HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-01/22/2003Albert J. Krupski, President
James King, Vice-President
Artie Foster
Ken Poliwoda
Peggy A. Dickerson
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-1366
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
· TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MINUTES
January 22, 2003
7:00 PM
PRESENT WERE:
Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President
James King, Vice-President
Artie Foster, Trustee (Absent)
Ken Poliwoda, Trustee
Peggy Dickerson, Trustee
E. Brownell Johnston, Esq.
Charlotte Cunningham, Clerk'
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I will start the Meeting with a little bad news for some people.
We had ever intention tonight acting on a number of applications because we did not
believe that the Moratorium would be in affect until the end of January. We got - this is
our official notice from the Town Attorney that we got after four o'clock tonight. So this
is very last minute and a lot of people came out tonight unnecessarily. I apologize to
everyone. But this is what we got after four o'clock tonight. Right now it affects any
applications that maybe before you today. So we are going to send some people home
unhappy and I apologize for that. That was not our intention. So we will go through the
Agenda and will let everyone know whom that is going to affect. There will be no public
hearings on that matter tonight.
Number 10
Number 12
Number 21
Number 23
Number 25
Number 26
Number 28
Number 31
Number 32
Number 33
Number 36
Number 37
Number 39
Number 41
Number 43
Crowley Marine Construction on behalf of Kevore & Janet Demirciyan
that would have to go under SEGRA and that would be held offuntil next
month anyway. The one previous to that Fitzgerald is simply moving an
existing dock. So that we can act on that tonight. As we go through there
are a few that have been postponed by the applicant's request.
Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of Larry Severini -
Postponed by Agent's Request.
David Corwin on behalf of David Edelstein/Libby Goldstein. That
requires State Environmental Quality Review Act. We would not have
acted on that tonight,
Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of Grace Kehle
Glenn Just/JMO Consulting on behalf of Katharine R. Sturgis - Fisher's
Island.
Glenn Just/JMO Consulting on behalf of Christopher Pia is Postponed by
Agent's Request.
Docko, Inc. on behalf of Joseph Pendergast - Fisher's Island.
Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of Joanna & Dennis Lane.
Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of Thomas Luniewski
David Schultz
John J. Hurtado
Glenn F. Heidtmann, Jr. has been Postponed at the Owner's Request.
En-Consultants on behalf of Diana J. Fischer
En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Maria Vamport Giocoli
En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Broadblue, LLC.
Again we apologize to those applicants who had come out tonight on this pleasant
evening and are disappointed because of the last minute notification to us by the Town
Attorney
PATRICIA C. MOORE, ESQ.: If we could have a moment to speak and state our
objections.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You certainly can.. ~
PATRICIA C. MOORE: Thank you, Patricia Moore on behalf of Joanna & Dennis Lane.
This was one that was heard more than two months ago. The Board failed under SEQRA
to under take the SEQRA review immediately. Which pushed us into tonight. The Board
was under the impression that you could act on applications that were delayed due to
revisions that were made at your request. Here we are tonight that you are penalizing
applicants this one and many others. This evening based upon the Board's actions and I
wish to be placed on the record objecting to that. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To answer you on that application. That one application that you
mentioned because that was delayed at the Board's request. We are going to try to find a
way to act on that. In the meantime.
PATRICIA C. MOORE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This was so last minute. We really did not have time to make
any adjustments. We want to act within the law obviously. However we do want to
accommodate people who have been working with us.
2
PATRICIA C. MOORE: I have some ideas. At a later date I would be happy to share
them with you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSIK: Thank you.
ROB HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants I have almost the identical
comment on Number 41 which is Maria Vampore Giocoli. That application was not
heard in December originally but this was heard in November. The Board did not have
any SEQRA request at that time. I know that you will recall you asked for
modifications. We meet you in the field on December 11th and came in on December 18th
for the second hearing. With every expectation of being approved and having satisfied
everything the Board had asked us for. We were only told at that time that you wanted us
to submit immediately an ALEF, which I took the time to do at 8:30 in the morning on
Christmas Eve. Brought it to the Board and I actually I knew this was on towards the
end, Renardo Stafford who is a son-in-law of the applicant met with the Board. I told
him that he would need not come here tonight before eight o'clock because he wanted to
voice his objection. Because his concern as a free-holder of the Town. Was that he had
in good faith, meet with the Board and done what he was suppose to do and whether it
was this Board or the Town Attorney or the Town Board who ever is at fault. We may
know the difference but to your citizens it is the Town of Southold. So he feels that it
seems a little bit strange that he would suddenly have been asked to do something in
December that would have purposely set him off until January under the impressions that
he would be heard and is now being told - he is out of luck. So the appearance of it
whether it is this Board's fault or not. Is terrible. It seems terribly unfair given this is the
third time we have been before the Board. I do not know what I am suppose to tell a
client in this situation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I agree with you. I agree with everything you said. But I will tell
you same thing that I told Pat. That we will try to. We have not had any time to make
any adjustments. But we certainly like to make adjustments for those applicants. That
we have been working with. That we really assumed that we would be acting on - two
hours ago. We would be acting on these tonight.
ROB HERRMANN: My second and finally comment would be on Number 43 which is
Broad blue, which is a little bit different. We came to the Board in December and the
difficulty that I have there been at the time. I had discussed directly with you. Well
maybe we should separate the house from the docks. Since the house does not need to
undergo SEQRA. I made a decision last month not to separate the application. Based on
the information by the Assistant Town Attorney. That we would be heard. That was the
indication at the last public hearing last month. So I did not separate those two portions
of the application. Now I have to report back to my client that was a great error in
judgment on my part. So I understand the dock. I am sure that the Town Attorney would
tell you were suppose to have been doing SEQRA. All the time or something. At least
with respect to the house were SEQRA was unnecessary we could have separated that out
and gotten that approval last month. I actively made the decision not to be based on my
understand and your indication we would be here. So those would be the two items.
That I would have take exception to with respect to the process. The others like Fisher
for example it is a new house on vacant land. It is clearly affected by the Moratorium.
There is nothing that we can do about it. But I would like to make note of those two on
3
the record and hope that the Board will honor it indication in some way.
been cooperating in good faith on those items.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We will make ever effort to.
ROB HERRMANN: Thank you.
Since we have
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On that note we will set the date for the next field inspection.
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, February 12th, 2003 at 8:00 a.m.
TRUSTEE KING: Moved to change Field Inspection to Tuesday, February 11, 2003 at
8:00 a.m.' TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Going back to the issue of the Moratorium -
One, The Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold shall not accept for review,
continue to review, or hold a hearing or make any decisions upon any application new or
pending. Made pursuant to Chapter 97 of the Town Code of the Town Southold for any
new residential or commercial; structure or building on vacant land. Two, The Board of
Trustees of the Town of Southold cannot accept for review, continue to review, or hold a
hearing or make any decisions upon any application new or pending made pursuant to
Chapter 97 of the Town Code of the Town of Southold for any operations as that terms is
defined in Chapter 97 below the high tide line of any "tidal waters" as that term is
defined in Chapter 97 or in standing water of any freshwater wetlands as that term is
defined in Chapter 97
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, February 26th, 2003 at 7:00 p.m.
WORKSESSION: 6:00 p.m. TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve. TRUSTEE
DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES.
APPROVE MINUTES:
Approve Minutes September 25, 2002
Approve Minutes November 20, 2002
Approve Minutes December 18th, 2002
TRUSTEE POLIWODA Moved to Approve the Minutes of September 25, 2002,
November 20, 2002 December 18, 2002 TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL
AYES.
II.
MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for December 2002. A check
for $12,191.06 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board
'for review.
4
III.
AMENDMENT/WAIVER/CHANGE S
PAUL NAHAS request for an Amendment to Permit #5622 to allow for
alterations to plan to include approximately 850 cubic yards of clean fill
recommended by the Southold Building Dept. to raise parts of Building Plan to 8
feet to meet FEMA requirements. Located Beachwood Lane, Southold, NY
SCTM#70-12-17 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Table the application
requesting a Engineer's report on drainage and planting plan TRUSTEE
DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES
RICHARD & MARILYN MILTNER request an Amendment to Permit #2258
from 28" wide on ground walkway 30' now to elevated 48" wide walkway and
50 feet long. Located: 3100 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck, NY SCTM#115-17-13
TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON
seconded. ALL AYES.
o
o
o
ROBERT KRUDOP requests an Amendment to Permit #5619 to build a two
story home with garage and in-ground (32x16) pool. Located 4600 Ole Jule
Lane, Mattituck, NY SCTM#122-4-34 TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve
with the condition of a drywell for the pool backwash and put in drywells
TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES.
JAMES HOEG request an Amendment to Permit #5038 for a pool and shed.
Located: 350 Willis Creek Drive, Mattituck, NY SCTM#115-17-17.10 TRUSTEE
DICKERSON moved to Approve with the condition that the backwash for the
pool be drawn on the plan TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES.
Environmental East, Inc. on behalf of MARY FARLEY requests an
Amendment to Permit #5424 to add addition south side with deck. Located: 150
Salt Marsh Lane, Peconic, NY SCTM#68-3-4 TRUSTEE KING moved to
Approve with the condition of drywells for roof run-off. TRUSTEE
DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES.
DA VID HALLINAN request a change of name from Tovey Lesnikowski to
David Hallinan Permit # 268 dated 2/7/86 Located: 700 North Drive, Mattituck,
NY SCTM#106-6-25 TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the name change.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES.
JOHN BIGGANE request a One Year Extension to Permit #5291dated
February 21, 2001 Located 8871 Oregon Road, Cutchogue, NY SCTM#83-1-34
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved tb Approve the one year extension. TRUSTEE
DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES.
William A. DiConza, Esq, on behalf of SHAWN & JOLYNE FITZGERALD
request a Waiver to erect an open split-rail fence within 100 feet of Wolfe Pit
10.
11.
Lake. Located: 485 Paddock Way Mattituck, NY SCTM#107-4-2.1
POSTPONED AS PER AGENT'S REQUEST
Eh-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of JOAN & ROY BERMAN request an
Amendment to Wetland Permit 5001 abandon existing cesspool and install
relocated and upgraded sanitary system, consisting of a septic tank and (2)
leaching rings. Located 520 Rabbit Lane, East Marion, NY SCTM#31-18-
11TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application. TRUSTEE
DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES.
En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of DONNA BLANCHARD request an
Amendment to Wetland Permit 5612 to construct 3'x6' cantilevered platform off
new bulkhead align 3'x10' ramp and 6'x12' float closer to and parallel with new
bulkhead and dredge approximately 5 cubic yards from 9'xl 5' area to maximum
depth of-2.5' ALW Located 50 Budd's Pond Road, Southold, NY SCTM#56-5-
21 TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application. TRUSTEE
POLIWODA seconded.. ALL AYES.
Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of ERNEST SCHNEIDER
requests an Amendment to Permit #5475 to reduce dwelling size and locate said
dwelling further landward Located 800 Lakeside Drive, Southold, NY
SCTM#90-03-06
E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Wants to read into the record and acknowledge
that Ernest Schneider owns it. The Title shows that he and his wife own it and
she is deceased. Just want to correct it for the record.
TRUSTEE KR UPSKI: Is that correct?
ERNEST SCHNEIDER: Yes
E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: It is a Trust.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to Approve the amendment.. TRUSTEE
POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now we are entering a Public Hearing part of the
Meeting. Do I have a Motion to go off the Regular Hearing,
TRUSTEE KING seconded.. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI All in favor. ALL AYES.
IV.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
THIS IS .4 PUBLIC HE.4RING IN THE M.4TTER OF THE FOLLOWING
`4PPLIC`4TIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETL`4NDS ORDIN.4NCE OF
THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I H.4 VE .4N .4FFID.4 VIT OF PUBLIC.4TIONS
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
ORIENT BY THE SEA MARINA requests a Wetland Permit to replace
bulkhead within two feet using C-Loc Vinyl and walkway to service existing
dock. Located 40200 Main Road, Orient, NY SCTM#15-09-08
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of or against the
application? Board have any comments?
TRUSTEE KING: Just address some the mn-off for the drywells possibly. I do
not know if there is much of an area there or not.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here to represent the applicant? I will
make a Motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
Jim can you make a Motion.
TRUSTEE KING: I will make a Motion to Approve the application with the
condition that there be a drywell where that disturbed land is.- when they dig
between the bulkhead put a drywell in there to catch some of the road m-off
from the parking lot and roof nm-off from the building.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI; All in favor. ALL AYES
2. REYDON SHORES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION request a
Wetland Permit to remove and replace 50 feet of bulkhead, access stairs re-use
120 cubic yards of sand excavated landward of bulkhead to backfill replacement
bulkhead - place additional 40 cubic yards of dredge material landward of
bulkhead as backfill if needed. Located: North Terminus Oak Drive, Southold,
NY SCTM#80-02-26
TRUSTEEE POLIWODA: I looked at this. Is there anyone who would like to
comment on this application? I am the only Board member that looked at this. I
did not see any question in the project. It looked like an average replacement. So
if there is no public comment. I make a Motion to close the Public Hear
· TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor. All AYES
I will make a Motion to Approve the Wetland Application ofbehalfofREYDON
SHORES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor. ALL AYES.
ALFRED A. MAGILL request a Wetland Permit to remove "old" house/block
foundation/replace with poured concrete foundation - new home on basically the
same footprint. Located: 1145 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue SCTM#137-04-26
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor
or against the application? Any Board comments? No one. I will make a
Motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor. ALL AYES
The only comment that I would make is that there be drywells and gutters.
I will make a Motion to Approve the application for ALFRED A MAGILL
requesting Wetland Permit to remove "old" house/block foundation/replace with
poured concrete foundation- new home on basically the same footprint with
drywells and gutters and hay bales.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor. ALL AYES
E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Can you go to five.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, we will skip number 4 for a moment and go to
number 5.
4. Mark Schwartz on behalf of ARNOLD & GERALDINE BARTON
DAWN M. CARROLL requests a Wetland Permit for a house renovation -
addition of 310 sq...feet to west side of house for kitchen - addition of 582 sq. ft.
on second story addition, Located 1650 Strohson Road, Cutchogue, NY
SCTM#103-10-27
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I will do it I inspected it. Is there anyone who would like
to speak in favor or against the application? Does the Board have any comment?
I will make a Motion to Close the heating.
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
I will make a Motion to Approve the application, with the condition that drywells
and gutters be put in place to contain roof run-off and that a line of hay bales be
placed -just landward of the existing wall - that the nine foot contour to control
any settlement during construction.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
8
Specht-Tacular Pools on behalf of JOHN & PATTI CASILLO requests a
Wetland Permit to install a in-ground swimming pool 16x32 with a fence to code.
Located: 360 Wiggins Lane, Greenport, NY SCTM#35-4-24
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone whO would like to comment on this
application?
PETER SPECHT: My name is Peter Specht. I am the contractor building the
pool. If you have any questions on the installation on it.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The only question that I have is why was it not staked?
When I went out there.
PETER SPECHT: I did stake it. When did you go out there?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Two days ago.
PETER SPECHT: I staked it probably a month ago. So I do not know if the
homeowner removed them.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There were no stakes.
PETER SPECHT: I used flags and flagged the comers.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That is what they normally are placed I walked it off
and I did not have a problem with the position of the pool. Any Board
comments?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments? If not I will male a Motion to
close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor. ALL AYES
I will make a Motion to Approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of John & Patti
Casillo.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You need any hay bales or any thing like that?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes that is a good idea. I request a row of hay bales.
During construction.
PETER SPECHT: Where would you like them put.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Between the bulkhead and the pool to contain any mn-
off.
PETER SPECHT: Absolutely.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor. ALL AYES
PETER SPECHT: Thank you. ·
9
Susan E. Long on behalf of EDWARD J. BONDARCI-IIJK request a Wetland
Permit to reconstruct 100 feet existing bulkhead in same location using vinyl
sheathing - construct two 10' return - excavate 26' behind bulkhead reuse fill
with additional 20 cubic yards - clean trucked in sand as needed - cover existing
patio with Trex - add 7'x13' Trex patio over west steps. Located 650 Blue
Marlin Drive, Southold, NY SCTM#57-01-28
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this
application?
ED BONDARCHUK: Yes, I am Ed Bondarchuk the property owner and I am
here to answer any questions that you might have.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any Board members?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes we had looked at this on Monday and it was high
fide. Across the street from your house is that little wetland swale. There is a
cement drain there. We could see water flowing into it. Where does it flow out?
