HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-08/21/2002 t
All�rt'J:Krupski, President Town Hall
James King,Vice-President �OSUFF�(/�'C 53095 Route 25
Artie Foster �° D1 P.O.Box 1179
Ken Poliwoda
'y Southold,New York 11971-0959
�
Peggy A. Dickerson ti Z Telephone(631) 765-1892
Fax(631) 765-1366
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MINUTES
Wednesday, August 21, 2002
Y -
7:00 PM
PRESENT WERE: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President
James King, Vice-President
Artie Foster, Trustee
Ken Poliwoda, Trustee
Peggy Dickerson, Trustee
E. Brownell Johnston, Attorney
Bob Ghosio, CAC Chairman
Lauren M. Standish, Senior Clerk
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 at 8:00 AM
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 at 7:00 PM
WORKSESSION: 6:00 PM
TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of June 26, 2002.
TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES
I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for July 2002. A check for
$4,866.16 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. AMEN DMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES:
2
1. JOSEPH & ELIZABETH BRITTMAN request an Amendment to.Permit #5492 to
accommodate a 4'X 13' landing with same size balcony above. Located: 80
Glenn Rd., Southold. SCTM#78-2-10
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING
seconded. ALL AYES
2. ROBERT & SUSAN TOMAN request an Amendment to Permit#5239 to change
the house and garage configuration, install a 20'X 40' pool and deck. Located:
3480 Main Bayview Rd., Southold. SCTM#78-2-13
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Table the application and re-inspect the property
in September, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES
3. ALLEN & MARY MATHERS requests an Amendment to Permit #5320 to
construct a 4'X 45' catwalk/dock, 3.5' above grade, with a piling pulley placed
approx. 25' seaward of the dock, and to re-position the swimming pool. Located:
1245 Sleepy Hollow Lane, Southold. SCTM#78-1-10.15
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the cross-section for the dock
application and approve the survey for the pool and deck, TRUSTEE FOSTER
seconded. ALL AYES
4. Mark Schwartz on behalf of BRAD WINSTON & SANDRA POWERS request an
Amendment to Permit #5383 to alter the building footprint as shown on survey
dated July 12, 2002, and to Transfer Permit#5383 from Robert Somerville to
Brad Winston & Sandra Powers. Located: 485 Breezy Path, Southold.
SCTM#89-2-8
TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE FOSTER
seconded. ALL AYES
5. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of WILLIAM A. LOIS requests an Amendment
to Permit#5583 to fill the cleared area of lot with approx. 60 cy. of clean fill, re-
grade the site to level with adjoining lot to west (approx. 8"-12" grade change),
.level piles of stockpiled topsoil, create earthen berm <3' high along south lot line,
and deposit <5 cy..rip-rap at NE corner of bank as a temporary measure to
eliminate further degradation of the bluff resulting from the design of the
bulkhead located on the easterly adjoining property. Located: 58105 North Rd.,
Greenport. SCTM#44-2-9
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE
DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES
6. TED DOWD requests a One-Year Extension to Permit#5013 to maintenance
dredge the entrance of Fairhaven Inlet with the provisions stated the original
permit dated 10/28/99. Located: 1775 Inlet Way, Southold. SCTM#92-1-8
TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING
seconded. ALL AYES
,x
3
7. FREDERICK J. & JOAN V. FROHNE request a Transfer of Permit#81-3-4 from
Arthur Bertsch to Frederick J. & Joan V. Frohne for the existing bulkhead and
stairs. Located: 4700 Paradise Point Rd., Southold. SCTM#81-3-4
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE
DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KING moved to go off the Regular Meeting and onto the Public Hearings,
TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING
APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF
THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM
THE SUFFOLK TIMES. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ
PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.
PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF.
FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS IF POSSIBLE
1. ALEXANDRA JONES requests a Wetland Permit to resheath 100' of existing
bulkhead and 3' walkway in back of bulkhead out of CCA. Remove existing
rotted sheathing. Backfill excavated soil. Install 100'X 24" high rabbit/chicken
wire fence on both right and left side of property line. Located: 1625 Gull Pond
Lane, Greenport. SCTM#35-4-13
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would any like to comment in favor of this application?
Would anyone like to comment against it?
MR. PASSUDETTI: I'm the neighbor to Ms. Jones. I think I had expressed my
dissatisfaction with that fence at the last hearing and I would like to do so again.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
ALEXANDRA JONES: I'm the applicant. Again, I'm going to reiterate to the
Board, please, I also live in Huntington and I met with Frank Petrone, the
Supervisor of the Town of Huntington, this past week and regarding that fence,
which is, I brought the bills, it is 26" high. If the Board doesn't see fit to give me
permission tonight then I would like to know if I can put them in the 18 planters
that run along the property line because Mr. Petrone, if Mr. Passudetti wants to
continue loving the ducks and the geese and the doo-doo, he is willing to give me
500 and have then shipped down to Mr. Passudetti's property tomorrow. We
have a serious, serious problem there and I brought my grandson this evening to
the Board. He cannot walk on our own property. That fence deters them. I love
them. They are beautiful, when they are flying, not doing their thing so that my
family can't utilize my property. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have a question before you leave. You have an
application to resheath the bulkhead and for a walkway in the back. Behind your
bulkhead is completely vegetated, it's non-turf.
t 1
4
ALEXANDRA JONES: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You probably had 50-70' of vegetation. What were your
plans for that area?
ALEXANDRA JONES: I also wanted to add something. Since I had spoken to
Lauren during the week, I went down to the bulkhead and apparently the Ramos
family, originally, we dug down a little bit. There is poison ivy and I have it all over
me, I was North Shore to get shots, but when I dug down there is a concrete 3'
wide of these, I guess they're about 4" thick, 8" X 16" pack, and it goes under, but
over the years, the earth has covered it and it's there. If I could just get to that,
I'm happy. If you say I can't have the walkway that's okay too, we could leave
the buffer, because I have no intention of cutting up all the way and not have
some sort of buffer. I want a buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI:.What about the platform, there's a ramp and a float. Does
any of that have a permit?
ALEXANDRA JONES: Yeah sure. I brought all of that tonight. The Ramos built
that in 1975 and I also have photographs and my contract of sale. .These are all
of the pictures and this is my contract of sale for the property. (not speaking into
the microphone) Here's another one showing the dock. I power-washed that, by
the way, with Clorox Bleach, so it may look new to you but it's actually 30 years
old.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think you want to put bleach in the creek. Clorox is
a pretty powerful insecticide and it will kill about anything.
ALEXANDRA JONES: Well I just brushed it on the wood and it turned it white.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well you shouldn't do that anymore. That's a pretty
serious chemical.
TRUSTEE KING: It's very toxic.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I can see it's pretty existing and all but I'm looking for a
permit for it.
ALEXANDRA JONES: The Building Dept. has that in their file.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They shouldn't have that. We should have that.
ALEXANDRA JONES: You should have that? 1967 was the year. If need be, we
can verify that with the broker who sold us the property, Kathy Rosenbaum.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well you don't have an actual approval for it. It should be
included.
ALEXANDRA JONES: Lauren mentioned an amendment or something that we
should maybe add to this.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's an idea. We can act on this tonight and you can file
for an amendment for this based on all of this information.
ALEXANDRA JONES: That's what I'm giving to the DEC also.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do.you have a current survey?
ALEXANDRA JONES: Yes. I don't have it with me.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, that's what we would like to see.
ALEXANDRA JONES: Joe Ingegno just re-surveyed the entire property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Showing the dock?
ALEXANDRA JONES: Yeah, sure.
r '
5
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Good, that's what we need. You can call Lauren tomorrow
and get the proper paperwork. Is there any other comment?
BOB GHOSIO: The CAC has a comment. The.CAC recommends Approval of
the bulkhead replacement but stipulated...we felt that there should be a 10'-15'
non-turf installed behind the bulkhead. As I recall, it was mostly turf up to the
bulkhead.
ALEXANDRA JONES: No, not at all.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There was really no turf up to the bulkhead. It's all
vegetated.
ALEXANDRA JONES: 27'. It's all vegetated beautifully, low lying. The entire
105' is covered in it. The poison ivy is at the far end.
BOB GHOSIO: As far as the wire fence is concerned, the CAC was definitely
against having the wire fence there. The feeling of the CAC was that it would
impede migratory corridor for the waterfowl and so the comment was made that if
your living on the waterfront, you have to learn to co-exist with the wildlife that
also lives there. That was basically it.
ALEXANDRA JONES: Well I would like to know then if I could completely shrub
it, the whole length.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well let's make it clear, the CAC is a separate entity from
the Board of Trustees. That's their recommendation.Yes, planting shrubs
wouldn't require any action from this Board.
ALEXANDRA JONES: I'm not a millionaire, it just costs me to do all of that work
and to take it out again and start all over again...I tried from100' back, I put in
some Christmas trees to make it very nice and that fence costs me $50.00 to do
on both sides. It's non-visible, it's green, vinyl green, so you can't even see it.
You guys were there, you saw it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Can't they get over the fence?
ALEXANDRA JONES: Kathy Rosenbaum was the one that told me. They touch
it with their nose and for whatever reason, I swear, we have witnesses in the
audience, they don't jump over it. I don't know what it is. Maybe it's my prayers
but I swear to you, they don't fly.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What about the bulkhead? We recommend strongly that
you move away from the creosote and CCA bulkheading and use some kind of
vinyl or plastic sheathing. There are other kinds that are much more
environmentally friendly. We haven't allowed any type of wood bulkhead-with any
type of coating in a while.
ALEXANDRA JONES: Can I just ask you a question? Why are all these people
that we applied to, J. Rambo, Reeve.dock building, Steve...oh and Latham,
every one of them had quoted the other. None of them quoted any vinyl. When I
did ask for vinyl, it's like three times the price. $18,000 1 can afford with a loan,
but $37,000, quoted from Costello Marine, for the vinyl. I can't afford that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But the reason why people are going for the vinyl is
because, not that we're endorsing the vinyl and saying that it's going to be the
miracle cure, we're saying that, first of all, it's environmentally friendly. CCA
stands for cromated copper arsenate. So, it's a real serious chemical that's
being put into the water.
l + �
6
ALEXANDRA JONES:.What about creosote?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Creosote is oil. It's like dumping oil into the water.
Another problem with the CCA is that marine worms eat into it and in about 7 to 8
years your sheathing will be rotted through and eaten away and will need
replacing. So you're going to have to look in 7 or 8 years what you're
replacement costs are going to be on top of that. That's why people are putting
vinyl in.
ALEXANDRA JONES: I understand but I have to live within my budget and I just
went to my friend's funeral today and I might not be here 7 years from now. I've
got to worry about today sir.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't want to get into that discussion. We don't have a
ban on CCA. I don't have a problem approving CCA, it's just that most people
don't do,it because it's not going to.last and the replacement cost is going to
be...Artie what do you think?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: What's our policy?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well no one has gone with CCA.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Because we've recommended vinyl.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. What do you think Jim?
TRUSTEE KING: I'd prefer the plastic but it's not,illegal to use CCA either.
ALEXANDRA JONES: May I say something? You're here also tonight for my
neighbor who spoke against me, and his application is for the same. We are
abutting each other. He has 105'. So, apparently it's for him also tonight and I
understand that. But if you disapprove me tonight, then I'll just have to leave it
the way it is. Right now we've had dirt seeping into the water and I don't want
that to happen. I want to stop that. If it lasts 7 years, God be it.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well we told your neighbor he had to use vinyl.
ALEXANDRA JONES: I didn't hear that. I'm only here for the first time. But, it
says in the paper, creosote, in the Southold newspaper, very clearly in his ad.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well that we wouldn't allow.
ALEXANDRA JONES: I can't afford to do that and I want to stop what's
happening. I want to stop it. That's why we have the fence next door around the
area that's caving in on his property. We have a lot of seepage there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well the Boards inclined not to approve the. new CCA
sheathing in front so what-Jim suggested is that you could resheath behind it in
CCA.
ALEXANDRA JONES: Okay. John Reeves said he could do that, if you want to
go that route. That gets a little cheaper for me. I definitely could go that route if
you guys think that's the way to go. It's less money.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We could approve that subject to receipt of new plans
showing that work, the way it's supposed to be done.
ALEXANDRA JONES: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You'll get your permit when you give us.the new plans.
ALEXANDRA JONES: Great.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You pick your contractor and they'll draw the plans up for
you.
ALEXANDRA JONES: Ok that will be John.
. T
y
7
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment?
ALEXANDRA JONES: Thank you very much. Do you need copies of all of this.
Should I drop this off?
LAUREN STANDISH: When you apply for the amendment.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So moved.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application to
resheath 100' of existing bulkhead with sheathing behind the existing bulkhead
and backfill excavated soil, not install 100'X 24" high rabbit/chicken wire fence
and install a 10' non-turf buffer, which already exists. What about the walkway?
ALEXANDRA JONES: I don't want the walkway. I just want to get that stone up
and leave it the way it is. What about the fence?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We're not approving the fence.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're not?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: We're not approving the fence?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't have a problem with the fence.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I thought we were going with the shrubs.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, shrubs don't require an action but she requested the
fence.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We normally go with a split rail fence.
ALEXANDRA JONES: Do you know what this fence is like?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is everybody ok with the fence? Jim?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a problem with it.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Okay, we'll allow the fence. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
2. STEPHEN E. BRANDER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family
dwelling with a basement. Located: 850 Private Rd. #22, Southold. SCTM#76-1-
15.6
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone who would like to speak to this
application?
STEPHEN BRANDER: On the application, we spoke to Lauren earlier in the
week, requesting that I move the dwelling back 10' more landward from the
wetlands boundary. One part of the house just touched it and we have ample
room to do that and we are making that change as requested. Also, I didn't think I
would be able to get a new survey but surprise, I was able to get it today. I have
a new survey showing the new setback as you requested.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, this is a 50' non-disturbance buffer and you're
property was large enough to accommodate that without a problem. We're just
trying to be consistent.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else who would like to speak? The
CAC Disapproved it because it wasn't staked at the time of their inspection as
they have consistently done. I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So' moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
y
8
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the
condition that gutters and drywells are installed and hay bales placed down.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
3. PATRICE M. McCAFFREY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-
family dwelling with a basement. Located: 497 Private Rd. #22, Southold.
SCTM#76-1-15.3
TRUSTEE KING: Is there any comment on this application?
STEVEN BRANDER: I would just say that we would like to do this and I have
met all of your stipulations and now I understand that I will need drywells and hay
bales.
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 with drywells and
gutters on the house and a hay bale line.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
4. JOHN & SARAH MILLER request a Wetland Permit to enlarge a second-story
bathroom and add a deck porch and trellis to the dwelling. Located: 1132 Bridge
Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM#118-1-18.1,
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone who would like to-speak for or against
this application? The CAC recommends Approval with the Stipulation that all
building permits are in place for the work that has already taken place. I agree
with that. That would take care of my question.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is the applicant here?
JOHN MILLER: Yes. All building permits were attached to the side, by the
Building Dept. and the DEC.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: When I went to look for a bathroom it was...
JOHN MILLER: It's a little difficult.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would just like to see gutters and drywells for the new
construction.
JOHN MILLER: Drywells and gutters are in the plans to be done, which I believe
they should be on the survey or the construction plan.
TRUSTEE KRUPKKI: What we got wasn't really clear.
JOHN MILLER: It's included in the construction.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It just showed a small area in the middle of the house. It
wasn't clear that the whole house was going to be completely renovated.
JOHN MILLER: Most of the house is still there. The older house was just
renovated. It was not torn down completely.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about hay bales?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There were. I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. Was the
deck not going to be...
r
9
JOHN MILLER: The deck is a part of this. Both items were to be addressed this
evening.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's just that you may not do it immediately?
JOHN MILLER: We're waiting for you to give us approval to do it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: When I was speaking to the builder, he said it wasn't
going to be done at this time, but you want the approval.
JOHN MILLER: It actually will be done as soon as you give us the approval. He
was mistaken.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, and to add a deck porch and trellis to the
dwelling. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
5. WALTER CHADWICK requests a Wetland Permit to convert a garage to a pool
house and add a new septic tank to the existing cesspool. Located: 6565 Indian
Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM#86-6-25
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of or
against the application? Does the Board have any comments? Do I have a
motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to Approve the application?
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
6. DONALD PASSUDETTI requests a Wetland Permit to repair and replace 105'
bulkhead using creosote lumber. Located: 1775 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport.
SCTM#35-4-14
DONALD PASSUDETTI: I understand you want to use vinyl rather than the
creosote and that's fine. Does the Board have any objection to the planting of
arborvitaes?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's a horticultural operation and we wouldn't have any
action on that. The only comment I would have is that we have a non-turf buffer.
We want a 15' non-turf buffer but only in the area that's going to be dug up. If
you're going to do the whole bulkhead eventually, we're not saying dig up the
whole area and put in the buffer, only put the buffer in where you're going to
actually do the work at the time. That whole area is going to be disturbed, the
whole lawn there is going to be disturbed there, put the non-turf buffer in there.
