HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-04/30/2003'~Albert j. Krupski, President //~ ~~-~ z~' ~"r~L~'~' Town Hall
James King, Vice-P re si dent ~'~~
Artie Foster P.O. Box 1179
Ken Poliwoda ~ ~
Peg~ A. Dickerson ~ ~
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-1366
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
RECEIVED
MINUTES
Wednesday, April 30, 2003
7: O0 P M $oufhohl Tov~n
PRESENT WERE: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President
James King, Vice-President
Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee
Artie Foster, Trustee
Peggy Dickerson, Trustee
E. Brownell Johnston, Esq.
Lauren Standish, Senior-Clerk
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 at 8:00 AM
TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, May 21,2003 at 7:00 PM
WORKSESSlON: 6:00 PM
TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve, TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of January 22, 2003, February 26, 2003 and
March 18, 2003.
TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve the Minutes of February 26, 2003, TRUSTEE
KING seconded. ALL AYES
I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for March 2003. A check for
$1,870.43 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin
Board for review.
III. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/VVAIVERS/CHANGES:
1. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of KENNETH PETERSON
requests an Amendment to Permit #5658 to allow for a 6' wide by 72' long
untreated deck landward of the newly constructed bulkhead as part of the non-
turf buffer. Located: 615 Harbor Lights Dr., Southold. SCTM#71-2-2 (A/B)
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE FOSTER
seconded. ALL AYES
2. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of ROBERT STICKLE requests
an Amendment to Permit #5419 to allow for a 6' wide by 100' long untreated
deck landward of the newly constructed bulkhead as part of the non-turf buffer.
Located: 415 Harbor Lights Dr., Southold. SCTM#71-2-4 (A/B)
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE FOSTER
seconded. ALL AYES
3. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of PATRICK KELLY requests an
Amendment to Permit #5657 to allow for a 6' wide by 142' long untreated deck
landward of the newly constructed bulkhead as part of the non-turf buffer.
Located: 75 Harbor Lights Dr., Southold. SCTM#71-2-7(A/B)
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE FOSTER
seconded. ALL AYES
4. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of JOHN & LESLEY GRAHAM
requests an Amendment to Permit #5114 to allow for a 6' wide by 100' long
_ untreated deck landward of the newly constructed bulkhead as part of the non-
turf buffer, Located: 315 Harbor Lights Dr., Southold. SCTM#71-2-5(A/B)
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE FOSTER
seconded. ALL AYES ~
5. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of GILLIAN & MICHAEL WILSON requests
an Amendment to Permit #5438 to construct 115' of 4' high retaining wall 6'
landward of the existing bulkhead. Plant 6' area between bulkhead and
retaining wall with beach grass on 18" centers. Located: 590 Tarpon Dr.,
Southold. SCTM#57-1-6 (A/B)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Table the application until a new planting plan
is submitted, to include elevations and a 4' wide path, and reviewed by Scott
Hughes. TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES
6. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of GLENN BEHR requests an Amendment to
Permit #5730 to relocate the proposed patio from the front yard to the rear yard
and to make the patio smaller. Located: 2797 Cedar Beach Rd., Southold.
SCTM#79-8-15.2
3
(MORATORIUM-EXEMPTION/EXCLUSION)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE
FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES
7. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of CANDACE M. CORLETT
requests an Amendment to Permit #5663 to reduce the width of the 4'X 66.5'
catwalk to 3'X 66.5'. Located: 300 Clearview Rd., Southold. SCTM#90-4-8.2
(MORATORIUM - EXEMPTION/EXCLUSION)
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING
seconded. ALL AYES
8. Land Use Ecological Services on behalf of ERNEST H. SCHNEIDER requests
an Amendment to Permit #5474 for a 31'X 45' dwelling footprint, a 5'X 15'
second-story balcony over decking on east side of dwelling, and an 8'X 45'
second-story deck on the west side of dwelling with 5'× 24' stairway and
platform. Located: 915 Lakeside Dr. North, Southold. SCTM#90-4-5&6
(MORATORIUM-EXEMPTION/EXCLUSION)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application with the condition that
drywells and gutters are added to contain the roof run-off and are to be shown
on the plan. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES
9. Land Use Ecological Services on behalf of JAMES & EILEEN BUGLION
requests an Amendment to Permit #5309 to relocate the proposed well 150'
from the sanitary system, relocate the expansion pools for the sanitary system,
and relocate the driveway 4'+/- to the west in the area of the sanitary system.
Construct a 30' concrete retaining wall along the east property line 30'+/- south
of the north property line, and relocate the steps for the deck to the west side of
the deck and reduced to 4'X 6', and a 4'X 12' addition to the previously
_ approved deck north of the proposed steps. Located: 2520 Clearview Ave.,
Southold. SCTM#70-10-29.1
(MORATORIUM-EXEMPTION/EXCLUSION)
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application with the condition
that the chain link fence is removed from the 50' non-disturbance buffer from
the survey, a new survey submitted, and a One-Year Extension to Permit
#5309. TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES
10. Charles M. Thomas, Architect on behalf of TIM HOLLOWELL requests an
Amendment to Permit #5512 to remove an existing residence and to construct
a new residence upland. Located: 1280 Smith Dr. South, Southold. SCTM#76-
3-11.1
(MORATORIUM-EXEMPTION/EXCLUSION)
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application with the condition
that hay bales are placed down before demolition, TRUSTEE FOSTER
seconded. ALL AYES
4
11. WILLIAM & SUSAN GRAF request an Amendment to Permit #5665 to install a
patio on the east side of the house. Located: 4855 Stillwater Ave., Cutchogue.
SCTM#137-3-8.3
TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING
seconded. ALL AYES
12. PAUL NAHAS requests an Amendment to Permit #5622 to allow for
alternations to the plan to conform to the 75' setback and to allow for 400 cy. of
fill to be brought on site. Located: Corner of Crittens and Beachwood Lane,
Southold. SCTM#70-12-17
(MORATORIUM-Table as to fill request?)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Table the application until a letter is received by
the Building Dept. stating what the minimum required height is for the first floor
elevation and their opinion as to whether or not you're bound by the Covenants
& Restrictions. TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES
13. William A. DiConza, Esq. on behalf of SHAWN & JOLYNE FITZGERALD
requests a Waiver to erect an open split-rail fence within 100' of Wolf Pit Lake.
Located: 495 Paddock Way, Mattituck. SCTM#107-4-2.1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Table the application until the Trustees meet
with the Town Attorney to discuss the Covenants & Restrictions. TRUSTEE
FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES
14. BETTER LIVING HOMES, INC. requests a Transfer of Permit #5410 from
Schembri Homes to Better Living Homes, Inc. Permit is to construct a 31'X 56'
single-family residence with pervious driveway, on-site sewage disposal
system, public water and drywells to contain the roof run-off, and with
conditions shown on survey dated August 23, 2001. Located: 195 Albacore
Dr., Southold. SCTM#56-7-13
(MORATORIUM-EXEMPTION/EXCLUSION)
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application with the condition
that the Town Engineers inspects the trench, as stated in the permit.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES
15. THOMAS & ANNETTE JORDAN request a Transfer of Permit #5572 from
Gary Gerns (as contract vendee) to Thomas & Annette Jordan. Permit is to
construct a single-family dwelling with the conditions that hay bales are
installed prior to construction with 10' relief during construction but area must
be re-vegetated after the construction is complete and drywells and gutters
installed to contain the roof run-off, and as depicted on the survey dated
8/14/89 and last revised 6/17/02. Located: 1680 Brigantine Dr., Southold.
SCTM#79-4-25
(M O RATO RI U M-EXE M PTI O N/EXC LU S IO N)
TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE
DICKERSON seconded. AYES- Trustee Krupski, Trustee King. ABSTAINED
- Trustee Poliwoda.
16. JOSEPH & CRISTINA COMO request a Transfer of Permit #5475 from Ernest
Schneider to Joseph & Cristina Como. Permit is to construct a single-family
dwelling, garage, sanitary system and pervious driveway, add hay bales,
gutters and drywells. Located: 800 Lakeside Dr. North, Southold. SCTM#99-
3-6
(MORATORIUM-EXEMPTION/EXCLUSION)
TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE DICKERSON
seconded. ALL AYES
17. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of DEBORAH PENNEY requests a One-
Year Extension to Permit #5337. Permit is to remove and replace in the same
location 86'+/- of existing retaining wall, 93'+/- of existing bulkhead, and 720'+/-
of existing decking between the bulkhead and retaining wall. Fill as necessary
behind the bulkhead and retaining wall to maintain established grades using an
estimated 20 cy. of spoil from an associated separately permitted dredging
activity and a 10' non-turf buffer landward of the bulkhead. Located: 160
Sailor's Needle Rd., Mattituck, SCTM#144-5-26
(MORATORIUM-EXEMPTION/EXCLUSION)
TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE POLIWODA
seconded. ALL AYES
18. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of HELEN BICKING requests a One-Year
Extension to Permit #5339. Permit is to remove and replace in the same
location 25'+/- of existing retaining wall, 25'+/- of existing bulkhead, 250'+/- of
existing decking between the bulkhead and the retaining wall. Remove any fill
material that enters the waterway and replace it behind the bulkhead or
retaining wall. Fill as necessary behind the bulkhead and retaining wall to
maintain established grades using an estimated 5 cy. of spoil from an
associated separately permitted dredging activity, and install a 10' non-turf
buffer landward of the bulkhead. Located: 525 Old Salt Rd., Mattituck.
SCTM#144-5-17
(MORATORIUM-EXEMPTION/EXCLUSION)
TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE
DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES
19. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of EDWARD & FAYE REYNOLDS
requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #5338. Permit is to remove and
replace in the same location 101'+/- of existing retaining wall and 70'+/- of
existing decking between the bulkhead and the retaining wall. Remove any fill
that enters the waterway and replace behind the bulkhead or retaining wall. Fill
as necessary behind the bulkhead and retaining wall to maintain established
grades using an estimated 20 cy. of spoil from an associated separately
permitted dredging activity. Install 6'X 20' floating dock, secured by two piles,
and a 4'X 16' access ramp. Install wood jetty 12' seaward and 6' landward of
6
existing jetty at eastern end of project. Install a 10' non-turf buffer landward of
the bulkhead. Located: 855 Old Salt Rd., Mattituck. SCTM#144-5-16
(MORATORIUM-EXEMPTION/EXCLUSION)
TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE
DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KING moved to go off the Regular Meeting and onto the Public
Hearings, TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING
APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF
THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM
THE TRAVELER WATCHMAN. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE
READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.
PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF.
FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS IF POSSIBLE
1. JAMES & MARGARET FLANAGAN request a Wetland Permit to construct a
second-story on the existing house and to expand the house by constructing a
garage toward the road. Located: 695 Bayview Ave., Southold. SCTM#52-5-
20
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI' Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of or
against the application?
DON FELLER: I'm Don Feller, Architect. I'm here with Mr. Flanagan to talk
about his proposed second-floor addition to the existing house and also first
floor additions included with the project. He already has a DEC letter of non-
jurisdiction. I'm not sure if there is any information you need but I'm here to
answer them.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this myself and I didn't see a problem with
it. I just have to recommend that you use gutters and drywells on the whole
house, as well as the garage. Other than that, I didn't see much negative
impact.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI' Hay bales?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's roadside, garage excavation. Any other
comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the
stipulation that there be drywells and gutters on the house as well as the
garage, and shown on a new plan.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
7
2. RICHARD & CHERYL CORAZZINI, JR. request a Wetland Permit to construct
a 19'× 40' two-story addition on the north side of the existing dwelling,
commencing 6' back from the existing structure. Located: 8500 Nassau Point
Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#118-5-4.1
TRUSTEEagainst theDICKERSON:application? Is there anyone here who would like to speak for or
CHERYL CORAZZINI: I'm here to answer any questions.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I looked at this and I would like to compliment you on
the health of your buffer zone behind the bulkhead. Everything is north of the
house. If no one else has anything to say, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with
gutters and drywells.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
3. DAVID P. SCHULTZ requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 64' catwalk,
32"X 20' aluminum ramp and 6'X 20' float. Located: 2745 Wickham Ave.,
Mattituck. SCTM#139-2-3
(MORATORIUM-EXEMPTION/EXCLUSION)
TRUSTEE KING: Is them anyone here who wishes to comment on this
project?
DAVID SCHULTZ: I'm just hem to answer any questions you may have.
TRUSTEE KING: I think the first time we looked at these plans we felt that the
size of the structural components could be down-sized.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Weren't we looking into the new materials for this?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, that too. We can look at it.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It comes in 20' sections so you could have 2 pilings
every 10'.
DAVID SCHULTZ: I would like to see some information on that.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we should down-size because the size of the materials
is really excessive for a catwalk. With dimensions, you could drive a tank out
there.
DAVID SCHULTZ: I just have two kayaks.
TRUSTEE KING: I would recommend maybe 6" poles, a lighter structure.
DAVID SCHULTZ: 2X8 stringers?
TRUSTEE KING: But my suggestion is, just for us for the future to simplify
things~ on this bridge there is a wooden bulkhead, and I would like to draw a
line from this seaward end of the easterly most float at Matt-A-Mar to the end of
that wooden bulkhead, and he's not to exceed out far beyond that. There's two
more properties in between and you know sooner or later they're going to
come in for a dock. Now we've already got a line drawn and then we can keep
everybody in line.
DAVID SCHULTZ: I think I know what you're talking about.
TRUSTEE KING: There's that bulkhead that goes in towards your house...
DAVID SCHULTZ: There's an aerial picture in that packet.
8
TRUSTEE KING: It shows it real good here. If we just draw a line through that,
then you can extend out to that line, it would be fine.
DAVID SCHULTZ: I believe my project design was within that.
TRUSTEE KING: It probably stays inside of it. That would be my suggestion.
DAVID SCHULTZ: There's almost a channel that you can see from that picture
that goes right under the bridge. I'm only going far enough to get water.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the permit based on a set of
plans for the catwalk of lighter construction. I don't think you need any more
than a 6" pile. Just lighten everything up and draw a line from the easterly
most float at Matt-A-Mar.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. AYES -Trustee Foster, Trustee
Poliwoda, Trustee King, Trustee Dickerson. Recused -Trustee Krupski
4. JOHN & JOY GALLAGHER request a Wetland Permit to repair the existing
8'X 16' dock. Located: 730 Bayview Dr., East Marion. SCTM#37-5-4
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of
or against the application? This is for an as-built dock. This is something that
would certainly not be approved under our current standards for a long time.