ED BONDARCHUK: Mostly into my basement Part of it unfortunately.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because it is going into that direction.
ED BONDARCHUK: Yes it is and there is a culvert. A PCV culvert in the
adjoining bulkhead that it appears to run into.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We suspected as much but we have been doing some
research into the hydraulics of that area.
ED BONDACHUK: It appears that with the rainy season that we had in the fall
here. That the amount ofwater in the water table has risen. I have had some
problems in the basement as well.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure it is understandable there. Thank you. We were just
curious. We thought that you might have the answer. We usual look in the
bulkhead and see but it was high tide.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If there is no other comments? I will close the public
hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor. ALL AYES
I will make a Motion to Approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of ED I~'ARD H.
BONDARCHUK with the stipulation that you included a fifteen-foot non-turf
buffer behind the bulkhead.
ED BONDARCHUK: Fifteen feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is in that area that is disturbed.
ED BONDARCHUK: Understood.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Leave it as sand or natural plantings
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can plant it you can put sand, you can put gravel.
But not turf grass.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Do I have a seconded?
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor. ALL AYES
10
go
Crowley Marine Construction on behalf of CHARLES S. TROWNSELL
request a Wetland Permit to remove existing concrete retaining wall and replace
with 90 +/- C-Loc Vinyl retaining wall - install two 10' returns - backfill with
approx. 20 c.y. Clean fill - install 4'x72' handicap access ramp from house to
water. Located: 980 Oak Avenue, Southold, NY SCTM#77-1-6
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Anyone here would like to speak for or against this
application?
IAN CROWLEY: Ian Crowley on behalf of Mr. Trownsell. Any questions you
have I could answer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSLI: We looked to the East - two doors down and they have
just replaced their retaining wall and we conditioned a fifteen-foot wide non-turf
buffer. They chose to leave it sand. So it is up to the applicant. But we are going
to recommend fifteen-foot wide buffer where there is disturbance behind.
IAN CROWLEY: So as long as he can use the access ramp for the handicap
access will stay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There was no problem.
IAN CROWLEY: So that is not a problem.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: One question I had. How will you perform this work?
Come in with a' truck.
IAN CROWLEY: For what?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: To do the job.
IAN CROWLEY: With a truck I cannot do anything with a truck.
TRUSTE POLIWODA: Because we are little concerned about the mud flat in
front and it is very shallow there. Are you come up in by barge?
IAN CROWLEY: No barge all by hand.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That is fine.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Anyone else? I will make a Motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor. ALL AYES
I will make a Motion to Approve Crowley Marine Construction on behalf of
CHARLES S. TROWNSEL£ requesting Wetland Permit to remove existing
concrete retaining wall and replace with 90 feet C-Loc Vinyl retaining wall install
two ten foot returns back fill with approximately 20 c.y. Clean fill install 4'X72'
handicap access ramp from house to water and have a fifteen foot non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor. ALL AYES
ll
Crowley Marine Construction on behalf of PAUL H. FITZGERALD request a
Wetland Permit to relocate existing platform, ramp and float to center of bulkhead
- boat slip Located: 255 Osprey Road, Greenport, NY SCTM#35-6-34
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here would like to speak about this
application?
IAN CROWLEY: lan Crowley on behalf of Mr. Fitzgerald. Before you said Mr.
Demirciyan application was not going to be heard. But the dock as it stands is on
the property line - half and half. So what you are saying is that Mr. Fitzgerald
can take that dock and move it to his property. Mr. Demiriyan cannot have a new
dock. Because of the order in which it was applied or because?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No
IAN CROWLEY: Because he has more ownership to the half of the dock.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We did not know that there was any contention there.
We thought it was going to be.
IAN CROWLEY: I do not know how the dock got to be on the property line?
But they just wanted to get off the property line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are they sharing the dock currently?
IAN CROWLEY: I am not sure what they are doing right now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone to represent them here.
IAN CROWLEY: Actually I am not too familiar with what is going on in the
past couple of months.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We looked at it and we assumed that Mr. Fitzgerald
wanted his own dock and Mr. Demiriyan wanted his own dock, which we did not
really have a problem with. Accept that the Moratorium will not allow us to build
a new dock. So we did not mind Mr. Fitzgerald wanted to move his dock. That
is fine because it is already existing.
IAN CROWLEY: If they wanted to build half and half they could Say two foot
wide - two foot wide.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That would still be new. It would be a new structure. If
you want to approve this tonight. The permit is good for two years. Plus two
additional years with two one year extension. So they could use the dock as it is
for a season and then next year apply for the second dock and the permit would be
in place to move the first one.
IAN CROWLEY: I will try to explain that to him.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We will approve it. So it gives them an up start. They
can leave it up to four years.
IAN CROWLEY: Very good - Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments on this application. I will make
a Motion to Close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor. ALL AYES
I will make a Motion to Approve the application to move the floating dock.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor. ALL AYES
12
Mark Schwartz, on behalf of ARNOLD & GERALDINE BARTON request a
Wetland Permit to construct cribbed retaining walls bring in new clean fill with
revenue slope and new site drywell for runoff drainage recharge into existing
grade. Located: 5294 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, NY SCTM#111-09-13
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone would like to speak in favor or against the
application?
ROBERT FAGER: Good evening, my name is Robert Fagar my wife and I live
across the street from this property. I would like to thank Mr. Schwartz for
sending us the nice diagram that he did and certainly it is not our intention to start
a relationship with our new neighbor in an adverse manner. We have several
questions and several reservations about the proposal put forth here. I took the
time to review the file in the Trustee's office this week. Request to speak to the
issue of bringing between four or five thousand cubic yards of fill into the area.
To an average height of seven and half feet.. The fill will be at least fifteen feet
deep and bury everything that is alive under it currently. There are scrubs and
trees in that area that have been their forever. One of the trees is nineteen inches
in diameter at chest height. Then there is the question of how is one bringing five
thousand cubic yard of fill into that area. Even if fourteen cubic yards tracks are
used. It will take three hundred fifty trips at least to bring that in. There are five
very substantial trees that line the property. Just outside the property line on
Town Road. The trees are approximately 23 feet apart. Range from four to six
feet in circumference. We would hate to see any of those trees removed or
damaged by the 350 truckloads of fill brought in. From the drawing that we have.
It does not appear that this fill is needed for the construction of the house.
Erosion has not been an issue on that bluff for the twenty plus years that we have
lived there. We use the fight-of-way next to it on a regular bases. It appears that
the restructing of the landscape at least at the bluff level is just for cosmetic
purposes and we just do not think that is the right thing to do with the property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MARK SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz I am the architect for the project. There
does appear to be a erosion problem on this property. There is some run-off from
the road. That is draining from the catch basin down onto the property. The
intention of the project with regard to the retaining wall is to build up the level of
the site. Install these drywells in order to retain any of that erosion. That would
cause any problem to the existing bluff there now. So that is the main intention of
the cribbed wall. The issue with trees. Based on the dimensions between the
trees at the road. We have no intention of damaging those trees and do not see
any reason why that would be an issue. Again the main reason for the cribbed
wall is to strengthen what is existing there now and build up the bluff and
strengthen it with the new plantings.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MIKE DOMINO: My name is Mike Domino speaking as co-chairman of the
Tree Committee. Last week there was a meeting where Kevin McAllister the Bay
Keeper. He spoke in this room for the need for greater communication between
committee communication and towards that end I am here. Speaking against this
application. One of the things that Kevin said was we have to rely on
13
greater scientific intrigue. I applaud you for your attention to detail and insisting
upon Engineering Report. Not supplied by people that may have self-interest in
the project. In fact going out and doing field inspections and relying on Engineer
Reports to make sure that we maintain scientific intrigue and I can trust you to do
that. I inspected the property in question myselfI have photographs here. I did
not notice any erosion of the trees there. It seems to handle the m-of'fin the
natural fashion. Furthermore there is no scientific evidence that shows that
removal of trees like this is going to have a positive impact on the bays. Other
States have moved away from using drainage systems because putting the water
down below the roots of the plants are basically main lines into the bay. Our
position - The Tree Committee position that it is better to leave the vegetation
within a non-disturbance zone as it is than to bury it. Lastly, there are two
hundred miles of road in Southold Town that is four hundred land miles. Our
policy is that we do not remove trees unless they are a hazard. I have photographs
here that I will provide to you that show the spacing of the trees is quite close and
we do not see how it is possible to move two hundred so loads of a fourteen-yard
track loaded into this property. Without causing significant damage to these trees.
Which are on town property.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the Board.
FRANK CICHANOWICZ: May I address the Board, Frank Cichanowicz. I own
Briarcliff Sod and BriarcliffLandscape BriarcliffNurseries. I am a graduate
landscape architect and I am in control of this project. I do not believe that
taking trees down and clear cutting and everything like that. That is the whole
reason we drew up the landscape plan on this parcel. Actually no root systems of
the trees except where they build the house. Would be taking out of the site. So
everything will exist. They wanted to raise the level up so that the house next
door on either side of them is not blocking them from building the house in the
hole. We are doing this in a crib wall fashion putting in native plants that re-
vegetate to the area? It is on the right a way. By the way the trucks are twenty-
three yards load. Not fourteen yards loads and it going to take 280 trucks. Instead
if the three hundred. That is irrelevant. The trucks are only eight feet wide and
that is the legal limit. So they can get between anyone of these trees. The
roadway that is going to have access to the construction. Will be a dialogical
passage coming and will not be a direct line offthe road. There will be no direct
visible effect coming in. The client plans on vegetating more on the road. To
lessen the noise of the factors by building the garage on the back side and they are
doing everything they can do and if there is anything else that someone needs we
can do it. Believe me, I am the first guy in favor and I have raised enough trees.
We have a million trees on our farm here in Peconic, and Cutchogue. I am
totally in favor of saving trees and I sell trees. So that is my business and not
clear cutting. So that is why we are here and we hope to keep on. I was born
brought up out here as potato farmers and now we are in the sod and landscaping
business. That is why we are here. Thank you. Any questions I will be happy to
answer them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
14
ROBERT FAGER: I really did appreciate your drawing Mr. Cichanowicz.. It is
well done and it is well thought out. I still have reservations about the run-off. I
also walked the property I do not know where this run-off is. If it is there is any
at all. It is extremely insufficient and there is one photograph in there that is
taken out looking out at the bay. If you bring in five thousand cubic yards what is
going to happen to all of that vegetating that is there now. It goes it gets buried.
FRANK CICHANOWICZ: There is going to be a certain amount of it buffed.
naturally.
ROBERT FAGER: If a tree is there and there are trees there that are twenty and
thirty feet high. They get submersed in fifteen feet of topsoil. They are going to
die. You are not going to leave them sticking out of the topsoil. So what we are
saying is that area is going to be clear-cut or buried. One or the other.
FRANK CICHANOWlCZ: If they fill it or not, if they built a house they are
going to clear the property anyway.
ROBERT FAGER: Not a bluff.
FRANK CICHANOWlCZ: This is not at the bluff. This area is back eight feet
from the bluff. Has nothing to go with the bluff. It has nothing to do with the
bluff. This is where it is starting. It is seventy and eighty feet back and then the
house is back in further So it is not a bluff'planting. If anything there are some
voids there. There was an original wash out. That is back towards the property.
But any time you build something you can create more of an erosion problem.
That is what we are trying to eliminate by reversing the grades.
ROBER FAGER: Does it have to be twenty feet up in the air?
FRANK CICHANOWICZ: That is between the landowner.
ROBERT FAGER: Those retaining walls in front are going to be extremely the
retaining walls on the fight of the way. Are going to be fifty feet high. Whoever
use that right of way is going to look at it.
FRANK CICHANOWICZ: No they are not. They are set back and they are
planted no more than four feet high. Each planting will hide the wall. That is
why we did those cross sections.
ROBERT FAGER: That is a great answer if it comes out that way.
FRANK CICHANOWlTZ: It will.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have one question for Mr. Schwartz. I know you are
trying to achieve a certain grade here. But what is the purpose of that achieving
that grade? And can those walls be brought back landward at all. On the east
side?
MARK SCHWARTZ: Yes the wall start about some where at the top of the hill
there now. Can it be brought back? To some degree. But the owners or the
owners would like to open up the property because of the embankment on the
north side. So that is the reason why they want to bring the fill in because right
now it is kind of a hole. They want to bring out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why do they want to bring it up that high?
FRANK CICHANOWICZ: The continuity of the two levels would be same
level.
TRUSTEEKRUPSKI: So it would be the same level as the adjacent house.
FRANK CICHANOWICZ: It would not be higher. It would be the same level.
15
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does this Board have any comments? We are concerned
with drainage. Basically you are putting the last house in place. The house itself
is out of our jurisdiction. This is only going to be the last house in there. Except
for one vacant lot in there. Ken
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I did the inspection. The house seemed to be in line
and the same elevation as the house immediately adjacent it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The house is nowhere near.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I have seen plenty of properties that have been built on
the wetlands and I believe this one is high and dry and opposes very little threat
other than of an erosion problem and Mr. Jackowitz will take care of it. I do not
have a problem with this property being built on.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Peggy, Jim.
TRUSTEE KING: I thought it was a pretty impressive plan myself. I kind of
agree with you it would be nice if they could be back up a little bit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I was wondering if we could back that up a little bit
further from the bay. If that is possible? Achieve your grade for the house.
Whatever could be accommodated? That would save some of the vegetation on
the bank and would still get your elevation. The house is one hundred fifty feet
back. For that Scale there I do not think they notice if it was back a little further.
TRUSTEE KING: I think it can be done and it is not a big problem. I think it
would be done official.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a Motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
ITRUSTEE KING: I will make a Motion to Approve with the condition that we
can move the wall back ten feet landward. Seconded.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As per new plans - you can come in with new plans we
can stamp reflecting that change.
E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON ESQ.: Mark I do not want to hold up the permit
with using the numbers. I just want to say as per the new plan dated so and so.
MARK SCHWARTZ: Okay.
10. Crowley Marine Construction on behalf of KEVORE N. & JANET
DEMIRCIYAN request a Wetland Permit to install platform, ramp and float to
center of bulkhead - boat slip. Located: 160 Osprey Nest Road, Greenport, NY
SCTM#35-6-19 MORATORIUM
16
11.
Coastal Consultants on behalf of WALTER WAPPAUS request a Wetland
Permit to reconstruct inkind/inplace existing 50' jetty with timber or vinyl
Located: 2705 Bayshore Road, Greenport, NY SCTM#053-6-1
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I did this one. Is there any one who would like to
comment on this application?
DONALD STANTON: Donald Stanton of Coastal Consultants here on behalf of
Walter Wappaus to answer any questions that you might have.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone else who would like to comment on
this application?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Checking the elevation.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this. My only comment I would appreciate
if you could, I think that the whole Board would appreciate if you could create a.
low profile groin out of this.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How much lower?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Just a foot, just drop it down a foot on reconstructing it.
DONALD STANTON: That can be accommodated. You are talking about the
outward end.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The landward end. The outer end will end up in the
sand.
DONALD STANTON: Right now the inner in is at the same height about a foot
below the bulkhead in front of property. We would propose to keep the elevation
of the landward end the same and lowering the water end by one foot.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The reason that I make that comment is there is public
access along the shoreline. It has been our policy to lower these groins as they
become rebuilt. So the public regains its access. Where in the past there have
been mistakes. This one was not so bad. There has been some that have been
five and six feet high where no one has access just cuts off access to the beach.
DONALD STANTON: Isn't the access in this location directly from the street in
a pathway parallel to the Wappaus property line.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I believe so
DONALD STANTON: So that this groin, which is tight on, his property line,
does not impact the public assess ~
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I am speaking about the parallel access to the four
shores.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Someone wants to walk the beach. Can you take a look at
this please?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If there are no other comments I will make a
recommendation that we close the heating.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor. ALL AYES
I will make a Motion to Approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of WALTER
WAPPA US with the conditions that the inner shore part of groin is lowered six
inches and the seaward side is lowered one foot.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor. ALL AYES
17
12. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of LARRY SEVERINI
request a Wetland Permit to construct a 975 sq, ft, +/- addition to the existing
dwelling; a 250 sq. ft +/- attached porch a 187 sq, ft, +/- rear deck/patio addition
to the existing rear deck/patio; and a 500 sq. fi. +/- detached garage. Located:
1795 Pipes Neck Road, Greenport, NY SCTM#53-01-14
POSTPONED AS PER AGENT'S REQUEST
13.