DONALD PASSUDETTI: Like bales of hay?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, instead of putting turf grass in, you put in gravel or
plantings or something just in that area.
DONALD PASSUDETTI: Okay.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: 15'. Whatever area you're going to disturb has to be
replaced with a non-turf buffer.
ALEXANDRA JONES: I'm the neighbor to the left. I just had a question. I am
hardly in favor of this application. My question is, I have a survey dated 1982 and
r
1
10
there are a lot of floats and docks there and I would like to know if all permits are
in place for everything that's there because it doesn't show it on this survey at all.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's a permit here from 1986, floating dock, ramp...
ALEXANDRA JONES: Diving floats?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No diving floats.
ALEXANDRA JONES: Well they are presently there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually we were on the site and I believe the applicant
showed us this on the site, and we had it with us, and we reviewed what was on
the site last week, and it matched the description of what was permitted in 1986.
ALEXANDRA JONES: And that would be in the files in the Building Dept.?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, in our office.
ALEXANDRA JONES: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? Do I have a motion to close the
hearing?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application to replace
105' of bulkhead using C-Loc vinyl and a 15' non-turf buffer in the areas he
disturbs.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
7. SUSAN BECKER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed open walkway
dock 4'X 60' with 4' wide access pathway and 4'X 9' stairs at the seaward end.
The dock will extend into the water approx. 29' from the edge of the marsh with
no greater than 6" pilings. Located: 4483 Wells Rd., Peconic. SCTM#86-1-9.6
POSTPONED UNTIL SEPTEMBER AS PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST
8. MICHAEL A. CHUISANO as Contract Vendee requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a single-family dwelling. Located: 575 Diamond Lane, Southold.
SCTM#68-2-10
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of
the application?
CHARLES BOWMAN: I,'m from Land Use Ecological Services and I'm
representing the applicant. We have submitted new plans to the Board. The
new plan, that you'll notice, shows the house 60' from the little low-lying wetlands
area, which would enable us that 50' non-disturbance buffer. The sanitary system
does fit landward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line with a small area of fill
extending into the CEHA, which the Board may or may not have a problem with.
My own personal opinion is this is not the best plan. It'requires the road being
extended further northward down to where the house would be now. So
therefore, the road is longer than the previous plan which if you recall, had the
driveway much closer and probably that plan in enough of itself,I believe, would
have less impacts. Just to go on record, we've listened to the neighbors about
acquiring or having the County acquire this property, and with all of the
controversy surrounding it, neither the owners nor the contract vendee have
gotten a phone call from anyone as far as acquiring the property. (inaudible) I
r
11
know the Board did do an inspection. We've had the surveyor out there
numerous times, staking and re-staking. (inaudible) Again, from my own
professional opinion, I don't think this is the best plan, however it is a plan that for
the most part meets the requirements as far as setbacks from the well and
sanitary system and the low-lying area. But that creates other parameters that we
have to ....and I don't know which direction the Board wants to go with this but
I'm certainly here to listen and provide you with any information that I can.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. We're going to take all comments first. Part of
the acquisition thing, we addressed that from the beginning because we really
want to give the landowner all of his options, but we're not going to pursue that
tonight. We've done that.
CHARLES BOWMAN: I understand that. I just wanted to make the Board aware
that still nothing has happened.
PAT MOORE: I represent Gottbetter and Ramis who are the adjacent property
owners. We have all the other property owners here from Diamond Lane. They
all certainly have a stake in this proceeding and I'm sure will speak on their own
behalf. I want to put on the record, as an officer of the court, that I personally
offered Mr. Chuisano, that on behalf of my clients, that they will buy the property.
I personally advised him of that. I passed the message to his attorney, Gail
Wickham, and I presume that the message was passed from Gail to the client.
As far as the County and their offers to purchase, I have a letter that was
addressed to this Board dated April 22, 2002, which also includes a Resolution
#39 authorizing steps for the acquisition of the land, the property adjacent to
Goldsmith's Inlet Park, the Town of Southold. I will certainly make this available
to Mr. Chuisano. I assumed.he had it but maybe he doesn't. I'll be sure that he
has. We have always maintained that we do not want to hurt the owner, we do
not want to hurt the applicant. The neighbors are prepared to buy the property
but so far our offers have been rejected. At least Mr. Chuisano has told me he's
not interested. I have passed that message onto my clients. There are some
things that have come in since the last meeting. The Zoning Board, Chairman
Goehringer, often as a matter of course on properties along the sound, refers the
application submitted to the soil and water conservation district. They just
provided, received by the ZBA July 26th, which is a letter that I don't believe you
have in your file yet. If you don't mind, I'll just read it to you very quickly for the.
record so that the Board is aware of what soil and water has stated. Dear Mr.
Goehrigher, We have visited the site known in the ZBA file as Michael Chusiano,
Diamond Lane, Peconic for a proposed dwelling. This parcel is mapped as BC .
beaches and DU Dune land..It is well vegetated over most of the area. The soils
are all sand. The USDA Natural Conservation Service recommends that they
only be used for wildlife habitat and recreation and.also should be left
undisturbed to provide protection from storms and high-tides. Access to the site
is by a narrow footpath worn into the wooded area from above which is used by
the other existing homes above the bluff area. The slope down the bluff face is
steep and the path becomes a raised area of sand above the back dune area. It
is unclear where the property line along most of the parcel. I found the corner
stakes at the north and south end of the parcel and the corner stakes for the
T
1+
1-2
proposed house. It was impossible to make out the property boundary using
these since you have no line of site from one to another due to the elevations
and existing plants. Placement of the paper street or driveway will be down the
steep slope and erosion control and road drainage should be considered
carefully since this will have an adverse impact on the soils and the groundwater.
The proposed house is to be located in the back dune area, which is below 5'in
elevation. Groundwater in the test hole was measured at 2.8'below the existing
ground surface. However, this is a drought year and although it doesn't show
when the test hole was dug, the groundwater elevation.will rise and fall
dependent on rainfall and time of year. Therefore, the area may become wet'or
saturated. I spotted phragmites growing in that area and now there may be other
wetland issues there also. You may want to do a wetland boundary
determination. The septic system design is of some concern due to it's location
on pure sand in the back dune area close to the sound with very shallow
(inaudible) above groundwater. I noted that the first floor elevation is at 14'and
the mound is to be topped off at 20'right behind the house. The well location is
150'upslope from the septic system, however it does not show the proximity of
the existing wells or septic systems of neighboring lots. A location map should
include these. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us. I
have that for the Board to put in your file. Another matter, which is, and I know
the Board did a field inspection, and quite frankly, until you went out there and
inspected it, the measurements of the road and elevations that the surveyor
placed to show the amount of fill, it's just amazing. We took photographs, for the
court, so a nice judge sitting there looking at this from his comfy seat, will be able
to get a picture of what the road profiles are going to look like. On paper it
doesn't give you the kind of impact that being there at the property does. The
photographs, and I'll present them all to the Board, and when you're looking at
them, they are numbered just so that you can follow.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
PAT MOORE: As you look.at these photographs, the photographs show the end
of the road by the house, which shows a 4' fill. In the first photograph, we ask
you note the vegetation in the dune meadow. The second photograph is the west
border of the road and again with the 4' fill. The third photograph has a 5.2' fill.
You can see the mature cypress on the westerly line. The fourth photograph has
the east border of the road with 65" of height of fill. The fifth photograph is the
east border of the road and that is 66" inland toward the bank. The sixth
photograph is a west border, which is again 66" of fill. The seventh is contiguous
to the wetlands and it shows 7' above the grade. Again, it was just amazing to
see the contour and the change to the topography that this road is going to
cause. The eighth photograph is the marsh fern and some of the corner of
wetlands. The ninth photograph is the footpath. Again, you can notice the mature
vegetation and it is just sandy material as the base. The tenth photograph shows
the border of Gordon/Brown and Ramis/Gottbetter and the area that's going to be
cut. I'll get into the property dimensions in a moment, but that photograph shows
you how it's going to impact adjacent properties, in particular, the Gordon/Brown
property. The house and foundation looks to be only a few feet from the one
13
tree, which is going to be undermined. Just a cut of this road is going to impact
the stability of the bank there. The eleventh photograph is again the
embankment, which you can see again the large locust and the stabilized bank.
Photograph twelve also is adjacent to the Gordon house. The thirteenth
photograph is a close up of the soil and sand and the intensity for erosion based
on the materials. You can see that it's just sand with a light and very thin coating
of leaf compost or soil material. Fifteen is again a road cut. You can see the
mature cherries, oak, and hickory trees. Then we. get to the end photograph,
which shows the height of a 65" cut. My client did a very good job identifying the
photographs and marking them. So, this is just for the record to identify the
photographs that have been placed on the record. Photograph "D" is the west
border of the road. It's again, a 7' height of the road from the natural grade. "E" is
the freshwater wetland area and finally "F' is the marsh fern. These photographs
really give a very good picture of the impact of this road.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just for the record, I believe the Board is familiar enough
with this and we could probably walk down there at night without stumbling.
PAT MOORE: I know, and again, it's kind of tedious for you and I appreciate your
patience, but my concern is obviously, when someone else looks at this that
doesn't have the benefit of going out to the field, I think that these photographs
are really important because you really can't appreciate on paper and when I saw
the plan that was submitted, it didn't have any impact on me and,on paper, quite
different than being out on the field. Mr. Palmer is right here and he brought over
a survey of his when he purchased this property and it's the one he just gave me,
and if it's all right with you, I'll photocopy it out in the hallway at the machine, and
provide it for the Board. He also owns the larger piece that goes to the L.I.
Sound. The right-of-way that Mr. Chuisano and Maggio are planning to cut into is
actually cutting into the right-of-way area that is his fee title. It is his land, at least
according to the survey. We are in the process of doing a title search on the
ownership of the road but coincidentally, Mr. Palmer came in with his survey and
from all appearances the survey would actually map out fee title, meets and
bounds description, as the deed would show, and in fact, they do have the meets
and bounds on the survey and the easterly side of the right-of-way is going to be
the area that is actually owned by Mr. Palmer. I'll submit that for the record. I
think it's fair to say that Mr. Palmer objects to the type of improvements that are
being proposed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just a little clarification to what you just said. You say Mr.
Palmer owns the fee to half of the right-of-way.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: When will that information be available?
PAT MOORE: We're in the process of searching it out. It could take a couple of
weeks to get. As soon as I have it, I'll give it to you. Right now, I have a survey
that shows so your attorney can see. This is the title survey that is included and it
goes all the way down L.I. Sound. The actual ownership goes to the halfway
point of that right-of-way. (not speaking into the microphone)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One of the questions we were going to bring up tonight it
who owns the road. This doesn't answer our other question of who owns the
road up to that point.
. 1
14
PAT MOORE: I only know that from Mr. Palmers survey but we'll find out based
on the title search to,see who might own the road. You have to keep in mind that
this subdivision was approved back in 1933. It shows a map of Acres of
Diamonds, Inc. filed June 12, 1933. What happens is, in 1933 these subdivisions
were created without any thought to environmental issues. You have lots of
subdivisions out there like that all over the County. I had a client that had a lot on
map on Fire Island that was underwater. There would be no reasonable
expectation to be able to build on this lot, which was an identified lot, that the
family had owned for generations, and it was essentially into the ocean.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But somebody owns it and we would like to find out who
owns it.
CHARLES BOWMAN: We have a title search and we will make that available to
the Board. That should take care of all of the problems.
PAT MOORE: I would like to see that title search. The point that I was making is
that from the map of 1933, you can't ignore the environmental laws that have
taken place since then. The 1933 map does not necessarily mean that the lot is
a buildable lot. While it may be single and separate, there are still environmental
issues and access issues. We're going to continue to research the question of
access. We've gotten that much information so far just from Mr. Palmer's survey.
A couple of other issues that came up that were questioned is that I understand
that the DEC issued a permit under the previous plan but the plan has now been
modified in it's bringing you in closer to the 300'.
CHARLES BOWMAN: 300' is their jurisdiction but he told us that (not using the
microphone).
PAT MOORE: Essentially what you're saying is that until you know what the
Trustees will approve, you're not going to amend the plan with the DEC. But the
permit that's before you now does not match the proposal. Again, the CEHA line
issue, as far as the fill, and whether or not it's appropriate to place the fill, now
that you have the information from the County as well, on the amount of fill that's
being proposed. Those are the issues that I want to raise this evening. We still
have serious problems with the development of this property. The adjoining
property owners have very strong objections on cutting the path that is not only to,
be used as access ingress egress for them on a regular basis, but also the
access is going to.be needed to bring the trucks down to build this house and to
excavate the sanitary system. We are talking about a significant impact on the
environment onto the property and to the property owners, the affected property
owners. We still maintain that this should've been an environmental, a positive
declaration with respect to environmental impacts. We understand your position
on that but we still raise our objection.
DEBORAH GORDON-BROWN: My land has already been endangered. I went
down the path today and I found a birch tree that has a 2 Y2' circumference that
was cut down. On my land the savagery, I mean nobody did this work.with an
arborist around. The trees that we pay an arborist to take care of on the common
right-of-way is horrendous. My land, during the course of this, is going to fall
down without any further road work being done. I had a lot of things to say but I
also want to know how in the world can one potential land owner or one land
r
, s
15
owner, take over the right-of-way that serves for at least seven other and impose
his or her will on it. This survey was imposing one persons will on all of us in the
community. We see this everyday and who. is going to clean it up.
JOHN PALMER: I have the lot next to the Maggios. What I was wondering is
this. I have been caught on the beach in a severe rain storm. I've tried to get up
the bluff and was slushing through mud and water, and this was on the dirt path,
with dirt surroundings. What's going to take it's place if Chuisano gets permission
to build and the access road comes in. You going to have a thousand square feet
or more of (inaudible). Now in the Board's opinion, can enough water go over
the sides to endanger the hillside as so to affect the stability of the houses there.
You probably have this sort of thing taking place time and.time again. Of course,
Ms. Brown's house is at risk because the road will come so close to her. I'm next
door and I'm worried about mine as well.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was one of our concerns. I'll take all the other
comments first. Any other comments?
CARMEN RAMIS: I'm one of the adjacent property owners,and I just wanted to
read a couple of paragraphs from a letter that is already in the file but I want it for
the record. I'm going to be submitting a copy that is already highlighted so when
the transcription happens it will be less painful. It is a letter from Save the Sound
which is a 30 year old regional non-profit organization that has over the years
been affiliated with the Sierra Club, the Oceanic Society, and continues to work
in collaboration with other National Conservation organizations like the Audubon
Society. They have offices not only in Connecticut including at Yukon's marine
technology and research center in Groton but also in Long Island at Garvey's'
Point Museum in Glen Cove, and they want to save the sound. The letter is
addressed and dated July 17th of this year and it's addressed to President
Krupski and the rest of the Board of Trustees and it goes over three points. The
open space, the habitat, and the water quality. I'm going to read from the habitat
and the water quality sections. (Letter on file.)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment?
DEBORAH GORDON-BROWN: The DEC Coastal Environmental Areas in
Suffolk County, Goldsmith's Inlet is listed as one. This was last updated 3/9/90.
I'll give you a copy.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have a few questions for the applicant.
CHARLES BOWMAN: If I could just make a couple of brief
comments...(inaudible) a stone blend has been proposed. Joseph Fischetti, P.E.
has discussed the road plan with the Town Engineer. We intend to get a letter
from the Town Engineer saying that it is proper engineering practices that the
Town will accept. I want to make it a point that the neither the Chuisanos or
myself think this is the best plan. This plan was brought together because of your
request for a 50' buffer from the wetlands. Where there is opportunity to reduce
the road, keep the house where it is, bring the driveway along the back slope, to
a much less impact, and not have the roadway as long as this. Even the house
location. It all comes back to us trying to maintain a 50' buffer from a wetland
area that is minute and has a few wetland plants. Rather than allowing or even
considering either moving it and making it large, there are all sorts of innovative
i
' r
16
things to reduce impacts, which certainly is available and very easy to do. The
vegetation in it can be moved very easily. I've done it many, many times before in
many, many areas. We've moved wetlands where there were endangered
species and whole sections of wetlands. I'm just pointing out that this is not the
best plan for that site. I know that and the Chuisanos know that but it was
prepared to give you the 50' and to show that the house could fit with the 50'
buffer but it makes the road longer. If we had some flexibility that the Board
might consider something else, we certainly could provide that'to you, and what
we think is the best plan, and it would reduce the impact. It's up to the Board.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know why the applicant wouldn't provide the Board
with the best plan.
CHARLES BOWMAN: Because at the last meeting...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Instead of some crude substitution.
CHARLES BOWMAN: Because at the last meeting, it was pointed out to us that
we had to have a 50' buffer. That was the Board's criteria and that's what's
you've always asked for, and that's what we provided.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But, you don't provide it.
