MARION GOTBETTER: We were planning on standing back not to interfere with
the contract process in that regard.
GAIL WICKHAM: I don't think anything has been demonstrated if that was the
cause. The owner (inaudible) and I'm not going to speak for him because I don't
represent him.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I agree with you but I mean if the community wants to
make any kind of an offer or whatever to a property owner, I mean that's got
nothing to do with our Board.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: So what are we talking about? How much money? I'm part
of the community. I live right there.
MR. MAGGIO: Let me say that I don't think asking how much money is an
appropriate question at this time and as I have said it, we are entitled to fair
market value.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Absolutely.
MR. MAGGIO: We are in contract that reflects fair market value. I would like to
say another word that I didn't mention before when we heard about people who
are stewards of the environment. My wife and I owned a magnificent 100 acres
parcel in Southampton that had subdivision approval for 48 clustered lots. We
were approached by the County who had an interest in expanding that large park
14
area in that part of Southampton, and that land was sold to them at considerable
less value than what we could've gotten had we gone forward and sold it to a
developer. So, I want to clear the air in that respect. We have as much concern
and respect for the environment as everyone else. By the same token, I don't
think that power of law should be used to bludgeon us into a deal that we may
not want to make. We are entitled to have this application reviewed by it's merits
without any ulterior motives or pandering to other groups who don't want to see
the developed and not have our rights violated.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I agree and I think I made that clear when I said we're
reviewing another sensitive parcel tonight that doesn't have this in it's file and
we're giving it just the same amount of scrutiny as we're giving this. It's not that
it's you and it's not that it's this, it really what's on the map.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: If there weren't another person in this room it wouldn't take
any longer to do this.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'd still be bludgeoning you.
MR. MAGGIO: Well as long as it's done lawfully. It's when one steps outside of
the law that one finds problems.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I think I made it clear. When we get a survey that
shows the driveway going through what the applicant submits as a wetland,
we've got big problems with that and I think if you sit for the rest of the meeting,
you'll see that we've been trying to uphold our 50' non-disturbance buffer from
wetland areas and in fact, we denied one fellow even to put a fence in it. We've
denied people from clearing dead trees just this evening, in a non-disturbance
buffer area. So, we are trying to be consistent and if you sit here tonight with us
for a few more hours, you'll see that we try to bludgeon everyone fairly.
MR. MAGGIO: Well all that I would re-iterate is that in 1975 we had in hand a
DEC permit, Southold Town Building Permits, and Suffolk County Dept. of Health
permit. So the fact that we didn't go forward at that time should not be held
against us now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
CHUCK BOWMAN: So we'll proceed and put together the information.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ok, I was going to ask for staking and everything but if
you're going to change the plans, we'll wait until you get us_plans that we can
review and then we'll have everything staked in the field.
CHUCK BOWMAN: Do I have your authorization to contact Eric and coordinate
with the office?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That would be fine. Eric and Bill Daley and the rest,
they've been out before on various projects.
CHUCK BOWMAN: Eric is very knowledgeable. He worked on government
projects.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We've met with him a number of times out here. That's
fine.
CHUCK BOWMAN: Ok, I'll set that up and get you the other information.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I'll make a motion to Table the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
15
4. HARBOR LIGHTS CANAL ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland Permit to
maintenance dredge approx. 5,000 cy. of sand from the entrance of the canal.
Located: Harbor Lights Dr., Southold. SCTM#71-2-1.1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the
application?
JOHN COSTELLO: My name is John Costello and I probably think this may be a
little on the premature side because the DEC has not made a determination
exactly which direction they are going to allow the spoils. The application is in
and it's in severe need of dredging. But, the DEC has not made a determination
whether they are going to let a portion of it go to the west or it has to go to the
east.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were there two months ago with another Costello. We
agreed that it is a maintenance dredge operation and if someone wants to do it,
pay for it, that we didn't have a problem with it.
JOHN COSTELLO: It should be done but I'm not so sure and I can't tell you
honestly where the spoil is going to go.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I think we can approve it and stipulate however DEC
wants it.
JOHN COSTELLO: Yes, I think you can approve it contingent upon that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then you can come in and just mark up the survey. We'll
need the yardage and all of that. Any other comments on this? I'll make a motion
to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the
stipulation that the spoil go where the DEC wants it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
5. DAVID J. LECLAIRE requests a Wetland Permit to re-vegetate the wetland
buffer zone with plant/woody material and to Transfer Permit#5196 form Manzi
Homes, Inc. to David J. LeClaire. Located: 10505 Soundview Ave., Southold.
SCTM#54-5-37.2
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Anyone have any comments on this application?
MARYANN MURTAUGH: I'm the adjacent property owner. Actually I have two
comments. One has to do with, I believe, the proposed way the restoration is
going to be done. I don't think enough diversity is being used in the kind of
plants that are going to be put there. I think what I saw on the plan was that they
were going to use just pepperbush and high-bush blueberries. I know for a fact
that there was a 60 year-old high-bush blueberry that was destroyed in this
decimation of the vegetation and I commend the fact that they are going to put
more high-bush blueberry in but just putting in pepperbush and high-bush
blueberry in is not much diversity. I think that there should be both ferns, grass,
as well as woody shrubs. Not just two forms of woody shrubs that should be put
in there. If there is any need for advise on that, I think that the owner should call
the DEC, the wetland biologist there. They are there on Mondays and they can
give some very good advise as to what other plants could be put into the area. In
addition, I believe there is a wetlands nursery on the Internet that is available for
16
advice and I think it's called Pineland Nurseries.com. That might be helpful. But
I definitely think there should be more diversity in what's being re-vegetated. My
second comment is that is actually probably more important and that is when the
initial permit to the contractor-vendee for this house that was built, and which the
owner now lives in, the original permit put the wetlands boundary line on the map
in such a way, on the site plan, in such a way that it was measured, I believe, at
the setback from the house and if you check with the DEC, both the freshwater
wetlands program up in Albany or the people in Stony Brook, they never, ever
measure a boundary line from, as a building practice, from a structure to the
wetlands. You always measure from the vegetation line out. In this case, the
boundary line, because it was measured from the house towards the wetland, is
actually a straight line parallel with the street, whereas the wetland comes in at
an angle from northwest to southeast, so when you go to the east side of this
property, the buffer zone is only actually, in fact, 20 some-odd feet between the
wetland and the line that's drawn. I think that's a very bad practice. If it's done
on this property then it must be done by all of the wetland permits that are given
by this Board of Trustees. I also found out that prior Boards of Trustees did not
measure that way. I believe that this practice is actually jeopardizing the
wetlands in our Town and I suggest you re-draw that line on this particular
property and don't use this practice when giving wetland permits in other places.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Just to briefly answer that practice of
measuring wetland lines of the corner of the house, we found it's the most
accurate and easily enforceable method of measuring a wetland line so that ...
MARYANN MURTAUGH: Well it's bad practice.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, because if it there is an enforcement problem, anyone
can tape from the corner of a house, corner of a deck, tape out and see where
it's been disturbed to. If you have a wetland line, you're going to send five
people out there, they are going to have five different wetland lines, and then
you're not really...and some enforcement people might say well it looks fine, and
someone else might say well this is a problem, and then we found it to be very
inconsistent as far as enforcement goes. Wherever we can, we measure from
the structure.
MARYANN MURTAUGH: It's very bad practice.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We found it to be quite the opposite. Actually, it's the most
effective way of measuring a buffer area.
MARYANN MURTAUGH: Call Albany, (inaudible, speaker not using the
microphone)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you spoke to them, maybe we could educate them.
MARYANN MURTAUGH: (inaudible) if you go all the way across that boundary
lines comes closer and closer to the wetlands because the wetlands come closer
to the street, instead of making a contour, (inaudible).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well in the big picture of enforceability, we found that this
is the most effective way to go. Any other comment on the application? Does the
Board have any comments?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
17
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
6. ROGER SIEJKA requests a Wetland Permit to install an in-ground swimming
pool 15'X 27', with a fence. Located: 130 Willis Creek Dr., Mattituck.
SCTM#115-17-17.8
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Would anyone care to speak in reference to this
application? Any Board comments?
TRUSTEE KING: I looked at this. There's no problem.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: CAC comments?
BOB GHOSIO: We recommended Approval with a condition that drywells are
installed.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Oh, absolutely. Do I have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the
condition that drywells are installed for backwash.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
7. KATIE NICKOLAUS requests a Wetland Permit to repair steps on the bluff.
Located: 17555 Soundview Ave., Southold. SCTM#51-1-2
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would anyone like to comment on this application?
MR. NICKOLAUS: I have here a new drawing that simplifies the permit. In other
words, it looks like only 1/3 of the stairs have to be repaired. I thought the
damage was much more extensive.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We did too after stepping on it.
MR. NICKOLAUS: You can see by all of our safety devices that we were
concerned about not having it connected there because it was a danger. I put a
padlock there and also the ropes. Apparently only 1/3 of the steps have to be
repaired. The bottom steps are still there and the top is still there.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: We noticed that when we walked down there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We just need to see this, have Peconic Surveyors put it on
the survey. Have him put them on the survey.
MR. NICKOLAUS: I do have an older survey to show where the stairs were
originally.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. Have him put the new stairs on the survey.
MR. NICKOLAUS: He doesn't have to survey the whole property does he?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, just where the stairs and landings are going to be.
We'll approve it tonight and when you give us the plans, we'll give you the permit.
MR. NICKOLAUS: Ok, thank you.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments? I'll make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the
stipulation that the stair plans are put on the survey.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
18
8. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of JAMES MILLER requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a 6'X 40' ramp, continuing with a level 6'X 110' dock
and ending with a 6'X 24' "L" dock pointing northeast. From the "L" dock,
installing a 32"X 12' ramp leading to a 6'X 20' float. Installing a 15,000 lb. boat
lift on the southwest side. Located: 1610 Paradise Point Rd., Southold.
SCTM#81-3-19.5
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Would anyone here like to speak on behalf of the
application?
JOHN COSTELLO: I represent James & Barbara Miller on this application. If
there are any questions, I'll certainly try to answer them for you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well take any comments first because we have a lot of
questions. Any other comments at all? This is a big project and we have a lot of
comments and questions. I think what we're going to need from the applicant,
before we can make a decision on this, is, there are two large structures similar
to this to the south. I'd like to see water depths at those structures and in
between in going further up the beach.
JOHN COSTELLO: On everybody's property along the beach?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How far does the Board feel we should go up the beach?