Costello Marine Contracting Corp. On behalf of JOHN DILL request a
Wetland Permit to remove and dispose 273' of existing timber jetties - construct
142' total of three new jetties with C-Loc vinyl sheathing in place of existing.
Located: 484 Jackson Street; New Suffolk, NY SCTM#117-10-3.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak for or
against this application?
JAMES DILL: 'My name is James Dill I am the property owner on the north and
east of the applicant's property. I have two concerns with this application I am
concerned about the lack of vehicular access to this site. I wrote the Board in this
regard. I am very concerned that the contractor will use my driveway to allow his
workmen to access the site. The existing site of the applicant does not have any
street frontage. It is has an unapproved easement which does not permit the
passage of vehicles If the application is approved I would hope that there would
be a provision that the contractors must park on the street and walk to the beach.
The driveway is not in very good shape and heavy access would not only prevent
me from using it. But also further destroy it. My second concern has to do with
the location of the jetties. These jetties were constructed some forty years ago
before the property was sub-divided. One of the jetties the eastern most one
proposed for removal and reconstruction actually crosses the property line. The
drawing that was submitted. Although it was supposedly to scale is very
inaccurate with respect to the location of the jetties. Particularly the eastern one.
The eastern extension of the eastern most jetty, which is the one on the right as
you look at the drawing. Actually crosses the applicant's property line onto my
line. Between the high water mark and the low water mark. Final fifteen or so
feet of the jetty actually lies off my beach. I am not sure if I own the property
below the high water mark but I am sure the applicant does not. I do not know
how you can grant a permit for him to remove something that is not on his
property. I am also concerned if it is removed. That the contractor will make a
mess on my beach. I have no way of requiring him to clean it up. I would think
that at the very least you should require a certified survey of the property to
actually show where the property boundary is. Have it marked so that the
contractor knows that is where he is working and where he cannot work. Thank
you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
18
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else who would like to speak?
JOHN COSTELLO: My name is John Costello and I am the President to
Costello Marine Contracting and the agent for John Dill on this application. The
jetties that exist there now and where built forty years ago. They are still
functional and I did not believe with the severe ice conditions that may have
involved possibly this winter. That there could be damage to the jetties and I
suggested that they concur to keep them functional. That is a stable beach and I
think it is important that the beach stay stabilized. Whether the one jetty is
removed I do not care. Mr. John Dill does not want to pay to repair the double
jetties that exist on site. It is unnecessary I believe that the Bay. That area of the
beach is stabilized right now with the amount of jetties that are there. It would be
spending money unwisely at this time. Whether it stays or not it will be at some
time some space they will be destroyed by age. I was trying to substitute the
cresol material that is in there now. Use amore environmentally friendly vinyl.
Hopefully will not riot. The elevation the jetties were going to be the same as
what exists there now. Low profile you can walk over them. It does not impede
public access. Whether the last jetty that adjoins Mr. Dill's brother I do not care
if it is removed or not. It just becomes less removable. We would probably bring
all the material by landing craft to the site. We will park on the street and walk to
the site. The major amount of materials and all the materials by anybody permit
including the DEC or anybody has to be removed or taken to an upland source
and disposed of property. We are aware of that. Any question the Board may
have?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have a couple of questions, one of course you
answered because we did not why those other easterly hngles being removed.
Which you answered. Two it does not show it on the diagram, but it shows it in
the pictures. There is a little odd jet out or something from the jetties. One was
the intertidal area. That we could not see clearly because the waves are breaking
over it a~d there is another one further to the east.
JOHN COSTELLO: It is a portion of a dock that at one stage. But it is a non-
functional structure that will be removed at the same time. There is just piling
and it looks like it is the beginning of/or part of a seasonal type of dock. It is
unrecognizable. It is unfunctional.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It seems to make more sense tonight to resolve it whether
in fact the easterly jetty is going to be. When we looked I will explain to Mr. Dill.
As a Board we looked at this on Monday. We did not see any problem with any
of the application. We needed clarification on the little jet out things. But we did
not see any. This is pretty standard procedure to the bay front. We just want to
clarify tonight as far as the removal of that easterly portion.
JAMES DILL: It is the end of it. It is not the whole
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well anything in the title area is on State land and the
State would have. We grant approval under local code. The State has to I
presume the Department State would have to sign off on any kind of activity on
their property. So that would be State property. But they have to authorize that.
We cannot authorize that.
JAMES DILL: Is the contractor going to get the State approval before he starts?
TRUSTTE KING: I think he better.
JOHN COSTELLO: Only ten thousand dollar per day. If you do not.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So Mr. Dill is your concerns resolved about access and
what not?
JAMES DILL: If he parks on the street. That is okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The operations will take place from the water,
JOHN COSTELLO: Delivery and removal of materials will come by water.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually environmentally it is going to be the same when
it is done. Because the beach will keep the same profile. Yes sir.
JOSEPH FENTION: My name is Joseph Fenton I live next door to the property
involved here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On which side?
JOSEPH FENTON: On the west side. We have been there since the mid-sixties.
I have lived in the Town all of my life. I will be seventy-eight in March. When
we got a notice by Certified Mail. We went down to the Trustee's office and
there was no file. There was no application I thought I would point it out to you.
The homework was not done. The notice that we had did not have a return date
on it. There is a place for it on the form. We found out by looking in the
newspaper that'there would be this heating. So we came. The western most jetty
is on the property line between my wife's property and the Dill property and I
think a survey is in order. I think Mr. James Dill is right. First of all there is
nothing wrong with the jetty. From the laymen stand point I cannot see anything
wrong with it but if you are going to remove it. I think you ought to be sure that
it is on his property. He does not care of the property as it is now. He has let it go
to seed. He does not do the hedge. He lives in Wisconsin. Apparently, he and
his brother are in some kind of a dispute. I do not know if the Trustee's should be
dragged into this. Because this may be a ploy to extract a better price or some
such thing.. As neighbor's we do not want to get involved. We do not see
anything wrong. We would like a wood jetty because they would be keeping with
all the others. Along the beach. As lay people and as neighborly people. We do
not have any objections to his fixing up what is there. If it need fixing. Thank
you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As far as the material go. There is a move on to go to
different products alternative products towards. Because the cresol releasing
petroleum products into the marina environment. CCA stands for coronas
arsenate. Which you can imagine is a poison. So there is a need to fin alternative
products to use for structures like this. That is more environmental sound.
MR. FENTON: When you put vinyl on top of aluminum I think it is aluminum or
some metals. If you put vinyl. The vinyl wears off eventually. There is an
erosion process from the sea sand that blasts. When that wears off it will oxide.
That metal is going to oxidize and I do not know wheat that does that to the
environment. You people must know. Because you have been approving it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I do not think that there is any mental. It is just vinyl.
TRUSTEE KING: It is all plastic.
MR. FENTON: It is all plastic. I stand corrected.
20
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Will you get a survey on this? Straighten out where the
proof is. Because it is on the neighbor's property. Environmentally the Board
does not have a problem but I think that we should have a survey on the property
to determine the exact location. Of the structures.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I will make a Motion to Table the application.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES.
14.
Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of VICKY PAPSON request a
Wetland Permit to reconstruct rock revetment on west side of existing stairway by
breaking up existing concrete footing, lining the area with filter cloth and
reconfigure the rock revetment with additional rocks moved from the east side
which creates a beach at that location. Repair the concrete block wall, concrete
walkway and concrete bulkhead reconstruct boathouse and replace concrete steps
(to be wider 2 feet to the west). Located: 1120 Main Road, East Marion, NY
SCTM#31 - 13-7
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone who cares to comment on this application?
JOHN COSTELLO: Again my name is John Costello with Costello Marine
Contracting and we are the agent for Vicky Papson on this job. It is a
reconstruction job and instead of hauling in more material and placing it in the
water. We are going to utilize as much of the rock that exists there as a
revetment now and try to make one portion of the bulkhead. The concrete
bulkhead safer and reinforce it and just repair the remaining portion of the
bulkhead. Any questions the Board may have? There are many parts of the job.
The retaining wall has to be refortified on the back. Walkway was going to be
enlarged. So that they can get a handicapped person down it. Steps in the
concrete blocks are presently dangerous. They are going to try to replace them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The only request that the Board had been the Boat House.
That it be re-built in it's same size. ~
JOHN COSTELLO: Same size - same spot.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Same height.
JOHN COSTELLO: The roofline and the same size will be the same. In the
same location. I am not going to do carpenter work.
TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments on this application? I will
make a Motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor. ALL AYES
I did not have any more questions on it. Anybody else? I will make a Motion to
Approve the application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KING All in favor. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: With the condition that the boat house remain the same
height.
21
15.
Costello Marine Constructing Corp. on behalf ofDIA MOY request a Wetland
Permit to remove and dispose existing wood bulkhead - construct 294' new
bulkhead with C-Loc Vinyl - sheathing in place of existing - backfill with 20
cubic yards of clean tracked in sand. Located: 950 West Lake Drive, Southold,
NY SCTM#$90-2-1&2
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this
application?
JOHN COSTELLO: Again, John Costello we are the agents for Mr. Moy and it is
the job entails taking the existing bulkhead out. Disposing of it and placing a new
vinyl bulkhead in the exactly same location.
TRUSTEE KING: I had a question John, I noticed cement. It looked like a
cement wall in land. Do you think that beach was that high and this was just
cement. Do you think that was the beach?
JOHN COSTELLO: I do think that there was more beach at one time. I can
almost remember when that bulkhead was built. About forty year ago. At that
time there was a different beach than there is there now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there is no other comment? I have another question?
MRS. GREENFIELD: I am the neighbor on the other side I am not aware of this
happening. Could you describe the extent of the bulkheading that is being
replacement Mr. Costello. Is that through the channel and the frontage. Where is
that?
JOHN COSTELLO: Yes it is the entire - It is Mr. Moy's entire bulkhead. We
are attempting to get a permit whether he can afford to do it all. I do not know. I
do not know his bank account. Except we are trying to get a permit to replace his
entire bulkhead in the same location. Without expanding anything. But in the
same location. Using a vinyl - hopefully a material will last longer be more
environmentally sensitive than the wood that is there now. The wood that is there
now is collapsing and what we are trying to do is just to be able to obtain the
permits to replace it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The plans show that inside the channel. The existing
wood bulkhead remains.
JOHN COSTELLO: Inside the channel.
TRUSTEE KING: You are just doing the bay front.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Only the bay front.
JOHN COSTELLO: The entire bay front all the way to the channel.
TRUSTEE KING: Not going north along the channel.
JOHN COSTELLO: It goes to the channel.
TRUSTEE KING: It is the southwest comer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Later on in the meeting maybe an hour or so. There is
another application. West Lake Property Owners Association wants to
maintenance dredge the channel. Are you aware of that application? They have
proposed. They had a Maintenance Dredge application from us in the past. This
22
one is including GEO tubes along the Moy bulkhead. Have you seen that plan?
How that would affect their bulkhead?
JOHN COSTELLO: The GEO tubes? I hate to make a rash judgment on it. I do
not know the size and the dementia of the GEO tubes. The amount of fill and the
elevation of the completed GEO tube. But the GEO tubes are formable structure.
They are quite large.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It shows them as being quite large. That is why being the
fact that is proposed to be placed adjacent to the applicant's bulkhead,
JOHN COSTELLO: I think that it will only help.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have never had any experience in Southold Town
with the GEO tubes. These are supposed to be placed above high water. But our
concern is in a storm event. How they would react in relation to the applicant's
bulkhead. Will they move around? We heard that they were placed in the ocean
and in a week they are gone. Because they disappear.
JOHN COSTELLO: They do if you take a knife to them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well no this was a storm.
JOHN COSTELLO: I was at that site. I saw the site but it does not have the
wave energy. The wave energy is basically developed by the reach and the
direction that the GEO tubes. The slow of water the wave energy there. Is minuet
compare to the ocean? I do not believe that the direction of the GEO tubes would
affect or stop the wave energy.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It shows it.
TRUSTEE KING: It shows as seven feet high and fifteen feet off the beach.
JOHN COSTELLO: They are huge. At that location I do not going to bother Mr.
Moy's bulkhead, what they will do is probably reinforce it to a minor degree the
pilings particularly.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our concern with the GEO tube and I do not know if it is
fair to draw you into this completely. It kind of relates to that thought that you
proposed to replace. Our concern is that is going to undermine and just kind of
slope down the beach. End up further from the bulkhead. Create a weird back
wash behind the bulkhead. Undermine the bulkhead eventually in a storm event.
Because they would move. I could foresee them moving through the sand into the
intertidal area. In a storm event kind of moving out to sea. Because the gravity is
going to pull them out and then you are going to have an odd space. Between the
bulkhead and the GEO tube.
JOHN COSTELLO: Without knowing all the facts I better not.
CHUCK BOWMAN: Perhaps I can shed a little light. I am not involved in the
project at all. But I have had a lot of experience with GEO Tubes on Fire Island.
It is a temporary solution. They are using it as a temporary solution. They tend to
react with storm waves. You will get reflection offofthem. It is not going to
move. The ones that you talking on the south shore the stopped GEO Tubes.
That disappeared in the storms are not the same as you are talking about here.
These are probably eight foot diameter bags. You cannot get them completely
round. They end up being about five feet high. They end being wider than the
eight feet. Kind of a oblong shape.
TRUSTEE KING: It shows in the drawing almost egg shape.
23
CHUCK BOWMAN: That is correct. They do not move. We have had them on
the ocean front they do not move. We have had them when three feet or four feet
of water against them and they do not move them. As long as they are put in
properly. Filling them is tough. You have to know what you are doing. You
have to be able to control the flow so that they are not splitting opening. Once
they are in place they are all right. But then you think about how you are going to
take out at some point. As John said a knife works great. It is a lot of fabric so
you have to be able to have a way out and if that is the intent. Again I know
nothing about the project. But they are used as a kind ora semi-soft temporary
solution. Most of them are on Fire Island and in Quogue are buried. They were
buried over time. By decoration of sand. The ones that you are talking about
really are not true GEO tubes. The ones that have high revetments made out of
them. These are probably just a single layer. I would imagine.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Single row. Along the bulkhead.
CHUCK BOWMAN: If you want to call me I have pictures and I have all sorts
of information. If you want.' But you have to see if this IS appropriate for the
location.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I was unclear. You said as a temporary measure. If it
were permanent that this in fact being bumping out the bulkhead. Another fifteen
feet.
CHUCK BOWMAN: Keep in mind that it is fabric if it is exposed to sunlight.
They do have a life span on it. This so one of the problems. That is why I say
that they are temporary unless they are covered with sand and kept covered. So
that fabric is going to degrade and they all do. There is whole bunch of
manufactures. They all degrade. The question is how fast that is going to
degrade eventually it is going to split open. It maybe ten years from now..But it
is going to split opened and then you are going to have a mess to clean. So you
just have to think about that as well
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: You want to give you're name for the records.
So that Charlotte can -
CHUCK BOWMAN: Yes, Chuck Bowman, Land Use Ecological Services.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: this does not affect Mr. Moy application. This was just
something that was relative to it. If there is no other comment? I will make a
Motion to Close the Hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES.
I will make a Motion to Approve the application with the condition of a fifteen
foot non-turf buffer to be placed behind the finished bulkhead as it is constructed
so in other words if they do one hundred feet this year one hundred feet gets
buffered - buffered area could be the section between the new bulkhead and the
old.
TRUSTEE KING: That would work out good.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES.
24
16.
Costello Marine Constructing Corp. on behalf of DOUG ELY request a
Wetland Permit to construct 116' new batter - style bulkhead (including 2 - 8'
long returns) with C-Loc vinyl sheathing seaward of existing bulkhead. Located:
1250 Grand Avenue, Mattituck, NY SCTM#107-1-10.4
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this
application?
JOHN COSTELLO: John Costello with Costello Marine the agent for this
application. Who ever visited the site will know what was the purpose of this
application is. There is a small eroding bank. The elevation of the intended
proposed retaining wall is right up against the bank. There are no trees intended
to be removed. 'There is only a minimum amount of fill to be brought in to fill the
void between the eroding bluff now and it will probably have to be brought in by
wheel barrel alone because the access way to that location by vehicle or truck is
almost impossible. What it would do is to keep the encroachment of some
materials. There is a small area where the eroded fill is moving and migrating
towards the wetlands. It would help eliminate that and you would probably see
growth on some of wetlands.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you. Any other comments on this application?