CHARLES BOWMAN: The house is at 60'
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it's a 50' non-disturbance buffer that we try to maintain
on undeveloped properties.
CHARLES BOWMAN: If you're counting the road, the road is to the right.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's another issue. I think before I ask any specific
questions, the more we look into this, the more questions it raises. You're telling
us that know, that this isn't even the best plan, and maybe there's a better plan.
It's like we're going backwards on this.
CHARLES BOWMAN: I don't think so. I'll I'm trying to point out is that the plan
that's been proposed to you shows a 50'...the ability to have a 50' from the
dwelling.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But there's not a 50' undisturbed buffer, which is the
standard that we've been using.
CHARLES BOWMAN: From the dwelling it would be a 50' buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But not a 50' undisturbed buffer.
CHARLES BOWMAN: I'm talking about the dwelling and not the road. You're
talking about 50' from...we can't move the road. It's impossible to move the road.
The road is where it is.
TRUSTEE KRUPKSI: That's correct.
CHARLES BOWMAN: That does not provide you with...there are lots of roads in
the Town of Southold that are close to the wetlands.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's one of the problems.
CHARLES BOWMAN: The Town itself does all sorts of drainage work in all sorts
of roadways that are close to wetlands. All I'm saying is that the proposed house
provides a 50' buffer. We can do better on the road, on the shortening of the
road, but the road is not going to be 50'. If we bring the driveway down on the
landward side of that little wetland area, it's certainly not going to meet your
criteria for keeping it 50' all around.
T
17
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then how do you say you can do better on this? To be
honest, the more we look at the standards of the Code, the more this application
isn't making sense. You're telling me you can do better on this application.
CHARLES BOWMAN: I'm saying there is a better way to mitigate any impacts. If
that's your feeling, we'll keep this the same. This meets the 50' setback for the
house.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it doesn't.
CHARLES BOWMAN: For the house, it certainly does.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it's not a 50' non-disturbance buffer. You can say it
meets it for the house and just completely fill it. That doesn't meet the setback.
CHARLES BOWMAN: I'm saying it meets it for the house. It doesn't meet it for
the road, but we can't change the road. All I'm trying to point out to you is that by
putting the house there, and having that 50' buffer for the house, we have to
make the road longer. I don't see how the Board can say...if the title to the road
is good, we can't change where the road is.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let's start with title to the road then.
CHARLES BOWMAN: Sure.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Do you have it?
CHARLES BOWMAN: No, not with me. Gail Wickham has it. I don't know the
answer to that question.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What was presented...we have Mr. Palmer's survey, if you
could come up and,take a look...
CHARLES BOWMAN: I did, but it doesn't show who owns the road.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It doesn't show who owns the southerly part of the road
either that goes up the hill.
CHARLES BOWMAN: That's correct. I think we have to look into who owns the
whole road from the end of the existing improved roadway, and even actually
probably down Diamond Lane. I don't know the status of Diamond Lane either. I
would presume that it's probably all the same, but I may be wrong.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's an important consideration. Everything about this
project does has.impact and it does affect the standards under Chapter 97.
CHARLES BOWMAN: I'm not standing here saying it doesn't.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, let's stay with the road for the moment.
Destabilization of the adjacent property is something that's been brought up
tonight, in light of the clearing that has been done by the surveyor. Now, you had
the surveyor mark out the proposed driveway, but what was unclear is the
impacts to the neighboring properties.
CHARLES BOWMAN: Well that is why I'm suggesting that Mr. Fischetti, the
engineer, and the Town Engineer, review the plan, and make sure...just like it
was a subdivision road, any road in the Town of Southold has to be reviewed by
the Town Engineer and certified that it's not going to affect the adjoining parcels.
Is it possible to build a road down a slope like that? Absolutely. It happens all the
time on Long Island. It happens all the time in the state of New York. Can it be
engineered to make sure it doesn't affect the properties? Yes. Is this an
engineered plan that does that? I don't know. I'm not a P.E. I certainly would
trust Mr. Fischetti and the Town Engineer to look at it and decide as to whether
it's efficient or not.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know, in the experience of Trustee Foster, this is
going to have considerable about of disturbance on the side of the right-of-way.
Now that wasn't clear, when we looked at the strings, unless you propose to put
in steel or concrete to support the right-of-way, it was unclear as to how far out
this would protrude. It would seem to cover even Mr. Palmer's property. He's got
a wetland adjacent to the roadway there.
CHARLES BOWMAN: We can't go beyond the right-of-way. When you're
building roads, you're going to have permanent and temporary erosion controls
during construction. Those certainly would have to be provided to the Town
Engineer to look at and be a part of the approvals to build that roadway and
driveway. But we can't go onto any other persons property with fill. We can't do
that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it's not clear on your plan as to how that's going to be
accomplished.
CHARLES BOWMAN: I think what your asking is that be clarified and all I'm
suggested is we clarify it and have a plan that has been accepted or certified or
approved by the Town Engineer so the Board can feel comfortable that he's
looked at it.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: What spec did he give you on the driveway? Is it a minor
subdivision spec that you have to maintain?
CHARLES BOWMAN: I think it's for a fire-truck.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: 16' width with a driveable shoulder on either side so
vehicles can pass. So that gives you 22' and you've got a 30' right-of-way and
you're going to elevate the road 7'.
CHARLES BOWMAN: I don't know whether this one, I know the former plan that
we had, the Town Engineer felt was okay. I don't know for a fact that he thinks
this is okay or that there shouldn't be...like I said, a temporary or permanent
erosion control specification to go along with it. I think there should be. All I'm
saying is let us take it to the Town Engineer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's just another step. We're not saying that's
Resolution. Another question we have is, there is a doted line on the survey that
was submitted, I couldn't find a,key, what is that. It's a diamond shaped dotted
line.
CHARLES BOWMAN: That was on the old survey, which was labeled "low-area".
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On our most recent field inspection, that "low-area"
seemed to be a freshwater wetland area.
CHARLES BOWMAN: The freshwater wetland area, and Chris Pickerall and I
both looked at it, is what is indicated by the four flags.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We thought that that area was not inclusive of every part of
the freshwater wetland.
CHARLES BOWMAN: I flagged every blueberry and marsh fern that was in there
that was contained within the line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We thought the diamond shaped low area was more
representative...
T
J
19
CHARLES BOWMAN: It's all upland species. I would take exception to that. It's
all bayberry, cedar, there is Rugosa Rose in there. It's not freshwater species.
The marsh fern and the high-bush blueberry are within the area where the flags
are flagged.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about the freshwater wetlands adjacent to the east
on Mr. Palmer's property?
CHARLES BOWMAN: I haven't flagged them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're looking also of course into impacts on the
neighbors' property as we should.
CHARLES BOWMAN: Do you want me to flag that? I certainly will.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You'll need permission from Mr. Palmer. That's a
consideration that we have to take into account. Another consideration that has
been brought up tonight and has been brought up in the past but has never been
addressed, except in sort of a passing way, is the way a structure here, a human
habitation, would affect the wildlife corridor and the wildlife habitat that exists not
only in the preserved County park, but also to that large stretch of land to the
east.
CHARLES BOWMAN: I do a lot of wildlife surveys. It's a very general statement.
If you wish us to do an inventory of what fauna we find in that area, what species
are utilized, what certain habitat for nesting or breeding of origin, then that
certainly would see what portions we're going to be disturbing or not disturbing.
What species would co-exist with people, and what species do not co-exist with
people. The Board itself has to be pretty specific so that we know what to do.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we want to be inclusive of everything. Not only of
what's existing there but how bisecting this habitat is going to affect.
CHARLES BOWMAN: I'm just saying that you have a large stretch of land that is
undisturbed all the way down to the sound.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But you're going to put a house in the middle of this large
stretch of undisturbed area.
CHARLES BOWMAN: And one of the problems with the wildlife population is the
fragmentation of habitat. I think that's what you're trying to get at. Are we
fragmenting the habitat? If that is the question then we find answers. I'm just
trying to find out the questions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's the question.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What are you going to do put transmitters on the rabbits
and track which way they run and say if we put a house here they can't cross it?
CHARLES BOWMAN: Any house that is put, whether it be next to a house that's
already there, you are continuing that fragmentation of a habitat. We live on
Long Island. Even if we lived in upstate New York, there are many, many, many
species that co-exist with people...and some don't. (inaudible) if we are in open
field habitat where we already have houses around it, you're probably going to
find (inaudible) the one's that are in our bird feeders all of time. Are they going to
be affected by that? No. But, that's what you have to know. I'm not trying to
lecture the Board or anything but I'm just saying that,it's a legitimate question that
you have to identify what actually utilizes that area. You can't just say "you are
. 1
20
going to fragment it and it's going to have a negative effect", without knowing
what's there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're going to have to provide us with that.
CHARLES BOWMAN: I will. It's a legitimate question. We'll also give you the
title search.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just so you know, this is just bringing...what you're being
asked to answer tonight, might raise ten more questions. If you bring us two
bushels of information, we might say we need ten more bushes, because you
just raised other questions.
CHARLES BOWMAN: Sure. I would certainly appreciate that if the Board had
any other questions right now...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we don't know. Something like the issue as simple as
the, well you can call it a driveway, what is a driveway, something like that has
become very complicated. Now it's been staked and delineated but the property
lines haven't been staked and we don't know because there's nothing on paper
that shows how it's going to effect, or possibly weaken or undermine the lateral
support of the neighbors property, or how the driveway itself...
CHARLES BOWMAN: The only thing that I can say Al...believe me, it's with all
due respect, I'm not going to say that it's not going to have any structural
impact...I'm going to let the engineers decide that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it's an example of how other questions arise when we
get more information, then other questions arise.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You know the questions and you also know the answers.
You've been around long enough.
CHARLES BOWMAN: (inaudible)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Of course we'll entertain it. Especially if you tell us that this
is not the best plan.
CHARLES BOWMAN: I've been a party to building in environmentally sensitive
areas and there are other things that can be done. I would certainly like the
Board to at least have the ability to look at it and have that information in front of
them.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think kind of what you're proposing here is something that
resembles the Great Wall of China in a smaller form.
CHARLES BOWMAN: Artie, again, this was done to reach the house where we
pushed to get 50' from the house to the wetlands.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We weren't very clear then because a 50' non-disturbance
buffer is supposed to be non-disturbance.
CHARLES BOWMAN: We can't do anything about that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well that's a problem.
CHARLES BOWMAN: This plan is part of the record and that's fine.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment?
DEBORAH GORDON-BROWN: The east side of the road is adjacent to my
property line, which I am now having re-surveyed. If you need an area to get to
your proposed road, it's on my property. Just for your information.
CHARLES BOWMAN: (inaudible) on the east side and ask Mr. Palmer's
permission to be able to do that and the surveyors. I would ask him if we have his
r
21
permission to do that or not. We can't go on your property sir, without your
permission.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you don't have his permission you would have to at least
address the possible impacts that the road would have. We've looked at it. From
our experience, we believe that wetlands exist on Mr. Palmer's property, just
viewing it from the road.
CHARLES BOWMAN: If you're requesting it, we would like to add some accurate
information to it. I certainly can stand on the road and look and say, yeah I see a
high-bush blueberry. I can't tell you exactly where it is from there and assess how
the road is going to have an impact. If Mr. Palmer says "yes" we'll put it on.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ask Mr. Palmer if he would consider that.
CHARLES BOWMAN: I think I just did.
NEIGBOR: If Mr. Palmer gives his permission, then the surveyors better not do
the vandalizing that they did on the other side.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well that's something that has to be considered. I think
that should be made clear to Mr. Palmer, the amount of disturbance that will be
done if in fact the survey is conducted.
(talking)
CHARLES BOWMAN: If your flagging, not to try to insult you personally, but I
could do a much better job.. But, if you could just take another look at the subject
parcel.
CHARLES BOWMAN: I'll get Chris out there again. He looked at it twice and I
looked at it twice.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
CARMEN RAMIS: Two quick comments. The first one is indeed the marking of
the wetlands in the Maggio property. I thought that in the May hearing you had
asked to re-mark it and I very much agree with you that what they marked at the
low area, the little diamond shaped thing, does not encompass all of the
wetlands. Chapter 97 is the Wetlands chapter, under emerging vegetation, there
is a section of that that quotes phragmites as part of the freshwater wetlands
emerging vegetation. There is a lot of phragmites beyond the marsh fern and the
blueberries that was marked. So, it's indeed a lot more extensive. The second
point is having to do with the test hole. In the (interference) dated May 16th by
Mr. Bowman of Land Use it's states (interference).
MR. PALMER: Right at the bottom of the hill, where you turn left to Mr.
Chuisano's property, is going to go up. The water is going to go down and it
must go over our access road and onto my land. At least I think it will. It seems
to be that way, and I object.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. If there is no further comment...
LESLIE WISEMANN: I have to say, I've sat through all of these hearings, and I
live on Soundview in Southold, professor of architecture in land use
development, and I have been extraordinarily impressed with the patience and
open-mindedness of the Trustees in their attempt to adjudicate this complex
situation. Again and again you have made requests for the potential owners, the
people who want to build a house on that very fragile piece of land, to provide
evidence that this is an appropriate building site. Tonight, I've listened once
22
again carefully to all of the questions you've asked, I know you've walked that
property, and Artie I know you understand fully what the impact of that road will
be, in terms of run-off and destruction, and it's very clear that this is not a building
site period. The question before all of us, before all of your in particular, is at
what point do you say enough is enough. When do you say we have given
incredible opportunities, respectfully, to provide (inaudible) that building
something within an appropriate building envelope with an appropriate buffer
zone without profound environmental impacts not only to the flora and fauna, but
to the existing property owners, will take place. Tonight, once again, they have
proven to the contrary. This is not a building site. Even those who would want to
pretend to want to build on it, recognize how difficult and impossible it is to
(inaudible) not disturb migration across the site. It's simply not the right thing to
do. (inaudible) This is not creating an economic hardship for an individual whose
(inaudible) with the considerable of building equity in that property and selling at
an open market rate. (inaudible) I suggest to you that tonight is a good
opportunity to say, all of us, we have listened and we've listened, and we looked
and we walked the property, and we've seen the, proposal to profoundly
transform the topography of the land into something that it isn't. (inaudible) to put
an end to the amount of money to continue to stake things and re-plot things and
get more information. It's costing (inaudible) to the potential buyers of this as
well. That's a better answer and I hope that you will seriously considering saying
that we have enough information now to make a decision that is in favor of
stewardship of the environment. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to Table the hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE POLWIODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
9. Glenn E. Just on behalf of JOSEPH A. KADDIS, JR. requests a Wetland Permit
to construct a single-family dwelling, associated sanitary system, waterline,
underground utilities, deck, covered porch, garage and patio. Located: Private
Rd., Fishers Island. SCTM#3-3-3.4
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak for or
against the application? The CAC does not have a recommendation because
they did not make an inspection. Jim and I both inspected this. Is there anyone
here who would like to speak? I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the
condition of gutter, drywells, and hay bales.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
10. Eric Bressler, Esq. on behalf of RICHARD HORSTMANN 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 FOSTER: Is the applicant or anyone here in his behalf?
23
ERIC BRESSLER: For the applicant, I am Eric Bressler, having an address at
P.O. Box 1424, Main Road, Mattituck, NY 11952. 1 come before you this evening
to ask that this matter be closed and that the Board render a determination on
the matter before it, taking into the account the standards set forth in Chapter 97.
Specifically, we believe that those standards have been met and that the
application should be granted. As the Board is well aware, the granting of the
permit is of course subject to all the other necessary approvals that would have
to be obtained in order to write your permit into full effectiveness as it's stated in
both in the Code and in your permit. Recalling the time that we were last here,
there was before you, at that time, an order to show cause with a stay in it signed
by a Judge of the Supreme Court, which prohibited me, unfortunately, or perhaps
fortunately from your point of view, from addressing the Board there, to this
particular issue. As you may know, that particular order has been vacated and all
stays have been removed, thus the matter can proceed to a determination in
front of this Board. Let me just conclude by saying that any issues as to
ownership of property for anything else, issues that are for a determination in or
before the Supreme Court or some other Board, and respectfully under Chapter
97, we believe we have met the requirements, therefore we would ask you to
close the hearing, issue the necessary permits, and let us fight out at the
Supreme Court whatever claims may be raised there and obtain from the other
necessary jurisdictions whatever permits we need and move on down the road.
Thank you.
ERIC BRESSLER: Any other comments?
FRANK BLANGIARDO: Frank Blangiardo. Blangiardo and Blangiardo, Main
Road, same side of the street as Mr. Bressler, although we never received a
notice from my colleague, who practices on the same side of the street, here in
Southold Town. It's interesting to note, and I'm sorry I'm not wearing my tie, but I
don't want to keep us, so I'll just to talk fast. Mr. Bressler was retained by Mr.