Well, I'll explain why we're looking for this information. We've had a problem with
docks on the bay as far as acting as jetties and piers. What they do is that they
act as a jetty, they slow the water, they trap the sand, the sand comes out of the
water that's moving it along the beach, the sand settles in certain area, and you
affect underwater vegetation, you affect shellfish beds, and we have a problem in
certain areas with this and want to see what affect this dock could possibly have
on the underwater land there.
JOHN COSTELLO: It should be evident from the existing docks.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But you should supply us with that information.
JOHN COSTELLO: You have to ask for it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what we're asking for.
JOHN COSTELLO: There is no build up of beach at either one of those...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, not beach. We're talking about soundings, underwater
soundings, to see how the water depth is going to compare to those other two
docks and in between where there are no docks.
JOHN COSTELLO: Well if you would've asked, I could've provided that today.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we were just out there and we just did the SEQRA
review, which we had been advised to do. How far up the beach do we want to
go and how far out?
JOHN COSTELLO: It's not going to move (inaudible) as you can see by most of
the jetties that are existing there. I have an aerial photo to show you but
...(inaudible). It's basically stayed the same.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other questions that we want the applicant to answer,
or any other information?
JOHN COSTELLO: One of the reasons that this dock is exactly the way it's
designed, Mr. Miller and his wife did not want an excessively long or big
structure, they want a structure that meets the criteria of the DEC, and was met
19
by the DEC and was hoping to get to 4' depth of water. It's not a high bottom. It's
about 10' vegetation on the bottom,of that area. There is a low percentage of
vegetation. There is no eelgrass.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What would be the impact, if we approve this, 1,000 of
these docks in similar, similar structure, on our bays. What would be the
cumulative impact on our bay?
JOHN COSTELLO: You would have to do a generic impact statement in order to
come up with that conclusion. If it would depend solely on the bottom, solely by
the area it is. If it was the same type of land, the same conditions, you're not
going to get 1,000 docks in the same conditions, the same spot, the same beach,
the same little drift areas, the same exposure the same direction, it's not going to
happen. So it's hypothetical and it's tough to answer.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I don't think it's hypothetical because our creeks started
off with no docks.
JOHN COSTELLO: This is not a creek.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It all started with one dock.
JOHN COSTELLO: Let me tell you. None of us would be here without the
pilgrims coming over here by boat. That used to be the method of travel at one
time. Thank God we have trains and cars and airports. Not everybody is going to
have a dock. Not everybody wants a dock. Not everybody is a boater. Some
people are. This is not in the creek. This is less sensitive, better circulation, less
vegetation, low inter-tidal marsh, no high marsh being affected by this dock.
Right next to the concrete wall there is a little high marsh that is well out of the
building envelope. It is a less sensitive spot. We are only going to the 4' depth of
water. The two docks to the south are almost to the 6' depth of water. They put a
lift in offshore because of the wave conditions. Some places where there is
eelgrass, are considerably more sensitive. This is a less sensitive area.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I know it very well. I'm been around the entire coast.
It's a very dangerous precedent.
JOHN COSTELLO: Underneath the dock, there is more protection, underneath
the dock, there is more vegetation growing beneath the dock, less disturbance of
the vegetation under a dock, there is more baitfish under a dock. Go see what
the fishing is under the Greenport railroad dock. There is a lot of fish. You know
that.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I've seen (inaudible) in North Carolina.
JOHN COSTELLO: How about the fishing?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll read the CAC concerns, and there are other concerns
that I just want to air here because we have everyone assembled. It is a large
structure but there is also, besides the boat lift, there is also single dolphins, so it
seems like it's more than a single-family dock. You've got a 6'X 20' float but then
you've got the 6'X 24' "L" on the end, then you've go the boat lift, then you've got
the pilings, so it's kind of like a project that keeps on growing.
JOHN COSTELLO: Do you want me to explain the engineering?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure.
JOHN COSTELLO: The float in the summer time in calm weather, is the easiest
way to board a boat, board an outboard, in 4' of water, to take the grandchildren,
20
your kids, water-skiing, or accessing a small vessel. That's the safest and
easiest. Weather conditions that face the easterly weather, if you want to have a
boat and there's going to be severe weather or your not going to be around, I
would suggest either taking it out of that area, or tying if off between dolphins or
putting it on a boat-lift, as both the docks to the south have done. When you're
not attending the boat, it is just safer. The "L" on the structure, let me tell you
what the "L" is for, flow ice. The end of the dock usually impacts, or gets the most
damage because of flow ice. Guess what. The "L" is put on to strengthen the
offshore end against any ice conditions that we probably will have sometime but
we haven't had any in the last 2 or 3 years. We will have them again. That's
why the design. I design docks and that's the reason the "L" is put in. I'm just
trying to make it safe and convenient.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a good explanation.
JOHN COSTELLO: We haven't had failure on any other docks. We built the last
two the south and we had no failures except an electric motor on the boat-lift
once in a while.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. If there is no other comment, the CAC
recommend Disapproval because the structure would be fragmenting the
environment, it would limit public access from both beach and water. It says here
the project is lacking soundings, but there are soundings that I saw in the file.
The structure would impede navigation and a potential navigation hazard. It does
stick out significantly out into the water. As I pointed out, it does take up a large
area once it gets out there. Between the pilings and the "L", once it sticks out,
and I'm not saying that the 1" is not necessary if your inclined to try to
accomplish what the applicant is trying to accomplish here. I'm not saying it's
frivolous. I'm just saying that it makes it quite a large item, as opposed to not
putting it there.
JOHN COSTELLO: You will see, and I don't know Kenny if you've been there,
over in the North Haven areas, in areas that are developed, all are similar, larger,
and similar heavy structures. This dock is less because of the protection and the
(inaudible) along the shoreline is minimal compared to some of the open areas,
and all have the same similar shape. I've constructed 15 or 20 of them, and they
survive. (changed tape)just did a major report (inaudible) that the area beneath
the dock has considerably more growth than the area that has there now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could you get us a copy of that?
JOHN COSTELLO: It's 2000 pages and you have to buy it. If you want to buy it,
it's for sale. It's Judge Whistler from Albany.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'd like to see that documented. That would be very
valuable. Kenny is going to read it. That's his assignment. Thank you.
JOHN COSTELLO: You need to tell me what you want and I'll get it to you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: My point is that to accomplish this sort of marine access,
you're saying you need this physical structure.
JOHN COSTELLO: I would not want to take the risks of building an inferior
structure that would be jeopardizing, and you've seen lesser structures that come
out in the ice, they are damaged from the ice, and it's not a good thing to happen.
I don't advocate it and will not do it. We want a structure that is going to cause
21
less. When we go in to repair a dock, it's just an expense that the owner does
not want. There is disturbance to the environment putting a dock in and taking it
out, and we've got a couple of those.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: In this day and age of environmental preservation, I
think it's a real shame to even look at these kinds of permit applications. Looking
up and down Robins Island, it's a beautiful preserved area.
JOHN COSTELLO: I know, I built the dock on Robins Island. That's a major
stru ctu re.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Not everyone owns 200' or 300' of bayfront. The
precedent set is that the first one goes in of this size, (inaudible).
JOHN COSTELLO: You know that this is not precedent setting. There are two
docks down. There are two other docks.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right, let's move on.
JOHN COSTELLO: You've got to tell me what you need.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what we need. Does anyone have any other
questions? All I want is soundings and Judge Whistler's report.
JOHN COSTELLO: You're going to have to subpoena it. I'll give you the name of
the ....
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why isn't it public record.
JOHN COSTELLO: Because it's in the commissioner's office right now and it isn't
released until the commissioner makes his judgment.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So it hasn't been resolved yet?
JOHN COSTELLO: No it hasn't been resolved. But the study is done.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Who did the study?
JOHN COSTELLO: There are a bunch of studies. There is a DEC study on CCA
and creosote. The document has all of it. There is a study part of it on growth
columns under docks, whether there is more or less that the open bottom. The
DEC came up with the survey. There was a 10% vegetation growth and there is
approx. 10% is the same area as this dock. After the pilings are put in, there is
considerable growth on the piling, than under the dock. You can look at any
dock.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What dock was this document prepared for.
JOHN COSTELLO: Steven Kroft
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment?
JAMES MILLER: I'd like to make a comment. I'm the owner of the property. My
background goes back to being a commercial fisherman and I'm very sensitive to
the environment. I've earned a living as an environmental contractor that cleans
up oil spills throughout the world, so I'm very, very sensitive to these types of
situations. Certainly we've worked hard throughout our career and we've been
able to acquire a beautiful waterfront home and we'd like to gain the access to
the water by utilizing a dock so that we could moor vessels that are owned by the
family and have a guest come over, have a small boat and utilize the bay.
Certainly to go to a public marina is for some people, what they would like to do
in life, certainly we've reached the point where we believe that this is one of our
privileges and rights and we've worked hard and we deserve it. So I would urge
the Board to approve this permit. The bottom in the general vicinity there is very
22
gradual. The two adjoining docks that exist now, there is almost no build up of
sand behind underneath those docks. The grading in that area is very, very
gentle and very shallow, so I don't think we're going to have any environmental
impact at all, by putting another small dock out in front there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to Table the application.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
JOHN COSTELLO: So what do you want.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We want soundings on the adjacent docks and Ken, do
you want to go past or do you want to go out further, or just to that water depth?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: This isn't just a simple answer. You know my point.
This is a cumulative impact in the unforeseen future. Everybody is going to have
a dock at a certain length and then everybody has to have a big boat, and then
they are going to get bigger and bigger until you stomp your foot down.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We asked the applicant for information and we have to
give them the specifics.
JOHN COSTELLO: How about a Noah chart. Would that help?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For what area?
JOHN COSTELLO: That whole beach stretch. As a matter of fact, I could
probably get you one from a few years back.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That would be ideal. I mean this is one thing that were
considering here also. This isn't, I mean Mr. Miller spoke about his privileges and
rights to put a dock there and to put a boat there, but one thing we have to
consider is this is a public trust area. This is public property.
JOHN COSTELLO: It's State bottom.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's State bottom and to the residents of New York State,
it's public bottom, we have to consider that when we make decisions. It's not on
your own private property. That's a little bit different. This is a public area that
should be open for everyone. We have to protect the rights and once you put a
structure there, you're basically excluding the public from that area. Of course
you can say you can clam under it and all of that but you're basically excluding
that area, if people can't boat through there anymore. It's been monopolized by
one person. I think that you have keep that in mind and I'm not trying to single
you out, but we have had other people come and say, now I need a bigger dock
because I just bought a 60' boat. And then what happen next year when you buy
an 80' boat. Then, they'll need a bigger dock because they bought an 80' boat.