Board has any comments?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There seems to be a couple of problems there. There is a
nice wetland fringe. There seems to be up to the north. There is a beautiful stable
bank coming up. As soon as you see the area near the boathouse it becomes
destabilized and eroded. Once you get past to the south of the boat house again it
becomes stable. It seems like that structure there is really destabilized. That
section of bank. Because of its location. Also the tree are overgrown the bank to
certain extent That they do not allow for any low vegetation that would stabilize I
think as any part of any kind of permit that we issue. We would require the
trimming of the tree canopy to allow light to penetrate so you can encourage
growth underneath to stabilize it.
JOHN COSTELLO: I think that those comments are right on key. Because the
canopy and the trees have been out of control. It is only getting afternoon sun the
only time there is erosion is on extreme high tides. That is lapping at the base of
that small little bluffthat separates but that material is migrating towards the
wetlands and would just end that. The trees will help reduce and add sun light in
that area. Particularly if the wetlands will be increased.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I have one comment from the Board Upon inspection
of the site. We recommended that that we see a rock revetment placed on the toe
25
of the bluff. Where it could set a president for the thousands of feet that is not
bulkhead there already.
JOHN COSTELLO: The only trouble again is the access way to get any of the
rock by wheelbarrow. I do not know because the rock has to enter into the bottom
whether it is a foot or so. I do not think that there is elevation erosion as much as
cliff erosion. You would be developing a road in there. Somewhere. If that is the
desire.
TRUSKEE KRUPSKI: Because that one tree that sticks way out. Should be
trimmed off completely anyway. That one tree as you come out on the road
ending. That is shading and killing all the intertribal venation right there. That
should go to start and that would allow the path in.
JOHN COSTELLO: You can make a path. I was trying to avoid it. I thought
you would be objecting to that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because we really did not want to see harding there. We
really would like to see a softer solution, which the rock will give you during a
storm event. Less loss the beach elevation with rock reinvestment and they can
be planted and over grown and it would hold the bank a lot better.
JOHN COSTELLO: I think it would hold just as well. Particularly with the filter
but I would rather have the application tabled because I do not want to make that
decision without giving the economical concerns to the owner. Finding out his
position on it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You have got to explain to him that the harding of the
shoreline. Is a problem? If he looks to the south of him where it is all bullheaded
those people have no beach and if he looks to the north of him where it is not
bulkhead. There is a natural shoreline there is a beach. They have a beach
elevation and they have a wetland fringe and the property is protected. So it
really clearly demonstrates the difference.
JOHN COSTELLO: That is not only all the points? A lot of those bulkheads
where put in wetland areas when they were originally constructed and filled. That
was at one time an acceptable method. We are certainly educating ourselves and
trying to avoid that whole scenario. That was one of the reasons even this
application by putting the retaining wall so far back. Trying to get it away from
the water. The only occasion would it ever hit the wall would be an easterly wind
a much higher tide? Possibly a spring tide. Would just touch it. But it only is at
that occasion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I will make a Motion to Table the application.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
26
17.
Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of JOSEPH CHERNUSHKA
request a Wetland Permit to reconstruct and add onto the remains of an existing
catwalk 4'x82' of catwalk is proposed over an area of existing 56 linear feet of
deteriorated timber catwalk - catwalk is proposed to be elevated a minimum of 4'
above the wetlands and is proposed to be supported by (25) 4"x4" CCA timber
dock posts. Located: 845 Bay Avenue, East Marion, NY SCTM#31-10-15
TRUSTEE DICKERSON:: Is there anyone here like to speak to the application:
CHUCK BOWMAN: Chuck Bowman, Land Use Ecological Services
representing the owners. There was a deteriorated catwalk leading to the lake.
Has been there for years. They want to rebuild it and actually elevated over the
band ofphragmites in there. To go through that. Just to be able to have a little
small sailboat or canoe down at the end. You can not get through the phragrnites
any other way. It is a pretty simple application. If you have to answer any
questions if you have any.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would have to do SEGRA on this. No this a
reconstruction. The only objection that was the L at the end. We would rather
just see a straight steps if they want them or not.
CHUCK BOWMAN: Sure. That is fine.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We mentioned two half feet above the marsh.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We wanted a lower structure.
CHUCK BOWMAN: That is fine.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Three feet wide. I know it is four feet now. But at
reconstruction if we can get three feet wide. It does not seem that has to receive a
lot to heavy use there.
CHUCK BOWMAN: No it is not. Again we are talking about a canoe.
Three feet wide. No L at the end and two and half feet - Al?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI; Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments?
E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON; Did they get the DEC permits yet.
CHUCK BOWMAN: Not yet.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any comments from the floor?
I will make a Motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All n favor. ALL AYES
I will make a Motion to Approve the JOSEPH CHERNUSHKA request for
Wetland Permit to reconstruct and add onto the remains of an existing catwalk
3'x82' of catwalk is proposed over an area of existing 56 linear feet of
deteriorated timber catwalk - catwalk is proposed to be elevated a minimum of 2-
1/2 feet above the wetlands and is proposed to be supported by (25) 4"x4" CCA
timber dock posts, with the stipulation that there not be an L
CHUCK BOWMAN: I will send you new plans.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor. ALL AYES
27
18.
Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of JOHN DEFILIPPE requests a
Wetland Permit to remove the phragmites from the shoreline and stabilize with
native plantings for erosion control. Located: 3345 Cedar Lane, East Marion
SCTM#37-7-10.2
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here wish to comment on this application?
CHUCK BOWMAN: Chuck Bowman Land Use Ecological Services
representing the owner. This particular lot had dredge spoil placed on it many
years ago. In the area of the phragrnites that you see on your plan they're actually
a little berm. That was used to hold back the dredge spoil. That is the area that
we would be removing actually removing the berm, removing the phragmite and
the rise zones. It is kind of a monticule terrarium that we identify. We actually
went out and mapped them. The area of just phragrnites. On either side there
some good vegetation. There is bayberry and beach plum and junipers. All sort
of good stuff. But right in here because of the dredge spoil. We have this Mont
culture. So all that we would be doing is taking that out. Taking out the rise zone
and replanting it with the species that you find on the adjacent (cannot
understand) no intent to lessen the buffer that was mandated for the house. It
really is just replacing the phragmites with more beneficial vegetation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before we ask you any questions? Is there are any other
comments? This was two months I believe we went out on this. Or maybe last
month that we went out. I remember this application from years gone by and
actually this was not. This goes back to March of 2000. When I signed this as
President of the Board. Southold Town Board of Trustees reviewed survey dated
and received in our office March 21, 2000. An on site inspection made and
determined that the construction of a single family dwelling with septic well and
driveway to be out of the wetland jurisdiction of Chapter 97 of the Town Wetland
Code. However, any activity within seventy-five feet of the wetland line would
require permits from this office. These were the good old days when we only had
jurisdiction to seventy-five feet. There is in the file however, a letter from the
DEC which I am looking to find here. Are you aware of the old DEC permit on
this site?
CHUCK BOWMAN: The DEC permit requires a buffer. That goes without
saying. We have applied to them to. Still this would be a buffer. We are just
replacing the vegetation within the buffer. Actually providing for more valuable
habitant. Than you have there now. I really do not anticipate a problem with
DEC in doing that. In some cases they like phragrnites. When they are
28
stabilizing a shoreline or providing for filtration bed of storm water. Something
like that. In this case the only reason that they are there. Because of the dredge
spoil soil. The disturbed spoils and we are just going to replanting it with
amphorflora, bayberry, beach plum, switch grass.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would offer two courses of action for the Board. One is
to deny it as the application as submitted as it is an actually buffer area. The way
that it is and does not have to be disturbed or two have the applicant table the
application and wait for our Code change, which addresses buffer zones. We
have had two meetings already on Code changes. We have gone with the
standard fifty-foot buffer, which is consistent with DEC in the past as a no
disturbance buffer. However, we think we can do better on some of these buffers.
Some would be larger some would smaller depending it would be a lot site
specific depending on the proximity to how much it is developed in the area. The
proxicimity to other natural resources. The content of the buffer. As far as plant
material goes.
CHUCK BOWMAN: You are absolutely right it all depends on slopes and types
of vegetation that in there and age of vegetation/you have lawns running down
into. So absolutely and if you are looking into that. I would be more than happy
to table it. The~owner is not going to be happy but what can I say.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is the course of action for the owner.
CHUCK BOWMAN: As long as you realize that there are some improvements
can be made to a buffer. If you take a buffer or ask someone to put in a buffer on
a lawn that is going down to the waterway now. You say that we want a fifty foot
buffer and you have a planting plan. So that buffer is really not going to mount
too much for a few years. You can improve on. Here you have a monoculture of
phragmites. Where you can provide more habitant.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We did not see the monoculture when we were out there.
We saw a lot ofphragmites. But they are mixed in with other species.
CHUCK BOWMAN: But that is all the sides. We actually mapped where the
monoculture was.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think it is more advantageous for the applicant.
CHUCK BOWMAN: I request that it be Tabled then. That is not a problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Really getting site specific. Instead of fifty-foot non-
disturbance which become enforceable and becomes not always the best. We
would rather fine-tune each buffer to meet the needs. In the Town's best interest
this is already buffered so if it has to wait for another six months.
CHUCK BOWMAN: Again I have no problem then requesting that it be tabled.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I will make a Motion to Table the application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA; All in favor. ALL AYES
19. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of JOHN L. HURTADO request a
Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x93' +/- CCA timber beach access stairs -
29
proposed stairs will utilize a proposed 4'x12' platform (2) proposed 4'x4'
platforms and 4'x6' platform (40) 4"x4" CCA Timber posts are proposed to
support the stairs - stairs are proposed to terminate 23' +/- from AHWM -
AHWM is synonymous with the Tidal Wetland Boundary at this location
Located: 2670 Grand View Drive, Orient, NY SCTM#14-2-3.6
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this one. Is there anyone who would like to
comment on this application?
CHUCK BOWMAN: Chuck Bowman, Land Use Ecological Services. It is a
very simple stairway access. If you have any questions I would more than happy
to answer.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Okay, thank you, anyone else like to comment on this
application? I looked at this application on my own. Seemed very steep. I have
seen many stairs set up - steeper. I do not have problem with it. We have been
allowing them along the sound. Any other comments?
I will make a Motion to Close the Hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor. ALL AYES
I will make a Motion to Approve the Wetland Application on behalf of JOHNL
HUR TADO.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor. ALL AYES
20. B. Laing Associates, Inc. On behalf of INGER BOYAJIAN request a Wetland
Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit to renovate house, deck, and bulkhead within
existing footprint. Located: 2400 Bay Avenue East Marion, NY SCTM#31-16-8
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone would like to speak in favor of the application?
MIKE BONTJE: Mike Bontj e from B. Laing Associates here on behalf of Inger
Boyahan basically the application that you have before you does have some
history. So I am here to answer any questions if need be. With regard to any of
the diagram or permit application that you have before you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSLI: Thank you could I take other comments before the Board.
Are there any other comments on this application? ~
KEVIN Mc LAUGHLIN: Kevin McLaughlin I am here representing the
Mandaro Family whose property wraps around the applicant's property to the
north and to the west. Basically the family's concern when they got this notice,
Was the timber groin that is located at the property site. They want to make sure
that there is no active application before this Board concerning any work to be
done that timber groin. Frankly it is in some state of disrepair and if anything my
clients would like to see removed. They want to make sure that is going to be no
remedial work done to that timber groin. The other thing that they were
concerned about because the application talks about renovating the house was
exactly what was getting done and when I took a look at the Trustee's file. I had
difficulty explaining to them exactly what renovation was going to occur to the
house. It did not seem clear from the file. There concern being that their house
is located in very near proxicimity to the applicant's house. Which takes up the
vast majority of their lot. They do not want to see it raised substantially it will be
30
then looming over their structure. Those were the two issues that I had. I had
spoken with Mrs. Moore about them and I think to a substantial degree she has
cleared some of their concerns. But I just want to put it on the records as to what
the family concerns were. Concerning that jetty and the elevation of that house.
PATRICIA C. MOORE, We have a whole group here representing the applicant
Just to clarify with respect to the application. The house we are returning to the
original application that was in your files. That involves reconstruction of the
house. When I met with Bruno at the Building Department. The concern he
raised was the two different flood elevations that cross through this property. The
house is solely in the AEL an elevation 9 AE zone, which would not only require
as elevating the foundation by a foot and a half. Seventeen inches and that is
what the applicant would prefer. However, if the Building Department through
Eric Starr who is the Administrator for the FEMA regulation at the DEC
determined that the house must be placed based on the VE zone which is the
elevation eleven. That would require piles. That is not what we want. However,
the Building Department determines what type of construction will comply with
the FEMA Regulations. My client has since. Since I spoke to the Building
Department. Checked with Eric Starr and if there is any communication that you
have on an ongoing bases with Eric Starr it is always helpful to have your input..
What he advised if we are able. The decking is detached in other words. It is not
attached to the house. Then the decking which would clearly be in the AE Zone
would not trigger the whole house being put in the AE., It is a little bit of a loop
whole there, As long as the Building Department accept the appeals of the
decking to be detached from the main house. Then it protects the house from
pushing into a different flood zone. Our goal is all the same which is keeping it
essentially at the same elevation. Same level that it is. Slightly high elevating
foundation wise. Not putting on piles. It certainly as significant additional cost to
the applicant/client and it is not really what he wants. He wants the house the
way it is. So you know as much as we know which is as long the Building
Department accepts our application to remain under the AE Zoning classification.
We have no problem. If they push us into a different flood zone. They say that to
us now we hoPe that it will not occur. Just in case you suddenly find out that the
Building Department has put on stilts. It is not because we wanted to. Certainly,
it is not the neighbor's preference. It is not our preference. The DEC may over
ride and the Building Department may over-ride us.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Two questions. Eric Starr ?
PATRICIA MOORE: Eric Starr is the current Administrator at DEC that handles
the FEMA regulations. He is probably the one and only person over there. He
handles the Building Department when they get issues of FEMA. The flood zone
classification and construction in the FEMA regulated area. They will often refer
to Eric Starr who is the permanent Administrator at DEC. He is very
approachable. Very good. Often times will see reason. Will understand the
situation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are familiar with him. The detachable deck would
make sense under the Coastal Erosion Hazard.
31
PATRICIA MOORE. A garage that is detached is not a different construction
standard. So the decking is not a habitual structure. So it would not make sense.
Sometimes the building department takes a position that we may not agree with. I
would hope that they would agree with us this time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just a point of interest. If they require that the house be
placed on piles. What would the elevation change be?
PATRICIA MOORE: The height must be the lowest supporting members. That
was the described. Lowest supported members have to be an elevation eleven.
So it really raises the house significantly above grade. It is presently well to be at
nine. We only have to raise it seventeen inches so ten - eleven inches.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It shows elevations of five now.
PATRICIA MOORE: Five at the road. five point nine. No I am sorry at the
corner of the house it is seven three.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure, thank you
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Pat you keep referring - this house is going to be a
home and there is a cesspool already there.
PATRICIA MOORE: Yes. There are cesspools are located along the north end
west side of the property and they are all functioning. They were replaced not to
long ago.
GENTLEMEN: I do not know when they were replaced. They are functional
pools and they have an engineer's report and they are in working order.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that we are going to consult with the State as far as
the Coastal Erosion goes. However, I would like to clear up any thing else we can
clear up. Tonight, other questions that we had. One of them was the 1993
decision, which I do remember. Relating to armoring and I remember this.
Because this location kind of stand out. Armoring the property underneath the
deck and rebuilding the deck on top
MIKE BONTJE: Again I am Mike Bontje from B. Laing Associates I was also
involved with the 1993 Permit so I remember the conditions. At that time the
deck the deck as it exists now sticks out about eight feet from the building. At
that time the deck stuck out additional seven or eight feet and actually ended
where I would be calling the northerly bulkhead. There are sort of the remnants
of the bulkhead there now. It is about three feet south - three or four feet south of
the northern end of boat ramp. I can point it out to you on the survey. It might
make a little more sense. So what you see is as the deck right now. Has actually
been shortened by seven or eight feet and that was done at the request of the
Town itself. The Building Department issued a notice to the Zatarin's who were
the owners at the time: Indicated that the deck was unsafe in that condition and
requested that portion of that be removed. Again this permit has gone in and out
activity and so have on it. So somewhere in that period between 1996 and I
believe 1998 that portion of the deck had been removed. As requested. I have
pictures of it back in 1993 or at least photo -copies of the pictures so that you can
see that the deck did extend past the northern end of the boat ramp by three feet.
Part of the idea of putting the gabion in at that point. Was the fact that we
wanted to prevent what is exactly what is happening now? Which is where Bay
32
Avenue is sort of falling in. The boat ramp is getting undermined. So that was
the existing footprint at the time in 1993.