Horstmann on June 9th. Magically, miraculously, on June 6th, Lauren from the
Trustee's office had this noticed in the Suffolk Times three days before Mr.
Bressler was retained-by Mr. Horstmann, and received his consent. I can only
imagine that Mr. Bressler picked up the phone, called the Trustees and said,
"hey, it's Eric, put something in the paper and have the Town taxpayers pay for
it". Well I object to that. If you look in the file, you'll see that. With regard to the
stay, that was the time before last, the time that I was forced to come down here
and represent the interests of not only the Nassau Point Property Owners
Association by the interest of my family, with regard to the adjoining land owner,
was four weeks ago from tonight. Mr. Bressler was on vacation with his wife, and
the applicant appeared with Frank Notaro, the architect. You were here Mr.
Krupski and you said, with Mr. Foster's support, you said, go to Riverhead and
have Judge Catterson determine this in the Supreme Court and then come back.
This was only four weeks ago. I'm 42 years of age and I'm not taking my
aerosape (sp.) and I don't think I have Alzheimer's but I think I can remember
what happened four weeks ago. If this Board told the applicant and the
responding members of the community here four weeks ago, on the record, to go
and get this determined, must I be forced to come back at every four weeks with
24
the husband and wife law firm that they appear and take intuitions and perhaps
I'll be at the bathroom and we can rush something through and maybe my
daughter is sick and I have to stay at home with her and every month even the
President of the Trustees instructs the applicant to get this resolved by a
Supreme Court judge from Riverhead, which is not that far away, and have
Judge Seidell sign a stay two months, and Gail Wickham, as was Eric Bressler,
and they were served and Judge Catterson had an order to show cause found
that there should be no longer a stay, that we will determine this in Supreme
Court in Riverhead pursuant to Article 58 of the Real Property Law. Since the last
meeting, what has transpired, was I had to see fit to join the necessary parties to
this law suit as a nice way of saying that I had to sue the Nassau Point Property
Owners Association as well as sue the surveyor, the one of two surveyors that
we have here in Southold Town, so I had to sue Mr. Stanley Isaksen in the
Supreme Court as well, and I have copies of the summonses that were served
upon them, filed with the court on August 2"d, for the Trustees, if you would like a
copy, I would be happy to provide that to you. I have copies for each of you. So,
the reason I did that was, Mr. Krupski, was because.based upon your last
comments, with the support of Mr. Foster, that you were going to let Judge
Catterson determine, as is absolutely true, and as my colleague Mr. Bressler
pointed out, that's the way it should be, and that's the only place that can nullify a
marriage, divorce, give the death penalty, or decide matter of specific
performance of real property, to say this property now belongs to you, Joe, not to
you Sam. That's specific performance and that has to be determined by Supreme
Court judge. That's the place where this is being handled. The judge is Judge
Catterson. The necessary parties are the Nassau Point Property Owners
Association has been joined, and the President is here, Neil McShane, also
Stanley Isaksen has been joined. So, clearly, we have all the necessary parties,
and this is going to be determined in short order by Judge Catterson in Supreme
Court in Riverhead. We will find out who exactly owns that block of property
between myself and the applicant. I don't want one inch of that property.
However, he's claiming to own it so that he can build a McMansion. What Mr.
Goehringer has stated on the record, is the last thing we need is another
McMansion and an oversized mansion with eight bedrooms, that requires
multiple variances, and that's where we're headed. They are trying to push me
into this position where I want to be defending the Building Dept. and the Zoning
Board of Appeals and this should be stopped right now. People should not be
able to come to the Trustees and put in applications for property that they don't
own. And, more importantly, their representatives shouldn't be able to pick up the
phone and call up the Trustees and say "hey", I don't know what he said, but the
guy he represents doesn't even own the property and here we are in the Town
putting an ad in the paper for a piece of property, based on the representative,
who doesn't represent the fellow yet, and the fellow doesn't even own the
property, and I'm paying for the advertisement. I didn't even get a notice. This is
the second year in a row that I didn't get a notice. But,'I'm here now and I'm just
a citizen of Southold Town and I feel sorry for the other members who are not
attorneys, who are not able to draft orders to show cause, who are not able to
25
enjoin Wickham, Wickham, and Bressler and get them to sit mum so that it can't
go forward, two months, so-that we could show up last month, and Mr. Krupski,
you can say let Judge C.atterson decide, but clearly, we're back here one month,
and now I have to sit vigil watching, waiting, every month, to see if this is on, or it
isn't on, and sit here every Wednesday night. I can't go to the Pridwin and have
a barbeque. It's a tough thing. It's not my sitting fee. It's something I have to do
to monitor the situation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually, for the record, none of the Board members are
forcing you to be here tonight.
FRANK BLANGIARDO: I agree. I'm surprised that it's on again.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well don't be surprised. We also have a notice that was
sent to your address where you pay your taxes, that was sent to you. So, you
were noticed.
FRANK BLANGIARDO: Well...when was I noticed? In 2001 or 2002?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: June 18th, 2002, and mailed from Mattituck.
FRANK BLANGIARDO: And then it came back?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It says, "addressee unknown".
FRANK BLANGIARDO: Well...I would imagine that if you make your living
practicing the law of Article 78, and I don't, I would imagine that's something you
would revel in, finding people that's deeds...actually, when a piece of property is
purchased, you don't own the property yet. So, when the deed is drawn at the
closing date, you don't live there. So, the return date is always, in many
instances, the return of your last address. I would imagine that if I made my
living practicing doing Article 78's, if that was my goal in life, that's one of the
niches in my life that say hey, I'm going to carve out my niche, I'm going to look
for deeds that were sent back to the old ownership and this is the way I'm going
to make my application to the Trustees, and that's a very simple thing that the
Town should look into getting updated. But, I would imagine that is one of the
things that the attorney, who is looking to get things through different Boards
would look to do and notify old landowner's addresses on their deeds.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment?
NEIL MCSHANE: I'm the president of the Nassau Point Property Owners
Association. I'm not an attorney. I do have an attorney that represents us, a
Riverhead firm, and we have responded to the law suits that were brought
against us. It's really all been joined together, the applicant, the association, and
the surveyor. It's in the Supreme Court. The way I've read it, it's initially been
really kind of a property line dispute of where is the line, two or three feet away. It
really doesn't, other than indirectly dealt with the 10' path that we own, or we
claim to own, which we have stated publicly in the past, and at this meeting, or at
this Board. But it's kind of growing into (noise) that we assert our ownership and
we will have to prove that. I guess, just to clarify one thing that Mr. Blangiardo
said, he did say he represented the Nassau Point Property Owners Association
at prior meetings and that is incorrect. He's represented his own interest. As it
happens, we really have interest in kind because he is concerned about his
neighbor claiming the ownership of this 10' path, and we have the same concern.
But, there is a lot of criss-crossing that seems to be going on. I have a couple of
,
26
questions. One, it's really in a sense the same question, but my experience with
planning boards and zoning boards, is that an applicant always has had to certify
that he owns the property, in the interest of that statement, before it goes forward
with any Board, in any jurisdiction. I don't know what the answer is with this
Board and how you would proceed, and whether you would wait for the courts to
finish up or whether it goes forward subject to. It would seem to me that the
logical thing to do is to wait for some clarification in a reasonable time frame what
the ownership to this, and you're moving in that direction, I believe, in the courts.
I guess the second question I have is, and I was not at last months meeting, but
the prior meeting, the one where the injunction was served, you made the
statement, Mr. Krupski, that you spoke to, a week or two prior, to the surveyor
and that surveyor, at that time, was preparing a survey with a frontage less than
the original application, which I think was 104'. He was doing one for 94'. That
kind of gave.us a warm comfortable feeling that somebody was backing away
from the claim of ownership, and I would like a copy of it. Is it here?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know. I never saw it. I spoke to him in the office
that day. I spoke to the surveyor and he said he was going to re-do the survey.
NEIL MCSHANE: Can we get an answer from the applicant?
ERIC BRESSLER: I can address that one.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I'm sorry, I don't know the date that I spoke to him.
ERIC BRESSLER: To refer to your comments first, to my knowledge, there will
be no re-drawing of the survey. The survey was taken off of the deed. The deed
is in front of you. We've met the provisions of Article'97. The Supreme Court
vacated the stay. It's was specifically stated on the record. We're not staying that
Board. We're not staying that Board at all. I'm not going to prevent this
application from going forward with permits. The stay vacated. That says it all.
While I am sympathetic with Mr. Blangiardo's plight, that he must "stand in vigil",
and watch all of you on a monthly basis, surely that can.come to an end tonight,
for him, and all of us. Then, the Supreme Court can determine what it
determines and you can make your determination and if it warrants a permits,
issue it subject to whatever anybody else does. The Supreme Court didn't issue
a stay, they vacated it. The next question, and as far as I'm concerned, the
specific answer to that question is, no, he's not going to re-do the survey. It's
right off of the deed. If anybody else chooses to produce something, they can
produce it to Judge Catterson and we'll let the chips fall where they may, but
that's not up the purview of this particular Board. The stay vacated.
NEIL MCSHANE: As a question of process, if this Board approves the request,
does it go to the Planning Board because although there is no dimension on the
side yard setback, it looks like it probably would be inconformity, if you include
the 10' piece. It would seem to me that's a major issue because if it doesn't go
to, as a right, to a Planning Board, then it seems to me it has to go to a Zoning
Board. So, I mean, not that you want to hold up the world here, but there has to
be another step. Maybe you're the wrong Board.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
FRANK BLANGIARDO: Very quickly, with the Town talking, we have a
moratorium now. It's on the front page. I think it has a reverse.effect because
27
they advertise it so quickly, I think everyone with a single and separate lot came
running in to put a building permit in for thelast six months. However, Trustees
are, for right now, for environmental issues. You're the first permit for attorneys
that want to get, or applicants and their agents, to get things approved. If the
attorneys only have to pick up a phone, and they don't really represent the fellow
yet, are we running an expediting service here paid by the Town of Southold?
Isn't it the exact opposite that the current trend and intent of all of the bodies and
Boards of the Town, aren't they doing the exact opposite, if we allow all the
attorneys in Town to pick up and say, "hey Joe, put it in the paper, I'll be over
with the papers sometime next week". It's an expediting service. That shouldn't
be allowed. Regarding the application, I've joined all necessary parties
(inaudible) this is not a medical malpractice claim, there is nothing to it. This can
be done on paper, and it's going to be done in a short order in less than two
months. (inaudible) and make a determination and it's not about a property line,
it's exactly...and Neil and Eric, everyone that is there, is now, who is my neighbor
to the south? Is it the Nassau Point Property Owners Association where I've
been a member for 10 years or is it Horstmann, who felt the need to file a survey,
which eliminated, for the first time in 80 years, a 10' right-of-way that goes 390' to
the Peconic Bay, for the benefit, since 1921, for 80 or 90 homes. This is on the
tax map. His property card, as I produced for the Trustees, shows he only has
90' of bulkhead, not 100'. He only pays taxes on 90' of bulkhead. On my survey,
this clearly, a 10' right-of-way, owned by the Nassau Point Property Owners
Assocation, and the Nassau Point Property Owners Association insures the Title
of that 10' and everyone knows that the 10' is a right-of-way owned by the
Nassau Point Property Owners Association. But, in their haste, Mr. Bressler's
client, the applicant, has 94' of frontage and then he (inaudible) but he never
bothered to check that the between Chuck Fraiser's and my property, there is
only 101'. It's so easy to grab that 10'. They never bothered to measure. There
own survey shows 101' but their deed says 104'. It's like putting a 2 lb. bologna
in a 1 lb. bag. They were so eager to steal 10' of property they didn't measure
between Chuck Fraiser's and my property. It doesn't make sense. Judge
Catterson is going to deal with this. I've joined the necessary parties and this is
going to be dealt with in a court fashion. At your last meeting, Mr. Krupski you
said, let Riverhead decide.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They will, thank you. Any other comment?
CATHERINE MESIANO: I would like to make a comment. I'm not involved with
this particular...my name is Catherine Mesiano and I come before this Board
almost every month for almost the past 10 years, and I have to say, on behalf of
the Board, I'm offended for you that someone would imply, more than imply, to
stand up here and outright accuse you of doing things outside of the purview of
the Code. I put applications before this Board every month. There is a deadline
for the application, the mailings get done, the services get done, the notices get
put into the newspaper, according to a very strict schedule, and,I'm offended for
you that someone would imply that a simple telephone call by an insider is all it
takes to.slide something in at the last minute. I just want to go on the record as
saying that I know how you run and Lauren runs the office and on behalf of this
r
r'
28
Board, I am offended at that implication and I just wanted to put that on the
record because that is highly inappropriate. I have nothing to do with this case
and I have no interest in it, but the implication that that's how the Board is run, I
find to be totally offensive.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm just going to answer Cathy. The reason we didn't say
anything is because the accusation was so pathetic that it didn't really warrant a
response.
CATHERINE MESIANO: I could not let it go because I make my living before the
Board.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? Do I have a motion to close
the hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application of Richard
Horstmann to increase the footprint of the existing house and add a second floor.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm going to reference something in the Code here. I'm
going to reference Chapter 97-21 J. I'd like to add to the motion that under
Chapter 97-21 J it states documentary proof that all other necessary permits and
approvals have been obtained. This permit is not active until everything
property-wise has been resolved. This is strictly an environmental review, based
on the merits of the application.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
11. Carol Governale on behalf of MARTIN.& DOREEN EVANS requests a Wetland
Permit to construct stairs, fixed dock, hinged ramp and a floating dock. Located:
5050 New Suffolk Ave., Mattituck. SCTM#115-10-3
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application because the
Board has been unable to coordinate with°the Bay Constable to make sounding.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
12. Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc. on behalf of BRADLEY ANDERSON
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a dock and bulkhead replacement with
CL9900 vinyl sheets — 12' length, 6"X 8" timber wale, 4"X 6" timber follower and
2"X 12" timber cap. Seawall to be anchored using 1"X 16" tie-rod @ 6' on center
with 10' diameter X 8' timber deadmen. Located: 3820 South Harbor Rd.,
Southold. SCTM#86-3-1,2,3.3&3.5
POSTPONED UNTIL SEPTEMBER AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST
13. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of JUDITH SCHAPP requests a Wetland
Permit to replant area within 100' of the wetlands, install a mulch path to the
existing dock and bluestone walk on the side yard. Located: 485 Orchard Lane,
Southold. SCTM#89-2-7
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this
application?
T
a �
l
29
PAT MOORE: We submitted to the Board a planting plan and if you have any
comments...
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We've been out there several times. We've taken
measurements off of the house. I believe the buffer was supposed to begin 42'
from the house corner to the south. We measured it and it was 47, or 49'.
PAT MOORE: The first description is the edge of wetlands...are you dealing with
the house? Maybe I'm confused with what you're saying. You have the edge of
wetlands, and then you have on one side 60' and 60' for the hay bales, and on
the other side you have from the edge of wetlands, it actual starts from the
adjacent property, and it goes to the corner of the house, an that's 76 . I'm not
following.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We measured the hay bale line from the house. Not from
the wetland edge. We try to simply enforcement..
PAT MOORE: Oh, that's why I'm not following. I'm sorry. So you're saying that
from the house to the hay bale line, you measured 40'?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It should've been 42'.
PAT MOORE: Ok, 42'. From the corner of the covered porch or the southeast
corner, you're measuring 42'. 1 guess I just need to know where you're going
with this.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The hay bale line was incorrectly placed.
PAT.MOORE: I.would disagree in that we had John Metzger actually go out and
stake or actually place the distance of the hay bale line 60' from the edge of
wetlands. He marked it from...he's been the constant surveyor throughout this
whole thing. He marked form the edge of wetland line, 60', which is what the
permit required and that is where the hay bale line went. We followed the survey
and the permit.
3 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I see your point of view.
PAT MOORE: The survey that was used and the location of the hay bales is
what they used for placement of the hay bales.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I understand that what you went with if 50' off of the
wetland delineation line.
PAT MOORE: Correct.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What's the Board feeling on it?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we measured off of the house for a buffer, not off of
the wetlands.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Originally before the house was in we did but the hay bale
line isn't consistent with the survey, it changed. The hay bales were removed and
then we made them replace them and they didn't put them back in the same
place.
PAT MOORE: But what they did is they made sure that when they replaced
them, because the hay bales were put there first during construction. They were
by the original builder. The hay bales had deteriorated.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: They didn't deteriorate. They pushed them out of the way
and cleared all the way down to the wetlands.