So, you have to look at it consciously and say, what is that right that you have to
wharf out a boat and where does that eventually come up against the right of the
public to use that public property. That's sort of a public use issue there also that
I wanted to bring up.
JOHN COSTELLO: For the record I want to state that this area is New York State
bottom, first of all. The dock is not impeding people going up and down that
beach. It was designed to end just above high water so that people, anyone, can
walk the foreshores along the beach, and this is not impeding navigation. All that
beach has jetties. It is quite a stabilized beach. All of those jetties have stabilized
the beach. All the jetties are full. That is one stable area. The bottoms have not
23
changed and you'll see that on two or three charts that I can supply you. The
fact of the matter is, State law does allow riparian rights in front of your property.
We are only seeking enough to meet the criteria of the New York State's 4' depth
of water, which safely and adequately would handle a small boat, and not a 90'
boat. And guess what, if we're going to put in a 90' boat or a 100' or an ocean-
liner there, we would be coming back to this board to make the application. It's
not going to happen.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well this does also does, you mentioned people going
across the foreshore, and I assume Mr. Miller owns the beach, so this dock does
block the foreshore, between high water and low water.
JOHN COSTELLO: Traditionally. If it's open beach, people are walking along
there now, they are going to continue to walk along there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's not happening there but it's happening in a lot of
places. We see it every month. You don't see it every month but we see it every
month.
JOHN COSTELLO: I go to more of these meetings than you do. I go to other
Towns and I've seen it everywhere.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But that's an issue that we have to face. It's public access.
JOHN COSTELLO: Not everybody is going to have a dock. I know a lot of
people who don't like docks and don't like the looks of docks. They don't want
one. All I want to know is what you need.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You've got to provide us with two charts.
JAMES MILLER: Is that what I'm led to believe, that if the soundings in that area
prove that there is no substantial shoaling by the two other existing docks, you'll
grant us a permit?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, no, that's just one consideration.
JAMES MILLER: What are the other considerations that we have to meet then?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All of the other environmental standards in Chapter 97.
That's just one thing.
JAMES MILLER: (inaudible) if you're just going to sandbag it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, no, we're not going to pop something on you.
JAMES MILLER: Let's make a decision fellows that's fair and reasonable.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're not going to pop something on you next month.
JAMES MILLER: And then if my permit is denied, then basically there will be no
docks in Southold Town from here on in. I'm the last one. I'm the guy that
crossed the line and from here on in there will be no dock permits granted in
Southold Town, in the bay, in the creek, period. End of story.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not necessarily. We don't have any moratorium or any ban
on docks right now.
JAMES MILLER: If that is the intent, you should declare a moratorium and have
no more docks in the community. I think it's only fair that if you didn't close the
door to the barn, I stand here today, and you should grant my permit today,
because you didn't close the door.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But no one ...
JAMES MILLER: My permit is no different than any of the other docks.
24
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure, but we're not guaranteeing everyone access to the
barn though. Just because everyone comes to the door, not everybody gets in.
We denied a dock on the bay three months ago, on it's own merits. We denied a
dock extension on the bay. We've denied docks on the creeks. But, that's on
their own merits.
JOHN COSTELLO: What merits would you deny this one?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't know. We need all of the information, all of the
environmental merits. Navigation, safety, possibility of siltation from the sand built
up. There are a lot of factors.
JOHN COSTELLO: Hypothetically.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're going to look at Judge Whistler's report also. You
said that that information is in there proving that ...
JOHN COSTELLO: Take Ken with you and go in his boat and go look at any
dock, any dock, that's been there two or three years. Go look for yourself. Forget
the report. Go look at the vegetation under the other two docks to the south of it.
Just go look at the vegetation compared to the vegetation off the docks. Just do
that for yourself. For your own education.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We will.
JOHN COSTELLO: You can come to your own conclusion. I can tell you what
the answer is and I think you know the answer too.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We've been to Mr. Miller's house twice, and we'll be there
again.
JOHN COSTELLO: So we're going to meet on the 16th. What time?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You'll have to contact the office.
9. Catherine Mesiano on behalf of WILLIAM LOIS requests a Wetland Permit to
perform selective clearing, grading and re-vegetation of property. Erect 10'X 10'
shed and +/-70' fence on east lot line. Located: 58105 North Rd., Greenport.
SCTM#44-2-9
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of
the application?
CATHERINE MESIANO: I'm here on behalf of the applicant. The only I'd like to
add is, I believe you spoke with Mr. Lois and communicated with him that you
would approve his request but your requiring a 35' buffer from the top of the bank
landward. The only consideration I'd like to make is, after having walked the
property again tonight, there are areas of erosion along that bluff and he would
like to add more vegetation to those areas. The revetment project is going to be
so costly because he owns not only this property but the adjoining property.
There has been erosion along these properties. If you recall, we looked at this
property at a year or so ago for the former owner. At that time, it hasn't really
changed too much but shortly before that time, he had lost a good 4' in one storm
and he's gotten some prices on doing a revetment on his property and having
just purchased his property, he's not in a position to make that type of investment
and he would like to use some vegetation to stop that. We would like to get into
that 35' area and so some planting of some indigenous species that would help
support that. There are areas where there is some run-off and there are some
25
areas that are starting to erode. We are not proposing to add rock but we just
want to add some vegetation to try to hold that intact as a temporary measure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that's fine with the Board but he's got to give us a
plan showing exactly what he wants to do because if he does the wrong thing,
he's going to really...there is potential for him to really do a lot of damage to his
own property.
CATHERINE MESIANO: There is no intention of having any equipment in there
or any machinery. It will be hand-digging and hand-planting those areas that are
weak.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we really need a plan for that to show us.
CATHERINE MESIANO: Ok, what I would ask you then is, I know that we are in
agreement on the fence portion of the proposal and he is in agreement with a
buffer area, which he just wants to fortify, and if we can give him the approval on
his shed and his fencing, and the other minimal clearing that he's talking about,
and I'll come back to you at a later date with some type of planting plan for that
bluff area. But, he does want to get that fencing up and start protecting his
property. As you know, there's been a problem with the adjoining property owner
and he wants to handle that sooner than later.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was noted. The CAC comments, were the trees that
are going to be removed should be flagged, the clearing limits were not indicated,
on a plan, the proposed shed was not staked, the CEHA should be staked, a
violation should be issued for the dumping of fill, and they recommend a
minimum of a 75'non-disturbance buffer. I don't have a problem with what your
proposing but I think the shed and the fence should be put on the survey.
CATHERINE MESIANO: Yes, we will add that. I just didn't want to go through
the revisions of the survey until you make your...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well you'll have to if he's going to come in for a stone
revetment eventually.
CATHERINE MESIANO: No, I will do that but I would like to make your approval
conditioned upon my submission of that so that I can go back to the surveyor
with exactly what we've discussed at this point and have that put onto the survey.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does anyone have any comments on that? Just put the
shed and the fence on the survey and we would like to see the 35' buffer, but if
he's going to proposed planting in there, he can just show us a plan showing
that. Do I have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve a 10'X 10' shed, a 70' fence
on the east property line and based on the submission of a survey showing those
things, and also the 35' buffer from the top of the bank, to be shown on the
survey. If he wants to submit for a planting plan, he can do so based on that
survey.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
10. 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
26
to be retained with concrete retaining walls according to SCDHS standards;
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
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this
application?
ROB HERRMANN: Although the Board has asked us not to present any new
information this evening, I want to just very briefly just review the process today
for the Boards refreshment and clarity on the record. We appeared before the
Board back in January of this year after having secured a variance approval from
the Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services, which this Board had previously
requested that we set out to do. At that hearing, testimony was offered by myself
and by the project engineer, Frederick Keith, in support of the application.
Ultimately the hearing was adjourned until April as the Board had requested
additional information, primarily to bore an additional test hole. At the April
hearing we submitted that test hole information and an addendum to the
engineer's report analyzing it. At that time, I also submitted copies of Mr.
Grathwohl's deed and single and separate title search, for the record, which
demonstrated his ownership and single and separate title since 1966, when he
purchased the lot. At that time, the Board had requested an additional
adjournment in order to be afforded the opportunity to review those materials.
We came back in May and the Board actually requested an additional
adjournment so that access paths could be re-cut to the property and the
property re-inspected by the Board, which was done; and I assume the Board
was able to perform that re-inspection. Therefore to date, we have addressed all
of the Board's requests for additional information. I have addressed and the
standards for permit issuance contained in Chapter 97 of the Town Code. We've
offered testimony and documentation into the record as evidence that the
application indeed meets those standards. Mr. Grathwohl has also obtained a
tidal wetlands permit from the NYSDEC whose standards for permit issuance
were essentially reflective of this Board's. Mr. Grathwohl thanks the Board for it's
continued careful consideration of the application but does respectfully request
that the hearing be closed and that he be granted a wetlands permit for the
project. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment? Any Board comment?
CAC comment?
BOB GHOSIO: We really had some concerns with the raised septic. In general,
the CAC does not like to see raised septics because of the proximity to the
wetlands and the tidal flow from the septic into the wetlands. Even though the
Health Dept. tends to allow it, the CAC has researched the literature and we
have found that there is research that shows that raised septics are not good for
wetland proximity.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Clarification Rob, on one point of the survey,
when we were out there two weeks ago on field inspection, we couldn't locate the
stake for the septic system, but the septic wall, which is part of the septic system,
27
so the septic system is located...it's the line that's basically the same line as the
house line, isn't that right, the porch line runs right into the septic system?
ROB HERRMANN: Right, it's a parallel continuation of that straight line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ok. Based on our observations there, that line was 36'
from the septic system.
ROB HERRMANN: What line was 36' from the septic system?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That line of the porch, it's a straight line to the septic
system, it's 36' from the wetland edge. You have 40' there, and we're not going
to nit-pick.