PATRICIA MOORE: You have to be careful I can understand that somewhat
confusion. Because we have it surveyed with the existing condition. Verus the
permit application that is the original permit with all the designs. So when you
look at the survey. It gets a little confusion because you are not seeing the
proposed. You are seeing the existing.
MIKE BONTJE: What is shown now, as the southerly property line is
approximately where that bulkhead which supported the deck what I call the
northerly bulkhead. It is designated the southerly property line right now.
Because of the secretion that incurred or the neglect of the property. Absence of
any activity.
PATRICIA MOORE: On the survey you see concrete walls and then you see
remains of dock. At the end of those two is tie line along average high water
mark and remains of bulkhead. That is the point were the decking will go and
that is where the bulkhead and gabion will go.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In the spirit of moving this along. I think it would be
easier to meet with the DEC.
MIKE BONTJE: We have a valid permit valid through November of 03. I think
I sight the number in my correspondence once or twice and it was issued in 1993.
It has been extended several times and it is valid until November 2003. The
effective date November 22, 1993. Original expiration 1996 and extended two
times and now is valid through November 22, 2003. Permit 4738009/(cannot
understand)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ii have a 1993 plan from B. Laing Assocates showing the
deck only. Existing of what it is now.
MIKE BONTJE: What happened was the deck existed further out. If you look at
the cross section. Is we are going to put the gabion in. Relay the deck on top of
that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The 1993 plan shows the deck identical in size to what it
is now. We are going to have to go out to the site. First of all we need the
cesspools on the survey and you should be able to find the height of the house
elevation.
PATRICIA MOORE: I do not want to delay too long. We have an emergency
condition there. We have the road (cannot understand)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Call the Highway Department immediately.
PATRICIA MOORE: We did.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I will make a Motion to Table the application.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
MIKE BONTJE: We will be included on your February site work plan at this
particular point. If you wanted to look at it?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely.
MIKE BONTJE: Very good. Will call and see if we can arrange an approximate
time.
33
21.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There would be a determination of the State to determine
that the consequences of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act. Which is the town's
responsibility. We want to see the location of cesspools and the septic system.
Also find out which elevation is going to be on that.
GENTLEMEN: I spoke to Eric Starr the elevation would be nine. The house
itself is in the AE Zone, which is quite clear on that survey. Then it is okay, as
long as the deck is detached which is a separate structure. It would be nine with
elevation currently the first floor level in seven and half.
TRUTEE KRUPSKI: I think that we would recommend a detachable deck under
Coastal Erosion anyway. We would condition that in the Permit to the Building
Department anyway.
PATRICIA MOORE: That would work either way. We are usual detached being
that is structural it is not attached. That is not a problem.
David Corwin on behalf of DAVID EDELSTEIN/LIBBY GOLDSTEIN
request a Wetland Permit to construct 4'x16' ramp, 4'x38' catwalk, 4'x12' access
stairs and one mooting pile Located: Wells Road, Peconic, NY SCTM#86-02-
012.5
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the
application? Is there anyone who would like to speak against the application?
Mr. Corwin falls under. I do not think that you were here earlier. We got notice
by the Town Attorney after four o'clock this evening that fight now affects any
application that might be before you today. This application falls under the
MORATORIUMbeing that it is dock. However, the public heating was noticed
and people were presumable would speak to it. So we wanted to open the Public
Heating anyway. Now we would like m start the SEGRA review in the
meantime. Just to get the project underway. RESOLVED, by the Board of
Trustee' s of the Town of Southold. That the application of DAVID
EDELSTEIN/LIBBY GOLDSTEIN more fully described in the Public Heating
Section 21 of Trustee Agenda dated Wednesday, January 22, 2003 is pursuant to
the SEQRA rules and regulations is an unlisted action. Be it further resolved, that
the applicant is required to submit Part One of the long environment assessment
form and be it further resolved that upon receipt of the long environmental
assessment the Clerk of the Trustee's is hereby directed to commence a
coordinated review pursuant to SEQRA.
We see not reason that we cannot conduct that. So if you could call Charlotte
tomorrow to get the long Environmental Assessment Forms.
CHARLOTTE CUNNINGHAM: He did - he did it all ready.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
E, BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Just for the record. Did he get a DEC Permit yet?
DAVID CORWIN: No
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I will make a Motion to Table the application.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES.
34
22.
Proper-TPermit Services on behalf of WEST LAKE ASSOCIATION request a
Wetland Permit to dredge the entrance channel and adjoining portions of West
Lake to maximum 3 feet below average low water - place a total of
approximately 700 cubic yards of dredge spoil on indicated sites - maintenance
dredge to same conditions, as necessary, a maximum of three additional times
during the next ten years. Located 505 Cedar Point Drive West, Southold, NY
SCTM#90-1-11
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone likes to speak in favor of the application.
JIM FITZGERALD: Excuse me, Jim Fitzgerald for the Association. You have
seen this before. We spent a lot of time talking about it. A little over two years
ago. In the issuing two years we succeeded in getting the Corp of Engineer's and
DEC permits. Succeeded also in letting this slip from us. So we would like to
have your authorization again to do the same job. A single difference is that the
DEC required that we place this spoil in GEO tubes in front of the bulkhead to the
east of the channel and that is shown on the map that you have. In addition
another piece of information that came up since then. Is that? I think at that time
we were unable to determine that the channel had been indeed dredged before.
We found however that it had been. It was dredged at the time the Greenfield's
bulkhead was put in. It was done on their permit. Which was why we could not
find it. The dredging on that permit was 125 feet by fifteen feet to five feet below
mean low water. We are asking for three feet below mean low water. So I think
that comes into the heading ofmaintence dredging. Everything else is the same.
The bulk heading, on the west side (the lake side) of the channel to be removed.
The concrete ramp to be removed. The area planted with alterniflora. So that is
it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are going to take all of the comments? We have a few
questions for you? Are there any other comments? One is how did we leave and
I cannot remember this was a few years ago. How did we leave it so that the
adjoining bulkheads would not? - That there was some insurance.
JIM FITZGERALD: We left it I think that first of all. There was going to be
insurance required to insure that if that God forbid that the properties owners on
the in side would not be subjected to a problem. In addition I see in the earlier
application that the Moy's on the east side are applying to replaCe their bulkhead.
So that would be an advantage. I think then we have to leave it up to the
contractor who understands the problem. What to do or not do what ever is
necessary to insure that the bulkhead on the Greenfield's property did not suffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is one of our concerns. We do consider this a
maintenance project. But one of our concerns, of course. As mentioned in the
Code destabilizing the neighbor's property. The other item is the GEO Tubes. As
someone mentioned earlier are they a temporary measure? That would be used to
dewater the sand.
JIM FITZGERALD: Yes, it is to dewater the spoil. It would be removed from
the tubes. The tubes removed from the sun.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is the time frame on that removal?
JIM FITZGERALD: I do not know Al. How long they would be on the beach? I
do not know.
35
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How do you get in there to take the tubes out? Access the
site. To take the tubes out and remove the fabric. Once the sand is dewatered and
they are going to remove the tubes. How do they get in there? We have never
had GEO Tubes in Town before. I do not mind it as a temporary de-watering
device to control where the sand goes. Because once it is de-watered you remove
the fabric. The sand will just be there. Above the inter-tidal area.
JIM FITZGERALD: That was the point of it because the DEC was concerned.
They did not want anything below the high water mark and that was the only way
we could reasonably insure that was at their request to include the GEO tubes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How would they access that? How do you physically
accomplish that?
JIM FITZGERALD: I do not know but I guess I could find out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I do not really have a problem. This is not something that
we reviewed. One question is why all of the spoil is placed to the east. Not to
the west?
JIM FITZGERALD: Because Mrs. Greenfield did not want it on her property to
the west. This was the most convenient place.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I am not convinced with the GEO Tubes?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI If it is temporary it is just a matter of controlling the sand.
You take it out and it is not a hard structure because it is gone. What kind of
constraints would we put on, as in time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sixty days, unless they have to appeal to us. De-watering
sand is going to take. Physically would it is going to take two days. I would give
them sixty days as a matter of letting them time to do it.
JIM FITZGERALD: It sounds reasonable to me.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I think this could be one of the projects that should
have an inspection upon the start, inspection halfway through and inspection
when it is done. Inspect it when the GEO tubes are fully removed on the time
date that we set.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would like to see it myself.
TRUSTEE KING: With some kind of insurance or a bond to protect the property
owners. To the amount that would to put a new bulkhead in if:necessary.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just want to make sure that is set-up completely. That
would protect the adjacent property owner's. Who sets that insurance up? To
protect the property owner's on either side.
JIM FITZGERALD: You mean who gets the insurance? The contractor gets the
insurance.
TRUSTEE KING: We would like to see a copy of it in the record.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that I am inclined to approve this tonight. Before
the permit is released a copy of the insurance. To protect the adjacent
homeowner's and a written description of how that fabric will be removed. It can
be removed anytime. Obviously, it does not have to be sixty days, to be fair we
give the contractor sixty days to remove it. Is the Board happy with that?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA; That is fine.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there is no other comment do I have a Motion to close
the hearing?
36
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved.
TRUTEE K/NG: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
MRS. GREENFIELD: I am most interested as a property owner to see that you
are going to protecting me. With the insurance in place or a bond. Before
anything proceeds.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We will not release the permit until we have a copy of the
insurance in hand. Then we will release the permit.
MRS. GREENFIELD: Thank you. Also will it be guaranteed that nobody will be
using my property? That no equipment, no manpower nobody will be on my
property during this process. This is a guarantee?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would like to address that question to the applicant?
That is what we were wondering about access. Now Mrs. Greenfield does not
want any one on her property. How is the work going to be performed?
JIM FITZGERALD: I would like to guarantee that no one will walk on Mrs.
Greenfield property but I cannot do that. I think that would have to be
something. It is a standard business practice. People go around doing jobs not
walking on other people's property. I do not know how I could guarantee. I can
guarantee that there be no equipment or damage to your property. I cannot
guarantee you that no one is going to walk on it.
MRS. GREENFIELD: I think that is a concern. You and I know that people in
the process of construction are not necessarily going to be very much aware and
concerned about my property. As I am. I do not think that it is necessary. I was
assured Mr. Fitzgerald that everything would be done by boat in that area. My
property would not be used at all. Or accessed.
JIM FITZGERALD: Of course,
MRS. GREENFIELD: Is this for the record then please.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is fine. If there is no need physical need to use your
property. Then is no reason that they have to use your property to access the site.
Obviously they have to go down that. It is marked on here West Lake Drive. To
conduct the removal of that portion of retaining wall. Removal of the concrete
ramp. :
MRS. GREENFIELD: That is not my property
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is correct. There is physically no reason obviously
Mr. Fitzgerald nor the Board could guarantee that someone is not going to wander
off on your property. You can just not do that.
MRS. GREENFIELD: He knows within reason what we are talking about.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I agree but if that is a concern of yours.
MRS. GREENFIELD: Is that for sure Mr. Fitzgerald You are insuring me then
that will be no work -
JIM FITZGERALD: I am assuring you that there will be no equipment on your
property. As Mr. Krupski said I cannot guarantee that no one will walk acroos
your lawn.
MRS. GREENFIELD: Will I be informed when the work is to be started.
JIM FITZGERALD: I told you that I would do that.
37
23.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. So I will make a Motion to Close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE K/NG: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES I will make a Motion to
Approve the application with the condition that Mrs. Greenfield's property not be
used for conducting operations or storing materials WE WOULD LIKE TO PUT
A TIME LIMIT ON THE WORK So that it does not become something. This
could be done presumable this kind of job. Could be done within a week.
JIM FITZGERALD; It might take longer to set up.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The work itself. We do not want to see something that is
going on for equipment - part redone for a year something. Dragged out and
become. It just wants to give that assurance that it is not going to become a
location there.
TRUTEE KING: Give them sixty days.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then sixty days the whole project should be completed.
From the beginning operation to be completed within sixty days. Including the
removal of GEO tubes.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Also two inspection
TRUSTEE KING: Proof of insurance to protect the property owners.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Proof of insurance has to be submitted before the permit
will be released. Three inspections have to be conducted before it begins, during
operations and when the operation is complete.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI; All in favor. ALL AYES
Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of GRACE KEHLE request a Wetland
Permit to construct a low profile 3'x95' fixed timber dock, minimum 2.5' above
grade with 3'x8' steps to grade. Located: 450 Strohson Road, Cutchogue, NY
S CTM# 103-10-20 Moratorium
24.
JEFFREY HALLOCK request a Wetland Permit to cut into ground of right of
way for installation of underground utilities and permission to cut base of existing
dirt roadway to upgrade with stone materials as required by Southold Zoning
Board - to locate dwelling with attached garage and sanitary system at least 110-
115 ft from nearest edge of tidal wetlands Located: Diachon Road/Peconic Bay
Blvd. Laurel, NY SCTM#127-3-9.1
TRUSTEE KRUSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of
application?
HARVEY ARNOFF: I would, good evening, Harvey Amoff, 206 Ronake
Avenue, Riverhead, NY. We are here on behalf of Jeff Hallock. Before I begin I
think that my comments should be addressed to Will Rogers because I think that
much what was printed in the local papers is just basically untrue about this
application.
38
I think when you look at this application and the documents you are going to see
it is very minimal application, which is before this Board. This Board has
jurisdiction over certain portions of what is going on with this site. \
First of all the Board should be aware we have received and I have for you.
Health Department approval and a letter from the DEC of No-Jurisdiction dated
November 20t , 2002 and the Health Department approval is dated December 16th,
2002. I would like to hand those up. Secondly, by way of history and I do not
know what the Board is aware of. But there is an order of Justice Catterson of the
Supreme Court of the State of New York Suffolk County dated the 9th day of
February 2000, which created the right of way as a matter of law.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sorry could you say that again.
HARVEY ARNOFF: There is a decision of Mr. Justice James Catterson
Supreme Court Justice dated the 9th day of February 2000 which created as a
matter of law this sub-division. I should say that the partition of certain real
property and the existence of fifty percent to create two fight of way. The one
that relates to this parcel is a fifty-foot wide right - of- way. I will hand up a
copy of the decision of Judge Catterson for the Board's information. Finally it is
the decision of the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals which I am sure you
are familiar I am not going to hand up. I have an extra copy if the Board needs it.
I will rip it our of my file.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I do not believe we have it.
HARVEY ARNOFF: Then I will be glad to hand it up.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The file is growing so who knows
HAREY ARNOFF: Yes it is growing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I am sorry we do have it.
HARVEY ARNOFF: You do have it. That is the decision resulting from the
Public Heating on January 4, 2001 for the 280A - An application that was made
by our predecessors and title Ms. Diachun and ultimately granted subject to
certain requirement, which is really why we are here. We are here only because
the Zoning Board told us we have to be here. By way of history there are some
photographs which I would like to hand up which show pretty prolifically the
existing right of way. There are three of them. One of has my client's vehicle in
it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you
HARVEY ARNOFF: Essentially all that we are doing is this? The Zoning Board
said when you build your house in there. We want to be able to be sure. We all
remember when Mr. Goehringer was Chairman. I am sure the Zoning Board is
still very concerned about pubic safety. Wanting to know that the Fire
Department could get in there. So he said you have to make it fifteen feet wide.
About fifty percent of the fight a way as it exists fight now is fifteen feet wide.
We do not even have to concern ourselves with that. Do not intend to make
anything wider than fifteen feet. In fact, if you notice the application. It is very
specific. The only widening of the right-a-way to make it fifteen feet will be on
the landward side of the existing right of way. We are not creating anything
different, We are not creating any kind of hard surface. The Zoning Board has
directed that we use certain materials. That we do certain things. If you look at
39
the decision of the Zoning Board. It says in fact remove approximate four to six
inches of luam.. Packed base and replace with four inches of crushed concrete as
needed. Some area may need six inches. It is crushed stone. That is what we are
talking about. It is not going to affect any thing. There will be a few trees
removed. They are not sixty, seventy, eighty foot high trees. This property was
essential farm lawn at least during the twentieth century. It was farmed so these
trees are not something that have been here for hundred of years. Their maybe a
few of them. But only a few of them will be affected by the nature of the
application. The house itself is beyond the jurisdiction I think that the Board is
aware beyond its jurisdiction. So the only thing that we are dealing with here. Is
complying with the directions of the Zoning Board of Appeals. In reality all we
are doing is disturbing a little gravel. We are not digging holes, we are not
building in the wetlands we are just taking what is there and conforming to the
direction of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Even though there is a fight to make
the thing fifty feet wide. My client has been a life long residence of the Eastern
Suffolk County. He lives in Riverhead and he wants to become a resident here.