MRS. SCHAPP: The Board has to understand what happened. Our house had
two builders. We had a lot of trouble building our house because we were stupid
r
u
t
30
and hired a bad builder. We never knew anything about anything, least of all that
you even existed. We just trusted the first builder that we hired. Then, we saw
the construction of the house, a previous buyer had changed his mind about the
property, and we were, I believe, the third buyer. When we saw the property,
there was hole in'the ground, no foundation, and there were hay bales. We
thought the hay bales we to protect the property from erosion.'We had no idea
that this was an environmental issue at all. Both original hay bales were placed
much closer to the water than they are right now.. We had no idea that they were
supposed to be, or that they were placed with any kind of reason or specific
footage. We didn't know that. Those hay bales were there until we were ready
to landscape our house. In the meantime, we fired our builder and hired another
builder, and hired a landscaping firm, and because of our ignorance, which we
plead totally guilty to, and perhaps his inexperience because it's a new business,
he started to landscape our property and we thought we were done building a
house. He thought we were done. He should've known and we should've known
and we didn't, and we're guilty of that. That's when those original hay bales got
moved aside. That's when you folks told us that we were in trouble and that's
when we stopped doing everything. At that time, we hired Pat, and we were
instructed to go back to our surveyor, the same surveyor who was the original
surveyor of the house, and we've had the house surveyed three times already,
and finally we asked him to please place the hay bales according to our original
survey, where they belong. I couldn't tell you what the footage, and we'll put
them wherever you want us to put them. But, Peconic Surveyors went and
staked those bales where they are right now. That's how they got moved, and
that's the truth of what happened.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment?
PAT MOORE: All we want to do is just landscape landward of the edge of the
wetland, or re-vegetate, with the natural plantings that are indigenous to the area.
That's what's been proposed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't understand. It shows three "X's".
PAT MOORE: The landscaper is here. We have low-bush blueberry, Virginia
creeper and black cherry. They are going to be in the area in a natural looking
way.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How many plants?
JOHN GIBSON: Approximately 50 spaced about 18" apart.
PAT MOORE: More or less, it's 15' apart you're going to build the entire area
from the wetland edge,.50'. So, we don't want to say 50 plants, when in fact we
might have 60 plants. So, it makes more sense to show you the general area
with 15' apart and then at the end, if you want to count them, if you want more.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well he said 18" and you said 15'.
PAT MOORE: I'm sorry, you said 18"?
JOHN GIBSON: 18" apart. The side to the left on the survey that you're looking
at, are you looking towards Dryad's Basin?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
JOHN GIBSON: That was never touched. That was the way it is. I was just going
to plant there to match the other side.
1
31
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We know what was there. Artie do you have any
comments on the measuring? Ken?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is the applicant willing to move the hay bales 7' forward
on the southeast corner?
PAT MOORE: Landward?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes.
PAT MOORE: Well the problem is that you're eliminating what would be the back
yard.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What Ken is suggesting is what's consistent with the
property next door to the east. We just approved the transfer of the permit to the
property to the east.
PAT MOORE: They haven't built their house yet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But they have permits to build there. We want to make the
setbacks consistent with that property.
MRS. SCHAPP: But our permit is three years older than theirs.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But you don't have a permit.
PAT MOORE: We have a permit. The permit was build with the house.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, Mrs. Schapp does not have a permit. Correct? Did we
transfer it?
PAT MOORE: The house is built. It's vested.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The permit was never transferred.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's issued to Martin & Denise Krall in 1998. That's the
original permit.
PAT MOORE: Keep in mind that the permit enables the person to build. Once the
house is complete, or once you start, you vest a permit. The permit is good and
now it's vested. The house is built. The problem I've had with this whole thing is
that they built in accordance with the permit, there was no non-disturbance buffer
imposed on the permit and then their whole construction schedule, their C.O.,
they were at the end, and here they thought they were going to occupy the house
this summer, and you sent them a letter asking them to put a stop work order on
the job, the Building Dept. refused to follow through with any further inspection,
and essentially you took the entire summer away from them, over a permit ...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They never had a permit.
PAT MOORE: The permit that was issued was not in violation. There was no
violation to the permit in that there was no non-disturbance buffer. What they did
was they cut the back in an area, which was not in the wetlands. They did not
touch the edge of wetlands. They were finishing the property.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The permit says "Wetland Permit to construct a single-
family dwelling with septic system, driveway and deck, with the condition that hay
bales be moved 15'towards Dryad's Basin and drywells be placed to contain roof
run-off. It looks like they building envelope with a hay bale line 15' beyond the
house.
PAT MOORE: 15' towards Dryad's Basin. It means that it was going towards the
edge of wetlands and actually pushing the area closer to the wetlands. We took
the survey that was used for the setback. It didn't have the standard language
32
that says, non-disturbance, don't touch, don't do anything. It was permits that
you issued at that time and it was common.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there another permit under Bonati?
PAT MOORE: One was a renewal but it was really no different.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Krall got the original permit but they never acted.
PAT MOORE: You've dealt with this many of time. There has never been any
discussion about a non-disturbance buffer. From what I can tell, we've given you
more of a buffer than was originally imposed because the hay bales were
supposed to go towards Dryad's Basin but the drawing had it at 60', and we kept
it at 60'. We've now proposed to vegetate the entire 60' from the edge of the
wetlands.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, the hay bales were supposed to go 15' from the
house.
PAT MOORE: No, that's not what your permit says. I'm sorry. He just read it. It
.says towards Dryad's Basin and that goes towards the water.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, and that's where you put the hay bales.
PAT MOORE: I'm sorry. I read it as someone who had not been involved in the
permit. I looked at the survey and the survey showed the 60' from the edge of
wetland and I read your permit language and I said, Okay, it looks like everything
is fine.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Alright, lets move on then.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would the Board be happy with 60' of non-disturbance?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'd like to see a few more than...it says here 50 plants. I
would like to see a few more than 50 and not necessarily black cherries, but if
you're going to plant low-bush blueberry and Virginia creeper 18" on center, with
a mulch woodchip...
JOHN GIBSON: Oh yes.
UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Just for the record also, the vegetation is growing back
quite a bit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So what's your feeling on the buffer?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm fine with it being 60'.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So moved.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the
condition of a 60' non-disturbance buffer beyond the hay bale line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And that the area be planted with low-bush blueberry and
Virginia Creeper'18" on center and mulch with a woodchip mulch of the
applicants choice, and black cherry where appropriate, and a 4' path through the
buffer area to access the dock. The planting should be done before March 1,
2003.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
14. Redwin Industries, Inc. on behalf of BOB LOBICK requests a Wetland Permit to
extend an existing wood deck 12'X 16' to 12'X 22' wide then build a 12'X 22'
33
glass and screen sun room on 12'X 22' wood deck. Located: 675 Meadow Lane,
Mattituck. SCTM#115-5-7
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf
of this application?
BOB LOBICK: Good evening ladies and gentlemen, I'm Bob Lobick.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The CAC Tabled the application until all previous
permits for the property are reviewed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We looked at the site last week and then we looked back
through the old file that was under Baumgratz, because there seemed to be a lot
of things that happened on the property, and I was on the Board then, and I
couldn't recall off the top of my head what the conditions of the original permit
were. So, we had to have Lauren dig out the old file and try to take a look. I
remember, being on the Board, we worked on this application, I believe for years,
and I'll let you go through the file afterwards, after the meeting. We would rather
see these covenants and restrictions adhered to. They are quite lengthy. We
wanted to bring you up to speed on some of this. The size of the house was in
the permit, the height above the high water. The conditions, if any, subject to the
preferred site setbacks and C&R's as described in the findings and subject to the
proper language of the C&R's by the Town Attorney...and the findings, the
covenants and restrictions...Number 1, there should be no disturbance within 30'
of the marsh fringe, as shown on the survey and made part of the application for
the wetland permit on file, except for a 4'.wide path. Number 2, there should be
no use of inorganic fertilizers on the property, nor shall there be no managed turf
areas. Number 3, there shall be no decks or patios constructed in the rear yard
of the property. Number 4, no in-ground sprinkler systems are permitted on the
property. Number 5, if it is determined that an accumulative impacts of residential
areas on other lots in Mattituck Estates, which border the head water of Deep
Hole Creek, which is at this date are undeveloped, has caused the pond area
north of New Suffolk Ave., which borders this property, to become anaerobic,
than the sanitary system presently approved by the Suffolk County Dept. of
Health Services will be upgraded to the method of sewage disposal then being
approved by the Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services provided that the
development of said unimproved lots, if permitted, is accompanied by a covenant
and restriction to upgrade sanitary disposal systems as agreed to herein. This is
filed with the County Clerk December 24, 1987. So, we would like to see some
compliance.
BOB LOBICK: That was a long time ago. I'm there since three years ago. I'm not
aware of any of that stuff.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You didn't know about any covenants when you bought
the property?
BOB LOBICK: Oh yeah, some of the things well obviously we've heard of.
That's 1987. 1 believe they started to build in 1995 because the survey is 1996.
So, it was about three years old when we bought it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So there is a great deal of work that needs to be done
before we can consider your permit. Some of the things on your permit don't
even seem to comply with the original permit. So, we would like to see
r
,
34
compliance with the covenants and restrictions that were filed with the County for
this piece of property.
BOB LOBICK: I don't know what that means.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Come into the office and we'll give you the directions.
BOB LOBICK: We had a deck on the side of the house and we're looking to
enclose it to keep the West Nile and the mosquitos off of us when we're sitting
outside. We can't do it without a screened porch or Deet. I prefer not to use
Deet. We just figured, let's see if we can enclose it. It seemed like a very simple
thing. The extension of the deck was going to the road and not towards the
wetlands. It sounded like a slam-dunk. We were just trying to keep away from
the mosquitos and enjoy our property. We weren't extending it;widening it,
except going a little bit further towards the road.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well this is what you have. Please come into the office.
We would like to see these covenants and restrictions complied with.
BOB LOBICK: I might add, I'm not aware of them being there ...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well this is what you bought and it runs with the property.
That's why we had it filed with the County Clerk.
BOB LOBICK: When I did walk into the clerk's office right down here and I asked
them for any information we regard to my property, including the permits and
everything, I don't remember ever seeing that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Wouldn't this have been brought up by the Title search?
BOB LOBICK: Would that be in my file right down the road?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, at your closing.
BOB LOBICK: Not to my knowledge.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I'm not going to argue. You're just going to have to
comply with the C&R's for the property. That's what they are. You can come into
the office and Lauren will make copies of those for you. Thank you.
BOB LOBICK: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
15. 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' 1" dock pointing northeast. From the "L" dock, .
installing a 32"X 12' ramp leading to a 6'X 20' float, and install a 15,000 lb. boat-
lift on the southwest side. Located: 1610 Paradise Point Rd., Southold.
SCTM#81-3-19.4
POSTPONED UNTIL SEPTEMBER
16. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of JOHN L. HURTADO requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a wood dock.into Southold Bay. Located: 10995 North
Bayview Rd., Southold. SCTM#79=5-20.3
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak on behalf of this application?
CATHERINE MESIANO: I'm Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant. We
were here last month on this matter and took care of a couple items on the
agenda but the dock issue seems to be outstanding. I received a letter, as you
35
know, on Monday from the Board requesting an adjournment of this but after
speaking with Mr. Hurtado, we felt that we wanted to come before the Board and
understand what your specific concerns are and see if we can address them and
resolve this matter. So, if you could tell me what the concerns are, we would like
to try and do that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before we start, is there any other comment? Ken?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You're looking for a dock on the bay. One of the basic
concerns I have, to my knowledge out in the bay, when you put a structure there,
you change some of the marine life that exists, prior to having that structure in
place.
CATHERINE MESIANO: That may be.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: In the location that Mr. Hurtado is in, you can look to the
east and see a fish trap. Obviously, there must be a lot of migratory fish there.
Probably flounder, squid, different small species that live in a sandy area. The
moment you put in a hard structure, you ruin the whole dynamics of the estuary.
Right now, I don't have enough information gathered to make a decision on a
dock in the bay.
CATHERINE MESIANO: Okay, well Mr. Bowman is also here to address some of
those concerns. What I can tell you is that we've looked at the situation on the
bigger picture. There is a dock, a similar structure a couple of hundred feet to the
right. It's the area that's between the Reydon Shores Property Owners basin and
Paradise Point basin. The bottom in the proposed location of this dock is a rocky
bottom, not a sandy or vegetated bottom. The structure is the minimal size of a
magnitude that is the minimal necessary to come into conformance with
maintaining the required 4', so as to not be overshadowing the bottom, etc.
Since there are other structures similar to this and we're proposing the minimal
structure that we can, we don't feel that the impact is that significant. Yes, every
action causes a reaction, but can you necessarily say that reaction is a negative
or bad reaction. Just to oversimplify, people go out and sink boats in the ocean to
form reefs, and that causes a positive reaction. It gives habitat. I have a dock on
my own property and it has a habitat. The muskrat wouldn't be residing there if it
didn't have a place to live. If you get a storm and a trees blown down into the
water it forms a habitat. It's not necessarily a negative reaction. Since we
already have a dock within a close proximity, I'll let Chuck speak to that but,
seeing that we're not the first kid of the block, I don't know that our impact is as
substantial as you may be thinking it is.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The concern is also they give an accumulative impact
over time. One dock maybe should be studied to see what impacts it has. We
don't have any data on that dock.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would like to agree with Ken. We've been working
along with the Nature Conservancy, Kevin McAllister, and our own Town's, our
Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, and there is still information being
gathered and all of Ken's points are valid and I concur with him.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Cathy, if I could answer some of the things you said, first
of all, you said that it's a minimal structure, but that's kind of a vague term. That
1
36
doesn't really answer the fact. Minimal is just a word that fits... it's a word that
you want to use. It's not really a scientific word.
CATHERIENE MESIANO: We're proposing a fixed dock with no floating dock
attached to it, elevated 4', so as to get the appropriate light penetration and so
on. Again, we're not proposing a float. I think the impact is much less than one
would expect with a floating dock.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think the impact would be different.
CATHERINE MESIANO: I'll let Chuck speak to the magnitude because that's
more of an environmental issue. I would like Chuck to speak to that issue, but
my point is that we would like to have this matter adjudicated on it's own merits.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's how we try to do everything.
CATHERINE MESIANO: I would hope so. I'll let Chuck speak.
CHUCK BOWMAN: Listening to Ken's comments, and speaking to Mr. Hurtado,
who you know I've known for a long time and-we've worked together for a long
time, and he has a great respect for this Board, and'we worked out that his
driveway going through the little kettle holes and with that I think he's probably
one of the most conscientious clients that I have. With that being said, Ken's
comments, I explained to him on what that really comes down to, and if this was
an application for a Town dock or a municipal dock, or a private dock, many
times now Army Corp. or (inaudible) call for an essential fish habitat assessment
for any structures, which, looks to be exactly what you're trying to do. That's a
process that has been (inaudible) to identify the bottom types, not only the finfish
but what time of year, and what stages of their lifecycles are going to be used
during that time of year and how things are going to be affected. That is a fairly
complicated process to go through.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If I may comment, I believe I would need that information
to make a fair and just vote on this,
CHUCK BOWMAN: Ken, I'm not saying you're wrong at all. We've done them on
docks, again, from large municipal projects to a small dock on Shelter Island. Do
we do it on all docks, no. Do we do it on some docks, yes. It's not even from this
Board. 'Sometimes we get a letter from National Marine Fisheries saying that we
have to look at these issues. I think what Mr. Hurtado, you know, would certainly
like a dock, and he's a terrific guy, he has a nice house, and he's very
environmentally sensitive, and I think it has to be left up to him whether he wants
to proceed with that and putting together all of the information or not. If you're
saying that that's the information you need to make a decision, I think he needs
to hear that because it's a step that is something that is (inaudible).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know Mr. Hurtado personally but we've worked on
his property before and when we worked on his driveway, and we needed
information, he provided it, we made a decision, and we moved on. The Board
feels that this is a different project than anything else that he's proposed before.
So, it's not, and certainly you said he's a nice guy and all, and I'm sure he is, and
it's got nothing to do with his personality or anything, this is strictly so important
that we feel that we have to get the information that Ken asked for and that you
mentioned.
' J I
37
CHUCK BOWMAN: I'm not saying you shouldn't ask for the information. I just
want to make sure of the information you're really asking for and what you're
really asking for in order to make a decision. The reason I bring up,his past
activities is because one of the people whose very good to work with and he will
make a decision on whether he wants to go forward and do it or not.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We start making decisions here that are going to have
really far reaching effects and we have to..'just let me read something into the
record. The Town Board of the Town of Southold finds that rapid growth, spread
of development and increasing demands upon natural resources which are
encroaching upon or eliminating many of it's wetlands, which are preserved and
maintained in an undisturbed and natural condition, constitute important physical,
social, aesthetic, recreational and economic assets, to existing and future
residents of the Town of Southold. That's 1971. We're trying to hold to that and
that's why we're not trying to say...this is serious.
CHUCK BOWMAN: If you want my own personal opinion, I think you should base
your decisions on facts rather than on what people believed to be true as
opposed to what is actually out there. In order to do that, you have to do a wildlife
inventory, a wetland inventory, a fish habitat inventory, and then you're getting
the facts. It's just something that the owner should be aware of so that they can
make a decision whether they want to go down the, road or not. I think that's
what Mr. Hurtado is here and what's to know what road he's going to be going
down.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I appreciate your honesty and sincerity about timing and
year and when the fish are there. It is a lengthy process.