ROB HERRMANN: There's a 40' setback to the house at certain points. But, the
actual setback to the porch itself is greater than 40'. It's not showing exactly on
the survey what that is. There's just a 40' line drawn as an offset to show that's a
minimum setback and that no structures encroach beyond that. The nearest
point of the sanitary system itself is 55' from the wetland boundary. I suppose in
partially responsive to the CAC comment, the purpose of the raised sanitary
system is, and again this was discussed in extensive detail by the project
engineer, but in laymen's terms, the purpose of that, which is not just required by
the Health Dept. but also by the State DEC, is if you didn't actually raise the
sanitary system, then the cesspools would be emptying effluent directly into
groundwater. So, I'm not sure how research could possibly show that the
cesspools being raised above groundwater could some how be worse than
dumping effluent directly into groundwater, but not withstanding that comment,
the retaining wall is, you said sort of offhandedly, that it's part of the sanitary
system. It's not really part of the sanitary system. It's containing the fill that's
around the system.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we couldn't approve it without the wall. It's the sanitary
system. It's part of the system.
ROB HERRMANN: Correct, but I'm just saying for a substantive purpose, there
isn't effluent coming out where the wall is. The effluent is within the cesspools
that have to be set 10' back from those retaining walls as per Suffolk County
Dept. of Health Services code. So, the wall that you're looking at, and I don't
know what the setback is to that retaining wall, and I can scale it, but the setback
to the actual system itself is 55'.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's 43' here. But like I said, we're not going to nit-pick your
measurements here.
ROB HERRMANN: To the wall you mean?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To the wall, since it's part of the septic system.
ROB HERRMANN: I don't want to argue semantics but it's a structure that
retains the sanitary system, but it is not part of the effluent discharge system
itself and there is obviously a big difference.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not really because you can't build that system without that
wall.
ROB HERRMANN: That's correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So I think we'd consider it to be part of the system. Any
other Board comments?
28
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have two letters that I would like to share. I had
concerns about this property and I went to Mark Terry, Senior Environmental
Planner of Southold Town, and asked him to look at the septic system and the
information that you shared with us, and he says, as you requested, I reviewed
and researched the plan and based on a telephone conversation with an
engineer, the following concerns have been identified: the report fails to address
the potential impact of sewage contaminants on surface waters. Undermining or
sloughing of the northern neighbors property could be expected. Drifting the
excavation away from the neighbor's property to prevent undermining would
move the septic system closer the surface waters and may not be acceptable.
I've verified with the Dept. of Health that the proposed retaining walls do not stop
contaminants from leaching into the groundwater and that in this case any
contaminants that reach the groundwater table will be taken up in the
groundwater flow and travel accordingly. Therefore, monitoring for nitrogen in
the water table may be warranted. My recommendation is that due to the
distance to the wetlands, the Trustees should retain Chick Voorhis from Nelson,
Pope and Voorhis to conduct a more thorough engineering analysis of the
proposed septic system. He goes on to say that as you are aware, the Trustees
have the right pursuant to SEQRA, to mandate this action and have the applicant
pay for the analysis. I also asked for some advise from Nature Conservancy and
I have their letter here also. They say, As per your request on April 4, 2002, 1 am
providing information on the status of the above-mentioned parcel with the
Critical Lands Protection Strategy database. As you learned on the April 4
information session, the Critical Lands Protection Strategy provides a method by
which to identify lands that are critical to protect for habitat and water quality in
the Peconic Estuary. The parcel above meets two of the four criteria in our initial
analysis. Its is within 9000'of the shoreline, considered important because
groundwater inputs into the bay are the primary source of freshwater into the
system, and a large source of contaminants such as nitrogen and pesticides. It
is within a Critical Natural Resource Area. Corey Creek has significant biological
diversity. CNRA's are defined as areas containing concentrations of high quality
spawning, breeding, feeding and wintering or seasonal habitat for shellfish,
finfish, waterfowl, shorebirds, fish and rare plant, and natural communities. A
third criteria is met by this parcel if it contains tidal or freshwater wetlands. Our
wetlands data is not comprehensive and some smaller wetlands areas were not
included in our analysis.
ROB HERRMAN: Well my initial response to that is disappointment in the fact
that the Board would've waited this long to consult their own experts after we've
had a couple of hearings where the Board said, is there anything else we could
possibly ask the applicant to address, and the answer was "no". That meeting
was followed up by a request for additional path-cutting and now that's followed
up by this meeting with this additional information. Nonetheless, obviously any
information that you wish us to consider provided by Mr. Terry or whoever, we
would certainly respond to in writing. I would reiterate that I believe that the issue
of the sanitary system has been addressed, exhaustedly and comprehensively,
by both the project engineer and the Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services.
29
The Health Dept. does not issue variances lightly. They took a very hard look at
this application. They had their own groundwater hydrologist on their Board of
Review and I have certainly seen applications before the Board of Review
denied. They concurred with our engineer's report on this application and I
believe it's in the record what the Health Dept. determination was. Again, when
we first appeared before this Board, that was your mandate to us, which was go
to the Health Dept. and get a professional determination from them, and that's
what we did. However, if you have additional comments there by an
environmental planner, obviously we will do our due diligence and respond to
them if you wish.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We certainly didn't hire anyone. Did those comments
require a response or were they for our information?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No, they were just for our information.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments?
JAMES GRATHWOHL: I'd like to comment. As you know, I'm Jim Grathwohl,
and I just want to underscore Rob's comments. As you know, we've been at this
for a long time as we have answered all of your questions and have done our
very best to give you that information in a timely fashion. The points that Mark
Terry evidentially raised, I think, and all of you were here at the presentation of
Fred Keith gave, answered all those questions specifically and I'm not technical
and I'm not going to go back and try to respond to his concerns, but that
presentation that Mr. Keith gave to each of you was very detailed and answered
all of those questions, and my understanding as I heard Peggy read the letter, is
if you go back and look at the record, I think the concerns will be answered to a
point that you should be satisfied that those are no longer concerns. As far as the
Nature Conservancy is concerned, I certainly understand that. But there again,
similar to the other issues this evening, it's wetlands, but yet it's a buildable lot
and we have done everything possible to meet your concerns. I would like to
draw this to a close obviously. It's been going on for a number of years. Again, I
thank you for your diligence, and I am not faulting you for what you have raised,
the concerns you have raised, however, I think it's that time we really looked at
all the presentations we've given you. I personally think we have very
adequately answered all your concerns and as Rob just said, each one of your
requests has been fulfilled. So I was hoping tonight that there would be a vote
on it and obviously I was hoping that it would be affirmative. I thank you very
much and I would like you to give serious consideration to all of the requirements
that have been put into it so that we don't have to continue coming back month
after month. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think it was the Board's intention to vote on this tonight.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I have one last comment. (inaudible) what Fred Keith
had said about the system that was going to be in place here. I asked him one
question. I said will there be effluent reaching the creek because when the DEC
does Ecoli testing, they would possibly have a trace of it, and it would have a
negative impact on shellfish beds. His answer was "a little bit". Now that's not
acceptable to me because that's all you need is a little bit because that's what
the DEC tests for and it shuts down an entire shellfish area, Corey Creek.
30
ROB HERRMANN: I actually believe Kenny, that if you reviewed the record, I do
recall your question to him when he was talking about the vertical flow of the
effluent down and you said "will any of that material move laterally", and his
answer was "yes, a little bit", but that was taken in the context of where is that
effluent moving laterally to. Your question wasn't, "is it going to move into the
creek", and he said "yes". That's not accurate at all. He described some lateral
movement but if you look at that within the context of the process he was
describing, and I'm not going to attempt to re-describe, it was something a little
bit different than what you just stated, and there is going to be some lateral
movement out of any cesspool of any septic system on any property, including
your own. It doesn't mean that that material is then going to move over untreated
a period of 60' or 70' or whatever it is.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We went through a lengthy discussion on how after time
the system breaks down and it moves quicker laterally and he couldn't answer
these questions, and then that's when I asked him to possibly find another
system like this, take samples 5', 10', 15', away from the system, and he said he
couldn't because this is the first of it's kind. That's why I said this is unacceptable
to Southold, if you can't come up with those answers.
ROB HERRMANN: Well I also think that's an extraordinarily inaccurate
recollection of the record. I think Fred's answer and my answer was that this was
not a first of it's kind sanitary system at all. This is an extremely common
sanitary system within the Town of Southold and throughout the east end. It
doesn't actually take much to research into it. Just look at the County's code of
standards. It's called a shallow groundwater system. If you have a deep enough
separation between the surface and groundwater, you can put in one cesspool
that's say 12' deep and 8' wide and that's all you need to handle three or four
bedrooms. If you have a shallow groundwater table, for a three bedroom house,
you have five rings, 8' wide, that are only 2' deep. That's exactly the type of
system that's proposed here. It's not unique and it's not one of a kind. The
process that Fred described was not something that he created for this process.
It's an application of what the Suffolk Co. standards are. This is required by the
County. The design is conforming to the County. It was not created specifically
for Mr. Grathwohl.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Well he didn't give me a clear answer when I asked him
where could we find another one of these systems.
ROB HERRMANN: I think if you check the record he did give a very clear
answer that you'll find dozens and probably hundreds of these systems around
the Town of Southold. It just takes a phone call to the Health Dept. to get an
independent answer.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Deny the application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now that the motion is made and seconded, I think I would
like to add the Chapter 97-28 Standards. (A)This application would adversely
affect the wetlands of the Town, (D) Adversely affect fish, shellfish, and other
31
beneficial marine organisms, aquatic wildlife and vegetation or the natural
habitats thereof, and according to the letter we received from Mark Terry, (H)
Weaken and undermine the lateral support of other lands in the vicinity.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES
11. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of STRONG'S MARINE requests a Wetland
Permit to restore the non-disturbance buffer adjacent to the tidal wetlands by
removing parking materials; planting with native vegetation; and establishing
earthen curb and gravel-lined swale. Located: Camp Mineola Rd., Mattituck.
SCTM#1 22-9-3&122-4-44.2
POSTPONED UNTIL JULY AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST
12. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of FRANK & LOUISE MARCIGLIANO as
Contract Vendees requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story, one-
family dwelling on pilings; install a sanitary system, pervious driveway, drywell-
drainage system, and public water service; establish a 50' wide non-
disturbance/non-fertilization buffer adjacent to the tidal wetland boundary;
remove existing driveway; and replant with native vegetation the approx. 1,150
sq.ft. portion of existing driveway located within the proposed buffer area.