He want s to build his own home here and he is going live here. Under the
circumstances to deny the application. Is to deny the right to build on this which
has been given by the Zoning Board of Appeals. I welcome any questions or any
comments the Board might have?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that we will take all the comments. Because I have
got a few questions.
HARVEY ARNOFF: By the way the surveyor is here. Mr. Ehler is here and my
client is here as well to answer any question that you have.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before I take any other comments. I am just looking for a
survey of the entire I keep getting these.
HARVEY ARNOFF: It is a six-acre piece.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I keep getting these choppy surveys. There is a survey
showing the entire sub-division.
HARVEY ARNOFF: My client advises 1800 feet from Peconic Bay Blvd. to his
property. If that is your question? By the way Mr. Krupski I believe that one of
the Diachun or more of the Diachuns are here..
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just want to look at it in its entirely. Because this right
of way does not affect one property.
HARVEY ARNOFF: It goes the other way.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Another question while I am looking. Why was the right
of way placed in an area that is going to be flooded. Why would the right of way
be placed on the east side of the property.
HARVEY ARNOFF: The right of way is one hundred years old. It has been
there. It has been there forever. We are not creating a new fight of way. It is
there. It has been traveled upon I know there is a gentlemen here who said that
he was racing cars on it forty years ago. So I think that it has been there for forty
years that I know of.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What did the Judge say? Why did you need a Judge.
HARVEY ARNOFF: Because there was a petition action brought between the
parties to divide this property. It was a dispute between the co-owners of the
40
property and who would own what? The Court made a final determination by
Justice Catterson, which you have a copy of.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because we have not reviewed this yet. Because we just
received it. But that would not affect the right-of-way.
HARVEY ARNOFF: No there is specific grant of the right-of way. As to Lot 3-
10, which is the one that we are talking about here. That Mr. Hallock owns. It
specifies that the right-of-way I think 51 point some odd feet at one point. Fifty
feet at the other. It is kind of varying widths. Approximately fifty feet wide the
fight -of-way. It gives a specific meets and bounds description to that right of
way. I cannot comment what Justice Catterson did other than there is a Supreme
Court order? Giving that fight-of-way.
TRUSTEEE KRUPSKI: Who established it? At one point the Indians owned it.
At some other point some one owned and said I want the right of way here.
HARVEY ARNOFF: I assume that the prior owner did. There was a prior owner
or the Diachun's amongst themselves did.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI Because we did not under stand why. Because it seems if
you have these nice lots on the creel~ and if were looking out onto the Creek.
Which is nice views there. Then you would not want a fight of way in your view.
You would want it behind your house.
JOHN EHLERS: John Ehlers the surveyor. It all started along long time ago
when Leo & Theodore Diachun lived on opposite ends of the property Eleanor
Diachun is here and Ron Diachun are here and they can correct me ifI am wrong.
This is something that I learned because I was involved in the petition action
when the property was created and the deeds all talk of a fight of way going
through the property. Now we checked with all other old records and we found
an old Van Tyle map that showed this fifty foot right of way. Which basically
covered the existing fifteen foot wide pathway. That the brothers had taken from
one house to the other. So there was an intent at one time that this could be path
to use to get from Peconic Bay Blvd. To the property in the back. Because there
was no other existing open right of way or written described fight of way. The
Judge decided that was the fight of way of record and put that into the decision.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This seems like a poor judgment by the Judge.
JOHN EHLERS: The title came up with other maps that looped around Eleanor
Diachun house and tried to explore other ways and the Judge said we are not
creating anything here. We are just giving what is. This is what it has been here
since Leo & Theodore were kids. I am not changing anything like that. If you
will have to deal whatever you have to deal with. The existing fight away of way
on the ground. Travels over through that fifty wide section.
ELEANOR DIACHUN: It is away from the Creek. It is not near the Creek.
TRUSTEE KRLIPSKI: Just wait madam. I just had one more question and then
could you please show on this tax map. I do not have a survey of the whole
property.. So when we listen to comments we will have better understanding
what is out there. Because we were out there. Because when you are in the
woods. It is hard to tell what is what? So this is one parcel here. This is Eleanor
is back here. You drive pass her house to get out there.
41
JOHN EHLERS; This is all vacant. This was Rose Diachun. This was Eleanor
Diachun and this was both left to Rose and Eleanor. They disputed how they were
going to cut it up. So it went to Court. The Judge said I will split down the
middle. Give this half to Eleanor because she already owns this. Rose already
owns this and I am going to give this half to Rose. Next question was how do you
get to the property. Well there is an existing path that you walk down.
TRUSTEE KING: Are there now three lots there now. Is that what you are
saying?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is what I am trying to clear up here.
TRUTEE KING: This is attached to that one.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI This is not part of the property. This is part of this lot
now. So this go with this. So there are three lots.
E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Who owns the first one?
JOHN EHLERS: Ronnie does
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So it is one two three. Is that it?
But does this reflect. So which parcel is that?
JOHN EHLERS: That is this parcel.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is the first parcel.
HARVEY ARNOFF: So there is another parcel.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So that is separate then.
HARVEY ARNOFF: It does not belong to this.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: My question is these parcels are served by the same fight
of way.
JOHN EHLERS: Yes
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any other part to this. Five parcels served by
this fight of way.
HARVEY ARNOFF: I did not know that is merged.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We just want to get an idea about the projected use of the
road is going to be. You can have one car going down it. A horse and buggy or
whatever. You have five all of a sudden you multiply it out by whatever.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: During the Judges petition was there an Environmental
Review on the up grade of this path/road.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We did see a survey showing a proposed alternative,
which would have taken this.
JOHN EHLERS: Mrs.Diahcun who is here with us. Did not want the cars
wrapping around her property.
HARVEY ARNOFF: We are stuck with a deeded fight of way. That exists that
was just a proposed theory that was put forth and Mrs. Diachun said no. To
change that would be to change the Judge's decision.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we will review that. The Judges decision I think
what we will do is Table the application based upon figuring these things out.
We will take a look and see what the Judge had to say. We will see how many
parcels are served by this fight of way. See what the intensity of the use is. See
in fact if there is any leeway here and another question we had was it is a fifty-
foot wide fight of way. The applicant proposes to improve fifteen feet of it.
42
HARVEY ARNOFF: He is not carving out fifteen feet. In most instances there is
already fifteen feet there.
TRUSTEEE KRUPSKI: But he is going to improve it. He is going to scrape soil.
HARVEY ARNOFF: That is with the accordance with the Zoning Board
determination. That is correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is what I meant by improving. What was unclear
was where in the field where that right of way actually was. Because we do not
want to get into. If we are in fact stuck with this right of way. We are stuck with
it - we are stuck with it. Not that is a positive. If we are stuck with this right of
way. It is fifty feet wide and then what are the factors that the applicant's right
then and all the other owners on it. To improve this beyond the fifteen feet. That
is our concern. Today it is fifteen feet but yet it is fifty-foot wide area, which was
indefinite in the field. We went out on the road but we are not sure what the
definition of the whole fifty-foot right of way. That is something at some future
point is going to have been delineated in the field.
HARVEY ARNOFF: You want the fifth foot stake.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can put a string on it. Or a stake every once in while.
HARVEY ARNOFF: We can do that. We are not looking we do not need fifty
feet for any reason ever.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we want to see it delaminated. Should be able to see
the property lines. We have done this before to see the boundaries. Yet we want
to get the other items straighten out first. Before you go that far. I do not know
we want to take any comments or just Table it. People are here and they want to
comment.
MATHEW ATKINSON: My name is Mathew Atkinson attorney representing
some of the neighbors. If you are going to Table this/ I think it is worth A look at
a couple of the other items. I read the Cattersson decision for example. It was as
petition of the property that was to the North of the original property that Jeffrey
Hallock owned. The original application before the ZBA was for Lot 10 and now
this lot has merged with 9.1 or 9.2 which was the Rose Diachun/Eleanor Diachun
property. The decision also talks about two easements. One running up the east
side of the property of 25 feet as well as this fifty-foot. As it was pointed out.
This body is not a Court of Law nor is the Judge. The Board of Trustees. The
placement of that right of way. Because of the custom of the Diachun should not
necessarily be memorial led by this board for a large piece of property. We are
talking another twelve acres to the South of this property line. Six acres to the
North of it. There is a potential for a sub-division of some nine different lots. All
of who have the right to use this specific fifty foot road. If it were built nothing
that Mr. Hallock could do about it. Because it is in the command easement. The
Zoning Board of Appeals when they approved this property also approving a
fifteen-foot road, which is the minimal road under the Southold Town Code for a
back lot. For one property, one road, one property fifteen feet. By the time this
property becomes continued developed. Sooner or later the Zoning Board of
Appeals is going to require a larger road. Other that road is going to continue to
go into the fifty foot easement or sooner or later it is going to have to the back of
the lot. I understand the problem of having car pass around your property. Mrs.
43
Diachun legitimate concern. However, this Board concems is of course with the
Wetlands. Whether this will adversely impact the Wetlands in this really rather
beautiful environment. Finally I think that the application is insufficient on its
face and it is just worth pointing this out. We are going to get more materials.
The survey which shows the property to be improved. Mr. Hallock's property
does not show the entire right of way. All the way to Peconic Bay Blvd. Nor
have the wetlands been flagged? Although the application reports to show that
the Wetlands are at least sixty from the used dirt track. You will find that those
Wetlands Boundaries tend to follow the eight foot contour. Which intersects
with this dirt track south of the property. South of where the Wetlands have been
indicated. So this Board cannot possible tell by looking at this application where
this dirt track is. In relation to the Wetlands or indeed whether across through the
Wetlands. Other than that I just would like to agree with the concerns that
happened and will be raised. If you are going to plan to develop this property
against some really pristine beautiful wetlands. What is the sense in running the
road up against the wetlands encroaching upon the Wetlands. This is going to be
a steady growth on that: Instead of running it up the east side. Which will protect
that view shed, water shed, and the habitant there. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments?
GWEN SCHROEDER: Gwen Schroeder North Fork Environmental Council and
the comments tonight apply to the fight of way. I think especially this week or
this month when the Trustee's were granted a moratorium. Because there is a
increased awareness of the impacts development are having on our Wetlands and
Estuary. I think that you guys as Mr. Atkinson said. Your vision of what is under
your jurisdiction should be clear and it is to protect our Wetlands and Estuary.
This is from our President. Howard Meinke. IfI can read it: "We have all come
to realize that much of the creek side development that has occurred in Southold
over the years was done too close to the water with too harsh impact on the creeks
and wetland. Pesticides, fertilizers from lawns silt from the excavation marsh
filling from bulkhead construction and dredging. Bacteria from septic systems
and all the by-products of human activity. Have had deadly effects on the
estuarine nursery that support and nourishes our Peconic Bay system. The Peconic
Estuary study makes this situation abundantly clear. In spite of Past history.
Brushes Creek generally inaccessible to marine craft due to the infamous sinking
bridge. That has been maintained an extraordinary natural pristine state. No
dredging nor filling few docks and floats and no beaches. This is an outstanding
example of the creek, marsh and wetland. That is the source of the productive
Peconic Estuary system. Now there is an application before you. The
Diachun/Hallock right of way that gives us a chance to make a new start on creek
side development and apply what we know. An access right of way is proposed
that runs practically at sea level along and within the Wetland buffer on the
Creek undeveloped east side. This damaging route proposed in spite of the
existence of a prior plan. That places the road on the extreme eastern side of
property all the way from the creek. There is no reason to accept the present
proposal. With the risk to the Wetlands when a better and safer plan exists right
now in the Town Trustee's file cabinet. We know now what the preferred
44
environmental plan is and we should not accept less. We encourage you to
disapprove this permit. I feel for the Diachun's and Mr. Hallock. I want to echo
what has been said. What are the Town Code requirements for nine lot sub-
division. We are not looking at just what is going to have to take place today.
But in ten or fifteen or twenty years from now.
RUTH KOCH: My name is Ruth Koch, I live on North Oakwood off of Brushes
Creek. I just wanted to submit. US Geological Survey Aerial Satellite Photo.
Showing existing roads as of 1994, there is no path on the west side of Brushes
that existing according to this photo. There are however, running through the
land and to the east. I just wanted to submit that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
BARBARA LASKIN: My name is Barbara Laskin I do not have a comment
about Will Rogers. I would like to take this opportunity to make a brief
statement. A little over a month ago. I knew nothing about this issue and neither
did any of my neighbor's, many of whom are here tonight. About the only people
who are familiar with this issue were the applicant and the owner's of the rest of
the twenty two aere parcel Which are also here tonight. I think that it is
unfortunate and all too often. That people like us are left in the dark. But we are
here tonight. And we are here because we have to be here. If not, there is a real
possibility that something irreplaceable will be lost forever. We observe these
wetlands every single day. We are clear in our minds and hearts that we will not
only be the ones to do so. Every time you drive and walk down Peconic Bay
Blvd. You are able to see these glorious pristine unspoiled wetlands. We are not
against development. We are against ruination. This is something unique and
exceptional that should be safeguarded for future generations. I truly believe it
would be terrible and unwise to encroach upon the Brushes Creek Wetlands.
Where the applicant eventually wants to build as he told me. When he called me
houses not just one house. These wetlands are magnificent unspoiled and
adjacent to acres of former farmland. They are the soul of the North Fork. They
have trees in deed that sore 60 to 100 feet because I to four years ago have been
on this fight away when the Diachun's were issued a violation by the DEC for
dumping on this very property. These unspoiled wetlands support an enormous
and complex community of marine and environmentally sensitive wild life. They
are for every body to enjoy and participate in. If this application goes through.
This permanent is built. So close to these wetlands I assure you these will
eventually disappear. Because there is nothing stopping anyone to do so. The
applicant has said that he has no intention of disturbing the wetlands. Maybe not.
Plenty of people have come before you and they have also made promises to you.
They have broken those promises when they have gotten their way. When people
are looking the other way. Nobody is looking at them. I beg you to use the law
that you now have in your possession. As well as your own courage and strength
to stop this unwise and regrettable application. I urge you to draw a line in the
sand and say no more. The Town of Southold has the backbone and the will to
protect it's wetlands. I would also lastly say. That we cause this opportunity for
the common good. We could dialogue, we could speak with the owners -
members are here representing environmental groups, The Peconic Land Trust.
45
We can take this time and this moment. To try and begin to save these precious
wetlands and this property and not destroy them. Thank you so much.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Anyone else.
HARVEY ARNOFF: I just wanted to clarify something. The attorney on the
other side spoke of two right of ways. One twenty five and one fifty. There
really is only one right away in Catterson decision. That is the reason it maybe
confusing. When you read it I just want you to know. It starts out at twenty five
feet and then it stands to fifty feet as it get down to here. There was trouble
getting this little bottle neck.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It does show that is why and I remember from years ago.
It does show another road back here.
HARVEY ARNOFF: May I make another comment. We are not further
encroaching on Brushes Creek. Anything that we do will be landward of what is
already there. The construction of this house has not a thing to do with Brushes
Creek and in fact if my client wanted to do. He could start construction tomorrow
on the house. It could get a Building Permit tomorrow. Getting the Building
Permit is not the problem. Because he has to meet 2AA requirements in order to
get the C.O He would have to get access either some other way. The fact of the
matter is. The house is beyond the jurisdiction of this Board and has not a thing
to do with anyone. If it affects someone's vista. We are terrible sorry. He owns
the property and entitled to build on it. Having said that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSLI: That is not the issue.
HARVEY ARNOFF: I agree.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The proposed house, as proposed is outside of our
jurisdiction.
HARVEY ARNOFF: I think what the Board has to be mindful. Is that the Board
is essentially power less to an easement or right away over someone else's land.
We do not know any other way of getting out. The only way- Mr. Hallock can get
our. Is the right of way. The only way he can get to Peconic Bay Boulevard from
his property is this right a way. So not withstanding. We have the Zoning Board
saying just take care of the thing. Widening it so we can get emergency vehicles
in. By the way, if we could get a Waiver that 2AA from the Zoning Board. Will
take the right a way as it exists. The problem ts that they will nOt give that. They
want access for Emergency Vehicles. That is the sole purpose of our being here.