It's an 8' wide dock. My suggestion is to let the applicant have the same length,
16', but any repairs would have to include removing the width down to 4' wide.
If there's no comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve the application for a 4'X
16' dock and that no repair can take place on the existing structure unless it
conforms to the dimensions in the permit.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
5. GERARD H. SCHULTHEIS requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the
unstable east wing and build a new addition where east wing exists and add a
secOnd-story to northwest section of house. Replace roof over porch on north
side with new roof. All building to be performed within existing building
envelope, using existing foundation. Located: 1640 First St., New Suffolk.
SCTM#117-5-46.3
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there anyone here for or against the application?
GERRY SCHULTHEIS: Good evening. I'm Gerry Schultheis and this is my wife
Callie.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We spoke briefly in the office this week about the
violations. Has that been resolved?
GERRY SCHULTHEIS: I asked for a copy of Mr. Tuthill's file and the only
thing...there was really nothing in there that indicated what precipitated the
suspension of the permit in 1993. I never was notified of any meeting. I never
heard that anything like that was done. In the folder, there was a permit filed by
Mr. Tuthill in 1990 to build a bulkhead, a floating dock, and a bulkhead along
th'e street, and there was a series of correspondence in the folder between Mr.
Tuthill and the Town Attorney basically saying that Mr. Tuthill was not able to
prove that his claim to the underwater land actually existed. When I asked to
9
see his folder, I got to look at the material in the folder this week, and the only
thing...the minutes which showed up in my folder after I first looked at them
back about three weeks ago, basically that said on December 6, 1993 at the
Trustees meeting, there was a motion passed to rescind my permit for my dock
and my bulkhead. Then there was another piece of minutes from a special
Trustees meeting later in December, December 12th or 21st, 1993, saying that
instead of rescinding the permit, that the permit would be suspended. I had no
knowledge of that and never heard of that and when I did get a chance to look
at the current file, the only thing in the file that seemed to maybe bear on it,
was a letter from the surveyor, VanTuyl, basically reviewing the surveys of my
property, the same survey done for the property before I bought it, when the
Krementzes owned it and Mr. Tuthill's property, and basically saying that it's
not his job to establish ownership in that particular area. So, I'm at a complete
loss as to why the permit was first rescinded and then suspended. There's
nothing in either my file or his file that precipitates that in 1993.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I believe I was the only member here on the Board at
that time. You mentioned that two weeks ago when we met you in the field and
I had no recollection of that because there has been over a 100 meetings since
that, like this. I'm sorry I don't remember the details.
GERRY SCHULTHEIS: Well I asked if there was any back-up information for
the minutes, other than the minutes themselves of the 1993 and I was told "no"
there was no other material to back that up.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI' I assume it had something to do with the ownership of
the underwater land.
GERRY SCHULTHEIS: Well that's been a continual issue.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI' And our granting a permit on presumably...usually when
We grant a permit for a dock, it's over Town land, because we have the
authority to do so.
GERRY SCHULTHEIS: Then it's still a question, at least in my mind, who
actually owns the land. I did a little research and I found a map from 1876
showing the existence of Schoolhouse Creek where it is right now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI' So what'S the course of action here coUnselor?
E. BROWNELL JOHNSON: Why don't we make any discussion contingent on
if we find something?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI' So act on the current application.
GERRY SCHULTHEIS: On the matter of the violation, I did plead not guilty to it
and there is a trial set for June 6, 2003 on that matter.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we'll act on this application independently of that.
Artie do you want to run the public hearing?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Anyone else have anything to say about this?
GERRY SCHULTHEIS: Was there any correspondence?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: No, I didn't see anything. We have a letter of support for
the addition and alteration project. It's from Pat Gonzales.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want to discuss any conditions to the permit?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Does the Board have any concerns?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Standard run-off issues, drywells for roof run-off...
10
GERRY SCHULTHEIS: We discussed issues when I first go the permit last
year for just raising the roof, and you had asked that the area around the
bulkhead be fenced in to prevent any debris from going into the creek, and on
the issue of the drywells, I refer back to the 1987 permit where there were
gravel pits that were placed under all of the gutters and the roof area is not
changing at all so it works very well right now.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is that all right with everybody?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes.
E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: What the violation you have a trial date set for?
GERRY SCHULTHEIS: The violation was for having a dock without a permit
and the permit, in fact, was issued in 1987. When I went to review my file,
because the violation was given to me for not having a permit, I went down to
the Trustees office, and I believe it was Charlotte who looked at the file, and
said there was no permit in there, and I brought with me the original permit that
I had. She made a copy of it and three days later when I came back with my
notice of my mailings, and .what I mailed, I asked if I could see my file again,
and when I opened my file, right on the top loosely placed, which wasn't in
there three days before, was the notice of violation as well as the copy of the
Trustees minutes from December of 1993 and the special meeting that
followed it, and as well, as I personally looked through the file, my permit was
actually in the file. It was toward the end but it was bound into the file. So, the
violation was issued for not having a permit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's a long-standing problem there of question of
underwater land ownership. Schoolhouse Creek was never considered to be,
for some reason, Town owned.
E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: This is the Tuthill property?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. We'll act on this.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application and subject
to the same conditions as the prior permit, in terms of fencing and existing roof
run-off control. :
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYE8
6. JEFFREY HALLOCK requests a Wetland Permit to cut into ground of right-of-
way for installation of underground utilities, permission to cut base of existing
dirt roadway to upgrade with stone materials, and for the proposed driveway
landward of the right-of-way. Located: Diachun Rd., Laurel. SCTM#127-3-9.1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the
application?
HARVEY ARNOFF: I'm here on behalf of the applicant. It's my understanding
that there was a meeting at the site between the members, and I don't know
how many members of the Board, but I know several of you were there, and a
representative of the DEC. My client went ahead and had a new map drawn
with some proposals, I believe that were discussed at the site. We only happen
to have two copies. I would like to hand up one to you. If you take a look at
11
that map, it shows that we're doing minimal...the only change in the road really
is, I think, in two specific areas that the Board was concerned with, or at least
some members voiced a concern, where the wetland lines jetted out most, we
would be moving the road further away than where it is now. That's basically
the only change we would propose making in the existing road. You'll see
where it says "proposed road realignment", in two specific areas. If you like, I
could have Mr. Hallock come up because he's much more familiar with the lay
of the land than I am and he probably could help you with your questions. Is it
okay if he goes up?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Please.
JEFFREY HALLOCK: (no microphone)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Are there any other comments?
HARVEY ARNOFF: Not directly, Mr. Chairman, other than the fact that as you
can see we are attempting to do as little change as possible to what is there.
We don't want to disrupt this any more than you want to see this disrupted. In
fact, if we weren't suffering, and I use that word in the legal sense, not in the
emotional sense, from the constraints of the Town Code, and I believe NYS
Building Code, we would go back to the Zoning Board and ask them to narrow
the 15' strip. That would be an exercise in futility, I've been told, by not only
one Zoning Board but by Zoning Boards in other municipalities as well. They
are just not going to do it. So, we are stuck with having to widen the road, the
roadway, the right-of-way, or whatever we want to call it, to that 15' and as you
know it's 15' fairly far along. Other than that, you've heard basically all we have
to offer. There's nothing new I can come up with. I do have a matter of some
concern, which I would like to voice to this Board. It has come to my attention
that my colleague, who is representing the opponents of this application, also
represents this Board, and has represented this Board on several bits of
litigation. I question whether or not he should have make some type of
statement in regard to that so that in case an application, and I would very
seriously consider making an application and ask that he recuse himself, that
he not represent them, because he has an ongoing relationship with this
Board. Mr. Krupski, Mr. Foster, and I think Mr. King, know me for a relatively
long period of time and know how sensitive I was to that when I was the Town
Attorney here. I make it my business not to put myself in positions of conflict
and I see this is a potential position of conflict, not only for this Board but for
Mr. Atkinson, and I'm somewhat concerned about it. I'm not making any
allegations, I'm not saying that anything untoward is happening here, I don't
want anybody to think that that's the purpose behind this. The purpose behind
this is, I think there are ethical constraints. As I think you all know, I am the
counsel to the Ethics Board in this Town, and as such, I am very concerned
about that. I would just like to state that for the record.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Just to address that briefly, Mr. Atkinson has
represented the Town. We were sued over a dock in Southold and we were
pleased with his performance. He worked well with us and we were pleased
with the outcome. Certainly, it's not a secret. If something is inappropriate,
then we don't have a problem with that either. It's no secret that he did work
with the Board. He was hired by the Town Board at the time. Any other
comment?
RAYMOND CASTRONOLLA: I've been a resident of North Oakwood Rd. for
approximately 15 years. My purpose of being here is, I have a clear view of
what's happening on the other side and it's a wildlife refuge. There are Egrets.
This morning I watched with my binoculars and with a little sound, they fly
away. The only thing I want to mention it, I would like my children to observe
that previous virgin nature as I did, and the decision you guys make isn't just
for now, it's forever. Thank you.
JIM HAUSER: Good evening. My family has owned the cottage on Brushes
Creek since 1957 and as we just heard, it is very much of a nature preserve
and I was kind of surprised to hear this talk about a road over on the eastern
shore. I used to walk that when I was a boy. It's very far from a road. It's an old
dirt path. It may have been enlarged a little bit over the past couple of years by
the original owners, Mr. Diachun, who started driving a little tractor up and
down to get lumber wood. But, it's far from a road that, in a sense, is an
existing road that just needs to be enhanced in some way. It was a wooded
path. I've noticed around the North Fork the, I guess the Town putting up
nesting stations for ospreys, to encourage them. Well on the east side of the
Creek, there are ospreys nesting for the last four or five years, that I've seen,
naturally, which is quite usual, in trees, and you can hear them all the time. I've
noticed When I came in, that sign over there, which is in recognition of some
people handing over virgin wetlands that have been in their care since 1640.
Well the east side of Brushes Creek is a virgin wetland and although it may not
have been owned by one owner since 1640, I don't know about that, it certainly
has been in existence since 1640. It's been in existence since far longer than
that. Any decision to open up that wooded path to allow entry to bulldozers
and any other type of construction equipment to open that area up to
development, which is really what this is all about, seems to me, something
that goes against the spirit, not only of what that plaque represents, but what
the wetland laws that were written represent. Now I don't want to argue that
the few virgin wetlands that we have left are a scarce and valuable natural
reSoUrce. The fact that a law was enacted, the wetlands preservation act,
speaks to that, and if, I would argue to reject Mr. Hallocks request and if the
Trustees are not ready to do that tonight, that they shouldn't not grant it without
coming over to the west side of the creek and viewing what has been an
untouched virgin wetlands for literally thousands of years. There's not just
Egrets and Ospreys, deer live there. I've seen them come out of the woods in
the evening time. They live in the woods and they come out and feed along the
grasslands. There are swans, and I've seen foxes over there. So, we're not
talking about, as I've heard other people requested some changes to be made
to wetlands, where they have existing property, whether they want to put a
dock in or they want to put an addition to a house on something that already
exists, we're talking about changing virgin wetlands into something very
different.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
ELEANOR DIACHUN: I own the property on the other side and if that if a walk
that only a bike can go on, well my father-in-law drove that with his truck and
my husband with his van, and I road through there, so I don't know how I could
ride on a bicycle path. That's been there. My both boys, that's how we got to
my mother-in-law's house, from the Main Rd., to the boulevard. That's always
been the right-of-way. And other thing is, when you go down North Oakwood
Dr., you take a ride, you cannot see over, even if they build there, you're not
going to see anything. But, why did they build over there? They didn't worry
about the wetlands. If they want the birds and the deer, then why don't they
buy my land from me?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
ELEANOR DIACHUN: And another thing is, they are worried what's going into
the creek? Nothing goes into the creek from my side. But, they can't see me,
I've seen three times, raking their yards, the leaves go into the creek. And, I
saw them throw Something into the creek. I can prove it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We actually saw someone throw something into the
creek the day we were there two weeks ago. Some man walked to the end of
his dock and threw something in. It was kind of alarming, actually.
TRUSTEE FOSTI='R: It was a flower pot.
ELEANOR DIACHUN: When I yelled over to one of they guys that were raking
whoSever house it was across from mine, then he stopped and he ran with his
rake, I said, "what are you doing raking the leaves into the creek"?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MARK PROFERIS: I live on North Oakwood. I was wondering, have all the
avenues been researched and is there any way we can find, through the
Nature Conservancy or Long Island Farm Bureau, can they be brought in to
buy this land, since...was it part of a farm at one time?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know.
ELEANOR DIACHUN: No, it was just like you got on North Oakwood Dr... all
trees, and one by one, you built. Look what I've got to look at. At least you
have a nice view with all those Christmas trees my husband planted.
MARK PROFERIS: It's a beautiful view. Can you give us a list of maybe people
we can call?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You have to go to the property owners and you can work
with people like the Nature Conservancy, and certainly Peconic Land Trust.
They have a lot of different ways of preserving land. They've been very
successful in the North Fork and the South Fork. But, you would have to start
with the property owner. It's not impossible, but it takes work.
MARK PROFERIS: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone else?
MATTHEW ATKINSON: I'm representing some neighbors here, I'm an
attorney. I would just like to say that I don't believe this Board is any way put in
a wrong position because of my representation of other matters. That is to say,
I don't think the Board is prejudice. If you believe that somehow I have a
conflict, this is really not the proper place to bring it up. It's really no more than
a personal Slur or a slur against this Board. I have a fully disclosed potential
conflict, only if litigation occurred. However, to the merits, I've looked at the
previous survey and I haven't seen this realigned one, but from the description
that I've heard, I believe that it moves the road landward where the wetlands
actually, as delineated, actually touch the road. You'll note that in one of those
places, the wetlands are cut off by the road, presumably, by the road. The
other thing I would notice about the survey is that it does not have contours.