Located: 1800 Cedar Beach Rd., Southold. SCTM#89-2-3
POSTPONED UNTIL JULY AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST
13. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of DONNA BLANCHARD requests a Wetland
Permit to remove and,replace (inkind/inplace) approx. 27 linear ft. (including 5' &
7' returns) of existing timber bulkhead and backfill with approx. 5 cy. of clean
sand to be trucked in from an upland source and planted with beach grass (18"
on center). Replant (12" on center) any disturbed spartina alterniflora adjacent to
southerly return. Construct a timber dock, consisting of a 3'X 10' hinged ramp to
extend from bulkhead onto a 6'X 12' float secured by (2) 8" diameter pilings.
Located: 50 Budd's Pond Rd., Southold. SCTM#56-5-21
POSTPONED UNTIL JULY AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST
14. Land Use Ecological Services on behalf of JACK BIGGANE requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a 4'X 150'+/- CCA timber stairway. Proposed stairs to be
raised 4' above the existing grade/slope. (60) 4"X 4" CCA timber posts are to be
utilized in conjunction with the stair installation, and the posts are to be installed
with a depth of penetration of 6'+. Located: 8871 Oregon Rd., Cutchogue.
SCTM#83-1-34
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I did look at this and. I didn't have a problem with it but there
is another problem on the property that has to be addressed. Are there any other
comments on this application? Board comments?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we discussed this with the agent.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes, we did discuss it with the agent. They have a problem
there that he's aware of and that's got to be corrected. How did you leave that
with him?
32
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can give the description based on those, as a
condition of the permit, what needs to be done.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Ok. Do I have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So moved.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the permit for the stairs with
the condition that the drainage problem existing in the northeast corner be
rectified by either a pipe installation into the drywell or lower the casting and re-
grade that corner to prevent any further erosion, and that should all be part of the
permit.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That should all be done before the stairs are constructed.
15. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of JEAN A. SAUNDERS requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a new dock located approx. 14' west of the existing
dock. The old dock shall be removed and a new 4'X 86' catwalk, 3'X 20' ramp
and 6'X 20' float secured by two piles is proposed and a new set of 4'X 20' steps
up the bluff. Located: 4322 Westphalia Rd., Mattituck. SCTM#113-9-9.2
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against
the applicant? Any comment? I'll make a motion to Table the application.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
16. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of KENNETH DELOISELLE requests
a Wetland Permit to reconstruct in-place +/-135' of timber bulkhead utilizing vinyl
sheathing, to backfill structure with +/-10 cy. of clean sand which shall be trucked
in from an upland source and to replant a 10'X 20' area immediately landward of
southwest corner of the bulkheading with 2-3' Baccharis 5' on center. Located:
3310 Little Neck Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#103-9-12
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here who wishes to comment on the
application?
BOB GHOSIO: The CAC felt the project was fine.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
17. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of MARGARET CLEARY requests a
Wetland Permit to reconstruct in-place +/-137' of timber bulkhead utilizing C-Loc
vinyl sheathing and to backfill structure with +/-10 cy. of clean sand to be trucked
in from an upland source. To reconstruct inkind/inplace existing 4'X 5' steps to
access beach. Located: 425 Terry Lane, Southold. SCTM#65-1-21
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of
this application? I visited the site and it's straight-forward. Does anyone else
have any comments?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: CAC?
33
BOB GHOSIO: We had some discussion concerning the fill. It says in the
application, and this seems to be typical and this is why it was discussed, is that
it's always +/- 10 yds. and it's considerably more. This particular property is
somewhat tiered. There is like two tiers. We were concerned that there would be
too much fill coming...enough fill to actually level off the tier. So, that was a
concern. Aside from that, it seemed like it was fairly straight-forward. We just
recommended we put in a 20' non-turf buffer and native plantings.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I noticed that the lawn was going right to that bulkhead
there but there was quite a bluff between the high-tide mark and the bulkhead, so
I didn't consider it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So do you want a 10' buffer?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I didn't see a problem there. There was a large bluff
area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ok.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
18. Eric Bressler, Esq. on behalf of RICHARD HORSTIVIANN requests a Wetland
Permit to increase the footprint of the existing house and add a second floor.
Located: 7225 Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#111-15-12
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the
application?
FRANK BLANGIARDO: Good evening, I am Frank Blangiardo and I have an
injunction (inaudible) Ms. Wickham from appearing at this hearing. Can I give
the Board copies of Supreme Court Justice Seidell's temporary restraining order
signed this afternoon?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What do you think? It's a public hearing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is it an environmental issue?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Who is Justice Seidell?
FRANK BLANGIARDO: He's a Supreme Court Justice.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: From where?
FRANK BLANGIARDO: Riverhead for the last 30 years.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What does he have to do with us?
FRANK BLANGIARDO: He's a Supreme Court Judge for the County of Suffolk.
This action of real property must be brought to the highest court of jurisdiction,
which is unlimited in it's equitable powers. It's the highest court in New York
State.
GAIL WICKHAM: Mr. Krupski, I maybe able to clarify this.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Go right ahead.
GAIL WICKHAM: I would give the Board the courtesy of asking that this matter
be adjourned in light of what possibly may be an injunction.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No objection...what a second...is there anyone here to
represent the applicant?
34
GAIL WICKHAM: I represent the applicant, but in light of the order that Frank
Blangiardo has brought in, I would like to ask that the hearing be adjourned.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well since you represent the applicant, we'll respect that.
GAIL WICKHAM: In that the order may preclude us from presenting the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's bizarre but, let's see your paperwork.
FRANK BLANGIARDO: Certainly, if I may, if this body wants people to
(inaudible) and you don't want people building illegal docks and illegal bulkheads,
certainly you should respect the highest court in the County. (inaudible)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You have to use the microphone if you're going to make a
statement. Just wait a moment while the Board reviews this.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's 10:45 PM and the we're just trying to let it settle...
FRANK BLANGIARDO: Well this is pretty straight-forward. We don't have to be
environmentalists'or anything. It's just civil procedure. (inaudible)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just let us finish here.
FRANK BLANGIARDO The case is pending before Judge Catterson on the 3rd
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could you please give us a moment here?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So she can't...
FRANK BLANGIARDO: Well I can't comment on other attorney's conduct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else who would like to comment, who
doesn't have a legal order against them, on this application? I had on this
application, I had a conversation with the surveyor about a week or two ago, and
if you remember, there was a problem with the right-of-way. Now, the surveyor
told me that the applicant had 90' of property and he was going to supply us with
a new survey, so we don't have that to work on. We don't have the new survey. It
really doesn't matter to us who represents the applicant. The applicant can
actually represent himself.
FRANK BLANGIARDO: He's (inaudible), it says right there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh, he is also.
FRANK BLANGIARDO: Just for 5 or 6 days or so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well the meeting isn't until next month.
GAIL WICKHAM: Pending the return date of this, which is July 3rd
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll have to wait, notwithstanding Mr. Seidell's
comments, we will have to wait for a survey. Since there is no one here to
represent the applicant, you'll have to send the applicant a note saying that we
need a new survey, in order to act on the application. I'll make a motion to Table
the application in light of the information.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
19. Frank Uellendahl on behalf of AUSTIN POWER requests a Wetland Permit to
add a one-story addition to the existing structure, added gross floor area of 560
sq.ft. Located: 444 Midway Rd., Southold. SCTM#90-2-5
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any comments on this project?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this. It's pretty straight-forward. I'll make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application.
35
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
20. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of JOHN T. FARRIS requests a
Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to remove the existing irreparable
dock and construct a fixed elevated dock (4' wide X 27' long), including steps
located at the seaward terminus of said dock, and a pile/pulley system set thirty
feet (30') seaward of the proposed dock to provide for the temporary tie-up of
vessels. Located: 750 Willow Terrace Lane, Orient. SCTM#26-2-20.1
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Would anyone care to comment on this application?
BRUCE ANDERSON: This is a case where a previous permit was approved this
Board, a 100' dock, and (inaudible) so this application is to basically replace that
functional portion of the dock, remove the (inaudible) and install the piling and
pulley system to allow him temporary access. We have DEC permits for this and
(inaudible).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It seems like a clever little system.
BRUCE ANDERSON: Well it's the best we can make out of the situation we're
faced with. I am annoyed by it because the man had a functional dock of 100'
and there is a dock directly next door by that same agency of 100'. The man has
been unjustly victimized by the DEC. (inaudible)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We thought it was clever. We saw what happened to the
old one and we said, we'll somebody had a better idea.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I don't think we had a problem with it.
BOB GHOSIO: We had no problem.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
21. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of SALVATORE GUERRERA requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a dwelling with on-site sewage disposal system and
public water. Construct fixed walkway 4'X 178', fixed dock 4'X 41' and mooring
pole 20' out from the fixed dock. Located: 1450 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck.
SCTM#122-4-44.6
POSTPONED UNTIL JULY AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST
22. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of GREGORY MAZZANOBILE requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling with pool and decks; install
on-site sewage disposal system. Located: 1460 Lake Dr., Southold. SCTM#59-1-
21.6&21.7
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this application?
JIM FITZGERALD: I'm here on behalf of the applicant. When last we met on
this, you were going to get Chris Pickerall to inspect the property and report back
to you what he found. I am anxious to hear that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Lauren, do we have a report from Pickerall.
LAUREN STANDISH: No, it was just a verbal.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He didn't give us a report.
36
JIM FITZGERALD: I understand that he did find...
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Oh, definitely he said there was a cranberry bog.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We went again two weeks ago, the whole board, to take a
look at it again. This is the same as quite a few we've been going over tonight.
Now somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we found the site to be
buildable, and he certainly has a lot of area there to work with, but he's got to
stay clear...the proposed driveway seems to be right in the bog itself. Maybe he
could put the driveway on the other side of the house or something.
JIM FITZGERALD: I'm sure we could do that. One of the things we have to do,
however, is find out where the magical cranberry bog is. It didn't seem to be
marked in any way so it's hard to tell what the extent of it is.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're correct. We'll just take this gentleman's comment.
JIM FITZGERALD: So where do we stand on that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we need to...you as the agent, need to show it on
the survey, and then you need to show us the setbacks from it.
JIM FITZGERALD: My only problem is the location. I'm really disappointed that
Chris went there and turned around and said, "yeah, they are there".
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I agree. I thought we would have something is writing that
would define it a little better.
JIM FITZGERALD: Well and put some stakes in the ground so that we don't have
somebody go and take a look at it and see it differently from what he saw and
then we go back and forth about where the cranberry bog is.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I agree with your disappointment, I'm not saying that
you're wrong, all I'm saying is that the bog is pretty well defined, so I don't think
we're going to have a disagreement on where the bog is.