So I do not want anyone to confuse this opposition. We are not putting a new
interstate in. We are not looking to disrupt the beauty of the North Fork; I think
you know me well enough to know that is not my style before this Board. Or any
other Board of this Town.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think to state the Board statement. We have acted on
a small number of new sub-divisions. I can only think of two. New sub-divisions.
In each case. We get the opportunity to design how this is going to impact the
Wetland next. On a constant bases. On the other two the road was on the other
side of the houses. So we got to designate wetland set back and what not. Three
we forgot one in Peconic. So it would be irresponsible of us. If we did not try to
struck the best bargain in Town as possible.
HARVEY ARNOFF: I agree with you
46
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because that is what we are here for. Not to just say
because some Judge said that we should say of course.
HARVEY ARNOFF: If the Board can provide another viable alternative we will
be willing to adopt it. We will be willing to impress that alternative.
RAYMOND: Hi my name is Raymond my back yards faces Brushes Creek. I
moved out here and I found Paradise. I lived out here fifteen years. I fish in my
back yard all the time. When I look out you can see egress, trees everything that
you can imagine. Living in those trees. I walk out I have to be so quite. Because
as soon as I make a sudden move. They all run. Can you imagine what cars can
do. Hundreds live in those trees. Sometimes thousand in the creek. When you
see this right away. I saw a car about a week ago go there. The car looked like it
almost went in the water. If the car went down the road. All the wild life is gone.
My neighbor tried to do some work on his house. A couple of years back. The
environ mist came down and they told him that you live on one of the most
pristine pieces of property that is regulated in the COuntTy. By him cutting down a
couple of little phragrnites. They had to grow back and they were almost
threatened. Am I saying it correctly? They would not let him put his deck in the
back of the house. Because they did not want him to disturb the wild life in the
back yard. Ami saying that correctly? What is a car going to do coming up that
road. Just want to be heard. I fish in the back and I cannot imagine seeing cars
drive up and down there. You are right. It should be on the other side. So they
cannot see looking at the water.. Thank you.
KEVIN MCALLISTER: Good evening, Kevin McAllister, Peconic Bay Keeper.
I would like to start by congratulating this Board for taking a very progressive and
affirmative action. With the moratorium. One thing that I noted and I think that
the Board has the same visuaarinlary with respect to looking at the big picture:
Also I think placing some flexibility on the protecting the buffer zones. Not to
insult this Board. I want to say the obvious about the values and functions of the
tidal wetlands and transinsinal areas. Obviously, and critically important habitant.
It is certainly demonstrated in this area. Filtration capacity from upland
pollutions. Obviously in this case the potential development, which is obviously
recognizable. With a host of pollutions coming from septic, fertilizer, pesticides,
roads, oil and greases, etc. Leading into that area. We need a buffer zone. A
visible buffer zone to filter out those pollutes. The nutrients that drive the real
chain in the bay system. Because it tries to separates down. That mass that
canopy that is extending along the shoreline. Is critical important. Obviously
continuation. I think that everybody on this Board. Recognizes that we are truly
are seeing sea level rise. There is expansion of bay waters in tee title creeks
which I have exempt field on previous occasion with some dead oak trees that
actually have water at their feet these day. That is physical evidence out there.
So the ability in having our shoreline defines their own limits. Is critically
important. Speaking to the right of way and again it is looking at the big picture.
Based on the site plan that I saw at least and this probably extends beyond this
certainly the survey can speak to this. Appeared to be at least approaching 2,000
linear feet of driveway if you will. Fifteen feet wide as per posted with some
improvement and the obvious fifty-foot wide swap of the right of way. Again
47
looking at the site plan. It does appear though it actually by sects the wetland
line. Along this property. So that of note. Obviously for the Board's to pay very
close attention to. I understand that the ZBA obviously has issued some
approvals for this fifteen-foot improvement with pervious surface. Nothing
precludes the further improvement of the fifteen feet with the subsequent
pavement at some later point and time. As well as Mr. Atkinson pointed out the
potential for enlargement of this right a way. To encompass at least the portion of
that fifty foot wide.. Again I recognize the ability to develop parcels. That I
instill in the Board as you have been demonstrating. It is all about wise
development. It is protecting again. This critical sub-water shed lands. Keeping
the intrigue of these transmit zones in tack. Those canopies in tack. Under
storage vegetation, marsh fringe, etc. In there existing state to provide the
benefits and value and benefits that I articulated. So I just will leave you with -
take a close hard long look at this application. Be sure that you are looking at the
big picture. Not just the piece of it. Because clearly as I have repeated stated.
before you. You recognize this I am always really impressed by the number of
applications. That you deal with daily. I could have bounced up and down eight
or ten times tonight. Just to speak on this one issue. Again cumulative impact the
big picture. That is really what is I thing the long-term threat to the healthy and
productivity of our system. Thank you.
E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Can I ask you a question? Is it reasonable to
believe that there where other houses to be built there? That the ZBA would
require thirty feet?
KEVIN MCALLISTER: I am sorry.
E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: As opposed to the fifteen.
KEVIN MC ALLISTER: I believe so. My understand is as again Mr. Atkinson
stated.. If you are looking beyond one residential property. Automatically I
believe there is a requirement for a more expansive access way. We are not
looking at scale and magnitude increasing and potentially again by the nature of
the surface here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is what we are getting to. I actually have a call into
the ZBA on that issue and we will just find out how many lots are buikdable
there.
KEVIN MC ALLISTER: Thank you.
HARVEY ARNOFF To answer your question, by the way. There is a four-lot
sub-division right now that is services by fifteen foot right a way. On Hallock's
right by Harbes Farm. So the Zoning Board does not necessarily to make the
fifteen foot strip any wider for the serving other homes. It exists right new. You
can check it by the Harbes Sub-division right off of Hallock Road.
WALTER: My name is Walter and I live on North Oakwood Drive. I am not so
much opposed to the road being put on that property. But by the way it is done.
Also the location. That was originally a walkway from one property to another.
In the last three years it has been enlarged. To a roadway a dirt roadway - It has
been bulldozed within the lasts three years. The next stop would be to put down
broken concrete. The next step maybe to put blacktop on that. The problem the
way that I see it. Is that the number one source of pollution in the bays? The non-
48
source pollutions is roadway m-off?. Now we are putting a roadway within
fifteen feet of the high water mark of the creek. Seems to me that would require
catch basins. Curbs and additional hardening of that particular area. That I find
offensive because we are trying to keep that creek clean fresh and as it is. The
bridge change over has not helped the flushing of that creek. Now to further
complicate things with road m-oft'in that creek seems necessary at this point.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
JEFF HALLOCK; May I address that issue. I am JeffHallock I am the property
owner. As far as the road m-off. The road that is proposed is to be gravel road
and would never want any thing but that. I am very sensitive to the environment.
I think the same standard should apply. North Oakwood paved their road a year
ago. With blacktop and they are on the creek as well. If they are also concerned
about - that road was paved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSLI: Wait - someone has a moment? Please address the Board.
Thank you.
JOHN HARRISON: I am John Harrison I am on North Oakwood Road. We are
not within fifteen feet of the creek. We are at least at the closes maybe sixty feet.
The road has been there since 1930's. So we cannot do 'much about that. The
other thing I donot want to repeat what every body else is said, I do want to say
that the main reason I am here. Is to encourage you to enforce the rules on the
other side of creek. By the way you have done on this side of the creek. We are
not unhappy with the fact that some of the rulings that you have. We want to be
sure that the rules are applied evenly. On both sides of the creek. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. If there are no other comments we will close
the hearing? We will Table the hearing and we will get that other information.
HARVEY ARNOFF: Exactly what is what you need.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I need to know the total number of lots. That is going to
service by this right away.
HARVEY ARNOFF: I can only speak to the total number of lots that are existing
today.
TRUSTEE KRUPKSI; Right, and we need a survey showing. We need a blow
up survey showing each and every. The whole length of the right away.
HARVEY ARNOFF: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We need our legal counsel to review the information that
you provide us.
HARVEY ARNOFF: So the only thing that you want from us then is a blown up
survey. Showing the lots that are serviced by the right of way.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We do not want to get it staked. Because maybe the Judge
was going in the wrong direction.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: A1 can we ask him to prepare a road fifty foot- with a
fifty foot buffer off the off the wetlands right now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No that is getting us too far ahead of us. Let us see what
the Judge says first. There is also the alternative that has actually worked quite
well in other parts of town. Neighbors getting together and buying the property
that they do not want to see developed. Because it is in there best interest because
they live there. Not to see something developed that they are going to see and be
49
affected by every day. It is for the benefit to the whole town. It directly affects
adjacent property owners. That is another alternative also. That could be
addressed.
JEFF HALLOCK I can address that right now. They cannot buy someone elses
property. Unless they are willing to sell it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely, but there are three other parcels there.
JEFF HALLOCK: Buy the others parcels.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely, that is just an alternative there.
JEFF HALLOCK: There is also another alternative also. If the right of way is
fifty foot wide. That road could be pushed to the other side of the right of way.
Then I would be cutting down those one hundred year old trees. I was looking to
keep the property as in tack as it is now and has been for hundred years. If you
want me to cut that fifty foot wider that right of way to the other side. Then we
would cutting a lot more trees. That is an option.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
ELLY DIACHUN: This is a little house - this is Elly Diachun. The little house
that is by the road. My brother-in law lived there. He was killed so he was there
fifty years. I have been there thirty five years. It is not a pathway It is a roadway
That is how wegot to my mother-in-law place back and forth. About the animals
the deer come right on my porch and bird bath. We go out there and they do not
move. Rabbits, I feed the rabbits and everything. So what are they talking about
what comes out of the creek on my lawn. Do not even bother us. I got proof of
that. I can bring plenty of proof here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I am going to make a Motion to Table the
hearing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
25. Glenn Just/JMO Consulting on behalf of KATHARINE R. STURGIS request
a Wetland Permit to propose to construct a 4'x120' fixed dock - 3'x 4' steps.
4'x16' ramp and (2) 8'x20' floats in a "L" configuration to be Secured by (6) 8"
piles. Located: Private Road, Fisher's Island, NY SCTM#2-1-2 Moratorium
26.
27.
J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of CHRISTOPHER PIA request a Wetland
Permit to dredge a 12'x360' channel to a depth of-4' the resultant spoil (320
c.y.) of sand will be placed on adjacent beach for beach nourishment. Located:
1455 Inlet Way, Southold, NY SCTM#92-1-4 Postponed asper Agent's
Request
Docko, Inc. on behalf of LUCIUS FOWLER request a Wetland Permit to
relocate an existing 10'x20' float with four new restraint piles and install a new
3'x20' hinged ramp Install seven new tie off piles, all waterward of the apparent
high water line. Located: Equestrian Avenue, Fisher's Island, SCTM#9-3-9
50
28.
29.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Table the application
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
Docko, Inc. on behalf of JOSEPH PENDERGAST request a Wetland Permit to
construct 28+/- if of 4 foot wide pile and timber pier - install an 8'x24' float with
associated 40 foot hinged ramp and restraint pilings, five tie off pilings all water
ward of the apparent high water line. Located: Oriental Avenue, Fisher's Island,
NY SCTM#10-10-10 Moratorium
Docko, Inc. on behalf of HAY HARBOR CLUB requests a Wetland Permit at
the diving area at the swimming dock filled in with sand from gales from the west
and northwest to be dredged 3 feet +/- dredged sand will be transported by barge
over to the Mobil Dock in West Harbor and off loaded- trucked back to replenish
the beach near the south dock used for upland fill purposes - landward of the
MHW line. Located Bell Hill Avenue, Fisher's Island, NY SCTM#9-3-1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Table the application
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
30.
Docko, Inc. on behalf of RICHARD BINGHAM requests a Wetland Permit to
extend an existing 6' wide fixed pier by 30 (+/-) lf. to reach suitable berthing
depth all waterward of the apparent high water line. Located: Central Avenue,
Fisher's Island, NY SCTM#6-4-2
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Table the application.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
31. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of JOANNA & DENNIS LANE requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a timber dock (3'x40') min. 3~ above grade, ramp
(3 'x 12') float (6'x20') Located: 1852 North Bayview Road, Southold, NY
SCTM#70-12-39.4 Moratorium
32.
Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of THOMAS LUNIEWSKI request a Wetland
Permit to construct single family residence - fill as required for construction of
sanitary and residence - sanitary. Located John's Road (Private Road) Mattituck
NY SCTM#122-03-25.2 Moratorium
PAATRICIA MOORE: Actually this is one that is in the Moratorium but I was
thinking that I could still proceed with the DEC while you are adjusting your
regulations. But I would like some advisory review because I had Young &
Young stake it and I assumed that you went out to take a look at it..
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI; we did look at.
PATRICIA MOORE: It is seventy feet back from the creek. So six months ago it
would have been out of your jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Last week it would have been.
51
PATRICIA MOORE: Next week it might be.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yesterday, it would have been.
PATRICIA MOORE: yesterday it would have been out. I would like some input
ifI could that way at least if you want to make modifications before I go to the
DEC. I will not be back and forth.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just wanted to make sure. It was unclear how much fill
was going to be required. We wanted to make sure that the drainage be kept on
site.
PATRICIA MOORE: Drainage? That is not a problem drywells will be in the
normal location of the comers of the house.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If the site is raised. The site should contain it's own run-
off.
PATRICIA MOORE: I can check with the surveyor to see if he has the
approximate amount of fill. I will put as needed for the sanitary. Because
depending where the sanitary is ultimately placed and reviewed by the Health
Department. I may be having mounded the system or not. I did not know exactly
how much.
TRUSTEEE KRUPSKI: The rest of the site we were concerned. Because fill as
needed is a broad statement.
PATRICIA MOORE: Not knowing exactly what ultimately reach. I will try to
narrow it down to no more than.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just put it what you need.
PATRICIA MOORE: We can always reduce it.
TRUSTEE KRUUPSKI: We just had one amendment here for 850 cubic yeards.
So that is fine. As long as you contain your mn-off from your site. Not flood
your neighbors and flood the creek and flood the road. That is fine.
Bring in as much as you need to reach the elevation.
PATRICIA MOORE: I did give you a fifth foot non-disturbance buffer. Area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Everything else was fine.
33.
DAVID P. SCHULTZ requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x64' catwalk,
32"x20' aluminum ramp and 6'x20' float. Located: 2745 Wickham Avenue,
Mattituck NY SCTM#139-2-3 Moratorium
34. ROBERT & HELEN W. KEITH request a Wetland Permit to construct
bulkhead with C-Loc Vinyl protect bog with rock. Located: 995 Willis Creek
Drive, Mattituck, NY SCTM#123-10-2
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can we do both together here?
E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: I think we should.
52
35.
PATRICK J. SCOLLARD requests a Wetland Permit to add to bulkhead and
protect the bog with rock. Located: 905 Willis Creek Drive, Mattituck, NY
SCTM123-10-3
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of
the application or against?
ROBERT KEITH: Yes Robert Keith and Patrick Scollard. This is an extension
of the Scollard's bulkhead. The property on the east of us. West of us. The plan
was redrawn as recommended at the Trustee's inspection on Monday. I am here
to answer any questions on my part and Pat on his.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let us take a quick look first.
ROBERT KEITH: Okay
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I have a question when you described in the field the
Backaruss bush up top. Is that it was drawn to.
ROBERT KEITH: The addition was about ten feet. It was not significant enough
on this scale I left it as it is. It is staked out to the landward side of the bush.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Okay
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It looks like what we were looking at.
ROBERT KEITH: It is a painful representation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSLI: I will make a motion to close the hearing. If there are no
other comments?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I will make a Motion to Approve the application. This is
something that you have to go to the DEC with this. So you will build it
immediately. I asked that because we have to be more careful with some of these
project. Sometimes they tend to drag on. For whatever reason. Then they
become a problem. Something that is half built. Your intention is to complete the
project
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It would like to put one stipulation in that you contact
the office when the contractor is to start. See what his plan is.
ROBERT KEITH: All right.
E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: There will be a condition for the inspection Al.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Two inspections - first day and then complete.
E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Mr. Scollard we are going to do a first day
inspection and then a completion inspection. Kenny would like a call by the
contractor
ROBERT KETIH: We will have the contractor call the office.
TRUSTEEE POLIWODA: That is fine.
36. JOHN L. HURTADO request a Wetland Permit to construct a 5-1/2'x96' wood
dock into Southold Bay. Located 10995 North Bayview Road, Southold, NY
SCTM#79-5-20.13 Moratorium
53
37. GLENN F. HEIDTMANN, JR. request a Wetland Permit to build a residence and
garage in rear. Located: 600 Albacore Drive, Southold, NY SCTM#57-01-21
Postponed as per Applicant'sReques
38.