It's supposed to have 2' contours unless the Board waives that requirement. In
this instance, the 2' contour lines will tell us where the flood zone is. The flood
zone is at the 8' line. On the previous survey, it shows the lines further south
than it actually shows on this survey. It shows the 8' contour line going up
through the traveled road. This has now been omitted, and in fact, we have
less information about where the flood plain is and where about the natural
occurring vegetation might be, if it were not for the use of this road recently. As
a consequence, I'm almost obliged to consider much of this road within the
jurisdiction of the wetlands of the Town. Your definition of the wetlands is those
lands, which are inundated by tide waters, including lands inundated by tide
waters at peak, lunar tides and at storm tides. In some sense, they are
congruent with the flood zone. For the purposes of a wetland boundary to
establish the out limit of the 100' buffer zone, that's when we do the actual
vegetation delineation. Therefore, what we're looking at here is a road that's
really about a third of a mile long by the time it gets up to the Diachun property,
all the way to the north. This road will be used by the property owners. There's
no one to stop them. They have a legal right to do that. It's an easement.
That's about a third of a mile by right now, 15'. We're talking, right now, over
the loss of about over a half an acre of buffer or actual wetlands along a critical
environmental area, a natural pristine shoreline of Brushes Creek. This is not
an insubstantial degradation of this area. As a matter of fact, under the SEQRA
regulations, a diminishment of the value served by the lands in the critical
environmental area. That is per say, a significant adverse environmental
impact that would require the preparation of an ElS. On that count, there has
been no proper preparation of an EAF. This is at least an Unlisted Action, a
short form EAF was presented, and it's clearly inadequate to address the
effects of the entire road or storm run-off that will be created from the driveway
and the road, as well as the house that's going to be constructed because that
house's storm water run-off will run down the driveway, across the road, and
directly discharge into the wetlands. This has to be within the cognizes of this
Board, otherwise you're looking at a road as though it weren't attached to
anything, The adverse effects from the actual use of the road and the
foreseeable use of the road are properly within the Board's purview, which
leads me back to the moratorium. Right now, the applicant has everything
except the Board's approval to develop a single-family house. This is a
development of a single-family house on otherwise vacant land. I can't see how
this is not prevented by the moratorium and I have not heard back from the
Town Attorney, although I've written to him in this regard. In this proper
environmental review under SEQRA, you have to look at all of the aesthetic
impacts, the disturbance of wildlife, the erosion and siltation, this road is going
15
to be hardened, there's going to be obvious erosion from storm waters and well
as rain events. This will all diminish these wetland again, in the critical
environmental area. Until these issues are addressed, until a proper
environmental assessment, until a determination of significance is made by this
Board, you can't make a positive determination. You can't approve such a road
as this, according to SEQRA, and our own Town's regulations. Finally, I just
would like to say that the deciSion making, in terms of the development here,
what it really amounts to 30 undeveloped acres.
ELEANOR DIACHUN' Excuse me, it's not 30 acres, I don't own 30 acres. 1
wish I did. You said that the last time so you better correct yourself. As long as
I've lived there, we never had a flood on that road.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ma'am, you've go to let him finish first.
MATT ATKINSON: Thank you. We can take turns. There actually is, if you look
at the tax map. This road serves up to Ronald Diachun's property that's five
acres. There's 17.2 acres to the south that Eleanor owns, plus 2.1 acres north
of the 5.4 acres that Hallock owns. That's a lot like 30 acres. The Planning
Board has advised you that you can look forward to 10 lots here at some point.
There's a reasonably likelihood at that. So, these impacts do need to be
considered. The point here is that the Diachun's through private arrangements,
decided to run the load along the wetlands. This is something that might be
done back in the 50's because we don't care about wetlands. They are now
asking the Town of Southold to be bound by this. This is a bad plan. You are
removing over half an acre of valuable soil of borderlands and wetlands that's
crucial to the health of Brushes Creek. This is not a good plan for potentially a
ten house development. Move it over. This Board need not be bound by the
private agreements nor need the people of the Town of Southold. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI' Would anyone else like to speak?
HARVEY ARNOFF: I don't know where we're getting 10 acres from? This is a
5 acre piece that Mr. Hallock owns and he's looking to build One house. This is
an easement created as a result of a partition action. I went through this with
this Board. Mr. Foster was not here, I believe, at that time, but we have an
order of the Supreme Court setting forth in direct meets and bOunds where this
easement is, the 50' wide swath. We're not looking to build on any wetlands. If
we were, we wouldn't be here today. The house, as you all know, is oUtside
the jurisdictional limit of the wetlands. All we're saying is that we're not looking
to make...if we could leave it the way it is, and build the house, we're there.
Unfortunately we can't. We have to do something and we're looking to do the
minimal amount that would make the least disruption to anything in the area.
You can ask for a little more than that from my client. If you want it moved
further, I think we said earlier on, I think when Ms. Dickerson mentioned it
earlier on, we'll put it anywhere within that 50' wide strip. Anywhere you say.
But, I would ask that you close the hearing now. I think we've beaten this horse
enough times and I would ask that the Board make a decision after it closes
the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI' Thank you. We met in the field with the applicant and a
representative from the DEC two weeks ago. Mr. Hallock made some changes
16
on his application to reflect some of the concerns of the Board. In two locations
the road was directly adjacent to tidal wetlands. He's made some changes on
his application to show the road in a more easterly direction, so as not to
impact the tidal wetlands. We also asked for some sort of drainage plan
showing how the run-off from the road would be addressed. Mr. Atkinson
brought up a good point about the runoff from the driveway. That should also
be addressed. That will definitely drain into the road, Does the Board have
any other comments?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did you mention the road being pitched?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's part of the drainage. And how should be pitched
so that any run-off or sediment will not be directed towards the wetlands, so all
that ground water will be recharged. What about contours?
HARVEY ARNOFF: There are contours on that map.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We need elevations now on the proposed road showing
drainage. We need to see the proposed final grade on it.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: (inaudible) and you can't put drainage, per say.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well you can. You could put passage cuts into the east.
That's what was discussed. You want it drained away from the wetlands and
you want cuts into the woods to take all the run-off away from it. Do you see
what we need? To continue the review we're going to need a number of cross
sections of the proposed road showing the elevations, the grading, passive
drains going into the woods to take the run-off from the driveway so it's not
directed into tidal wetland areas.
HARVEY ARNOFF: We'll get that to you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To be fair, we can't get the information on the night of
the hearing and then it's really not fair in a public forum to have other people
review it at that point, including ourselves, and comment on it. If you could get
that information to us as soon as possible, we could make it available to
anyone else and apply to review it before the meeting and then everyone is
prePared. Say you get the grading and drainage and whatnot the night of next
month's meeting, we really would like the Town Engineer to take a look at it, so
we're not going to be able...
HARVEY ARNOFF: We'll have it to you one week before the next meeting. It
should be ample time for you to get it to the Town Engineer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That doesn't mean it's an instant approval. That means
that we can have time to review it. It would be ideal if you could get it to us prior
to the inspection so we can take it with us in the field.
HARVEY ARNOFF: What day is the next hearing?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's the 21st. The inspection is the 14th.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You know what I'm saying though, and I'm not saying
you have to have it by that day. I'm saying that to be fair to anyone who is
interested and be fair with the Board to review it, we can't get it that night.
HARVEY ARNOFF: No, I wouldn't expect you to. So the meeting is on what
date?
TRUSTEE KING: The field inspection is on the 14th.
17
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: He said he could have it to us the week before, which
is the inspection.
HARVEY ARNOFF: If we can't then we will adjourn it to the June meeting.
We'll will definitely have it to you by the 14th. Actually the 13th because the
inspection is on the 14th.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
7. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of DOUG ELY requests a Wetland
Permit to construct 116' new batter-style bulkhead (including 2-8' long returns)
with C-Loc vinyl sheathing seaward of existing bank, (above high-water).
Located: 1250 Grand Ave., Mattituck. SCTM#107-1-10.4
(MORATORIUM-EXEMPTION/EXCLUSION)
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here who wishes to comment on this
application?
JOHN COSTELLO: I represent Costello Marine Contracting, the agents for Mr.
Ely on this proposed retaining wall on his property in Mattituck. At the last
Board meeting, at the last hearing, it was suggested by this Board that they
would be more willing to consider a less impacting structure than a flat-faced
bulkhead on his property. Again, I went and presented that to Mr. Ely and he
was reluctant but he did consider it in detail and then will be happy to have a
small rock revetment that was suggested at that time. It is not a high impact
area so a flat-faced bulkhead...all he wants is to try to curtail the little erosion
and it was also suggested by this Board that the wetlands area, the inter-tidal
marsh area, would probably grow should the trees be pruned at that time, and
he said he would certainly do that. I don't even know if he has done it yet. But,
he would. What I did was alter the plans to show the rock revetment in lieu of
the flat-faced vinyl bulkhead. As you'll see, the rock revetment is only about 3
½ ' maximum, a maximum of 3 ½' above grade, and it is right up against the
bank so that it will not require a major excavation or backfilling. It's just trying to
retain that little bank.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's not the entire length of the propertyso it really isn't
going to impact the neighbors.
JOHN COSTELLO: It won't impact the neighbors and it is well above high tide,
but on a storm tide, it would be the only time, and it is not high intensity waves.
So, he's just trying to retain the property and it will try and keep the property
from migrating. Hopefully, the wetlands will increase.
TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments on this application? I'll make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application based on these
new plans showing the rock revetment.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
8. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of JOHN DILL requests a Wetland
Permit to remove and dispose 273' of existing timber jetties. Construct 142'
18
total of three new jetties with C-Loc vinyl sheathing in-place of existing.
Located: 484 Jackson St., New Suffolk. SCTM#117-10-3.4
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak for or
against the application.
JOHN COSTELLO: Again, my name is John Costello and Costello Marine
Contracting is the agent on this application for Mr. John Dill. At the previous
hearing, there were two neighbors that had questions in regards to having a
proper survey to actually show exactly where the jetties are located and I
apologize for taking so long but the surveyors are a little bit difficult to get on a
timely basis in Southold. We do have a survey and our last request was to
remove approximately 131' of jetties and dispose of them, and built 142' of Iow
profile jetties in place of the existing. I would like to alter that application to
lessen it because of the survey, which I am going to give you. One of the jetties
is on the property line and is on two different peoples and Mr. Fenton who had
a question of who owned the jetties since they've been there so long, he did
not know, and it is evident that we will not be rebuilding the jetty on Mr.
Fenton's property. The other jetty in question from James Dill is seriously and
totally on John Dill's property and we are going to lessen approximately, we are
going to remove 84' of jetties, which they are double jetties there, and we're
only going to rebuild 98', so the job is less, and is totally on his property, and I
will submit this survey showing exactly that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you're going to remove 84' and you're going to build
98', how is that less?
JOHN COSTELLO: We're going to rebuild 98'. We're going to take them out
and put new ones in. We're also going to remove the sistering jetties. There
was a "V" shaped jetty there. That's going to be disposed of. Taken and not
put back. It's much lesser a job and this Board did approve it. They are Iow
profile. They highest they are out is 16". The rest of it is buried. It was quite a
detail to find out how long they are, and the survey never did. That is a stable
beach and these jetties are part of that reason. Low-profile works.
E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Al, does he represent that this is ordinary and
usual maintenance of a jetty or repair of a jetty? ~
JOHN COSTELLO: They are functional now. Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this
application? Board members?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could you help us out here?
JOHN COSTELLO: These two jetties are totally on his property. We are only
going to rebuild the offshore 48', 49' of these two. These are going to be taken
out and disposed of. This one here, which we're going to take out, only this
last 17' of it is over the property line. It will disintegrate in time. If this Board is
desiring that that be reduced by the 17', we can certainly do, but we can only
take what's on his property. We cannot go over the property line. This is a
projection of the property line. If this Board decides that you wanted that
removed, we could certainly do it because it is on his property. It will
deteriorate in time. The ice will take it someday.
~i TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else who would like to speak? I'll
- make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
,!
¢ TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to Approve the application to
remove and dispose 101' of existing timber jetties. Construct 98' total of 2
jetties with C-Loc vinyl sheathing in-place of existing, as per new plans
submitted, and they will be Iow-profile.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
9. Architecnologies on behalf of RONALD & MARIA SMITH requests a Wetland
Permit to expand the house 1' behind the existing footprint of existing deck on
creek side. Attached heated breezeway with two-car garage. Addition of
second-floor above existing footprint and enclose the existing gazebo. Located:
2105 Westview Dr., Mattituck. SCTM#107-7-2
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on the
application?
PAT MOORE: I understand that this project, it's very simple, straight-forward
construction over the existing residence, and apparently the weather caused
some problems with some of your inspections timing. Hopefully you've gone
out and inspected it and you can see for yourself that it's very straight-forward.
We hope that you can approve the application tonight. Do you have any
questions?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments? I believe we all looked at it in
the field. We should stipulate that there be gutters and drywells.
PAT MOORE: That's fine. I asked about that. We'll just put in the condition of
the permit, gutters and drywells. No problem.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There was also a drain ring in the driveway.
MR. SMITH: It's not, it's a drywell.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's a drywell? It doesn't pipe off into the creek?
MR; SMITH: No.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about drainage for the new driveway.
PAT MOORE: Why don't you put in containment of drywells for all hard
structures, excuse me, for impervious structures, and that would cover
everything.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments from the Board? I'll make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the
stipulation that there be drywells and gutters on the house itself, and drainage
to take care of all the impervious driveway.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
10. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of DONALD W. SUTER requests
a Wetland Permit to add an extension to the existing framed garage. Existing
concrete driveway to be removed and replaced with pervious stone. Construct
an addition on the northern side of existing single-story house and to enclose
2O
the existing screened porch. Approx. 100 cy. of fill from an upland source will
be utilized. Located: 1150 Dean Dr., Cutchogue. SCTM#116-5-14
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there anybody here on behalf of the application?
DAN HALL: I'm here for the owner Mr. Suter. They are moving the current
sanitary system to the north side of the property that requires a slight
modification in the garage configuration to fit that in. Fill is required to fill in the
existing sanitary system and Iow-lying area around that. The screened porch is
over the existing deck area and the addition to the house is on the north side of
the house, which is away from the wetlands.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You still show the retaining wall. Is that going to be
necessary with the change in the septic system?
DAN HALL: They are adding fill there. Are you talking about on the east side
of the house there?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because originally I thought the retaining wall was to
contain soil for a septic system, but here you have the septic moved out of our
jurisdiction. I was wondering if you still needed a retaining wall and what the
purpose of that fill would be.