JIM FITZGERALD: Are you suggesting that the kind of circular is "the cranberry
bog".
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On the survey here?
JIM FITZGERALD: No, on the ground.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All the vegetated area there.
JIM FITZGERALD: Including the...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The cranberries. Can you come up here and take a look
at this? The bog, we think, is basically right in here.
JIM FITZGERALD: Right.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We just want to see a setback from that.
JIM FITZGERALD: (inaudible) with some thing that you will find acceptable. We
can get Rob to put it on.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'd accept Rob to put the cranberry bog on.
(talking)
JIM FITZGERALD: I have one other thing. Although I wasn't afforded an
opportunity to look at the pictures that were presented last time of the inundated
area, I did look at them in the file at the office and it looks to me like there was a
time when the road was flooded and there were a number of pictures of it. It's
essentially the same time and same location. The road in front of my house has
been flooded and it's not near Great Pond or any of those and the other thing is
that I'm depending upon the Boards degree of validity with which the Board
37
attaches the concept of this area and the (inaudible) of Great Pond. Looking at
the topographic map, it doesn't look like there could be any connection. Driving
down Lake Dr., you don't see any areas where there appears to be a flow of
water across the road in either direction. But regardless of all of that, I'm not quite
sure what that would be. It rains and the water goes someplace, so it goes into
creeks or it goes into the sound or Peconic Bay, and some of it goes into Great
Pond. I think that's the way God meant it to be, if I may mention God. Thank
you very much for your attention.
GEORGE BAMBRICK: I was here at the last hearing. I just want to go over some
basic things and maybe review where we are at so far. First of all, it was just
recently brought to my attention that in the record for the original application, it's
not correct. The closest distance between the nearest exiting structure and
upland edge of wetlands is not available. Is that correct? This is the wetland
application data. This is in the record.
JIM FITZGERALD: You mean N/A? No applicable.
GEORGE BAMBRICK: Isn't that distance applicable between the existing
structure and the upland edge of wetlands?
JIM FITZGERALD: Well it doesn't in my opinion but I would be very happy to put
a number in there for you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well you mean on adjacent properties then because there
is no structure on the property, that's why I assumed it's not applicable because
there is nothing on the applicant's property.
GEORGE BAMBRICK: Well the edge of property line across the road.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But I think this in relation to ...
GEORGE BAMBRICK: Alright. How about the second one. The closest distance
between nearest proposed structure and upland edge of wetlands. Do we have
that distance?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well it's all to be determined. That means this is a work in
progress.
GEORGE BAMBRICK: I was under the impression that we were going to be
filling, this says excavating.
JIM FITZGERALD: It should be 650 cy. of fill.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Which we kind of assumed because it shows a raise in
elevation here.
GEORGE BAMBRICK: So we're talking about 650 cy. to be filled, to be entered
into this property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To be brought in, correct.
GEORGE BAMBRICK: I just want to review some of the items we brought up
last month. I'm not going to go into every detail but the community is opposed to
the granting of this application. We have a petition on file, 55 adjacent property
owners opposing the granting of this request. I have several letters from my
neighbors. I would say about 20 photographs and I think it's pretty clear that the
water is coming from the overflow from Great Pond. It spills out over Lake Dr.
and into the adjacent wetlands and then swings around into the area where the
applicant wants the structure. It's very obvious. If you look at that from an aerial
thing, you can see where at one point the Sound broke through. It broke through
38
and came right up along Lake Court and right into Great Pond. So, there is
historical evidence that the movement of water is there and will be there and it's
a regular thing. The people who live in the neighborhood, they are very familiar
with the flooding in that area. The original survey by the applicant's surveyor,
failed to note the cranberry bog. At the last hearing, the actual surveyor came up
to me and asked to look at a picture of it and admitted that he missed it. I called
the DEC and asked for their interpretation of a cranberry bog. I spoke to Diane
Radke. Her telephone number is 444-0275. She indicates that the cranberry bog
is considered a wetland.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is in the Town Code.
GEORGE BAMBRICK: From my point of view, looking at what I think is the
cranberry bog, the applicant's stake is at the edge of the cranberry bog.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We noticed that two weeks ago on field inspection.
GEORGE BAMBRICK: So in fact, he's 0' from the wetlands. Not 50', not 75' as
was recommended by two of your Trustee Boards last week. They recommended
75' no buffer zone. I think you made a determination of 50'. If you know that the
cranberry bog is wetlands, you've got zero. So we went from 100' to 75' to 50',
and now if it's granted, where I think is a cranberry bog and where it ends, it's
zero. I'm wondering if the Board gave any consideration to those two memos that
were submitted. They seemed to indicate in face that the original subdivision did
not meet the standards at the time to be included in the two acre zoning, I mean
in the one acre zoning. This means that the whole subdivision is in question.
The other point that we bring up is the location of the septic system. I noticed
that the applicant has not filed yet for Suffolk County Health Dept. permits for the
septic system. If you'll notice, he has the septic system right on Lake Dr. His
surveyor makes a comment, "well and uses public water'. Incorrect. That
dwelling is owned by Theodore Malinokus. He might use public water. He has
the capacity to use it if he so chooses, but he has a well. So I think before we
consider an application for a septic system, that could be 0' from wetlands, we
should see what the Health Dept. says about positioning it within "X" amount of
feet from Mr. Malinokus' wetlands. I also noticed that there is no application for
the DEC. According to Diane Radke who looked at the maps, granted she didn't
do an actual inspection, she said that from what she can see, the permit would.
not be granted, based on her view of the matter. I called Chris up after this
meeting and I told him I had been advised that they were going to ask him to go
in and look at this property and he said he would that and then I went up to your
office and I asked did he in fact look at the property in question, and I was told he
did and he did confirm that it was a cranberry bog and considered a wetland. So
I think we should give him the opportunity to put that in writing and also I would
request that the cranberry bog actually be staked and actually the whole area
should be re-staked.. I wonder what affect 650 cy. or approx. 11 truck loads of fill
is going to have on this cranberry bog. How many yards can you get in a truck?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: On the average, about 20.
GEORGE BAMBRICK: Well in conclusion, I mentioned last week that we're in a
domino effect here. I saw that again over and over again. Your ruling is 100',
then there's exception made because of circumstances, and now it's 85'. Then it
39
goes down to 75'. Then John Smith comes in and say, you've gave my neighbor
75' can I have 60'. At some point it has to end. It has to go, that's it 100' period.
Now there is one other item I want to mention. Mr. Mazzanobile is a contract-
vendee. The original owner, to my information, purchased this property
somewhere in 1980 and he filed for a subdivision, so this isn't the case of a
family who saved up their earnings and have a life long dream of building a
house and now this is their only chance for some happiness. This is a
subdivision with 8 lots in it that really should be 4 lots and I think that should
come into play as far as your decision. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Just to clarify a couple of things that you said,
the applicants generally come to us...there is a section in everyone's Code,
whether it's DEC or Health Dept. or the Town Code, that says you have to have
all necessary permits before you apply. So, it's like a dog chasing it's tail
because you can't get all the necessary permits because they want it and they
want it, so it's always been this Board's policy to be the first permit applied for
because we feel that we have the greatest control. We're the ones that issue the
permit first. So generally they come to us before they go to the DEC or Health
Dept.
GEORGE BAMBRICK: Can you then in fact say to them because of the
circumstances of this application, because of the location of the septic system,
because we have information that the immediate adjacent owner did not have a
well system, although the survey indicates that he uses public water, can you
now then say, we'll Table this motion and you go to the Health Dept. and get their
permit, come back to us, and we'll start hearing your process again.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll that's kind of a...if you say it like that it sounds good,
but we just denied an application tonight where they did just that. They got the
Health Dept. approval against, we thought all odds, and they came back with the
DEC and they had Health Dept. To us, it still didn't meet our standards and we
denied the application. The fact that they get Health Dept. doesn't really concern
us one way or another. We feel we should issue the permit based on it's own
merits in this Town and they can move on to the other agencies. The Health
Dept. thing is not ...we had another one in Cutchogue where they got the Health
Dept. approval. First we approved that one and it wasn't nearly as sensitive as
the other one, but they sought it first and that gives them added weight there.
GEORGE BAMBRICK: There are not too many lots left around Great Pond.
There is one right now that Suffolk County took for non-payment of taxes and I've
been working with Melissa Spiro to get that lot transferred over to the Town.
Other than that lot and a couple more that can't, you have development. People
build and then in the winter time all of a sudden wetlands start disappearing in
front of their house for a better view. So, we don't want to kill Great Pond.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment?
RICH MCNALLY: I was here on the 22"d. I was the one who started off the
magical cranberry bog. I can tell you, we picked them and we did eat them. I
didn't have any evidence, data, or photographs last time, but I took a walk with
my sister on the property after we were here on the 22"d and I took some
photographs and I'm educating myself while I'm at this meeting because I never
40
came to a public hearing before last month. One of you said 20 cy. per dump
truck? Is that a ball park?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's not all trucks.
RICH MCNALLY: So there is going to be a parade of dump trucks filling in this
piece of real estate real soon if this person gets this variance.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's about 33 truck loads and it generally never takes what
they tell you it's going to take. You can throw a couple extra hundred in there.
RICH MCNALLY: If the estimate for the cubic yards of fill is less than accurate,
than there could be even more dump trucks coming and whose going to count all
the dump trucks?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: The guy that delivers the dirt.
RICH MCNALLY: Well I know I don't want to be sitting there on a beach chair
counting dump trucks, but I know it's going to take a lot of dirt to fill that lot across
the street from us and incidentally, my sister and I don't have public water either.
We still rely on a well.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Which lot are you?
RICH MCNALLY: 1455 Lake Dr., which is next to the other one mentioned. I'm
right across the street. When I took photos recently, one of them shows basically
right in the middle of the lot, there is an oval area, which is pretty much
vegetated. This area is basically in a wetlands, a wet season, not just vegetation,
this is a little lake that is here. So basically this little lake, and it's only 10 or 15
yds. off of Lake Dr., this is not within the designated wetland area on this map.