En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of BARBARA & WILLIAM CLAYTON
request a Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permit to relocate existing dwelling on a
bulkhead parcel farther from the adjacent tidal waters and upgrade all existing
sanitary system which will occur beyond the Trustees jurisdiction- installation of
a drainage system of drywells and establishment of a non-turf buffer adjacent to
Gardiner's Bay. Located 12832 Main Road East Marion, NY SCTM#31-14-15
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the application.
ROB HERRMANN: I am Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
applicants. The Claytons are here as well. Briefly the project involves the
relocation of an existing dwelling- centrally further from Gardiner's Bay. More
specifically what the relocation of this project will accomplish is that we are
taking a structure that is located partially within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Zone.
Relocating it entirely landward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. The removal
of the existing structure is actually what causes the necessity to apply for Coastal
Erosion Permit as well as a Wetland Permit. That entire new structure will be out
of your jurisdiction with respect to Chapter 37. We are also taking a pre-existing
none conforming structure located 27 feet from the wetland boundary. Which in
this case is not a vegetated wetland. But simple the high water line associated
with Gardiner's Bay. We are moving it to a location where we going to get a
thirty percent improvement on the over all set back and actually situate the new
dwelling forty six feet from the high water line. We are taking an already
developed parcel. That has no non-turf buffer on it now. As the Board would
typically require for development of vacant land. Proposing established twenty-
foot non-turf buffer. Most importantly, we are cleaning and abandoning a pre-
existing undersized and likely inadequate sanitary system. Consisting of one
cesspool. Replacing it with an upgraded system. That will meet the standardS of
the Suffolk County Department of Heath Services. Relocate it to a location where
it will meet one hundred foot set-back from Gardiner's Bay and therefore actually
be located beyond the Board's jurisdiction. The project will end up improving the
treatment of surface run-off. Through the installation of a drainage system which
will capture and recharge roof run-off. Through a system of leaders and gutters
and drywells. Also as the Board will typically require for a new dwelling on
vacant parcels in the Town of Southold. From a zoning prospective which is less
relevant to the Board. I think that it is note worthy to say that we are taking
dwelling that encroaches on both the rear and minimum side yard back and
placing it with new structure that would conform to both. Minimum side and rear
yard set back. As well as to the front yard set backs of which there are two. So it
will conform to the front yard set back to the north. Also to the right of way front
yard set back that apparently the Town of Southold requires dwellings to meet.
So we will confirm to all of those set backs as well. The overall impact than is
54
to improve pre-existing non-conforming conditions that we will improve the
wetland set back. We will improve drainage and treatment of surface run-off.
Improve treatment of the affluent. Also improve the project with respect to
Coastal Erosion Hazard Law. I think over-all the state of the parcel will certainly
be. Improved by the project and be much more in line with what this Board
would require. As far as conditions and mitigation that imposes on new projects.
We do have a letter that was prepared by John and Lucia Seka at 12860 Main
Road supporting the Clayton's project which I would like to hand up to you since
they took the time to prepare it up to the Board. If the Board has any questions I
would be happy to answer them. The Clayton's maybe able to answer any
questions. Certainly, a good time period and good deal of thought and planning
has gone into the project. Alternatives were considered. There are a lot of design
objectives that sought to be accomplished. I will not go into that. As a matter of
time. Unless it appears necessary.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments? You just push the old house in the
Bay.
ROB HERRMANN: We are going to live in the Bay for the Constables to pick
up.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well good luck. It is a complete application as you can
get. The improvements on the septic and set backs etc. etc. The CAC
recommended disapproval for the record.
ROB HERRMANN: Why?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They would like to see at least a fifty foot buffer from the
Tidal Wetland Boundary.
ROB HERRMANN: That is not possible. It is not physically possible.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes it is build a smaller house. I think that this Board sees
this as an improvement and did not have any problem with it. Do I have a Motion
to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved.
'TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSLI: All in favor. ALL AYES I will make a Motion to
Approve the application. :
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All favor. All Ayes. I guess we will ask for a hay bale
line at the bulkhead during construction or a material fence would be better.
ROB HERRMANN: Normally it would be some silt retention fencing. Staked
with the hay bales. That is normally what is required. The DEC should not have
to have jurisdiction over the project.
39. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of DIANA J. FISCHER request a Wetland
Permit to construct a two story dwelling attached porches and carport install
sanitary system drywells pervious driveway and public water service establish a
50' wide non disturbance/non fertilization buffer adjacent to the freshwater
wetland boundary Located 385 North Lane, East Marion, NY S CTM#31-7-10
Moratorium
55
40.
En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of MARTHA & JAMES BAKER request a
Wetland Permit to clear (as necessary) portion of property within 100 feet of tidal
wetlands and install pervious driveway and public water service - Located 1600
Grathwohl Road, New Suffolk, NY SCTM#117-4-4
NEIGHBOR; I am here because if would like to comment on that. My name is
Evelyn Daskin I have the back lot behind.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes we received your letter.
MS. DASKIN: I believe I wrote a letter about that. Because when I came back
from California. I got a letter and a survey. On that they indicated that my well
was not operating. That I had public water. I think that I wrote you a letter about
that. I got a new survey. I tell you what outraged me. What made me very
angry? In the letter that I got what they said they believed that my well was not
operating I mean not a phone call not a letter. If they had put the septic system
near where they wanted to put it originally. They would have destroyed all of the
water that my well has. I would not be able to have water for my house. In
addition to that my neighbors well is ten feet on the other side of the property
line. Now they have written me a letter and told me. That they redesigned where
they are going to put the septic system. I would like to know exactly how many
feet it will be away from my well now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would you like to see the plan.
MS. DASKIN: I have a plan in front of me. How many feet is it?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think it shows 101..
ROB HERRMANN: That is correct. To respond to Ms. Daskin comments ifI
may. The letter that we wrote to Ms. Daskin with the plan which I note we did in
an expedient fashion as possible. So that she could be noticed with the revised
plan before tonight. So I am glad to see that she was. We almost always require
on the surveyors information as far as showing and inquiring with the Suffolk
County Water Authority and also making observations in the field as to who is on
public water and who is not. Unfortunately, that is not always a perfect process.
Which is why there is a notification process in place like this. So if there is a
mistake. The owner's are notified and they can correct that which Ms. Daskin
did. For the prior owners the Pretruso. Rudy Bruer had obtained from the Health
Department a variance approval to put the sanitary system essentially where it is
now. When the Bakers purchased the property and the site plan designed to suit
their particular needs. Mr. Baker works in Natural Resources in the Boston area.
He said this is great. The surveyor is showing everyone is on public water. So
we will put the septic system as far from the wetlands as physically possible on
this property. Once we got Ms. Daskin's information. We realized that was not
possible. We had to essentially show it back where it is now. So as shown on the
plan. Where the surveyor is show Ms. Daskin well. It is located 101 feet there
from. However as I included in a letter to the Board and the reason why the
Health Department granted a variance in the first place. Is that whether Ms.
Daskin's well is fifty feet, or seventy-five feet or one hundred feet. Whatever the
separation distance is. It is located significantly up grading of the proposed
sanitary system. Which renders the systems ability to negatively impact her well.
Physically impossible. Unless the sanitary affluent were to defy gravity. Begin to
56
travel up hill. Having said that. We have redesigned the septic system. To meet
as great a set back from her well as possible. Which basically conforms to a
variance that was all ready issued by the Health Department. Now you see the
plan completely redesigned as you do. Having said all of that. I will remind the
Board. That the Baker's have in good faith undertaken all these modifications for
the Board to see. Despite the fact that the house, garage, and sanitary system. All
of the proposed construction is actually is outside your jurisdiction. Is not a
matter before you tonight? It is non-jurisdictional. We did Ms. Dakin to know
that we had received her comments. That we had acted accordingly. We will
have to be before the Suffolk County Department of Health Services again.
Because it is almost identical. It is slightly dit'ferent. She will also have the
opportunity to hear from the Health Department again. Who is the Board that has
the jurisdiction over that matter.
MS. DASKIN: Do you think that there should be a better way. Than sending a
letter to someone. A house that you are going to put up and cost several hundred
thousands of dollars. Could have been very great jeopardy. Because if you
started that I would have gone to Court. I would have gotten an injunction to stop
all of the proceedings. And sue the pants off everybody.
ROB HERRMANN: I do not have any doubts that is true. But you could make
up a lot of things that could have happened. The point is that you were noticed as
is legally required. You responded. The plan was corrected accordingly. The
house was not built the sanitary system was not put in. There was certainly no
malaise intended towards you. To say that something terrible could have
happened is true. But it did not. It was corrected as part of this process.
MS. DASKIN: I was away in California and I could have been away for months.
I could have come back and all of these things could have gone on without my
even knowing it.
ROB HERRMANN: If it provides any comfort. Actually because Public Water is
now available in this area. Which it was not. When the Petrusa's applied. The
sanitary system would have been required to be placed in front of the yard. As it
is now by the Health Department anyway. So even if you had not received any of
these notices. The Health Department would have requested that we relocate the
sanitary system to where it is now. Regardless of any interaction with your well.
So I do not know if that provides any comfort but this change would have been
made any way. If you are also interested public water is now also available on
Fred Street. The Water Authority will have a tentative scheduling date in the
springl Since you are very concerned about your well.
MS. DASKIN: I am very happy with my well.
ROB HERRMANN: I just wanted to let you know that was available.
MS. DASKIN: I think that there has to be a better way. So these kinds of
glitches do not happen.
ROB HERRMANN: I cannot respond any more than I have.
NEIGHBOR: Is that a fact that Front Street is going to get water? Because I live
next door to her. They would not give it to us.
ROB HERRMANN: We have a letter in our file that we can supply to the Board.
If you wish that is public information. From the Suffolk County Water Authority
57
and it says "Thank you for your letter concerning public water for Fred Street in
New Suffolk. Our intention is to provide public water to all of the residence
within Southold. That can be served in approved areas. Fred Street is within the
approval area. At this time a schedule date for installation of water main on Fred
Street is not available. Due to the winter season. Please contact our regional
manager. Etc. etc. in the spring of 2003 and attentive date should attestable then.
The reason for that is because when we approached the Health Department again.
Now that Public Water is available. They will require that the Baker's make a
confided off to Ms. Daskin. For them to pay for you to connect to Public water.
You do not have to accept that offer. As you did not accept the Petrusa offer to
relocate your well. But they will be required to make you that offer. So we have
to inquire to see whether that we can legimately offer you that. Because we
cannot offer or connect you to pubic water. If it does not exist.
MS. DASKIN: It is my understanding that there is a moratorium on new public
water being offered in the Town of Southold. Because they have to sink some
more wells in Laurel.
ROB HERRMANN: That appears to be lifted in accordance with the language
with this letter from the Water Authority.
E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: It was lifted in November.
ROB HERRMANN: All I can go by is this letter. I obviously do not intend to
represent the Suffolk County Water Authority beyond what they give me in
writing.
TRUTEE KRUPSKI: It is good water down there.
MS. DASKIN: Excellent. I have it serviced with Kreiger. My well goes down 42
feet. It is fine.
E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: He does my well and he does a great job.
ROB HERRMANN: Did you say that well goes down 42 feet. Because that is
good to know. Because in that case actually than our system would have a
conforming separation distance from your well. Because if you have a deep well
which is forty feet or deeper. Then you only need one hundred foot separation.
Which means actually that we would not need a variance from you well. Means
that your being offered the protection that they require. Which is good.
MS, DASKIN: I think that Kreiger told me. I think he looked up the records and
it is 42 feet. If I recall.
ROB HERRMANN: That would be good because then if that is the case. The
Health Department requires a one hundred separations from your well. Which
this reVised plan would accommodate.
MS. DASKIN: That is fine.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You know what is good I promised our secretary,
Charlotte. That we would be done at eleven o'clock
ROB HERRMANN: You have one minute to go. Ms. Daskin is there any chance
that you would be willing to provide me with some sort of paper work from
Kreiger. Indicating the depth of well. That we could give to the Health
Department.
MS. DASKIN: I will ask them if they can find the record.
ROB HERRMANN: I appreciate it. If you could.
58
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I will make a Motion to Close the hearing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
I will make a Motion to Approve the Application to clear and install the driveway.
Public water service.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
41.
En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of MARIA VAMPORE GIOCOLI request a
Wetland Permit to construct a fixed timber dock, consisting ofa 4'x 9' inclined
ramp 4'x 56' fixed catwalk 3'x14' hinged ramp and 6'x20' float secured by (2) 8"
diameter pilings. Located: 235 Private Road 4/3, Southold, NY SCTM#70-6-11
Moratorium
42.
En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of NANCY HEISNER request a Wetland Permit
to replace an existing timber dock (consisting of a 3'xl 7' fixed catwalk, 3'xl 0'
ramp, and 5'x20' float) with a timber dock consisting of a 3'x83' fixed catwalk:
3'x14' ramp and 6'x20' float secured by (2) 8" diameter piles. Install approx. 90
linear feet of 20" diameter fiber roll and plant approx. 600 s.f. Inter- tidal area
with spartina altemiflora (18" on center) Located: 1700 Park Way Southold, NY
SCTM#70-10-50
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here with revised plans?
ROB HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants I submitted revised plans
in accordance with what we discussed back in December. Which you seemed
approving of. Except for the SEQRA review which presumably is taken care off
So that the plans that you have before you would conform to what we discussed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: GreaT.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What is the total length?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One hundred twenty five million feet.
ROB HERRMANN: The total length Kenny that includes the replacement of
existing 17 foot fixed dock. Is a fifty foot fixed dock with a fourteen-foot ramp
and twenty-foot float? ~
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is what we wanted.
TRUSTEE POL1WODA: That is good. I will make a Motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA; All in favor. ALL AYES. I will make a Motion to
Approve the revised plans on behalf of Nancy Heisner for a fifty-foot fixed
catwalk, fourteen-foot ramp, and 6x20 float.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor. ALL AYES
43. Eh-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of BROADBLUE, LLC request a Wetland
Permit to construct a two-story - one family dwelling with attached garage and
patio; install a pervious driveway, sanitary system, drywells and public water
service; place approx. 250 cy. Of clean fill to raise grade of center portion of lot;
59
and establish a 50' non-disturbance/non-fertilization buffer adjacent to the
apparent high water line/tidal wetland boundary. Construct approx. 151 linear fi.
of vinyl bulkhead (to be tied into adjacent bulkhead returns at property lines) and
backfill with approx. 75 cy of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source;
and construct a timber dock to be extended offproposed bulkhead, consisting of a
4'xl 1' fixed catwalk; 3'x12' hinged ramp and 6'x20' float secured by (2) 8"
diameter pilings Located: 230 Wiggins Lane, Greenport, NY SCVTM#35-4-
25 &28.37 Moratorium
E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Are we doing to do anything about #43?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No I do not think so. We are going to look for some way
of doing that. Because this is what we got after four o'clock tonight. We really
feel. We discussed it and you discussed it. Everyone is disgusted and that is what
we are dealing with here in this Town. Number 39 we would have obviously it is
under the moratorium
ROB HERRMANN: As far as I said earlier. The difficulty with that application
is that there was going to be SEQRA Review requested. It should have been
requested in November. We would have had it in December. With the
modifications Which we agreed to. It would have been done. Why was he
suddenly asked to do that in December, because then it creates the appearance that
it was done purposely to end the delay until? Which I know is not the Board's
intention.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We were led to believe it was not gong to happen until
the end of January. That is what we went on.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is twenty days after filing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to go offPublic Heating and go back to the Regular
Meeting. TRUSTEE DICKERSON Seconded. ALL AYES.
V. RESOLUTION:
Susan Magg charged with a violation of the Southold Town Code, to wit 97-33 to
be resolved. Located: 495 Halls Creek Drive, Mattituck, NY SCTM#116-7-4
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the Resolution. TRUSTEE
DICKERSON Seconded. ALL AYES.
Mitchell & Incantalupo, Esq. on behalf of IOANNIS M. ZOITAS request a
Coastal Erosion Permit to trim and clean underbrush on bluff located in rear
portion no shrubs/brush shall be completely removed so as not to cause soil
erosion - only trim and cleaning will be done
60
Located: 5405 The Longway, East Marion, NY SCTM#21-05-14
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Deny the Resolution. TRUSTEE
DICKERSON Seconded. ALL AYES
Meeting Adjourned: 11:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
· 1 ff
%arrk °_%tlUofi 85%
61