DAN HALL: I don't know what the purpose of the fill is. Some of the fill is to fill
in the existing sanitary system. There's an area that they want to fill in and hold
it back with the retaining wall. I don't think it has any structural bearing that I'm
aware of on the house. I suppose that could be moved, if it's a problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know. I just wondered what the purpose was.
How much fill?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: 100 cubic yards.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'd rather see that area left alone. It's next to the public
beach and I don't want to...unless there is some demonstrated need. I'd rather
see that elevation maintained there. It's not really a hole. We walked through
there.
DAN HALL: Okay. There is still going to be some fill required, obviously, to fill
in the existing sanitary system. That can be adjusted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well need drywells to contain the roof run-off.
DAN HALL: Okay. ~
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: With the subtraction of the retaining wall and drywells
and gutters to contain the roof run-off. How much fill are you going to need?
DAN HALL: I guess the Engineer will determine that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How about 25 cubic yards. If they need more, they can
come see us next month.
DAN HALL: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
11. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of FRED GLASSER requests a Wetland
Permit to repair the existing 4'X 59' timber dock, 8'X 12' platform, 3'X 17' ramp
and 5'X 24' float. Located: 220 Oak St., Southold. SCTM#77-2-4
i' TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment?
PAT MOORE: Thank you. We want to make minor repairs to the existing
structure. I want to present to the board and for you to have in your file, my
client found an original certificate of occupancy from 1988. It's a pre-C.O, that
was issued, which obviously means that the structures were constructed prior
to 1957 and this pre-C.O, actually lists the dock as one of the structures. This
particular dock has been on this property since the 1950's and they just want to
maintain it. I'll give you a copy of the pre-C.O. I know the platform...are you
concerned about the platform, because that's unusual design.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We agree that there may have been a dock there, and
there may have been a catwalk with an 8'X 12' platform on the end of it, but it
appears that the ramp and float were just add-ons at a later time. If you go
back to the 1950's, there'sa good possibility they didn't have a ramp and a
float there. They are a different structure altogether.
PAT MOORE: Well ramps and floats were actually...they were common, prior
to your jurisdiction.* So, in the 1970' and 1980's, that's not something new. As
far as we know, from the time my client has owned the property, these
structures have been there. So what, when, and exactly how they have been
modified over time, it's hard to tell.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We've seen it in many places. A good example is
Paradise Point. Looking up and down the creek at the shoreline, the shoreline
appears to be at the 68' mark, which is the end of that 8'X 12' platform. That's
where we would like to see it maintained and there appears to be somewhat of
~ a water depth there as to where the float is.
I PAT MOORE: Well we are here for repairs to an existing dock and quite
~_ frankly, when you have a pre-existing structure prior to your jurisdiction. You
can't require them to be removed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't have that though.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There is no proof. :
PAT MOORE: It's your obligation to prove that we didn't have that and we have
a pre-C.O, that says there was a dock there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think we're inclined to deny a dock here. Not at
all.
PAT MOORE: But I understand that you need a ramp and a float to go down
from the platform.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You don't need a ramp and a float.
PAT MOORE: My clients have one there. I think they would be hard-pressed
to after years of having it and using it, that the Trustees, when you come in to
repair it, that you insist that it be removed. There are constitutional problems
with that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It depends on whose property it's on. I agree with what
Ken said. I don't want to just legitimize an add-on.
PAT MOORE: Well we're not asking for add-ons. We're asking for repairs.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To something that doesn't have a permit.
PAT MOORE: But you don't issue grandfather permits, do you. There is no
application I can make to you to get a grandfather permit. To my knowledge,
you haven't issued those.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But you couldn't prove it would be worthy of a
grandfather permit.
PAT MOORE: Well your permit authority started in 1989, 19877
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Well I didn't deny there was a dock there in that
location, I just question the ramp and the float.
PAT MOORE: From observations you can tell that it's been there for quite
some time.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There have been a lot of floats that have been picked
up from marinas, they discard them, and they look like they have been there.
People add them on all the time.
PAT MOORE: I don't know what to tell you. We're here for a repair.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We're definitely willing to modify out to the 68' mark if
you would like a 40' catwalk with a 15' or 20' ramp and a 5'X 12' float.
PAT MOORE: But you're asking us to essentially remove everything that's
there to make it conform with your standards. Maybe I'm just not following.
Why don't you just tell me so I can compare it with what we've got and I can
discuss it with the client. We've got a dock there and we'll just withdraw our
application and just continue it. When it falls apart, we'll come back.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it's hypothetical to say that it's just there because
tomorrow it could be twice as big and then you'll say, "well it's there".
PAT MOORE: Right now, today, I know, and presently we all know that you
need a permit to expand it. We're not asking to expand. We're asking to repair,
inkind/inplace. So, the application before you is to take what we have and
make repairs to it, not to expand it. Certainly if we were asking to expand it
you'd be absolutely right within your power to say "no, you can't expand this".
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I agree with Ken.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What does Brownell say?
E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Is there a violation in this file or a Bay Constable
report?
PAT MOORE: No.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well there is. It says here, 11/01, a check of Town Hall
records shows the dock to be in place back as far as 1965...
PAT MOORE: So it seems consistent with our position that it pre-existed.
E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Who wrote that Al?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Don Dzenkowski. I wonder what he inspected at the
time, whether there was a ramp and a float there. That's the problem with the
violation report. There are no dimensions on it so it's impossible to know what
he actually inspected.
PAT MOORE: But you're presuming we have a violation. You're trying to
impose a violation on us when from your own records it's not obvious from the
documents.
23
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well let's see what records he refers to. There are letters
:i from the neighbors here stating there was dock there since the 50's, which
· , there's certainly no doubt, but what's in question is the size of the dock.
i PAT MOORE: Given that the dimensions are not your standard Trustee
I approved dimensions, it would seem to be that it pre-dates the Trustees
jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually that's why what Ken said made sense, is that
probably the dock originally was built out to that big platform and then that was
the size, or the length that we would be inclined to approved. The add-on of the
ramp and the float seemed to be added on at a later time. We should Table this
and try to find out what the...
TRUSTEE KING: We should get some old aerials.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's a good idea. The old aerials would certainly show
the evolution of the dock.
PAT MOORE: Okay, we'll go back to the aerials.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: W.e' Table this and see what the aerials show.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's going to be a burden that's going to be on the
applicant to produce some information.
PAT MOORE: Wel'l the aerials are in your own office.
LAUREN STANDISH: We don't have aerials in our office that would show
dimensions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They would probably be in the Planning Board.
PAT MOORE: Right. But they would depend again on when the aerials were
taken because in the winter time, you don't have a ramp and a float. So, that's
necessarily conclusive.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The ramp and float could've been out of the water in
November, so the Bay Constable didn't see a ramp and a float, and maybe
that's why he didn't think there was a violation. But still, he references
something from 1965, which is curious.
PAT MOORE: I have a pre-C.O, that shows it even prior to that, that there was
a dock there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, no, we don't doubt that there was a dock there.
That's not an issue.
PAT MOORE: But keep in mind, Brownell maybe...there seems to be a
constitutional issue here where the Board does not issue grandfather permits,
there's no procedural mechanism to provide for that, and you have repairs to
an existing structure. It seems to me that the Board does not have jurisdiction
to mandate removal of existing structures, when again, we're dealing with
what's been there. We can establish certain timelines but...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think your right. There is a constitutional issue and it
would protect the ownership of the property of the Town.
PAT MOORE: No, it protects the property owner. That is the taxpayer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The Town of Southold.
PAT MOORE: Mr. Krupski, I will ask you to remove your farmstand because it
doesn't conform to current zoning standards. What would you say?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's private property. This is public property.
24
PAT MOORE: What you would say is "it pre-dates the code and therefore you
are not permitted".
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If we had ownership from 1676, then the Town owns it.
It's not private property. It's a completely different issue.
PAT MOORE: You have pre-existing structures that the grandfathering and the
recognition in zoning, basic zoning principles, are the nature of pre-existing
structures. So, your jurisdiction is, was it there, or wasn't it there. So, if it was
there, then we are entitled to repair it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what we'll find out.
PAT MOORE: Okay, we'll do some homework. Thank you.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Just for the record, there is also an offshore flat there,
just outside of that dock. I'm not sure how many feet off of that dock.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would you like soundings on that Ken?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I believe so.
PAT MOORE: There's soundings right there. Doesn't that say 2.1', 2.2'?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Offshore?
PAT MOORE: Is that the area you're talking about?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think he wants to go further up.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Well I don't know who put those on. Is that 2.5'
actually there?
PAT MOORE: Well Sea-Level Mapping, that's how they identify...
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There's a big flat out there, just offshore of Oak Dr.
that' follows the creek. There's a large flat out front. There's an inshore
navigatable channel just where that float sits.
PAT MOORE: Okay, again, we're here to repair an existing dock. We're not
here to expand on it.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I've been in that creek my whole life and I can't recall
that float being there.
PAT MOORE: But you can't recall it not being there either. I guess because it's
been there so long that it's something that you just don't even pay attention to.
E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Pat, I just want to make sure I understand the
facts; the pilings are on the Town's bottom, the Trustees bottom?
PAT MOORE: Well...Goose Creek is a Town creek. The dock goes into Goose
Creek.
E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: But the pilings are on the Trustees bottom.
PAT MOORE: It's on the Town creek. Whether it's your bottom or not...to the
extent that it's...
TRUSTEE KING: It's patent lands.
E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Okay, so the pilings are on patent lands and
these other structures are out farther over your bottom.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's all on public bottom.
PAT MOORE: This is the dock that goes out into Goose Creek. This is the
structure and we want to make repairs to an existing structure.
E; BROWNELL JOHNSTON: The pilings are here?
PAT MOORE:Yes.
E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: And that's our bottom?
25
PAT MOORE: Well I guess to wherever the property goes. I can get you a Title
survey.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm going to make a motion to Table this.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
12. En~Consultants, Inc. on behalf of ANGELA & GUS KLAVAS requests a
Wetland Permit to install new I"X 20' tie rods and 8" diameter X 8' anchor
pilings (deadmen) to straighten existing +/-84' timber bulkhead (to remain).
Backfill with approx. 75 cy. of clean sand fill to be trucked in from an approved
upland source. Located: 1155 Arshamomaque Ave., Southold. SCTM#66-3-6
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Rob, would you like to comment on this?
ROB HERRMANN: I'm Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of the
applicants, Angela & Gus Klavas. This is a nice moratorium time, easy
application, just straightening the existing bulkhead, with the installation of new
tie rods and deadmen and backfilling as the loss of fill over time has really
lowered the upland area behind the bulkhead. If the Board has any questions,
I'd be happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I have just one comment. Both north and south
bulkheads, I guess they'll draw a straight line and pull it back in, in line?
ROB HERRMANN: Yes. It's Rambo's project and that's exactly what they will
attempt to do is to pull that bow back in line with the adjaCent structures.
That's exactly the purpose.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We'll require a 10' non-turf buffer.
ROB HERRMANN: A 10' non-turf buffer, yes.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments? If not, I'll make a motion to
close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application to
~_ straighten the existing bulkhead in line north and south with the condition of a
10' non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
13. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of MARIA VAMPORE GIOCOLI requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a fixed timber dock, consisting of a 4'X 9' inclined
ramp; 4'X 56' fixed catwalk; 3'X 14' hinged ramp; and 6'X 20' float secured by
(2) 8" diameter pilings. Located: 235 Private Rd. #3, Southold. SCTM#70-6-11
(MORATORIUM-EXEMPTION/EXCLUSION)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this
application?
ROB HERRMANN: I'm here on behalf of the applicant, Maria Vampore
Giocoli. This is an application that the Board had originally heard in November
and you know the rest of the story, so in the interest of time, and unless it's
necessary, we don't have to go over it. It is an exemption on the moratorium
and basically the plan that is most recently dated January 2, 2003 was a
modification of the plan in order to conform with the Board's request. When we
had met out at the site in mid December, In other words, the dock was
26
shortened, it was left as a fixed timber catwalk with a 8" mooring pile with a
pulley system, and that was designed in lieu of the original proposal. This
would be the fourth time we opened the hearing on this.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any comments from the Board? I'll make a motion to
close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to Approve the application for a 4'X
32' fixed timber catwalk with an 8" mooring pile and pulley system, as per the
plan dated January 2, 2005.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
14. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of BROADBLUE, LLC requests 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;
and establish a 50' non-disturbance/non-fertilization buffer adjacent to the
apparent high water line/tidal wetland boundary. Construct approx. 151 linear
ft. 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 off proposed bulkhead;
consisting of a 4'X 11' fixed catwalk; 3'X 12' hinged ramp; and 6'X 20' float
secured by (2) 8" diameter pilings. Located: 230 Wiggins Lane, Greenport.
SCTM#35-4-25&28.37
(M O RATO RI U M -EXE M PTIO N/EXC LU S IO N)
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here who would like to comment on this
project?
ROB HERRMANN: I'm here on behalf of the applicant. This one I will take a
little longer on. This one is also a moratorium/exemption application that has
been around the block almost as many times as the prior application. If you
recall, this hearing was held in November, I'm sorry, in December, and we had
discussed with the Board in the field the addition to that project description that
you just read; the placement of a fiber roll and plantings of spartina alterniflora
in order to establish an inter-tidal marsh, and what's now an unvegetated
littoral zone in front of where the bulkhead would be. I would leave it at that
except I did get a very nice phone call from a Leo Olsen, who is not an
adjacent owner, but a nearby owner. He had articulated some concerns to me,
which are, not so much concerns, but wishes about how this project might be
redesigned, which are not dissimilar from my own client's wishes from the day
that they hired me, so I will take the liberty of articulating that position as my
client would see it and then answering it. I assume that perhaps Mr. OIsen and
maybe somebody else will have some comments. But, this will save me from
getting up again. The Board should recall the application of Donna Fragola,
which was a little bit farther up Fordam Canal and Mr. Sal Prato had appeared
dUring a public hearing and presented the Board with a document from 1960
plus or minus 10 years, indicating that this canal is supposed to be 8' deep,
maintained at 8' deep, for a width of 80'. We had proposed a dock that was
27
extending from the Fragola bulkhead and if you recall, we all had a joint
meeting with Mr. Prato and some of the other neighbors in the area, the
Fragolas, the Trustees and the DEC. The concern there was, in accordance
with Mr. Prato's documents, was that the Fragolas should be allowed to dredge
away the entire littoral zone that's exposed at Iow tide and then dock the boat
against the bulkhead. We all went out to discuss this. The distinction, of
course at that site, was that the Fragola lot was located a point of inflection in
the canal, where due to erosion of the upland, there had been a shoal that had
crept out, as you recall, that was impeding public navigation. In order to
accommodate the concerns of the community, both the Board and the staff
members from the DEC we met with, had decided to allow that shoal area to
be dredged. At the time, it was certainly my impression that we were also
going to be allowed to dredge away part of the littoral zone. The DEC would
not allow, nor do I recall it being this Board's inclination to dredge away the
entire littoral zone, but to translate the Iow water line somewhat landward. I did
submit a plan to that effectto this Board, which was approved, and then to
DEC, which was not approved. Once it went to the superior of the staff people
that we had met with on site, they were told, no way was this going to be
approved in it's full'scope that we had laid out. We were given approval to
dredge away the shoal, but not to translate the beach landward, if you will.