CHUCK BOWMAN: Just so you know, most of the essential fish habitat are done
are...are document searches. There is a lot of data available like the Peconic
Estuary. Then, you have to look for bottom types. Sometimes you might be out
there seining to see what is there but a lot of the information is compiled from
studies that have been done for the past 20 years.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That micro-location, (inaudible)
CHUCK BOWMAN: But that's where you have to look at the bottom types. We're
not disagreeing but I want Mr. Hurtado to know what you're asking for.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment?
TRUSTEE KING: How far is the proposed dock to the fish trap?
CHUCK BOWMAN: I started this afternoon with this. Cathy, do you know how far
it is?
JOHN HURTADO: I would say it's about 300' to 200'. I'm John Hurtado. I would
certainly love a dock. My concern is if we give you a report and surveys that's
favorable, will that still make a difference in your decision? I'm not sure it will. All
I really want to have is kind of a feeling from you as to whether if we did that
survey that you want, if it was favorable, would that still make a favorable
decision on your part, as far as I'm concerned. If it's not, I'll just withdraw my
application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI:.You're putting us on the spot here. You're asking us to
make a decision without the information that we asked for.
38
JOHN HURTADO: I'm just trying to get the big picture as to what Southold is
trying to do.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we're not encouraging you. We'll put it that way.
JOHN HURTADO: When was the last time a dock permit was issued?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: On the bay? I haven't signed one yet.
JOHN HURTADO: How many years is that Ken?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I've been on the Board 4 Y2 years.
JOHN HURTADO: Well then I'll just withdraw my application because I know you
said it's site specific but it just seems to me that no matter what I present to you,
no.matter how many experts I give you, it's really not in the grand scheme of
what you want to have done to the bay area.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Again, if you can read into what I said in the opening
statements, through my experience and education, my work out in the bay, a
structure does bring in more aggressive species, which does change the habitat
in the area. Flounder, blowfish, squid, running the shorelines, now you have a
bunch of aggressive fish hanging out under a structure, which changes that area.
So, it does have a negative impact on those species.
JOHN HURTADO: So, what I'm actually saying to you is that I will withdraw and
perhaps when things change, I'll come back.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: I'm I led to believe then that (inaudible) that either increase and
make the environmental more beneficial, more productive, will be turned down
just because they are different?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You have to look at what different is and you have to see if
it's a change for the positive or is it just a change. Without knowing what the
change will be and evaluating what that change will be, we really can't tell.
MR. MILLER: We certainly the use of the marine environment in any way creates
a change. Certainly when a clam digger goes out and drags a rake across the
bay bottom, he creates a change. If there is one clam digger and he drags his
rake 400' in a day, that's 400' of change. If there is 40 clam diggers, that's
substantially more. Now do we need to evaluate the accumulative effect of all of
the potential clam diggers, do we need to protect and evaluate the potential fish
that are caught now in that fish trap, when it's jetted in, in the Spring, what fish
are caught, what fish are damaged, what fish are killed and become prey to other
fish? You need an entire environmental impact statement for any action that
takes place in a day there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But what you described are activities that are ongoing. If
there has been clamming consistently in an area for the past 40, 50, 150, or 250
years, that's not a change. That's an ongoing process.
MR. MILLER: Well certainly docks have been an existing thing for several
hundred years.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely, and someone gave the example of a jetty. If
someone has a jetty out there, well that made a substantial change to the inter-
tidal area and the near-shore area now, environmentally. Substantial, because it
changed the elevation of the underwater land in that area. It built up sand on one
side and took away sand on the other. Once that jetty is in place, it's had it's
39
environmental effects, and it's stabilized that area, for better or for worse, it's
stabilized the area. When someone comes in, because the jetty of course is out
in a pretty tough area and it's going to be damaged and it's going to need
replacement, or it's going to need maintenance, if someone comes in and that
jetty is functional, if we allow that applicant to replace it as it is, it 's not a change.
e It's going to be the same stable environment that it created, for better or for
worse. But, put a new jetty out there, and then it's going to completely change
the area.
MR. MILLER: Okay. This is a long, long discussion. I would like to have it
sometime with the Board.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Certainly.
JIM FITZGERALD: Do you have different standards for docks on the bay then
you do for docks on the creek? I ask that because when Mr. Hurtado asked you a
question and everybody said, "is it on the bay". Do the same standards apply
when somebody comes in for a dock on the creek, and Ken is going to worry
about the founders and the blackfish and so forth? I've never heard that reaction
to an application fora dock in one of our creeks.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We approved an amendment to a dock application on the
creek tonight, and I can think of only one, and maybe there are others, but it's
been a while. The dock extended about 12' into the creek and that's about as
long, and that was a previously approved permit, that's about as large a structure
as we've been approving in the creek. Usually it's less. The intrusiveness is really
minimalized.
JIM FITZGERALD: There seem to be different standards and different reactions
by this Board...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know if it's different standards. I think it's different
sized structures, it's a different dynamic, it's a different environment. We look at
every, and you know, you're here every month, every dock application that we
review on the creek gets a different look depending on the bottom conditions,
depending on the marsh fringe, depending on the water depth, depending on
where the navigational channel is, I mean we look at every condition. So, no, I
think the standards are the same.
JIM FITZGERALD: I never heard anybody ask for an environmental analysis with
regard to an application for a dock on a creek.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Maybe we should've 20 years ago.
JIM FITZGERALD: Okay, so is that's the way it is? I would just like to know what
the rules are.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Everything is site specific. Any other comment?
CATHERINE MESIANO: I would like to clarify one point. When we talked about
the stairs down the face of the bluff onto the beach, I don't recall and,Mr. Hurtado
seems to recall that we did discuss the stairs and you approved them however
we didn't get a resolution for that. If you could just clarify that and if we didn't get
that approved could you please address that issue.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I didn't have a problem with the stairs.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can condition the approval on receiving a drawing
showing the dimensions.
x
40
CATHERINE MESIANO: I'll get you a drawing. I just want to add one thing. We
would like to put on the record that Mr. Hurtado's withdrawal of his application
was without prejudice.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Ken would you like to make that motion?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion that the application of John Hurtado is
withdrawn without prejudice and Approve the application for a set of stairs
approx. 4'X 20' in length, contingent on the plans.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
17. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of MARY ZUPA requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 60'X 100' single-family dwelling, porch and patio, on-site sewage
disposal system, free-form, in-ground (gunite) pool (approx. 16'X 32') and
pervious driveway. In-place replacement of approx. 520' bulkhead. Install
approx. 95' new bulkhead for erosion control. Install 4' wide steps from bulkhead
to beach (approx. 3.5'). Install 137' low-profile timber retaining wall. Install three
terraced stone retaining walls (approx. 220'X 2') upland for erosion control. Install
approx. 4'X 25' wood dock, 3'X 6' wood ramp, and 6'X 20' wood float and two 8"
wood piles. Re-vegetate approx. 640 sq.ft seaward of new low-profile wall with
spartina altenaflora 18" on center. Re-vegetate sections of buffer area. Remove
the existing asphalt driveway. Located: 580 Basin Rd., Southold. SCTM#81-1-
16.7
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there. anyone here who would like to comment on this
application.
CATHERINE MESIANO: I'm Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant.
Where shall we start. This is our second hearing on this matter. There's been lots
of discussions and I think I would like to refer to Chapter 97 and point out that we
have followed your procedures of Chapter 97-24 outlining the processing of the
application, and I believe we have adhered to that and we've provided you with
all the documentation that which was exhausted. We're here tonight seeking a
decision on this matter. I would like to then refer to the standards in your Code,
97-28. 1 know that l don't have to read them to you but for the record, Trustees
may adopt a resolution directing issuance of a permit to perform operations
applied for only if it determines that such operations will not substantially,
adversely affect the wetlands of the Town. We believe that the project that we
are proposing has no adverse affect on the wetlands of the Town. The dwelling is
set back 75' from the bulkheaded wetlands. We've already to a 50' non-
disturbance buffer. We would of course (inaudible) and staked hay bales,.silt
fencing, and the installation of drywells for any run-off. So, we really don't think
the construction of the proposed improvements would have an adverse affect on
the wetlands. Certainly the repair of the existing bulkheading would not be a
detriment. From what we understand, it's to protect the wetlands and the
environment around it. The new bulkheading that we're proposing is certainly not
a detriment to the wetlands because we're seeking to minimize the erosion that is
currently taking place and stabilize the shoreline. Going on to article three,
u n I
t
41
cause damage from erosion turbidity and siltation, and again, I thought long and
hard about it I don't see where any of the actions that we're proposing could
cause damage, erosion, turbidity or siltation. Again, I've (inaudible) it certainly
Wouldn't be imposing salt water intrusion into the freshwater resources of the
Town. There could not possibly be an adverse affect on fish, shellfish or other
beneficial marine organisms, wildlife, vegetation, and the natural habitat thereof.
This land has been developed in a very environmentally conscious manner. As
far as the nature of the entire project, we're certainly not going to increase the
danger of flood and storm tide damage. We are certainly not going to affect or
have an adverse affect on navigation of tidal waters or the tidal flow of tidal
waters. We're not going to change the course of any channel. We're certainly
not going to weaken or undermine the lateral support of any other lands in the
vicinity. We don't believe we would adversely affect the health, safety, and
general welfare of the people of the Town of Southold. It's the construction of a
single-family dwelling and it's certainly a benign use especially considering the
setback, the buffers that we would use, the reinforcement of the existing
bulkheading, the construction of the proposed new bulkheading, the re-
vegetation of the wetland areas, the grading and selective pruning of the
shoreline area, and these are all actions that were discussed in great length and
at our site inspection where both the Trustees and the DEC, who at that time
were not only in favor of but encouraged us to proceed on our course of action
and we believe that we have met all of the standards that are in your Code and
we are here to request that you make a decision on this matter.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Would anyone else like to comment in favor of
the application? Would anyone like to comment on this application?
JAMES SPEISS: Good evening Mr. President, member of the Board, my name
is James Speiss. I'm a member of the firm, McNulty-Speiss, 633 East Main St.,
Riverhead, and I represent the Paradise Point Association, which is the
homeowner's association, the community in which this property is located. All 26
families in that community, except for one, namely the applicant, are members of
the association. The association has voted unanimously to, among other things,
oppose this application. The first thing I would like to do is point out that the
application as it's submitted requests approval for 10 specific items of
construction all related to the construction of a one-family residential dwelling on
the property. Five of those requested items propose work to be done in an area
in which the association has a deeded easement. That deeded easement,
according to the language in the deed is for free and unobstructed access to the
basin and canal shown on a certain map entitled Map of Section 9 of Paradise
Point at Bayview. The deed further indicates that the easement was specifically
for the construction and maintenance of bulkheads, cribs, jetties, docks, etc. and
for other purposes as are consistent with the constitution of this plaintiff, including
but not being limited to providing for the care and maintenance of the beaches,
waters, bulkheads, road, clubhouses, buildings, and all structures recreational
facilities. Another one of the requested items seeks to demolish an existing
roadway on the property that runs from the west end of the private road owned
by the association, called Basin Rd., in a northwesterly direction to the canal and
, t
r
i
42
the jetty. That roadway has been used by the association and it's members for
the past 40 years to obtain access to the canal and the jetty,.which was
constructed approximately 30 years ago. The association does not consent to
these improvements on its deeded easement area or it's descriptive easement
area, which is the roadway. The associations' permission was not sought for this
application nor if it was sought if wouldn't have been obtained. But, what I think
is more important than the issue of the easements, which as you now know is the
subject of a pending Supreme Court action in Riverhead, is the fact that this
application, I believe, contains a number of misstatements or misrepresentations
which impacts significantly on the merits of the application. The general data
section of the application indicates that the previous use of the property was a
vacant residential lot and we all know that this property is not now nor was it ever
a vacant residential lot. The short form environmental assessment portion of the
application indicates in paragraph 8 that the proposed action will comply with
existing zoning or other restrictions. As we now know by virtue of that Zoning
Board of Appeals determination back in 1995, this action will not comply with
those restrictions. Section 9 of that form indicates that the present use for the
property is residential. It's not residential and it's never been residential. In
paragraph 10 it states that the only other agencies that are.going to be involved
in this project are the Department of Environmental Conservation, the Health
Dept. and the Southold Building Dept. What is not mentioned in this application
is the fact that in 1995 in a similar application, the Zoning Board of Appeals of
this Town made a number of significant findings. Those findings have not been
disturbed to this day to appeal them or bring in an Article 78 proceeding has
expired. They run with the land and they have not changed. At that time the
Board found that the subject parcel.was not shown on the map, that's the map of
Paradise Point, as a building parcel. We also found that the subject parcel
already had an existing use of a private marina for the lot owners in the Paradise
Point Association. It also found that the existing private marina was "as-built"
with docks, bulkheads, parking areas and existing improved access extension
and easements for access to the jetty by lot owners and others using the private
marina as well as open accessibility to and around the entire perimeter of the lot.
The Board also felt at that time that the usable area for the already existing
marina and any proposed residential use was approximately 70,000 sq.ft. As a
result of those findings, the Board's position was that an undesirable change
would be produced by the grant of two principal uses on this subject parcel and
that the grant would create mixed uses for both a private marina, which had
existed for some time, and the residents for which 160,000 sq.ft. is required
under the Code. In closing, the Board stated that the proposal does not
adequately preserve and protect the character of the.neighborhood and the
health, safety and welfare of the immediate community. In a letter that was sent
to this Board before the last meeting, I enclosed a copy of that decision. In short,
this Town through the Zoning Board of Appeals has already determined that a
residential use is not permitted on this lot. Given that scenario, I think this Board
should ask itself the question of why is it being asked to approve ten specific
items of residential construction on a lot, of which residential use is not permitted.
43
This application is, in my opinion, an attempt to circumvent that Zoning Board of
Appeals decision. Chapter 97 of the Town Code requires that, and I believe Mr.
President you referenced this earlier on another application, 97-21J, in order for
the permit to be issued, documentary proof must be present that all necessary
permits and approvals have been obtained. We don't have that here. We have
documentary proof to the exact opposite. We also know that this Town has
recognized an existing private marina on that lot. This applicant, through this
application, is seeking to destroy that private marina and destroy the boating
rights of the 25 neighbors in this community. Boating rights that have existed,
recognizably existed, for 40 years. I urge you to give careful consideration on this
application. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just have one quick question. The question was raised
about the rights of the applicant to build something on this easement, like what's
been proposed, a low-profile retaining wall. Can you answer that for me because
I'm not quite clear on that?
JAMES SPEISS: Our position, and this is set forth in the Supreme Court action,
our position is that our easement rights, our deeded rights and our prescriptive
rights, are going to be irreparably harmed if this construction is allowed to
proceed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But I know but, they'll be harmed but is there any legal
back-up to say he can't do this?
JAMES SPEISS: Absolutely. If we have an easement, the purpose for which that
easement is created cannot be impinged upon.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But that didn't answer my question though. Is building,
and this is specific here, is building a low-profile retaining wall impinging on that
easement, and how?
JAMES SPEISS: We don't give consent to that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I'm looking for...do you have to?
JAMES SPEISS: If we have a deeded easement, don't you require consent to
the property owner before the improvement is taking place on that property?
ERIC BRESSLER: No, Mr. Chairman, you do not, provided that it doesn't
interfere,with their use of the easement. It's our position that we as the owner of
the underlying fee can do what we want. But that's a question for another day.
The question before you is have the environmental factors that this Board is
bound to consider been met by this project. If the answer to that is "yes", then
we respectfully submit that what ought to be done is that there ought to be an
approval subject to bringing you the other approvals that are necessary,
thereupon a permit will issue. It's seems to me that a lot of issues have been
raised that are somewhat similar to another matter that we heard tonight. That is,
the issue as to whether there is an easement. The issue as to whether or not
there are other approvals that are necessary. All of those issues can be decided
by the appropriate administrative agency and indeed in fact a Supreme Court
action was commenced, and Mr. Speiss says it has and I'm sure it has, the
Supreme Court will decide whatever issues are before it. Whether or not the
Supreme Court rules on those claims in favor of Ms. Zupa or Mr. Speiss' clients
remains to be seen. But the environmental issues, Mr. President, as you pointed
44
out, are the issues before this Board. What about the dock, what about the
environmental impacts? Now let's consider the Zoning Board for a minute. In
order to get a permit, assuming we get an approval from this Board that tells us
to come back with the rest of our approvals, we have to go to the Building Dept.,
and that's why that was listed on the application. If the Building Dept. tells us
"yes", we don't have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. If the Building Dept.
tells us "no", then we have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. If we go to the
Zoning Board of Appeals, it is my opinion that the instant application is different
than that which was before the Zoning Board of Appeals before, which sought
variances. We are seeking those things. That's a different set of facts for the
Zoning Board of Appeals to consider. That remains to be seen. Whether there
are two uses or not is something that remains to be seen and to be decided
under the Zoning.Board of Appeals standards.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think they already made that decision didn't they?