On this map, these little hash marks to me, reading many Rand-McNally maps,
these little hash marks mean marshland or wetland areas. All of these hash
marks pretty much follow the vegetation in the background. The cleared out area,
which is sand, is not considered to be wetland. But when it rains a lot, this is a
lake. So, somewhere along the line, I'm sure, this is going back probably 40 or 50
years, because I remember when I was kid, everybody used to say, the middle of
the circle is wetlands. For 40 years no houses were built on the other side of
Lake Dr. from where we are. There is one house that's opposite and it was there
in the early 50's and that's it. I said to the Board again, what has changed in 40
years? Why would we allow some person to come in, buy a couple of lots, and
put a house there in the middle of the wetlands?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were the ones who brought up the cranberry bog and
we saw it two weeks ago. The applicant is going to have that put on the survey
and proceed accordingly, I assume.
RICH MCNALLY: For the Board's reference, I marked on a copy of what was
sent to me, the map, I marked where the telephone is and in just a general area I
yellow ink, I marked what basically this lake is. This is a picture of what is now
dry because this is a dry season but that vegetation area turns into a lake. The
water table comes above the ground. But on this chart, the wetlands are behind
these lines here, which ...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are all in agreement with you that this needs to be put
on a survey and this is a separate area that's not shown on this survey and that it
will be put on the survey.
41
GEORGE BAMBRICK: Are we going to have the survey done by the applicant's
surveyor who missed the original cranberry bog?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely. That's why we go out in the field to verify it.
RICH MCNALLY: This is not the cranberry bog. The cranberry bog was further
back.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well it's where it is. We saw this two weeks ago.
GEORGE BAMBRICK: If you continue, and I hope you're going to upgrade to
75', but if you were to continue with your 50' no disturbance buffer, would that
include that cranberry bog?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well it is a protected wetland.
GEORGE BAMBRICK: So he would have to be 50' from that cranberry bog.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. He's got to re-design his plan to reflect that
cranberry bog so he's got buffers. He's got a good deal of area. We've been to
the site a couple of times and that is one of the most barren spots we've seen
ever, which is unusual because usually with a wetland involved, especially a
freshwater wetlands, usually you get quite a bit of vegetation and it's a more
interesting spot. This really lacks anything there except...
GEORGE BAMBRICK: Well I don't know how he's going to redesign it because
on the west side, that's underwater. His closest point on the map, if I recall, is 77'
1 think, on that side. On the other side, not even taking into consideration the
cranberry bog, I think it was 66'. So, right now he's not within the 100'.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well that's their job.
JIM FITZGERALD: Can I have the name of the person at the DEC that said they
wouldn't issue the permit.
GEORGE BAMBRICK: I didn't say they wouldn't issue. They said, based on what
they can see on the map, just the map, their little field survey, that this whole
area was wetlands.
JIM FITZGERALD: Ok, good. Thanks. As we said at the end of the last meeting,
if Chris confirms that there is a cranberry bog in there, we will have it staked and
put it on the survey and we'll try to relocate the house, and we'll present it to the
Board and anybody else that's interested to see. If we can't do it, then we won't
do it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's a line on the survey showing 50' parallel to Lake
Dr. What is the significance of that?
JIM FITZGERALD: I don't know. He probably put that on because that's the
ordinary front yard setback in this area, however there is an existing variance
granted which runs with the land for 40' and I confirmed that with the Building
Dept. that they would recognize that for any new house that's put on the
property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ok I just saw that and I didn't know what it was.
GEORGE BAMBRICK: I'm sorry I didn't hear that. There's a variance on that
property?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: A front yard setback.
GEORGE BAMBRICK: He has a building permit with a variance on it?
JIM FITZGERALD: Sometime in the past, the applicant obtained a variance to
permit a 40' front yard setback for a plan he submitted at that time. The variance
42
runs with the land. He sells it and the buyer gets the variance along with
whatever else (inaudible).
GEORGE BAMBRICK: I never received any notification on a hearing.
JIM FITZGERALD: You can talk to Mr. Georgeopolis, I don't know.
ARLENE MC : I'm the President of the Kenny's Beach Civic Association and
Yes, Town Board of Southold, you are the stewards of our land. On behalf of the
association we implore you to preserve this parcel of wetlands. We feel that if it's
permitted to be built on, this environmentally sensitive parcel would have a
negative effect on Great Pond.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Anyone else?
JIM FITZGERALD: I need to clearly understand so that I can respond to it more
adequately, what the perceived adverse effect of developing this property would
have on Great Pond.
ARLENE MC : Well we've been here and have owned this house for about 26
years and we have on more than, many occasions I should say, when all things
come together and Great Pond has risen with the amount of rain that we get in
the Spring, the water travels underneath Lake Dr. and winds up across the way
in that area. So it does prove that Great Pond does have some kind of
connection that it does flow to the north.
RICH MCNALLY: We've learned over the years that our wetlands are a very vital
resource and that the wetlands that we have, when storms come in, the low
lands, the sand, they act as a big sponge and they help distribute the water all
around. There is all sorts of wildlife that lives in wetlands and basically when one
house comes in with a load of fill and covers up all the wetlands, they are gone
forever. One thing about Southold is in many respects it has maintained it's
dignity over the years and many Town Boards before this one have realized that
slow growth for Southold is possibly the best growth. When I drive out here I
sometimes think I'm coming to Montana when I get out to the Northville Turnpike.
Just the open spaces that we have out here, it's a pleasure. We've lost the
cauliflower and the potato farms but they've been replaced by wineries. Now,
Napa Sonoma in California are getting ...the east end of Long Island is getting
competitive with California wines. It's beautiful we've been able to preserve out
open space and yes you are the stewards of our land.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I'm going to make a motion to Table this
application until we get a new survey.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
23. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of PETER BOGER requests a Wetland
Permit for the existing concrete block bulkhead 23'9" overall length, with small-
stone armoring on seaward side; permit existing small-stone return configuration
at south end of bulkhead at grade, 9'+/- overall length. Located: Windy Point
Lane, Southold. SCTM#87-4-4
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of this
application?
JIM FITZGERALD: I'm here for Mr. Boger, and Mr. Boger is here.
43
PETER BOGER: Can I present the Board a booklet of photos that I think might
be beneficial?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure.
PETER BOGER: I'm the property owner. First of all, I would like to apologize to
the Board because I simply did not know that a permit was required for this type
of structure. My family has owned this property for over 55 years and over all that
time the land has remained substantially unchanged when we first acquired it.
So my point is that I appreciate your environmental issues and I certainly
wouldn't want to do anything to harm the environment. The purpose of the
bulkhead was to stop a serious erosion problem. One or two feet of the property
in this area has been eroded annually for approximately the past 10 years or so.
The location of the erosion is at the end of the neighbor's bulkhead and the
prevailing winds drive the waves into this area with great force. I've learned
through this process, and getting an education, that this erosion at the end of this
existing bulkhead is a fairly common occurrence. The situation has become so
severe that the water is now eroding the land behind my neighbor's bulkhead.
The erosion has also created a serious falling risk. The undermined land, which
is approximately 3'-5' above sea level appears solid when people walk on it, only
to cave in because of the concave nature of the erosion. I was especially
concerned over this fact because small children frequent this location to view the
creek. This is a higher point and provides a vantage point and people travel onto
my property to view the creek and risk falling in that situation. For several years
I've tried to stop the erosion with various plantings, various grasses and small
trees. The severe wind and waves prove too strong for the plantings and they
quickly die from exposure to salt water. Even sea grass, which grows in
saltwater, I don't know the exact name of it, but it could not take root as a result
of the constant pounding of the waves. The prevailing winds and the
configuration, as you can see from the photographs, drive the water right into this
area very harshly. Accordingly, the only viable solution, I felt was a small
bulkhead. This structure is only 24" high and 24" in length. I wanted to construct
the smallest possible structure to do the job. I would like to point out that the
bulkhead was not installed to dock a boat or enlarge the property. In fact, the
bulkhead is approximately 7' to 15' closer to land. The location of the bulkhead
was selected so it would tie into the end of my neighbor's existing bulkhead and
this would stop the erosion. The structure causes no hindrance to navigation
whatsoever. The bulkhead was self-installed by myself using clean fill and no
vegetation was destroyed in the process. The reason for that was no vegetation
could grow there to stop the erosion. The bulkhead has been successful in that
the erosion has ceased and there is a safe grade down to the water. The sea
grass is now returning on the waterside of the bulkhead and I expect it will occur
in front of the bulkhead within several years hiding it from view. The 21' buffer
exists behind the bulkhead now and the natural vegetation, which was formerly
undermined and killed by the saltwater is now taking root behind the bulkhead. In
my view, removal of the bulkhead would only serve to deteriorate the area and
the erosion would certainly return and this would recreate the unsafe condition.
Thank you.
44
JIM FITZGERALD: I think the thing I would like the Board to (inaudible) the net
effect on the environment would be more adverse if the bulkhead were left in
place than it would be if the bulkhead were removed and the area were made to
look like the way it looked when the bulkhead was installed. I think the point is
that it doesn't seem to have caused any harm by reason of it's existence and we
would like to have you consider the possibility of leaving it in place because we
thought it would be less intrusive than taking it out and then having to figure out
what to do about the erosion in the area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You see the problem with your neighbor's bulkhead
caused the erosion onto your property because of the wind and wave action.
PETER BOGER: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But, but building another bulkhead, you just kind of
perpetuate that problem and you're just going to transfer that wave energy further
onto your property. You just kind of passed it on. That's one reason why I'm
totally against this structure.
PETER BOGER: If you look at the photographs...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were out there a number of times also.
PETER BOGER: There is a jet of land, a meadow that comes out, that blocks the
waves so that the waves will not directly hit the left hand side of the bulkhead as
you look at it in the photos.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I still feel the same way. Also, by hardening the shoreline
of the creek, what you do is you totally disrupt the natural environment by putting
a hard structure there on the creek. That's why we haven't allowed any of these
bulkheads on the creek in 20 years. If you notice all the bulkheads in the creeks,
none of them have been permitted within 20 years, because environmentally,
they are pretty much completely all wrong, in a creek.
PETER BOGER: The drainage issue is solved by the fact there is no cement
between the blocks. Water filters out quite easily and in addition there is stone on
the bottom of the blocks.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we noticed your property slopes up to the edge and
then it comes down so you don't have a big force of water from the upland
flushing through there.
PETER BOGER: No, there is very little rainwater run-off. That would be the case
whether the bulkhead was there or not.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Correct.
PETER BOGER: There is no problem with filtration.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What we're trying to say is the wetlands grasses, the
spartina alterniflora, the spartina patens, act as a filter for the wetland itself. Not
from the upland water, but from the creek itself.