Furthermore, it was required by the DEC that the Fragolas plant the area with
inter-tidal marsh grasses. So, we come now to this application and I was
asked the same thing by this client. Well, can I just dredge away the littoral
zone and dock my boat against the bulkhead? I'm going to take the liberty of
suggesting that may be what Mr. Olsen and perhaps again, Mr. Prato, as I see
he's here, would also suggest to the Board. My only comment in anticipation of
that is that because of this property being is such a different location, there is
really is not a concern about shoaling in the canal. There may be a concern
that other members of the community have had fairly large sized boats for fairly
long time and as this Board sees over and over again, when somebody new
comes along and introduced a new dock, a new boat, it begins to constrain the
whole area and historic practice. What I will say is that this particular dock that
is being proposed does conform to the Board's policy. We discussed this in
December. The canal at Iow tide measured 86' from Iow water to Iow Water
across just in front of the bulkhead. A third of that distance is 28'. The dock
encroaches 16' within that area leaving room for an 8' beam boat. This is the
exact information that's already on the record that was discussed with the
board in December and you were satisfied with. What I had told Mr. Olsen is
that I felt that it was unlikely that the Board, in this case, would revert back to a
position of dredging away the littoral zone because it was your specific request
and condition that we establish the fiber roll and plantings in order to create a
marsh here, where obviously dredging away the area would do the exact
opposite, rather than creating habitat, you'd be eliminating the habitat that's
th'ere. So, I'm obviously going to, I mean Mr. Prato perhaps, and I keep
introducing Mr. Prato with the presumption that he's going to speak, but I'm
sure the Board is going to want to hear other comments. But again, it's just my
28
position that I can pretty much guarantee you that even if this Board reverts it's
position and says forget the plantings, forget the marsh, and dredge it all away,
we are not going to get the approval from the DEC and if somebody can waive
that magic wand over DEC and make that happen, that's wonderful. I'm quite
confident that it's not going to be approved here. It was not approved at
Fragola and it's not going to be approved here. The approval by the DEC has
been issued. I have yet to receive the permit but I was told today that it has
been issued after receipt of the letter of SEQRA determination from the Town.
So, that's about my input on it and I'm certainly happy to respond further if
there's something that I'm missing or if the Board has any other questions, but I
will remind the Board that we had this hearing in December, we were sent off
to do the SEQRA review, we expected to receive the permit in accordance with
your modification request in January, and I know at this point my client is pretty
anxious, and appreciate that the Town was able to draft some modifications to
the moratorium and get us back here, and would certainly would like to move
on with the project. Thank you for the time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone else like to speak?
SAL PRATO: He introduced the Fragola property and the issue...the land in
front of the bulkhead was really never the big issue, it was the erosion of the
point itself being that's where the canal bent. And I was surprised, the DEC on
site in front of everybody, said "yes, we'll let you take some of that back, we
realize there is a hazard there". Also, the other stipulation was that Mr. Fragola
place his float no further out than the Rutkowski float, keeping them in line. If
you go on the site now, it seems they were able to do that measurement on the
north end, but the other end jets out like this. Now I'm friends with Mr. Fragola
and he intends to buy a 34' boat with a 12' beam. That's what's coming there. I
had my boat out coming in and this you can see, this dock is sticking out, and I
couldn't understand why they had no problem aligning the north end of that
float and piling, but the south part swings out actually in to the canal. Now the
client present, the one we're talking about now, ....
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could I interrupt you on that point? We actually had the
Fragolas in here this evening. We were there two weeks ago to take a look at
it because it was put in, it had been moved, and we looked at it and thought it
stuck out a little too far. We want to see it moved back so where the float is
now, and the poles are, it should be moved inside of the poles. It should be
moved back about 6'. That's what we recommended. They think they're going
to have some kind of problem with the DEC.
SAL PRATO: They said that at the time. They were there the DEC, and the
Trustees were there also. We're not trying to keep people from...listen, this
canal was dug by Mr. Preston, Latham, Muiller, in 1964. Three lots have not
been built on in that time. It's evident that it's sloughed out badly. That one in
particular, Fragola. We're not trying to keep people from having boats. We
welcome them and want them in our yacht club. But what I would ask on this
other application, again, that the float just be kept in line with the Casillo float
and the Torkelson float and no further. Now we're not trying to kill the earth in
front of the bulkhead and may it might reduce it a little bit, but...and we
29
certainly want them to be able to dredge into the canal to get the water they
need but we have to assume that people are not going to have canoes in there
and the navigable waterway was the initial idea of this property. There was no
water at first. All else is secondary. Safety too is important and I really see a
hazard especially for some of the larger boats that have to negotiate in there.
Thank you.
LEO OLSEN: I'm here to speak in opposition of the dock project. This is the
second time and I'm going to be repeating things, obviously, from previous
conversation. Gull Pond is very narrow. To move vessels around, if two boats
come into this particular area, even at 8' wide beams, 24' boats, they can
tangle up and have an accident. My boat is 50'. I as always under the
impression that 25% on each side or less would be used for the owner of the
property, and at least 50% would be used for navigation. We have about 90'
total width. Some of it is quite shoaled over so you really can't get that close to
it, on the ends. The proposed dock will exceed the 25%, and this is only
knowledge that I've had. Itmay not be true or correct. Looking at the situation,
replacing it in the center of the property close to my neighbor on the east end
of the canal and it would block his access. George is not here to speak tonight
and he is quite old'so I don't know if he could make it, and we had some
conversations on the matter. He actually called me and advised me of this
meeting. He has some concerns. My boat being 50', having to pull into my
dock, and back out, this would be almost directly behind me. It's hard to
maneuver a 50' vessel it water. It moves. If I had 4' or 5' on one side or the
other, it's not a lot of room. I would have to back quite a ways out of the canal,
as it is now, to turn around. At Iow tide, I really have to back most of the way
down. My simple suggestion is that the dock be allowed to dredged closer to
the bulkhead. Maybe not the entire area, but enough to fit his float. If he's only
gOing to have a small boat, that's fine. But who is to say what size boat can
come in the future. Boats range in width from 8' to 18'. A 30' houseboat can be
18' Wide. So, there is no restriction that's going to be placed on the size of the
boat and I would not want to do that. A simple matter would be to dredge a
small area, put the float in close, and in line with the other docks and floats in
the area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
JOHN COSTELLO: I do own a piece of land along that waterfront and I'm
aware most of the properties in that area. I knew the principle of the people that
owned the entire bottom of that canal. Most of the individuals presently own in
front of their own property, in that canal, to the center of the basin. Mr. Latham,
probably did one of his earlier dredging jobs by dredging that entire stretch of
the Gull POnd canal. It was deep and has been eroding over a period of time.
Let me tell you about this specific property. There was a permit from the Board
of Trustees. There was a DEC permit for that same property. There was an
ACE permit for that same property. What it did, it allowed a bulkhead to be
placed there. Dredging was required by the owners at that time, in order to
recover the narrowing of the canal. My suggestion at that time, and it was
designed, that there was going to be a bulkhead with an indentation in it. The
30
indentation would accommodate the floating dock. That's what was permitted.
That's a possibility. There was also a Iow spot in the property that could
accommodate all the fill necessary to come out of that canal and recover what
has eroded. There is no vegetated wetlands. The whole canal was man made,
except for the very entrance. I think that some design work, and it's just a
suggestion, man can do what he likes, but it can be accommodated and I think
that the DEC permit, and I could probably dig up a copy, and provide a copy for
this Board.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When was that, do you know?
JOHN COSTELLO: I would probably say about 1976 or 1977. The name of the
person was Joe Sucher who had the property and he became ill and never did
any of it. But it was permitted and it did have an indentation to accommodate
the float, so it did not narrow up the dead end of the canal.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. There's sort of a moratorium issue here
though. This is a project that we reviewed in the field and had public hearings
on and whatnot. To try to make a change on this project now, it would have to
be...the way the moratorium language is written, it would have to be either
beneficial or neutral to the environment. So, we can't just make a change
tonight based on What Rob said about the DEC being reluctant to make any
kind of dredging change.
ROB HERRMANN: I would just comment briefly in response to what the
various gentlemen said. We certainly took that into account. If Mr. Olsen
mentioned the test of 25% of the canal for a dock on either side and 25%, and
he mentioned 90' and I measured 86', so I'm going to stick with 86', which is
going to be more constraining to the client, and 25% of that would be 21.5'.
This dock extends 16', so we're less than that. Going by the Trustees test,
which is 1/3 the wide of the canal, at Iow tide, including the boat, would be 28'.
So this dock goes out 16'. Now, this may be an enforcement issue, but Mr.
Olsen said, well we don't really want to control the boat size and there is no
waY the Board can do that, but under your policy, the maximum size boat that
could be docked here is 8'. So, if they bring in a boat that has wider than an 8'
beam, that's going to be a problem because it won't conform to your policies or
this permit. So in effect, boat size is indirectly regulated here. That would be
the maximum size of the boat. In terms of navigation space, I'm certainly not
going to contest my knowledge or experience with Mr. Costello's or the other
gentlemen that own boats on this creek, but even if you had an extension of
28', which would be the Trustees allowance, that still leaves almost 60' across
to the other side and even if you were to subtract another 28' on the other side,
it still leaves a 30' wide channel through the center of this canal. Now I don't
know if a 30' wide area certainly seems to be a lot wide than most areas for
navigation of boats, that I deal with, with this Board. So, I certainly know for an
8' wide beam boat, which is what would be allowed here. Having a 30' wide
channel with no obstruction would certainly be enough to get a boat in an out.
Again, I don't know it's going to affect a much larger boat that some of the
existing owners may own but that's really not a burden for my client to bear. If
we can conform to this Boards policy and follow the permit, that's really the
31
best we can do. I agree. Certainly under your test, if we eliminate marsh
creation in favor of dredging, it's certainly not beneficial or neutral. Again, as
much as I appreciate Mr. Prato's efforts, we went through this on Fragola
where I think the issue was even more pertinent and we did not walk out of that
situation even after meeting with Karen Grawlick and Chris Arfsten at the site
and even the plan that I put in that allowed the kind of dredging that Mr. Olsen
is describing, which is to dredge back some of the beach, to allow more room,
when it was passed to their superior, it was not approved. I was required to
submit a plan back to DEC showing less dredging than what we had discussed
in the field, or else I wouldn't get the permit. I can't imagine that their position
would suddenly reverse 180 degrees here, particularly when this is context to
the area is not really the same as Fragola. I saw a communal navigation
problem in front of Fragola due to that shoal, as Mr. Prato mentioned. We are
allowed to dredge that way. The water here drops off quite quickly. We are
reaching 2.5' of water, only 16' from the existing Iow water line. It's a very quick
drop, and it's not much. It's a very small dock. It's an 11' walk with a ramp and
a 6'X 20' "T" float. So, that's our position, and that's what we're asking for the
Boards approval for. I don't know if there some way you could stipulate your
approval to make Sure there is conformance with your policies.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Of course. You would hope that we would have the
enforcement, like on any permit.
LEO OLSEN: I'd like to make a comment. 30' wide...my boat is 15', 5' space
on one side, leave a little space on one side so I don't hit the boat, dock, leaves
10'. If I,m coming out and someone comes up there, 10' is not very much at all.
My boat doesn't stay still like it's on the road.
ROB HERRMANN: Is your boat docked at your property, Mr. Olsen?
LEO OLSEN: Not now.
ROB HERRMANN: But is there a dock there?
LEO OLSEN: Yes.
ROB HERRMANN: And you're at the end.
LEO OLSEN: Yes.
SAL PRATO: There's got to be an exception. The DEC can't have...you even
bend the rules for the moratorium.
E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: No, we don't bend any rules. They only do what's
legal.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When it comes to this canal, seeing that it's a man made
canal, it didn't get us that excited, if someone wants to dredge, as in Fragola. It
was created for boating.
SAL PRATO: It seems that the DEC, they are posing what you can do on a
coastal situation, where you can do just whatever you want. This is a tight,
constrained canal. We can't have the luxury of slopes, and weeds, it just
doesn't fly. There were no weeds here, there were no clams here, these were a
benefit after. Mr. Preston created a navigation situation here. Safety is of the
utmost. This is the hinge. They can create a hazard. That's what's happening.
I'm not opposed to these people but moving it back...my float comes out of the
water at Iow tide. It actually comes out of the water in the back. I still have a 3'
32
draft on my boat. So, pulling it back doesn't mean you have to really take away
all of that in front of the bulkhead. It just means that at Iow tide, especially in
the winter, it sits like this. I can live with that.
ROB HERRMANN: That's what they won't allow. They can't regulate what
you've had for years and years, but that's the whole problem, with the water
depth, is that you have to have, where the boat is being berthed, has to be in
30" of water or they won't approve the float.
SAL PRATO: But they won't approve letting you take it out from underneath
either.
ROB HERRMANN: That's correct, and that's the catch 22.
SAL PRATO: What would happen if in another 40 years it sloughed enough
where deep water was in front of the opposite neighbor. Would you then have
the float out that way to conform to the rule? I don't understand this.
ROB HERRMANN: Well no, because if it went out that far, we wouldn't be able
to proposed a dock at all.