ERIC BRESSLER: They made the decision on whether or not to grant a
variance. If we are denied by the Building Dept., then we will go to the Zoning
Board of Appeals on a different set of facts and ask among other things, for a
variance. If you read the decision closely, and I invite you to do so outside your
official capacity, because I don't think it's relevant, and if you read it in your
official capacity, you will see that the holding of the Zoning Board of Appeals was
based on the factual circumstances before it. The applicant was not willing to
make changes with respect to setbacks. Would the Zoning Board of Appeals
grant a variance on a different set of facts before it on setbacks that were
conforming? There is every reason to believe that at least they would consider it.
A Zoning Board of Appeals decision on one set of facts before,it to grant a
variance is not determinative of the issue as a matter of law. Therefore, what
they will do with it, or not do with it, is irrelevant here. As a practical matter, if you
grant what we're asking for, and you make us come back to you with their
approval, and we don't get it, what difference does it make, it's no harm no foul
as far as this Board is concerned. We didn't do what you asked us to do and we
don't have a permit. Now, if you grant us what we want, and you attached the "J"
condition to it, then we can go onto the next Board and tell them we've passed
the environmental review and we're ready to fight this out in another forum. The
Zoning Board of Appeals upon request from my client, issued a letter, which I'm
sure the Board is aware of, that said, by all means, go to the Trustees and get
whatever preliminary approvals you can get, go to the Building Dept. and if
necessary, come to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Do it in an organized
progression and if the environmental issues are sound, then deal with the zoning
issues. This is not to concede any of the points that have been raised by Mr.
Speiss: We don't think they are valid. We think we will get our permits. But, we
ask you here to give us what we need environmentally and let us move on to the
next step and we'll come back to you, if, as, and when, we have the rest of the
approvals, and we'll move along down the road. That's our application and I
hope I've answered your questions.
T
45
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I just have one more 97-21 J documentary proof, like Mr.
Speiss just said, that all other necessary permits and approvals have been
obtained. What do we do with that?
ERIC BRESSLER: What you do with it is you make a determination that we have
passed the environmental review of this Board and tell us that a permit will issue
upon satisfying that condition, which we will do.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't read it that way. Is that what it means?
ERIC BRESSLER: That's what it means because otherwise we have the chicken
and the egg and nobody wants to go first. That cannot be.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You're asking us to go first.
ERIC BRESSLER: This was the case with Mr. Horstmann. We'll come back to
you. When we get the approvals from everybody, we'll come back to you.
You've lost nothing and we know we passed the environmental standard. If we
never get started, we never get finished. If we make an application to the Building
Dept., they're going to send us over here. Mr. Goehringer makes it clear that we
need an approval at least in principle from this Board.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Alright, I'm going to have to change the subject a little
here, we received a plan on August 15th, a detailed plan for the stabilization of
the boat basin, and I wish I had the old file with me here for Paradise Point
because I know one of the conditions of a previously maintenance dredging
permit was that the area inside the basin be stabilized because part of the
problem was constant need of maintenance dredging of the channel and the
basin itself, was because of erosion from the upland.
CATHERINE MESIANO: Al, excuse me, was it 1995 or was it the year 2000? 1
just happen to have it. What else would you like?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. So there is some sort of an acknowledged
problem of erosion here, which we have obviously issued permits for to
remediate. It's obvious, when you look at the survey, that there's an area that,
the easement area, that's been eroded into the basin. The upland has eroded
into the basin.
JAMES SPEISS: A portion of it, yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now, I'm not commenting on whether the easement exists,
where it exists, how it exists, at what elevation exists, I'm just saying it has
eroded. I would doubt that when the easement was granted, they drew it like it
was in its' present condition.
ERIC BRESSLER: It changed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The elevation has changed in the easement, correct?
JAMES SPEISS: I don't know. I've seen the survey but I haven't seen what it
looked like when it was drawn. ,
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This Board is going to assume from its' past experience of
this, that this boat basin has eroded, the edge of it. Now, we met with the
applicants on site, and I believe it was two months ago, and we discussed, and
we met with the NYSDEC, as we discussed about stabilization of the basin. One
of the...two purposes, one of course is to protect the upland and two, is to
prevent erosion into the boat basin, which increases the need for maintenance
dredging. I don't know, and I asked Jim this, and he agreed with me, and I'm
46
going to ask Ken and Peggy and Artie, what we discussed is different from what
was submitted. Didn't we discuss a low-profile retaining wall here and no
structure here?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes.
CATHERINE MESIANO: When he drew this low-profile, low-sill bulkhead
retaining wall, (inaudible) to where the erosion had occurred and they moved the
structure here to (inaudible). That was a 52' length in this area to hold back the
erosion because of this. This was the area of the low-sill bulkhead. That's fine, if
that's what you want, we'll provide it. The low-sill bulkhead, we have the cross-
section and that was an error and that was the 52' length that we have measured
off the back corner.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just for the record, the purpose of the low-sill bulkhead is
to stabilize the upland. In fact it actually gives you the opportunity to create an
inter-tidal marsh behind it to stabilize the upland and dredge in front of it. You
basically are trying to accommodate all your navigational and environmental and
erosion concerns. You requested it here because there's a lot of erosion back
here.
CATHERINE MESIANO: I'll have the drawing that reflects that and I apologize
for the error.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're not going to make a decision on this easement
issue because nobody seems to agree. We can't make a decision on the
environmental issue, which is what we're really interested in here because we
don't have plans that reflect what this Board was inclined to approve.However, I
would really want to encourage everyone to work out this easement issue in the
meantime, while we're getting these plans, because it seems to be an important
issue to everyone.
JAMES SPEISS: I agree. It's a very important issue. But I don't know how it's
going to be worked out. The applicant has made it very clear that his position, or
her,position is that this easement doesn't exist, whether it's eroded away or lost
or terminated or abandoned or something. I mean, there's plenty of
correspondence to this Board and other agencies in the Town that say that. That
was the reason we had to commence the action. So, I admire your concerns and
I appreciate your advise but as I stand here before you tonight, I don't know how
it's going to be worked out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well I'm going to make a motion to Table the application.
BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Can you ask him what his position is on the
easement just for the record?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Certainly. We want to know what the applicant's position
of the easement is and how ... I mean...environmentally to us, it's important and
I thought it was really clear in the last permit that this basin be stabilized because
the environmental effects of more frequent dredging operations and I think that's
one of the key issues that should be, environmentally, that should be worked out,
is who has the right to control the erosion inside the basin that happens to be on
the easement area? Okay? I mean it doesn't matter. But, it happens to be on
that easement area.
JAMES SPEISS: Weren't those previous permits issued to the association?
47
TRUSTEE KRUPKSI: Correct.
ERIC BRESSLER: They have the obligation, which they've not met, but we have
the.right as the serviette owner to protect our property so long as it does not
impinge unreasonably on their use. So while they may have the obligation, they
didn't meet it, we have the right. That's our position and I think that's a fair
statement of the law and we certainly appreciate the Board's urging us to try to
work it out and we will do so. If you're talking about the easement that runs
smack-dab to the middle of our property, tough problem. But, we'll take a shot at
it. If you're talking about the deeded easement, that's something we can deal
with and we'll certainly do so and any plans you need will certainly be provided.
JAMES SPEISS: This plan that was just being discussed up there at the table,
I'm told is part of the application. I had not seen it before this evening.
CATHERINE MESIANO: I submitted it on'the 15cn
JAMES SPEISS: But, it indicates something that I did not notice in the previous
version of the application that I looked at, and that is, work to be done at the jetty.
That jetty is not part of this parcel of property. It's not included in the meets and
bounds description. In fact, that jetty was deeded to the association at the same
time it received the easement. So, what I notice in this plan is that there is a note
to re-vegetate this area with native grasses and the tie-line that is in the survey,
that I saw that was part of this application is missing from this map. That was the
survey that was done in January of 2002.
ERIC BRESSLER: Mr. President, our position on that is very simple. We've got a
deed to it and we intend environmentally to re-vegetate it. If we slug this thing
out as to who owns it, we can slug it out, but if it passes environmental review,
we think re-vegetation is probably a good thing and if we slug it out who owns it,
then we can slug that out. But, we're asking for the environmental review to
determine that re-vegetation is a good thing.
JAMES SPEISS: But, you're talking about re-vegetation of someone else's
property.
ERIC BRESSLER: No we're not.
CATHERINE MESIANO: On the inspection the re-vegetation was recommended
by the Trustees because there is erosion occurring there. There is nothing
holding in the sand between the two sections of the jetty and it was
recommended by the Trustees as an environmental concern.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
ERIC BRESSLER: So, Mr. President, where does that leave us tonight.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're waiting for plans. We're going to Table the
application until next month, but I'm going to let this lady speak.
ANDREA KOLYIER: I have a couple of things to say. One, as a neighbor, and as
this ongoing controversy is going on, if they had a deed, they surely should of
shared it with us so we possibly could've worked something out or seeing if they
do own it or whether we own it or what. I have not seen that after all of this time
and I would like to see that because that could answer a lot of questions. That's
one. Number two, the constitution of Paradise Point Association says, and this is
our constitution, article section 1, the purpose for which the corporation is formed
is as follows: to provide for the care and maintenance of the beaches, waters,
48
bulkheads, roads, clubhouse, buildings or other structures and other recreational
facilities, etc. and I believe that there are two sides to every situation.and they
are saying that the association did not maintain these but the sellers of that
property apparently had some controversy and we had a gentleman after our
special meeting last week and one of the sellers came to my husband, our
house, and told us that he actually had a personal strife with someone in the
association and he was using this issue to play that out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't want to cut you short but this is not really of any
interest to the Board about somebody's personal problem with an association
member.
ANDREA KOLYIER: But the association tried to take care of the basin and they
couldn't work it out with the people. That's all I'm just saying. Okay? I was going
to read the 24 families that voted at our meeting to.preserve the rights of the
association, but I'm not going.to do that. I'll just tell you that there are 24.
CATHERINE MESIANO: My one fear is that by your not making a determination,
we're facing the bulkhead, (inaudible) subject to further degradation areas, which
would certainly create those negative impacts that we discussed earlier and I'm
just concerned that as time goes on, more of those negative impacts are going to
occur and so I urge the Board to make a determination on those issues, which
you can make a determination on. That 54' length of low-sill retaining wall literally
does not impact the construction of the dwelling nor does the replacement of the
bulkhead along the bay and the bulkhead on the canal. The re-vegetation in the
other areas, preservation of the bank, if there is one issue that your waiting for,
you can certainly decide around that and keep that issue alive, because I fear
that delay in this is causing further degradation to the situation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI.: You people don't need us to make a decision. You don't
need a judge in Riverhead either to work this out.
CATHERINE MESIANO: I have to say that the issue of the easement is not
before this Board as the attorneys have discussed and you've done your
environmental review. We've come before you many times and if the drawing is
sufficient, you can make a determination subject to my presentation of the Board,
of those details, and I see this as being no different. So, I clearly want to close
the hearing because we want to move on. We've been talking about it on and on
and you've done your job.
JAMES SPEISS: You are being asked to look at this application with blinders on
and I don't think it's right to ask you to do that. The standards that were read
verbatim;the last one was kind of glossed over quickly, and it talks about you
being able to take into consideration matters that adversely affect the health,
safety, and general welfare of the people of this Town. I represent 25 landowners
that are going to be adversely affected by this application. We tried to make that
clear to you. Chapter 97 requires an applicant to come forward with documentary
proof that all other requirements have been complied with. We don't have that.
To the contrary, you have documentary proof that says that this application
should not be granted. Thank you.
STEVE PERRICONE: I live in Paradise Point. This lady is saying that these
people should go ahead and put the bulkhead-up because it's deteriorating. Well.
- 1
1
49
I swim there everyday back and forth, and I've watched this very closely, even in
the winter I walk down there everyday. It doesn't deteriorate that quick. It takes
years to deteriorate it. I've watched it for the last eight years. It doesn't
deteriorate within the month, or two months. So, to Table this application might
be a good idea. From what I understand, the application is asking for a floating
dock, 8" poles, in the marina. Now, I just heard you say something about not
allowing this on the bay side, and it being the same condition in the marina areas
of the Town, then here is seems to be a double standard. If you want to approve
that here and not for the other gentleman that asked for it, then there seems to
be a double standard. Now, I think you should really think about this and let
them get all the other papers together, and all our other permits, and then come
back here and see if they can meet your requirements, environmental
requirements. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One question about the dock, it says, replace the existing
dock, ramp and float with new 4'X 25' dock, 3'X 16' ramp and 6'X 20' float. That
just makes me curious. Why would you want to replace it? It's existing.
CATHERINE MESIANO: That does not belong to the Zupas and they are not
claiming it (inaudible). Our preference is to have the dock offset in the area near
the low-sill retaining wall.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But my question is, and I guess it's more of a rhetorical
question, is how...whose dock is it.
JAMES SPEISS: The association's dock.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it doesn't have a permit.
JAMES SPEISS: I didn't say it did. I just said it's the associations.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But the association actually owns the dock?
JAMES SPEISS: The association put the dock in, I'm told.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: How long ago?
JAMES SPEISS: About 30 years ago.
ERIC BRESSLER: All we're talking about is 1995 with no permit.
STEVE PERRICONE: 1968, 1 remember working with Pat Carrig and Tom
Taggert. I owned a fence company and we used to install docks and floating
docks. We did work in that marina installing docks and floating docks. That was
1968. Those docks.were existing prior to us working there.
ERIC BRESSLER: There seems to be some confusion about the dock. The one
were talking about is 1995 and we've seen the construction contract and that's
the one we're talking about.
NEIGHBOR: It was fixed in 1995.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Nothing has a permit there. That's why it's curious.
STEVE PERRICONE: The marina floating docks and maybe the existing posts
now, they were on 2 '/2" pipe, fence pipe, but I don't think they needed permits
because these have been existing, from what I understand, and I saw them
myself in 1968, and they were prior to 1968 at least 15 years. So, they didn't
need permits at that time, from what I understand.
ERIC BRESSLER: It's our position you've,always needed permits for that bottom.
50
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm going to make a motion to Table the application until
we get new drawings and I'm going to urge all of the members of a place called
Paradise Point to really try to re-evaluate what is going on.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
18. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of SCHEMBRI HOMES, INC. requests a
Wetland Permit for clearing and grading required for the construction of a 48'X
54' single-family dwelling with attached garage, pervious driveway and on-site
sewage disposal system. Located: E/s Shore Lane, Peconic. SCTM#86-1-4.10
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of this
application.
CATHERINE MESIANO: Earlier in this meeting, you stressed a concept that I
would like to point out and that is consistency. You consistently talk about
structures being setback 75' and a 50' non-disturbance buffer. I understand we're
looking for a 75' non-disturbance buffer and we have a problem with that
because that's not consistent with your current decisions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's it? Is there any other comment before we start? We
are being consistent in this because this was a subdivision that was laid out in....
CATHERINE MESIANO: 1981.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 1981, thank you.
CATHERINE MESIANO: Oh, I'm sorry, 1979.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh okay, 1979. This was a subdivision that was laid out a
long time ago. We're trying to be consistent and if you notice, across the creek
there was a subdivision that was laid out more recently. The homes on that, right
across the creek, received 75' non-disturbance buffers.
CATHERINE MESIANO: What are the sizes of those lots.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Off hand, I don't know.
CATHERINE MESIANO: What are the open space considerations that were
given to that subdivision.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That doesn't matter. The open space wasn't going to have
an effect on the estuary.
CATHERINE MESIANO: I ask that because when a subdivision is clustered and .
the open space is granted, it does have an effect because that goes to
preservation of a wildlife migration corridors (changed tape) that was granted
with open space considerations and was (noise) of the subdivision that your
talking about and while you had to make those decisions on the other side of the
creek, I don't think the issues are the same.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh, the conditions are much worse on this side because
the density of development is much greater and that really I think, if it's our
responsibility to have to react to something, that's why we're here. We're here to
make recommendations and to react to things that could affect, in this case,
Richmond Creek. I don't see how a 75' non-disturbance buffer is a problem here.
CATHERINE MESIANO: I see it as a problem because it does cause a
degradation of property values and that's a serious concern to us and since the
50' buffer is (noise) to create a subdivision and open space that is there, I think
offset the difference between a 75' and 50' buffer.
i
51
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The open space that's there?
CATHERINE MESIANO: Pete, would you like-to describe the degree of open
space that's in that subdivision?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The reserved area, I might add, is very small. Who owns
the reserved area?
PETE SCHEMBRI: It will be part of the association.
CATHERINE MESIANO: Have you deeded it to the association or is it still
(inaudible).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't how the rest of the Board feels.