PETER BOGER: I don't understand. Prior to the bulkhead being constructed,
there was no sea grass there at all because it could not take root due to the
pounding of the waves into that area. Curiously enough, once the bulkhead was
in place, and the bulkhead has been there close to two years, the grass is now
growing and flourishing directly in front of the bulkhead, where in the past it was
not there.
45
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I remain unconvinced and I'd recommend it's removal and
re-vegetation plan.
PETER BOGER: Well if that be the case then how would the Board recommend
that I stop the erosion remembering that I've tried with plantings.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Maybe you need some help from people who would be
helpful. That's my recommendation.
JIM FITZGERALD: Since you visited the area a couple of times, you'd notice that
the area in front of the bulkhead is not scoured at all. There is a smooth
transition from the area in front of the existing marsh in front of the bulkhead and
then beyond.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, that's a stretch. I can't agree with that because that
marsh used to extend...when the neighbor put the bulkhead out, who knows
when, actually the picture you submitted shows it the best, the neighbor's
bulkhead...what they did years ago, they built the bulkhead and they backfilled it.
They just gained all of that property. That's what caused the damage. But we
can't perpetuate that kind of...and granted, I'm not saying you did a land grab or
anything like that, but the hardening of the shoreline is a serious problem and
wherever that occurs you do encounter lower water quality and of course less
wildlife because it makes sort of a sterile environment.
PETER BOGER: Well the wildlife has no trouble crossing over this because just
last Sunday I saw Canadian geese with their offspring jumping off of it and
climbing on top of it. So that's not a problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If someone has a comment or recommendation...
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm in agreement with your recommendation.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I recommend removing that wall and replant using the
coconut fiber and let it grow up. By your statement of actually have grass grow in
front of it, that tells me there is not a lot of wave action.
JIM FITZGERALD: Well there is enough to make the erosion occur at the end
around the corner of the return, which is a routine thing. So you're convinced
that the removal of the bulkhead would be less...the act of removing the
bulkhead would be less intrusive on the environment than leaving it there?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Long term, yes.
JIM FITZGERALD: Oh sure. I was going to suggest that you let us leave the
bulkhead in for a year and we'll carefully document what happens to it in the next
year, and then if at the end of that time it has caused what appears to be some
significant change in the area, we'll take it out and fix it any way that you say.
PETER BOGER: I would certainly agree to that. It is not my intention to harm the
environment just to stop the erosion. We're not going to put beach chairs out
there and view the creek from this spot. If it's removed, I'm still going to have the
same problem and like I said, I've tried for several years to put plantings in there
but to no avail. I think in another year or so that grass in front of the wall will grow
and completely obscure the wall from view.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But you don't take into account the vegetation and the
habitat that that wall is covering.
PETER BOGER: There was no vegetation when I put the wall in.
46
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it's all habitat. You took that and you buried it and you
made it all upland. So you completely changed that marine environment forever,
by covering it, and that's the objection.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Sometimes bare spots are good as habitat.
PETER BOGER: Well there are a number of bare spots down the shoreline that
are untouched and natural. This is a very small portion of my property. I'm don't
want to bulkhead the entire meadow, I just wanted to stop the erosion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we should move on and vote on this.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there still shrubbery and trees in the marsh?
PETER BOGER: Behind the bulkhead the shrubbery and natural vegetation is
now flourishing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The cut brush that was all piled up in the marsh. Is that
your property?
PETER BOGER: Directly behind the bulkhead?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: To the south. Somebody cut down trees and branches
and brush and laid it up in the marsh.
PETER BOGER: Directly behind the bulkhead, I was in the process of filling it in
and there was some brush in there that was going to be buried there.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That needs to be removed.
PETER BOGER: That can be removed. That's not a problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's choking off the marsh vegetation. It shows it in the
pictures that were submitted. Artie, what's your opinion?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll go along with the rest of the Board on it.
TRUSTEE KING: I think it should be removed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So what we need is a re-planting plan. You have to
remove it and remove the fill and remove all of that brush that was piled there
and remove all of the stone and come in with a re-planting plan and I would
suggest you contact Cornell Cooperative Extension and they can give you some
help with plant material. Kenny suggested that coconut fiber, which I think we
would be interested in, if you wanted to try to use that to stabilize the bank while
the vegetation is growing.
JIM FITZGERALD: What type of vegetation would that be?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ordinarily it would be what's there, spartina patens and
spartina alterniflora. That would grow in that area.
JIM FITZTERALD: That was the stuff that was there before.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, that's all that's going to grow there.
JIM FITZGERALD: When this started before the bulkhead was permitted, there
was grass and there was wetland. Isn't that what we're going to put it back as?
He's already been fined $300.00 by the Justice Court and he's already paid
$200.00 for his application fee and going in and taking out the bulkhead and now
replanting?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely.
JIM FITZGERALD: Is that what you're granting a permit for or are you somehow
other directing him to do that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Whatever is the most effective I suppose and the least
painful. That's what has to be done. It's in his own interest to protect his own
47
property. The wall is not something we would ever have approved. If you have
just come in here and said, look I've got an erosion problem and I want to put a
wall, and we just went through this with Mrs. LaCaille around the corner, we
wouldn't said "no, you cannot absolutely do this" for all the reasons that we
stated tonight, even though it's late and I'm sure we missed a few, and so she
didn't. We would never have permitted this from the beginning. It's not like we're
trying to punish you because you did it without a permit. It's just that we wouldn't
and we couldn't approve this.
PETER BOGER: If the planting plan does not work, where do I stand then?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: In my honest opinion, I believe it will work, in that
location.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's why we recommend it. We'not trying to lead you
into some kind of a trap because that's pointless. We're trying to recommend
something that will work for you and protect your property.
PETER BOGER: My only concern is that if it doesn't work...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There are a million variables. We can't answer that, if it
doesn't work, honestly. We're trying to recommend something that we have seen
work in the past.
PETER BOGER: My only concern is that if I remove the wall and try the
plantings, even with professional guidance, (changed tape).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's a doubtful scenario, but I suppose it's possible.
JIM FITZGERALD: How would you feel about rocks?
PETER BOGER: It would depend on where, and it would depend on the location
and the elevation.
JIM FITZGERALD: It's certainly a possibility.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we would rather see something done with the
coconut matting. What that would do is armor the area while it's being planted
and then the plants grow through it and then they hold that in. So it gives you
some protection during the time the plants are growing.
PETER BOGER: So is the Board giving me approval to remove the wall?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, remove the wall. and remove the fill, and come up
with a plan, we'll give you like 60 days or something to come up with a plan to re-
vegetate whether you want to try the coconut matting or some stone on the
corner there or something. But re-planting definitely has to be a component of the
plan.
PETER BOGER: Does that need to be presented to.the Board again?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If we Table this and then you can amend the application so
you won't have to put in a new application. I'll make a motion to Table the
application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
24. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of PATRICIA WIEDERMAN requests a
Wetland Permit to reconstruct inkind/inplace 90'+/- of existing timber bulkhead;
reconstruct inkind/inplace 80'+/- of existing timber jetty; reconstruct inkind/inplace
30'+/- of existing timber jetty, extending this section of jetty to overall length
40'+/- as originally existed; add fixed dock platform 4'X 8' on top of and at end of
48
40' jetty, with 3' access walkway along top of jetty. Located: 450 Cedar Point Dr.
East, Southold. SCTM#90-2-15
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the
application?
JIM FITZGERALD: I don't have anything to add to what was submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have some field notes here that actually show the jetty on
the west side to be 20' long. We measured it. We were there. We taped it off. Do
you have anything else to add or can I make a comment?
JIM FITZGERALD: No.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll take this gentleman's comments first before the Board's
comments.
CHARLES DANILCZYK: On that issue, I'm positive that there is an inaccuracy
but this is the section that you're talking about? As far as the bulkheading on the
east side is concerned, I'm the adjacent property owner and I've been waiting for
some time to have that bulkhead repaired. What's it's doing is killing the shellfish.
When we have a storm coming in, the shellfish are driven through the holes and
the breaks in the bulkheading and up on my beach and then I end up with 10-15
seagulls waiting there patiently for their meal. If you look down at the other
jetties, there are no seagulls. My point is that we should, on old bulkheading, if
we get any breaks, anywhere, that the Town should allow repair immediately
because it is destroying the shellfish. The bulkheading on the west side where
they are talking about putting a dock on it, I have pictures here of the entire
shorefront and nobody has a dock because the water is only like a foot deep at
low tide and the waves come in, pick up the boat, and then slam it down into the
rocks. What I would be concerned with is, I'd end up with oil spoils and bulkhead
damage. I have pictures of that area and I know you've been down there and you
know what it looks like.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I don't think the Board had a problem but I'm
just going to go right into it. The Board doesn't have a problem with the
replacement of the easterly jetty and the westerly jetty, at 20', 1 don't think we
have a problem with the reconstruction of the same length of 20', however, we
want to see it low-profile, as we do on all jetty replacements, so it would start no
higher from the bulkhead than the top of the bottom whaler, which is about 4' off
the top of the bulkhead there, which would make that walkway and dock kind of
impractical because it would end up in the water at low-tide. We didn't see a
need for the dock because it wouldn't last. The boards would just get destroyed
and most of it would be underwater anyway.
JIM FITZGERALD: I understand.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment from the Board? I'll make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve the application to reconstruct
90' of timber bulkhead, 80' of timber jetty on the east side and 20' of timber jetty,
low-profile, starting from the bottom whaler on the west side. We just need a new
set of plans showing 20' and the low-profile of the jetty.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
49
TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to go off the Public Hearing and go back to the
Regular Meeting, TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES
I. RESOLUTIONS:
1. The Southold Town Board of Trustees RESOLVE to double the fees on "as-built"
projects to cover the extra costs of review.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the Resolution, TRUSTEE KING
seconded. ALL AYES
2. The Southold Town Board of Trustees RESOLVE to change the monthly Legal
Notices to read as follows, "Files may be reviewed up to 24 hours prior to the
scheduled public hearing".
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the Resolution, TRUSTEE
DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES
II. MOORINGS:
1. GISBERT AUWAERTER requests to replace Mooring #830 in Little Creek with a
25' boat. ACCESS: Public
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE
DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT: 12:30 AM
Respectfully submitted by,
Lauren M. Standish, Senior Clerk
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED AND FILED BY
TF E SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK
DATE'S HO01
UR (I.
d Town Cleriz, Town of Southold