TED ANGELL: 305 Gull Pond Lane. I'm a resident on Fordam Canal. There is
an aspect to this particular application that is overlooked. It's a very important
aspect. It's a safety issue. It has nothing to do with any of the residents
actually. The entire boating season there is a steady parade of boats that
come up to the end of the canal, turn around, and go back out again. As
though people are coming into a beautiful cul-de-sac to look at the homes, and
then they just turn around and go back out. So we're talking about approx. 30'
of space. A 28' boat would have to turn around in that space and have to go
back out again, and this will be a boater that doesn't live there. Now the public
has a right to navigate so we can't complain even though we own half the
bottom. I own half the bottom and my neighbor across the way owns half the
bottom. We can't say, hey wait a minute, this is private bottom get the hell out.
We can't do that. The public has a right to navigate. However, I have two
boats that I cannot replace. I certainly wouldn't want somebody slamming into
them because the width of the canal is being obstructed by a neighbor who
now has a perpendicular catwalk going out into the canal area, where the rest
of us are all parallel to our bulkhead walls. Mr. Costello said something that I
firmly believe and I recommend this to my own clients, being that I do my own
consulting work, but I'm here on my own as a resident, and that is an
indentation. Now the Fragola property is an issue because as I've been
informed by neighbors, that wall was built without any dimensions on a plan,
and in the words of some of you gentlemen on the Board, there was indeed a
land grab at that particular location, because that was a rounded corner and
the line of the bulkhead should have followed the contour of the land because
once that land sloughs off and goes down under water, it belongs to you. It
doesn't belong to the property owner. The property owner should not be able to
come back and say I'm manufacturing it back to what it was 15 years ago,
according to an old survey. Once it's gone, it's gone. You pay for what you see
and you get what you pay for. Basically, we have a situation, and you do have
some photographs, as the points being created. If you stand on my property
and my neighbor's property to the south and look straight down that canal, you
33
will see a definite obstruction to navigation on the Fragola property and that is
an obstruction that is serious without a boat being there. If a boat is placed
there, it just not belong. An indentation would've been the property method for
Fragola to use that corner piece of property. When I say corner property, it's
like a piece of real estate that's on a corner and whether you like it or not, you
have two front yards. I have a piece of property in Southampton that also has
water and it's a corner property. I've got three front yards whether I like it or
not and I have to deal with it. I can't put up a 6' high fence because I've got
front yards all over the place so basically...l'm just trying to get a point across
and this particular application, it is my belief and that of my neighbors' that you
have a situation, and especially with the boat traffic coming up, that you cannot
afford to narrow the canal any more than it already is. If everyone else is
parallel to the wall, this property should also have a parallel float to the
bulkhead and at least it would afford some measure of safety for boats having
to turn around there because that traffic is continuous all summer long, the
entire boating season. So l think the Board should consider that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. It is the Boards policy that the boat and the
structure be no more than 1/3 across the waterway. That's always been the
Boards policy. That's long-standing. If the applicant applied to us for an
indentation here into the property, I wouldn't have had a problem with it. I don't
know about the rest of the Board. The problem is that the State is not going to
approve anything like that, which in this case, it's appropriate. It's a dug canal,
private bottom, and there's very little wetland value there, or a natural resource
there to protect. I don't know if that was every put forth to the state to try to
accommOdate that.
ROB HERRMANN: It wasn't put forth to the state because I was working off the
same experience that we had just had with Fragola. I'm torn between a rock
and a hard place here. I'm not sure if Mr. Angell's comments about Fragola or
in a bit of an abstruse illusion to a land grab that I didn't quite follow is
somehow related to this application or not, but for the record, this bulkhead is
being located 5' farther landward than the adjoining bulkheads so there is a
land loss here from what was originally was established for this property and
that is being recognized through the emplacement of the bulkhead so if there is
any insinuation that that's what's going on here, that certainly is not the case
and that's graphically depicted fairly conclusively on the plan. If we were to
apply for a boat slip here, it would require at least the dredging of some portion
of the un-vegetated littoral zone in front of the bulkhead. That is an issue for
the DEC but it's also an issue for this Board. Now, we're only standing here six
months later because this Board requested that I modify this plan to establish a
fiber roll and plantings in order to establish a marsh. So, I would have some
trouble with the fact that now I would be kicked away for another however
many months because you would entertain not planting but actually dredging
away the habitat, so instead of putting this off to the DEC, I would ask this
Board directly, what's your pleasure? Do you not mind if we go ahead for
dredging this away in order to pull the float in, dredge it away completely,
dredge it away for slip, because I know what I expect the DEC's position to be.
But I also need to know what this Board's position is. We are here because of
your request to create inter-tidal marsh, which I thought you were doing
because the canal is the void of it and I understand obviously I am in the
position of making the same arguments as Mr. Costello to your Board and the
DEC all the time that a half a century ago, this, that, and the other thing were
how things were done. But, there are laws now that we have to abide by and
again, just so everybody here is clear, that I don't have some opposition
agenda to Mr. Prato, my client would like nothing more than to dredge away
this whole beach, slap in a huge bulkhead, and put a giant boat in right against
her bulkhead. If you can make that happen, I'll take it. But, otherwise I'm stuck.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Besides the last part of what he said, is it worth his while
at all to try to go the DEC to try to get at least a minimal amount of dredging, as
Fragola does, so he could bring the float in a little bit more, to gain 6' or 8'. I
think the Board is inclined to approve something that was basically already
approved back in December, but with the understanding based on the
navigation issues that if the ap'plicant goes to the DEC and can get something
other than what is approved by this Board, in other words, something that can
be...any kind of dredging, whether it's limited dredging to bring the float in 6'.
ROB HERRMANN: What you're saying is I would walk out of here with a permit
for this with the understanding or condition that we make application to the
DEC for an amendment for some dredging that would allow us to bring the float
in and if we could obtain that, you will promptly amend the permit accordingly.
I'm happy to do that. I'm happy to do that with your assistance, because I can
firmly guarantee you that if I simply make application to the DEC for an
amendment for dredging here, it's going to get denied. The applicant owns the
property, it's a dredged canal, Mr. Prato has the documents, and all of that is
going to be worth zero. I will not get an amendment to dredge for a private
dock, never have, never will. So, if this Board is willing to assist in that matter,
that's fine because I would need you to make some sort of direct contact
probably with Chuck Hamilton to discuss this particular application and whether
some dredging would be allowed and if you were to relay all of these concerns
and comments and your feelings about it, I think that's going to go a lot farther
than a letter from me.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI' We'll be happy to do that.
ROB HERRMANN' I can discuss that further with you subsequent to the
hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll be happy to do that, sure.
TRUSTEE KING' Is there any other comments on this? I'll make a motion to
close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KING' I'll make a motion to Approve this application based on our
recent discussion and we're going to try to work with Rob as far as possibly
getting some dredging done to move the float closer to the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
35
15. Douglas M. Soffey on behalf of NElL MCGOLDRICK requests a Wetland
Permit to reconstruct inkind/inplace existing (70') timber groin located at the
western end of the applicant's property. There is no filling involved with
project. Located: R.O.W. off of New Suffolk Ave., Mattituck. SCTM#116-4-16.4
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of
the application?
GLENN JUST: Mr. Soffey is on the other microphone. I've just become
involved with the project recently and he's asked me to come here and answer
any technical questions that the Board might have.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Before we start, besides you two fellows, is
there anyone else who is interested in commenting on this application? Could
you just show us which one, because it's not marked on the survey? There
was a controversy over the groin built in Hall's Creek. We looked at this groin
two weeks ago, at the proposed reconstruction of the existing groin, and we
found that the sand was built up on the easterly side, which would lead us to
believe that if you extended the groin into Hall's Creek it would built up into
Hall's Creek. It was kind of curious.
GLENN JUST: If we extended this groin?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well I'm getting ahead of myself. What I would like to
see here is elevations on both sides of this groin. I'd like to prove the way the
littoral drift is. And also, stake the landward edge of this groin, because we
coUldn't see it.
GLENN JUST: It was buried. The littoral drift here is from the west to the east,
southwest and northeast, according to the DEC and past applications.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you look at the groin here, you'll see the sand is built
up on the east side.
GLENN JUST: Was that was because of the recent dredging done down on
Deep Hole last month.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, we've looked at this area for years. It's not like it
wasa stretch of beach and you can clearly demonstrate which way it's going.
You can't here. We would just like to establish it here. If it's a 70' groin, we're
talking about maybe every 10', a spot elevation. ~
GLENN JUST: Is this something you want in the form of a survey Al?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, please.
GLENN JUST: Okay because I do have my notes from when I did take the
measurements at the site.
TRUSTEE' KRUPSKI: While he is out there, you might as well do it every 10'
on either side.
GLENN JUST: We were asked by the DEC recently to do the same.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then do one end of the groin and then the other end.
We would like to keep it Iow-profile.
MR. SOFFEY: Just so I'm clear as to what the Board is asking, you're looking
for sound elevations?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct. We want to establish a beach elevation
there.
MR. SOFFEY: Okay.
36
GLENN JUST: Are there any other questions as far as the Board is
concerned?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There is always a question, as you know, on these groin
replacements as far as what's functional and what's not. Of course, the
elevation is going to prove whether it's functional or not.
GLENN JUST: Most definitely.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's also rare that the DEC approve these without cutting
some off, in our experience.
MR. SOFFEY: Inkind/inplace they still...even though it's been there for as long
as it's been there ....
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well it's depends whether it's functional or not. If it's not
functional it means it's not stopping the sand there so they won't let you extend
it to where it was because then it will change the sand flow. The elevations will
prove that so we won't even speculate tonight. I'll make a motion to Table the
application.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Sir, can you say who you were for the record?
MR. SOFFEY: For the record, I'm Doug Soffey on behalf of Neil McGoldrick.
16. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of CHARLES W.
RIESTERER requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct in-place a 24' concrete
groin utilizing timber. Located: 1945 Calves Neck Rd., Southold. SCTM#70-4-
47
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there anyone here on behalf of this application?
GLENN JUST: I'm Glenn Just from J.M.O. Consulting from Quoque, New York.
I don't knoTM if the Trustees had picked up on it, but in 1995 Mr. Riesterer had
requested permission to reconstruct all four of the concrete groins, I guess you
saw on the inspection, only three were done, and the fourth one has recently
keeled over. On this particular one, the DEC has approved with the stipulation
that it can be no further than 24" above grade, the top of the groin, which would
match the elevations of the three other groins that we're having re-built.
E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Do you have a copy of the DEC permit?
GLENN JUST: Chris Arfsten met me at the site this past Friday and he asked
me to re-draw the plan and send them directly to him.
E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Could you fax the permit to Lauren when you get
it?
GLENN JUST: Sure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have the new plans for us? The ones that you
sent to the state, do you have those for us?
GLENN JUST: No, I don't have those with me.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I would imagine you would remove the concrete.
GLENN JUST: Most definitely.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make the motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
37
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application to
reconstruct in-place, a 24' concrete groin, subject to new plans being
submitted.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
17. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of PARADISE POINT
ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge two areas
of existing boat basin (50'X 130' and 50'X 100') to a depth of -4' ALW.
Resultant spoil 1,100 cy. of sand shall be removed to an upland site. Located:
Basin Rd., Southold. SCTM#81-1-16.1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the
application?
GLENN JUST: Once again, Glenn Just of J.M.O. Consulting, if there are any
questions from the Board. I guess I should start off by explaining to everyone
that upon the Trustees' inspection last week or the week before, I was asked to
go back out and take an additional measurement on that interior section of the
channel that they wanted t° maintenance dredge. I've gone back two or three
times and have taken the additional measurements and I drafted this afternoon
a rough copy for the Trustees to look at and what it turned out, it was the, I
think the 150' area that was proposed to be dredged inside, has been reduced
to a 10'X 60' and a 15' X 60' and that also would drop the amount of proposed
spoil to be removed to 300 cy. instead of the 1100 cy. It's a much reduced
area to be dredged. What I did was, I'll come up and show you. This is the
area in question. (Speaker no using the microphone.)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where is your disposal area?
GLENN JUST: (inaudible)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about out here?
GLENN JUST: That's still part of the project.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? Ken, did you see this?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you want to look at this at low water?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I believe we had questions out in the field on the
sloughing off.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we had a lot of questions but I think he reduced it
substantially.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 10' compared to 50' is quite a bit.
TRUSTEE KING: It's just a small piece now.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Could you show a grade scale on there?
E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Where are they putting all the dredging?
GLENN JUST: The intention is to move it off site.
E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Where would you put it?
GLENN JUST: We have, as you probably know, historically it has been trucked
off, off the eastern jetty. We've removed it that way or sometimes the spoil is
pUt on both the jetties to fill in the holes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The State wouldn't allow them to put it on the beach,
historically.
38
GLENN JUST: That would've been the best of all worlds but there is no beach
to put it on.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment?
CATHERINE MESIANO: I'm Cathy Mesiano and I'm here on behalf of the
Zupas together with Mr. Bressler and the Zupas, as you know, are the adjacent
property owners to the proposed dredge sites and we have a number of points
that we would like to discuss with the Board. I have given you a very
comprehensive package that has a lot of data in it. We have compiled a
comprehensive package with exhibits to demonstrate the points that we intend
to make and I will go through the points with the benefit of the rest of the
people here. The Zupas are of the opinion that the application to dredge
should be denied for the following reasons: the first reason is that we question
the legitimacy of the application itself in that we really are at a loss as to how
the application came to be constructed, submitted, and accepted by this Board.
Under your own wetland ordinances there are certain qualifications that are set
forth and we don't believe thatthey have been met. The association is not a
riparian owner and has no right to dredge. The Trustees should not issue a
permit to further an illegal an un-permitted marina and docks. The Trustees
should not issue a permit that contravenes the standards set forth in 97-28 of
the wetlands ordinance with respect to erosion, inter-tidal marshlands and the
lateral support of lands owned by other riparian owners. As you were
concerned, we're concerned with the second dredge site, the inner more area
that we were just discussing at the dais. We are still of the opinion that the
activity would be detrimental to those inter-tidal marshes that adjoin those
areas and that area is controlled by the riparian rights of the adjoining property
owners, the riparian owners. The Paradise Point Association is not a riparian
owner to the areas that they are seeking to dredge for the purpose for which
they are seeking to dredge. The basin is part of the Andros Patent, which the
Trustees hold in trust for the public and not for one particular group or
individual. In further, the association's application is virtually identical to that
which was denied by the Trustees on May 15, 2000 and November 21,2000.