PETE SCHEMBRI: I don't have a problem working it out, it's just that some lots
are only 150', 160' deep. The Town designed this. I didn't design it. The
engineers for the Town, when I first came up the concept, they felt that this
reserved area was enough area to buffer these homes. Apparently now things
change and you want to get more of a buffer area so I'm more than willing to do
that. When we met out in the field, we talked about maintaining the buffer and all
three of these houses we've designed to meet that 50' buffer. Now you want a
75' buffer, as Cathy told me on the phone yesterday. So, you required me to plot
and show you exactly what we want to build after we had the meeting in the field
months ago.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When was the meeting? I don't remember meeting in the
field with a 50' buffer. I always remember a 75 buffer. In fact, at one point...
TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's why we had the meeting in the field.
TRUSTE KRUPSKI: We wanted the applicant to put up a fence. On new
subdivisions...
PETE SCHEMBRI: Artie mentioned that a 50' buffer on these lots would be
appropriate because the lots across the way, and I don't know nothing about the
lots across the way, were doubled the size. The houses that you build with the
setbacks on a half acre lot are much different than an acre to two acre parcel. It's
very hard to say that you're not going to encroach. I'm willing to do whatever we
have to, to make it work. I just don't want people to walk out their door and have
to stop 2' from their step. I don't think it's right. I don't think when they designed
the subdivision it was meant to be that way. It's like saying you can't put a picnic
table in your backyard. You can't do anything. I don't think that's right. The lots
aren't that big.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But, the lots aren't that big, okay, absolutely, but the house
doesn't have to be that big. So, you would have a bigger backyard if you had a
smaller house. You can move things around, then you can put that picnic table
in there. I'm trying to be flexible and fair. I think we were flexible on the fence.
What do you think Peggy?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I wasn't here for the first field inspection.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I remember mentioning 50' and I remember getting shot in
the foot. But I do also remember our discussion,about leaving it the way it was,
and having the homeowner come in individually and dealing with all three lots
individually with the homeowner. Do you remember that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I do remember that.
fig
52
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I was in favor of a little relief, personally, but that was what
the Board came up with and as a matter of fact, Henry was still on the Board then
and ...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The problem we're having is that you're all well intentioned
and you're going to build a house and it's going to have a buffer, whatever it's
supposed to be, and that's going to be it. But, you're going to sell to somebody,
and we just had this tonight with this"poor guy in Mattituck, and he bought a pig in
a poke, and he says he doesn't even know it. He's.got a house and he can't
have turf on it. He can't have a sprinkler system and he can't have a deck in the
backyard.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: And, he's got them all.
PETE SCHEMBRI: Everybody that we're going to build for is aware of that
anything they want to do in the yard, they'll have to come back here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But, if we deal with them, then we get to deal with them.
It's got nothing to do with you really.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's a matter of having somebody accountable.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not that we're questioning you because you're going to
build it and it's going to be right and you're going to sell .it. But then we have to
deal with the next guy who is going to come in and he's going to say, like the
woman on the North Rd., she said, when the Bay Constable came, she hollered
and her husband and said, "I told you not to take it all out at once." We want to
avoid that.
PETE SCHEMBRI: I understand but all I'm saying is that if we had, when they
designed the subdivision, of the previous Board that was doing the planning, and
they were conforming to a 75' setback, they wouldn't have designed it like this. It
would've been designed differently. We have to work with what we have. This
isn't what we want to work with, this is what we have. It's existing. I just want
people to be able to walk out their door.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They can come back to us and appeal to us. Artie is right.
That's fair. Then, they have to.come before us and then we can go out and look
at it and see what their needs are. We'll leave that in the permit. We'll say that
any disturbance, you're more than welcome in to the Board to appeal the 75' if
you feel you think that's necessary.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is that reserved area behind each lot on the creek side?
CATHERINE MESIANO: It runs along the whole creek. None of the properties
run to the creek.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I would like to see a contingency, when you sell those,
we can work something out here, one of the contingencies being that there will
be no structure placed in there, such as docks. It's reserved.
PETE SCHEMBRI: Everybody knows that it's part of the association. I told
everybody in the whole subdivision, (talking).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm still for that. Then, you're of the hook. You tell them
"hey, you wanted something else, you can go and talk to the Board", and that
way it's clear with them, and the property owners are not on your back.
53
CATHERINE MESIANO: There is one in particular that I would like you to just be
a little flexible on. On Lot #11, that's very tight. It's really unreasonable. There is
a number between 50' and 75'
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But they can come in.
CATHERINE MESIANO: But there is nothing there, Al. There is something
between 50' and 75' that everybody can live with. The house is 76' from the
edge of the wetlands. That's unreasonable for you to impose a 75' no-
disturbance buffer when the corner of the house is 76'.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, you're looking at it from the corner of the house.
We're looking at it from the wetlands. We're looking at it from opposite sides of
the property here and we make...
CATHERINE MESIANO: Wouldn't it be preferable to have a managed area
rather than a trampled on area?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We make people go to the ZBA to move the house closer
to the road so they can squeeze a house on a piece of property and still meet out
setbacks. That was this year, two houses, we made them to go the ZBA.
CATHERINE MESIANO: That's an'extreme measure. But at some point between
50' and 75' is reasonable and I think having a 75' non-disturbance one foot off
the back of the house is an unreasonable request.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But that's the proposed house. We didn't propose the
house. That's not our house. We didn't say put the house there and then say...
CATHERINE MESIANO: The house is not excessive in size.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: My point is, we didn't say, put the house there and now
there's a buffer.
CATHERINE MESIANO: Based on your consistency and your 50' determination,
it was reasonable for the developer to propose this and provide a site plan like
this because it's standard operating procedure that this Board gives 50' non-
disturbance buffers and 75' setbacks. The other two houses are more than 100'
from the wetlands. We're just looking for a backyard. The houses are not even
within your jurisdiction. We're just coming to you to be able to have something of
a backyard. Lot#11, with a non-disturbance area is right outside the back of the
house.
PETE SCHEMBRI: If I though it was going to be more than 50' 1 would've put
something else there. We thought it was 50'.
CATHERINE MESIANO: To get on the ZBA's calendar is a five-month ordeal.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're not suggesting that.
CATHERINE MESIANO: You just did.
TRUSTEE KRUPKKI: No, I said we've made other people do that this year.
CATHERINE MESIANO: But I think that there's a number somewhere between
50' and 25' that's not going to cause total degradation of the Peconic Bay
Estuary system. Call it non-fertilizer dependent vegetation. Call it drought
resistant vegetation. Call it something else but I think it's reasonable for a person
buying a house to be able to walk out the back door. For#11, it's unreasonable
and I.wouldn't push it if I didn't think it was unreasonable.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: To be reasonable Al, I would say everything over 6" in
diameter has to stay in that 75'.
54
CATHERINE MESIANO: That's fine.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The 25' they maybe rake it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For Lot#11, you're talking about 25' of non-turf.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes, natural.
CATHERINE MESIANO: So, we can clear out the underbrush and leave
anything over a 6" diameter and put in mulch. (talking) I don't have a problem
with that. (talking) I like that idea.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let's make a motion on the first one then.
CATHERINE MESIANO: I would like you to re-visit the issue and Ken's
suggestion is more than reasonable and more than workable that we give you a
50' non-disturbance buffer and a 25' non-turf area with no clearing of anything
over 6" with hay bales at the set back line prior to any disturbance.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On which lot?
CATHERINE MESIANO: Number ten. You most likely won't see the next owner if
we can accomplish that.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: How many feet do you have between the buffer (noise).
CATHERINE MESIANO: Number ten has, it looks like 25' to 30' from the edge of
the wetlands to the property line.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No, I mean from the 50' buffer mark.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On 11 or 10?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: For each one actually.
CATHERINE MESIANO: On Lot#10, we maintained 104' from the nearest point
of the house to the edge of the wetlands. (talking) Non-turf to 25', hay bales with
minimal disturbance and a 50' non-disturbance buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On 10?
CATHERINE MESIANO: On 10.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can we get a fence with that?
CATHERINE MESIANO: Where do you want it? Do you want it at 50?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 50'.
TRUSTEES: Split rail.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On 10, 11 & 12.
CATHERINE MESIANO: Fine, we'll give you a split-rail fence at 50'.
PETE SCHEMBRI: (inaudible)
CATHERINE MESIANO: You can brush-hog anything up to 6" and at 50' you put
a split-rail fence across the back, and it's non-turf 25' landward.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They can plant anything they want, but it can't be lawn.
They can plant a garden, flowers...
PETE SCHEMBRI: So, 25' from the fence, that's what I got to tell them.
CATHERINE MESIANO: 25' from the fence is a non-turf area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion for lot 10, 11 & 12 to Approve and that
there be a non-disturbance buffer at 50', that there be a split-rail fence placed at
the 50' line for the three lots, that there be 25' of non-turf buffer on the west side
of the fence, and that the reserved area be deeded to the association.
i
55
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: One stipulation,.the fence be placed in before any
brush-hogging ...
CATHERINE MESIANO: But how do we get there.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Well get the surveyor to ...
CATHERINE MESIANO: We have to get through to ba able to get in there.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You'll.have to stake the line so they don't go crazy.
CATHERINE MESIANO: You'll have to cut a path through, have Joe go stake the
50' line, run the brush-hog through at that point, and then basically put in
(inaudible) and then you can clear landward of that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
19. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of SCHEMBRI HOMES, INC. requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a 51'X 61' single-family dwelling and on-site sewage
disposal system, and maintain a 50' buffer area landward of the edge of wetland.
Located: E/s Shore Lane, Peconic. SCTM#86-1-4.11
SEE PUBLIC HEARING #18
20. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of SCHEMBRI HOMES, INC. requests a
Wetland Permit for clearing and grading required for the construction of a 59'X
75' single-family dwelling with attached garage, driveway and on-site sewage
disposal system. Located: E/s Shore Lane, Peconic. SCTM#86-1-4.12
SEE PUBLIC HEARING #19
21. 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 KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the
application?
JIM FITZGERALD: (noise) and there is plenty of it there. The architect is here but
he had to go back to the Big Apple tonight but before she goes I would like her to
(inaudible)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would be happy to. If I may first, can I give a copy to the
neighbor, who is concerned about it, and I just want to make it clear that we're
going to have to have this staked when we look at it next month. This way, you'll
see it.
ARCHITECT: We significantly reduced the amount of fill. The fill is basically
where we have to have it, just to cover the septic system, otherwise it's left quite
natural. We got rid of the garage, basically the garage will have to be
underneath the house. That's basically it.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What's the square footage of the house?
ARCHITECT: The square foot is about 1200 sq.ft.
NEIGHBOR: Has the house been moved?
ARCHITECT: We had to move it away from the cranberry bog.
NEIGHBOR: How far did you move it?
ARCHITECT: 50'.
56
NEIGHBOR: Well one question I have it, at a previous hearing, I believe you
asked on the original drawing why there was only a 40' setback. I believe Mr.
Fitzgerald mentioned that they had a variance. I checked with the Town and they
do have a variance. However, the variance is very specific. The variance states,
Resolved, to grant a variance in the matter of the application of Constantine
Georgiapolis subject to the following conditions; 1) that the dwelling be located as
shown on the survey by Robert Van Tuyl dated 7110189, and be no closer than 40'
as closest point to Lake Dr., that there be a division of tax map lots 21 & 26 into
separate and distinct parcels. This is the survey of Robert VanTuyl and the
house is specifically located a distance from the property on either side and this
is the copy of the variance that was issued by the Southold Town Board of
Appeals. So, you can't move the house under that variance.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we're going to have to review it next month in the
field. I can't see where it's been moved, really, if you look at both maps.
NEIGHBOR: She said it was moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think she said it was moved from the last submission.
NEIGHBOR: From what?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: From what they originally proposed, it was moved.
NEIGHBOR: That survey you see is not their submission. That's an entirely
different survey.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But I think it's pretty consistent.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: What about the division of the two lots?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well they are straddling. Take a look.
NEIGHBOR: I have some pictures here also to show you where the lot is flagged.
Reference the blue marks by the flagging of the cranberry bog and the white
stake is the edge of his property line. It shows you the cranberry bog as it
normally is, underwater.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. Can we keep the photographs?
NEIGHBOR: Yes, you can keep the photographs.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What we're going to do though is, were going to review
this next month in the field. It's going to be staked and we're going to take a.look.
at it.
NEIGHBOR: My point is, the cranberry bog is there, it's a definite wetland and on
a previous hearing, two of you Board members that were sitting over here, they
had recommended a 75' buffer. If you go 75' from that cranberry bog, I don't
know if you can stay within the restrictions.
JIM FITZGERALD: And we couldn't get a 100' but the Board said a 50' buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well it's staked so we can get a look at it in the field. It's
easier to see it in the field to see what it looks like. I'll make a motion to Table
the application.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
22. 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
57
at south end of bulkhead at grade, 9'+/- overall length. Located: Windy Point
Lane, Southold. SCTM#87-4-4
POSTPONED AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST
23. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of SALVATORE GUERRERA requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling with on-site sewage disposal
system and public water. Construct a 4'X 220' fixed walkway and dock, overall
length, and a mooring pile 20' out from the seaward end of the dock. Located:
1450 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#122-4-44.6
POSTPONED UNTIL SEPTEMBER AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST
24. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of RYCK KOKE requests a Wetland Permit to
replace (within 18") approx. 185 linear ft. of existing timber bulkhead and truck in
approximately 40 cy. of clean sand fill from an upland source to be used as
backfill. Remove and replace (in-kind) an existing 5'X 50' wood deck and 4'X 5'
cantilevered platform (in same positions relative to new bulkhead). Located: 245
Kimberly Lane, Southold. SCTM#70-13-20.2
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this and Mr. Koke was in earlier. It's pretty
straight-forward. I believe there was an agreement that we'll allow him to use
CCA sheathing behind what's,existing and allow him to go in front using C-Loc
within 18" and there will either be a 12' non-disturbance/non-turf buffer behind
the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: How much of a buffer?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think he showed on his plan a 12' buffer. 12' is fine with
me.
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 with those
stipulations and a 12' non-turf buffer.
25. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of DONNA BLANCHARD requests a Wetland
Permit to excavate approx. 14 cy. of upland material behind existing bulkhead;
remove existing bulkhead and returns; and construct (5' landward of former
bulkhead) approx. 15 linear ft. of new bulkhead and 5' southerly return, to be
backfilled with excavated upland material. Construct off new bulkhead a 3'X 10,
hinged ramp and 6'X 12' float to be secured with (2) 8" diameter pilings. Backfill
area will be planted with Ammophila breviligulata (18" on center) and excess
excavation material will be trucked away to an approved upland site. Located:
50 Budds Pond Rd., Southold. SCTM#56-5-21
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this one and I think everyone is familiar with
it. I don't anyone had a problem with it. As it's written, I don't have a problem
with it. 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 a 10'
non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
a 1
58
26. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of STRONG'S MARINE requests a Wetland
Permit to restore non-disturbance buffer adjacent to tidal wetlands by removing
parking materials; planting with native vegetation; and establishing earthen curb
and gravel-lined swale. Located: Camp Mineola Rd., Mattituck. SCTM#122-9-
3&6.2 & 122-4-44.2
POSTPONED UNTIL SEPTEMBER AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST
27. 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
sf. portion on the existing driveway located within the proposed buffer area.
Located: 1800 Cedar Beach Rd., Southold. SCTM#89-2-3
POSTPONED UNTIL SEPTEMBER AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST
28. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of DEBRA COADY requests a Wetland Permit to
remove existing "seasonal" dock and construct in the same-location a
"permanent" fixed timber dock consisting of a 4'X 89' fixed catwalk, 3'X 14' ramp
and 6'X 20' float to be secured by (4) 8" diameter pilings, and install (2) two-pile
dolphins. Float and ramp will continue to be removed seasonally. Located: 2625
Oak Ave., Southold. SCTM#77-1-1
POSTPONED UNTIL SEPTEMBER AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST
TRUSTEE KING moved to go off the Public Hearings and go back to the Regular
Meeting, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES
V. RESOLUTIONS:
1. Board to set the scallop season.
Moved by TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded by TRUSTEE FOSTER to open the
following dates to scallop harvesting.
From Monday, October 7, 2002 from sunrise to sunset through Sunday, October
20, 2002 inclusive, dip net or scalp net is permitted for non-commercial scallop
harvesting only.
From Monday, October 21, 2002 from sunrise to sunset through Monday, March
31, 2003 incl.usive, all gear permitted pursuant to Chapter 77 (shellfish) of the
Code of the Town of Southold is permitted. ALL AYES
. r
59
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned
at 12:30 AM.
Respectfully submitted by,
(79 -n -M----J-t 49k,
Lauren M. Standish, Senior Clerk
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED
!? ,Z41N
OCT I I1 2002
thold Town CI rk