We've included a number of legal exhibits where certain court'cases have been
decided and matters have been set forth by the courts that have been used in
conjunction with other cases. I won't site them specifically. I've leave that up to
Mr. Bressler to do. But one thing I would like to say is the right to dredge for a
private individual is based on riparian ownership. The association has to right
to receive a permit to dredge in the basin since it is not a riparian owner and
cannot state a legitimate source of it's right as required by 97-21 of the
wetlands ordinance. Mr. Barr who reports to be the owner on the application,
owns no property on the basin. A series of aerial photographs of the basin from
1954 to the present show that the docks were initially installed in 1962 and
subsequently that the docks were enlarged, altered, extended, reconstructed,
and restored. I would refer you to Exhibit B. Certification letter and
photographs are attached and that would be Exhibit C. Documents from the
time period also confirm this. We have a number of records that discuss the
construction of the docks, the contractors, etc. That would be Exhibit D. The
39
use of these docks contravene standards set forth in 97-28 of the wetlands
ordinance in that the cause erosion, detrimentally affect vegetation in the
wetlands and undermine the lateral support of the lands of the riparian owners.
Riparian owners have a greater interest to protect the bulkheads supporting
their properties. They also have the riparian rights to the foreshore and beyond
to the navigatible waters, which adjoins the area the association seeks to
dredge. The wetlands ordinance section 97-28 of the wetlands ordinance
recognizes these rights. The Trustees must recognize that these are property
rights distinct from and not subordinate to those of the Town and I would refer
you to the Commander Oil Case, which is part of your package and again, Mr.
Bressler could expound on that. Moreover, the owner of lot 16.7 as the owner
of the closest beach on the east side of the canal and in diminishing results,
other owners of beachfronts on the east side of the canal has the right to the
dredge spoil. That beach continues to sustain erosion caused by the jetties and
in the last year alone has eroded several inches but for the jetties, the spoil
would follow it's natural route to it's terminus on that beach. The aerial
photographs in Exhibit B also show the effect that the jetties have had on the
shoreline of lot 16.7. The jetties themselves have also eroded and require that
some of the spoil be used for replenishment. The beach and the jetties was
where the spoil was deposited in the past, and I refer you to Exhibit E. The
DEC and the Office of General Services overseeing state lands have both
stated that this is acceptable now. The owner of lot 16.7 is an appropriate
property to apply for and obtain a permit to dredge and dispose of the spoil.
The basin is clearly part of the Andros Grant. I refer you to the report of the
NYS Land Bureau and the official NYS maps attached as Exhibits F&G. The
fact was communicated to the association, which was attempting to charge rent
for the private docks in the basin and control the use of the basin in order to
inflate the sales prices of the homes, and I would refer you to Exhibit H. The
Andros Patent imposes on the Trustees a special obligation to protect these
waters. The Town holds this land in trust for the public good and not for the
furtherance of the interest of one particular group. Lastly, the present
application is a repeat of the application made in 2000, in which the Trustees
noted the severe erosion in the basin and stated that no dredging would be
permitted there until there was a comprehensive plan to correct this erosion.
The Trustees allowed the association to dredge at the mouth of the canal on a
one-time basis. I would refer you to Exhibit I, which contains the transcripts and
the permits that relate to those dates. Part 2 of this submission deals with the
Trustees duty to order removal of the illegal docks. During the field trip to the
basin on July 24, 2002, the President of the Trustees asked for a letter from the
owner of lot 16.7 requesting the removal of the illegal docks so that the
Trustees could take action. This in addition to an electrical inspection that was
requested was submitted and I would refer you to Exhibit J. The detrimental
impacts that the docks were having on the wetlands and the erosion being
caused was noted then as it had been a number of times in the past. The
Trustees stated that the association's docks had never been permitted and that
they were illegal in an R-80 district and that the association had no ownership
40
interest in the wetlands. The on-site electrical installations were also mentioned
by the Trustees during this field trip. As a result of the associations continued
reliance on it's illegal marina and docks to prevent the development of lot 16.7,
and the unsafe electrical fixtures installed by the association, a formal request
has been made to remove the docks and electrical installations citing Southold
Town Code sections and including comprehensive exhibits, and that would be
Exhibit K. The association docks also restrict the riparian rights of owners in
the basin. Other riparian owners have docks against bulkheads, resulting in
loss of proper draft and the inability to moor more than one boat. Further, there
are planned new and reconfigured private docks that will have impact on the
navigatability in the basin. The attached map shows the congestion the results
from the illegal docks and the infringement on the rights of the adjoining
riparian owners, and that would be Exhibit L. The unreasonable interference
with navigation and riparian rights requires that the Trustees fulfill their
responsibility to enforce the wetlands ordinance and accordingly it has been
requested that the Trustees take the necessary steps to remove the
association's docks. If you have any questions about what I submitted to you,
and another point I would like to point out is that when we were at the site and
we were talking about the method of disposal, you were pointing to a certain
section of that application, which referred to the operation being done by barge.
If you look again, you'll see that it is noted in the application that it was
intended to be trucked off site, not to be removed by barge. The barge is noted
to be used during the dredge operation but the removal was by truck.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak?
ERIC BRESSLER: My name is Eric Bressler from Mattituck, New York,
representing Vic Zupa and Mary Zupa, and Mary being the owner of lot 16.7.
This is a rather peculiar application the Trustees have before them this
evening. It suffers from both procedural and substantive deficiencies and is
totally inconsistent with the standards set forth in Chapter 97, and accordingly
ought to be denied. This application raises a most interesting peculiar different
issue and one that I haven't had the occasion to deal with before this Board. I
don't know what the Board's experience has been, but what you have before
you is an application by someone with out standing. The Code requires that the
owner of the property make the application. The owner of the property here,
according to the application is Kevin Barr. Kevin Barr owns no property. The
application refers to the Paradise Point Association that someone different from
the affidavit made by Kevin Barr in his individual name, so we don't know, and I
don't think the Board can tell from the application, what is exactly is intended
here, but in any event, we know that the maker of the affidavit, as owner, if not
an owner and has no standing. Assuming for the sake of argument that the
Paradise Point Association, and we don't know what that is, the name of that
entity is not a legal name that we're familiar with, but assuming the Board will
consider it to be something other than what it is, nonetheless, the Paradise
Point Association doesn't have standing to bring this application. The reason
they don't have standing to bring the application is that they are not riparian
owners within the meeting of riparian ownership that gives rise to a right to
41
dredge. In that regard, you have to look at the two separate dredging areas. As
to the dredging area well inside the basin, there is a well-established law that
riparian rights arise from ownership of the foreshore and determine where
those riparian rights go. You put a perpendicular line out into the water and you
follow it. Well if you do that with respect to the property ownership, you find out
with the Paradise Point Association, and indeed Mr. Barr, have no ownership,
so they have no rights with respect to that whatsoever. Now it could be argued
assuming that Paradise Point Association is indeed the applicant, yet as to the
dredging at the mouth, there is some right because there is an ownership on
the west bank. However, it is plain that the proposed dredging is not incident to
the ownership of that property. The dredging is incident to the docks that are in
the basin. The dredging has nothing to do with the property on the west side,
assuming that would be the basis for their argument. Hence, there is no
riparian right to dredge since there is no benefit to that particular property. The
benefit is to the docks. Now, whose property is it where the docks are? Well
it's the Zupas' property on_one side and it's somebody else's across the creek.
The most the association can claim is some sort of an easement access, which
"A" under law is not a riparian right and "B" under your own code, doesn't
constitute an ownership. So, they don't even belong here today. Secondly, as a
substantive matter, as I said, this is a most peculiar application, here is an
application to dredge between the two jetties sticking out into the bay. We all
know what those jetties. They rob the down-drift properties of sand. We all
know that. We've seen it in Mattituck. We've seen it in Goldsmith's. We know
what happens. So does this application purport to take that spoil that's trapped
by the jetty and put it back where it would've been, but for the man-made
interference, and which had been done in the past? No. It does something
different. What does it do? I don't know. They don't tell you. They tell you
they're going to put it into a truck and take it away somewhere. What are they
going to do with it? They don't tell you that. Are they going to sell it?
Presumably. Where are they going to put it? Are they going to benefit
somebody else's property? That's totally unacceptable. That spoil belongs
where it would've gone but for the man-made interference with the littoral drift.
That's where that belongs, and case law establishes it and we have a right to
that. I'm somewhat at a loss to understand why certain members of the
association, whose beaches are also being robbed of sand and beachfront,
wouldn't agree with us. That's where this belongs. But, I'm not going to speak
to that issue. It is totally unacceptable for that spoil to go anyplace other than
where it ought to go and where it has historically gone. The DEC now has no
objection to the placement of the spoil there and you should insist that it go
right there to replenish those beaches and the beaches down-drift where it
naturally should go. We don't understand where it's going or what it's doing.
Now, let's talk about the dredging inside the basin. We note tonight an
amendment to the application. What gave rise to that amendment, I'm not sure.
HOw the numbers were obtained in the first instance, I don't know. No
explanation has been given to the Board, that I have heard, as to how the new
numbers were derived, what the methodology was, what accounts for the
42
difference, or why the dredging is needed there now. There is no support
whatsoever of those numbers as opposed to any other set of numbers. There
is no basis for the datum, no methodology. The dredging inside the basin
threatens fragile environmental resources, in the inter-tidal area. There is no
doubt about that. The Board recognizes that the last time they were here and
refused to permit the dredging. What's changed? Has the applicant come back
with a plan to protect this basin, as this Board required? No, they didn't do that.
They didn't do anything that you folks asked them to do. Now, they have the
temerity to come back before you and ask again, having done nothing that you
asked them to do. It was no secret what you told them. One time at the mouth.
Come on back and tell us what your plan is. They've done absolutely nothing. I
see no basis to grant this application. There has been no change in
circumstances other than the passage of time, and that's their problem. They
have to account, if your even inclined to look at this application, they have to
account for their inactivity and why they didn't take steps to protect the
environment down there. !.think the simple long and short of it is what Ms.
Mesiano said. These people want what they want, they want it when they want
it, and they want it how they want it. They feel that they don't have to be
accountable to this' Board or anybody else. Now, as was pointed out by Ms.
Mesiano, this is Andros Patent land and we think the Board has a special
obligation to take care of that and we don't think these people have respected
the Board's jurisdiction in that regard and have done what you people have
asked them to do. Finally, it's plain what this application is, is an application to
foster the marina that exists by the sufferance of this Board and others, through
an activity. The aerial photographs well show the development of this marina, if
you will, down there, without any sort of permits or permission from this Board
or anybody else. The docks extend well beyond what this Board has every
permitted in any body of water. It's a navigation hazard, it's an environmental
hazard and anything that is Board does has to be viewed in light of what the
effects are going to be on this situation down there. This is a situation that begs
for intervention. I've come before this Board many times arguing positions on
the other side, arguing about your jurisdiction, and other issues. I'm here
tonight to ask you to reaffirm the position, which I found slightly distasteful in
other cases, but I want you to apply it consistently. This Board has asserted
jurisdiction, its exercised jurisdiction, and it has taken steps to protect its
jurisdiction, That's what we want you to do here. We are owners on that basin,
we are concerned about it, and we want you to deny this application, and
again, instruct the applicant, putting procedural issues aside, and again instruct
them, as to what has to be done in order to protect the environment down
there. You have to instruct them. The spoil is not going anywhere. The spoil is
staying right where it is and it's going to replenish the beaches where it
belongs. Not so somebody can make a buck selling spoil. Finally we come to
the issue of exactly how they are going to accomplish this. This Board has
recommended and in fact insisted consistent with regulation in the past, that
any permits be conditioned upon approval of the owner of lot 16.7, if they
intend to truck it away using our property. That's been a part of every permit
43
that you've ever issued. We don't agree. We're telling you that right now. We
don't agree, we're not going to agree, there is no reason for us to agree, there
is no reason for the spoil to be trucked away, and if the Board is of a mind at
some point to permit dredging at some point in the canal, and permit the spoil
to go on the adjoining beach, that can be done by barge, that can be done
hydraulically, and can be done without driving trucks across our property,
which we don't consent to. There is no need for it. There is no reason for it. We
think that the applicant has come here with an unsupported application and you
should deny it. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have a question for you Mr. Bressler. You said that the
State has no objection to placing the spoil on the beach?
ERIC BRESSLER: We have contacted the State and their position is that they
would approve placing the spoil on the beach at 16.7 at this particular juncture.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that in this material (tape malfunction)
ERIC BRESSLER: Are we back on the record? Okay, the answer to your
question is two-fold, three-foldactually. The statement is made based on oral
discussions with the department and also with the Office of General Services.
Obviously that application would have to be made in that regard. Finally, there
was never a denial' by the DEC with respect to permission to put it there. In
fact, in 1995, the application to re-nourish the beach was voluntarily withdrawn.
So, there is no real issue about whether or not this can be done, as it wasn't
denied. My recommendation on that would be if this Board decides that that's
what they want, then assuming the applicant is appropriate, then the applicant
can go back and finish up the application that they made based upon the oral
statements to us, that that would be satisfactory.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The reason I asked is because I was involved in this
many times in the past and was told that the State wouldn't allow the
placement of spoil on the beach there.
ERIC BRESSLER: No, that's not so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're probably going back 10 or 15 years.
E. BROWNELL JOHSTON: Eric, when you said the discussion with the
department...
ERIC BRESSLER: The DEC.
E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Okay, fine.
ERIC BRESSLER: No, that's not so. In as recently as 1995, the
correspondence reflects, there was a withdrawal of the application rather than
to proceed through the permit application process.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now, I'm not trying to say that this is the answer, I'm just
trying to get one point, in a million here. Is that a problem with the applicant to
have the spoil placed on the adjacent beach?
GLENN JUST: I think that would be the best solution for the whole entire
package, but, I have to say in my heart of hearts, I spoke directly with Chuck
Hamilton this morning, yesterday, Wednesday. I also spoke to Chris Arfsten.
BOth are very familiar with the site. Absolutely, no way in hell can that sand go
on the beach, because there is no beach there.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's inter-tidal now.
44
GLENN JUST: It's placing fill in the wetlands.
ERIC BRESSLER: Well according to Arfsten, we can do it, so there seems to
be a difference of opinion here.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Call him up.
ERIC BRESSLER: With all due respect, I don't' think you need to do that
because I think this Board has the authority to require what it's 'requiring and
I've been told that many times. You don't dance to the tune of any other
agency, necessarily, and if this Board feels that that's appropriate, then they
should go and make their application and if they can't get it, they can come
back here, especially since we've just heard a concession that that would be
the best possible solution.
GLENN JUST: I've approached the DEC and they told me, don't waste your
time. Tell me who you spoke to at the DEC.
VICTOR ZUPA: Mike Penske and also through Tom Samuels to Chris Arfsten.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When we see it in writing, then we'll believe it. That's all.
Make the application
ERIC BRESSLER: That's where we think it ought to go and we think the
application before you is fraud. We don't think they have standing. Mary Zupa
may make the application but we think especially considering the concession,
that that's the best possible solution to say, we've been advised orally, which
we don't have any knowledge of since we think it's the other way, doesn't
answer the question.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment?
GLENN JUST: I'd like to make a comment about the question about Mr. Barr.
He is here and he is available to answer questions. I think he might want to
have a little input. Mr. Bart is the President of the Paradise Point Association.
That's why he signed the authorization form. He has a year-around address in
Wilton, Conn. but he does have property and a home in Paradise Point. I want
to go back to February 24, 2000. That's the last time we had a public hearing
on the same exact matter. I have the minutes of the meeting here. I just want to
read a quick quote from Henry Smith. "1 think we ought to let them dredge or do
their maintenance dredging but saying they are not going to do it again until
they address their problem with run-off and the problem with the deteriorating
bulkheads. That will all have to be addressed before this." If you recall, in
November of that same year, Permit #5246 was issued to re-sheath the
bulkhead on the eastern side, or that eastern side of the canal there, at the
entrance. Also, that permit, if we go back to that hearing, Mr. Zupa had
complained about run-off across his property, was I believe was one of the
things about the deteriorated bulkheads, and from my understanding, and from
reading Permit #5246, that work was performed to try to curtail that run-off by
the installation of drywells or concrete leaching pools. So, I think that was
addressed.
ERIC BRESSLER: With all due respect, it was not. The roads were taken care
of but the bulkheads remain and nothing has been done.
GLENN JUST: Yes it has. It has been re-sheathed on the interior side.
45
ERIC BRESSLER: That's not the extent of the problem. That's what the
problem is here. If it were limited to that re-sheathing then you may have a
point but as the Board is well aware from the inspection, that's not the entire
scope of the problem. That's the problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we'll look at what was said. There was mention of
some kind of a plan that had to be in place.
GLENN JUST: I can't find anything in writing about a plan, in going through the
minutes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we'll look through it because we're obviously not
going to look through this tonight.
GLENN JUST: We're not going to get through this tonight?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We really have to review this.
GLENN JUST: Mr. Barr would like to speak.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Please.
GLENN JUST: What is your physical address Mr. Barr?
KEVlN BARR: It's 200 Basin Rd. in Paradise Point. My name is Kevin Barr and
I'm President of the Paradise Point Association. I've been President for the last
10 months. Just a couple of comments I would like to make and I'm happy to
answer any questions that the Board may have. We do believe that the
association is the proper applicant. We believe we own the basin, own the
basin bottom. We pay taxes on the basin. I represent 22 other homeowners,
who also believe that we are the proper applicant, who also believe that we
need to dredge and should be able to dredge. Because the Zupas say that we
don't own the basin doesn't make it so. We have taken some steps, as
mentioned, we have spent $40,000 to repair the east jetty last year. I will tell
you here now, if there are other things that we need to do, and can do within
our ability to do, we will certainly consider them. Beyond that, does the Board
have any questions of the association?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There are a lot of issues that have to be resolved that I
don't think can be resolved tonight. There is just too much information to
process it. Even during a normal public hearing we couldn't process this
amount of information.
KEVIN BARR: June 1st is the deadline to be able to dredge. Terry Latham is
here and he mentioned that he would need to do it sometime by May 8th or 9th,
otherwise he's going to be in another section of Southold.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well it's doubtful.
KEVIN BARR: Doubtful before June 1st?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, doubtful before May 8th.
EDWARD BOYD: Good evening gentlemen, and lady. Happy May to you all.
This is the latest, or the earliest that I've ever started a presentation to a board.
The name is Edward Boyd, 3880 Paradise Point Rd. and I am a riparian owner
on the lagoon, as you're all well aware. I am asking you please, let's call an
end to this silliness. There may be fights going on between the association and
th'e Zupas, that is not what we're here for tonight. We are here to do some
maintenance dredging. I have a problem. I have difficulty getting my boat in
and out of that lagoon. I go in, in April, and come out in December. I've done
46
this every year for goodness knows how long. It's worse this year than it's
been for quite a while. Right along the west jetty there's been considerable
filling in. Next to the east jetty where the association re-sheathed last year,
there's fairly deep water, but it's a very narrow stretch of deep water. There's
no way on earth that two boats can pass going into the entrance of the canal,
and if you have someone who is perhaps not the most astute boat operator in
the world, as your coming into the inlet, you have a wind coming in from the
north, the northwest, and you have a tide going in that direction, it's going to be
pushing you against the east jetty. You can correct for that. All of a sudden,
when you get inside the two jetties and your out of the influence of the wind,
you're out of the influence of the tide, you have to change your helm very, very
quickly, if you're going to keep from going into the shallow. I'm not sure that
everyone who going in and out of there can do that. We have a serious
problem. I'm not going to address the dredging deep inside at the bend, but
certainly I am asking you to please give us permission to do the dredging at the
entrance. The spoil that cQmes from that can be put on the west jetty. There is
certainly room on that weS'~ jetty to take care of it. That would end the problem
that I have getting in and out and I really hate to think of' having to put my boat
somewhere else this year. But, it may come to that. That's really denying me
the use of my property and that's the whole reason why I have that particular
lot there on the lagoon is so I can keep my boats there. Thank you.
CATHERINE MESIANO: I have some photographs that I would like to also
submit to you. They were taken over the last two days. They are noted. Also for
the record, we would just like to make it clear that while Mr. Barr is a resident of
Paradise Point, his property does not front on the basin. While we're at a lull, I
would also like to ask a question of the Board. We couldn't help but notice,
because there is a rather large piece of equipment tied up to the association
dock, with what looks like a new float sitting on it. We're curious as to whether
there's been a permit issued and what activity might be occurring currently.
We don't see any permits that have been posted on the property or around any
properties to indicate what that might be related to. We didn't see the owner.
We don't know.
KEVIN BARR: Is that Steve Pawlik? He is putting in some pilings that came
out. We're just driving them back down.
CATHERINE MESIANO: Is that an activity that requires a permit?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: An ice damage permit.
CATHERINE MESIANO: Has one been applied for?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm not aware of it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you contact the Bay Constable?
CATHERINE MESIANO: A call was put in by I think Mrs. Zupa and she got an
answering machine. There has been no response to her message.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Who did you call?
MARY ZUPA: The Bay Constable.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: At what number?
MARY ZUPA: I don't recall.
VICTOR ZUPA: The 765.
47
MARY ZUPA: It was a 765.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 2600?
VICTOR ZUPA: No, it was a special number given to us by McAIlister, the Bay
Keeper in conjunction with something that I'm working on with the Bay Keeper.
He gave us the number but my wife reached an answering machine that
responded as the Bay Constable. Isn't that correct Mary?
MARY ZUPA: That's correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How about the number of the police station? Did you try
that?
MARY ZUPA: Well this was 4:00 in the afternoon.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm pretty sure they are there at the police station.
MARY ZUPA: No, not the police, I mean the Bay Constable. They didn't have
time to get back in touch with me.
VICTOR ZUPA: My wife was just trying to find out information as to what was
going on. She initially tried to call Pawlik but be didn't return her phone call.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Who? :
VICTOR ZUPA: Steve pawlik. The barge is parked directly across from our
dock.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well Lauren will contact the Bay Constable tomorrow
and they will look into it.
KEVlN BARR: Can I get a sense just from the Trustees, what the concerns are,
relative to the application?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, now we've got all kinds of different concerns, as far
as who can apply, and who can't apply, and where the spoil can go, and where
the spoil can't go, and, you've heard them all tonight.
ERIC BRESSLER: Mr. Chairman, there is only one other point that I would like
to make in conjunction with the statement that an ice damage permit is
required. While we certainly don't disagree that, we would note that the initial
placement of the piling was of course itself without a permit and that any
application to the Board would have to take into account that this is. not your
typical replacement activity. This ought to be viewed as something new, since it
was not permitted in the first place. It is my understanding that an ice damage
permit is for something that was there legally and lawfully and you're trying to
replace it due to damage. I just want to make that clear on the record.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there is no other comment, we'll have to Table this
hearing and try to find out, we have some digging to do of the information
provided to us, and we'll try to resolve the issues that were brought up tonight
and resolve the need for the dredging. It's been stated tonight that there is a
safety and navigation issue at the mouth of the creek and that's an important
issue. I don't know if anyone is inclined to try to split the application, as far as
dredging of the mouth, and dredging on the inside?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Who is applying?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well that's what we have to find out.
EDWARD BOYD: Would you allow an amendment of the application to put me
as the applicant as the riparian owner?
GLENN JUST: To dredge the mouth?
48
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure.
EDWARD BOYD: Let's do it.
ERIC BRESSLER: Note our objection to that amendment. We think it hasn't
been property noticed and we don't think it can be amended at this particular
time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What does the Board think? Does it matter if they've
been noticed who the applicant was, or not?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Ask Brownell.
E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: It's curable by having them put a notice and do
the mailing to everybody, that he is the applicant. Do you want him to go
through with that? Is that important?
GLENN JUST: When we noticed everybody, we didn't send a copy of that
authorization.
ERIC BRESSLER: At this particular time, we are insisting that the appropriate
procedure be followed, and we want to know the nature of the amendment, and
we would want to look at the papers, and we want to review and see whether
or not that amendment is going to cure all of the objections that we've raised. It
may cure some, it may not cure others, I'm not conceding that point. I would
want to see what it'is.
E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Stipulating that it doesn't cure everything, but
obviously it's one of a hundred things that we're looking at.
ERIC BRESSLER: We would certainly not agree to that. The only thing I would
say is given Mr. Boyd's comments, we were certainly be amenable to
discussing with him, outside the procedural context of this hearing, his
suggestion. It seemed to us that some of the points he raised are worthy of
discussion. But, given the lateness of the hour, we are going to insist the
appropriate procedure be followed with the understanding that we will discuss
this matter with Mr. Boyd and should we reach some sort of an agreement we'll
so advise the Board.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well l think maybe regardless of the nature of the hour, if
something could be done at the mouth, and the two parties have come to a
meeting of the minds, if that's appropriate, because we are under some sort of
a time constraint with dredging. Maybe something could be worked out, if
anyone here besides the Board, is in favor of that. We could Table this or we
could recess this. We have a number of other items on the agenda and if you
would like to meet out in the parking lot...
ERIC BRESSLER: Quite frankly, no, I was up at farmer's hours this morning, 1
was in New York City on depositions all day, I came back out here for an 8:00
hearing and it's now 12:30 am., and quite frankly with all due respect to
everybody involved, I'm not going to work any longer today. I'd be happy to talk
to Mr. Boyd at his convenience in the morning. I'm not going to do it any longer
tonight.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application.
EDWARD BOYD: When could we back before you then?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't have a problem...I don't know if the Board has
any feeling...if you could come to some sort of an arrangement, we could have
49
a meeting, if we had to. Let us know. We do meet, our published meeting,
every Thursday basically.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Why don't they just change the name on the application
to one of the property owners and give them permission to dredge the mouth of
it in an emergency situation. Then, you can deal with the rest of the stuff later.
Put Mr. Boyd's name on the application, since he's directly affected, and let
them dredge the mouth of it out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because if it's deemed to be an emergency, and if Mr.
Boyd applies tomorrow, and we deem it an emergency, we can just write him a
permit tomorrow. We don't have to have a hearing. Let's let them try to work
something out. If we deem it an emergency, we can have it done by the 8th, if
it's such an emergency.
E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: So we're looking for some kind of an agreement
letter. Is that correct?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. We're looking for some kind of an agreement letter
and in the meantime, Mr. Just; could you get us another set of soundings for
the mouth, if you want to demonstrate a serious problem there?
GLENN JUST: No problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And something concrete, black and white, from the DEC,
edged in stone, about spoil site. It doesn't matter to us. We just need it from the
State. We're not going to issue a permit for something we know the State is not
going to approve.
VICTOR ZUPA: The applicant, Mary Zupa, we need to make an application to
the DEC in order to get something to you in writing. But, I'm fairly confident
both from talking directly to the DEC as well as talking to the Office of General
Services in Albany, that we can get a permit to put the spoil on the beach. We
made this offer to the association months ago, and they just turned us down.
We could've been resolving this in the last two minutes.
ERIC BRESSLER: Well whether we did, or we didn't, is irrelevant.
KEVIN BARR: If you want to put the sand on the beach, we have no objection
to it. I think Glenn Just said that earlier. I'm not sure what he's referring to, to
an offer to the association. ~
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's not a matter of whether you want it, or whether we
want it, I think it's more a matter of where the State wants it.
KEVIN BARR: It's our understanding that the State won't allow it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we want to get that. Everyone has a different
understanding. We need to get that from the State because what we think,
doesn't matter.
KEVIN BARR: Agreed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's been a motion to Table the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
18. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of MARC RUBENSTEIN
requests a Wetland Permit to construct an addition, deck, and terrace onto an
existing single-family dwelling and to construct an addition and porch onto an
existing cottage. Located: Madeline Ave., Fishers Island. SCTM#6-7-7
5O
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application until an
inspection is made. TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES
19. Richard Larsen on behalf of JOHN JOY requests a Wetland Permit to remove
existing 4'X 33' dock and replace with 4'X 42' dock with 3'X 10' ramp and 6'X
20' float. Secure float with two 8" mooring piles. Remove and replace in the
same location 43' of existing functional bulkhead. Construct a 13' return on the
north end of the bulkhead. Backfill with 25 cy. of clean fill from an upland
source. Located: 1330 Deep Hole Dr., Mattituck. SCTM#115-12-18
(MORATORiUM-Table/neutral?)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here on behalf of the application?
RICHARD LARSEN: I'm here on behalf of John Joy. The bulkhead is alike
kind in place. The dock, the ramp, and the float, we're changing it to a "T" float.
But the overall length is the same. If you look on the sketch for the permit,
you'll see that the old float is sketched in there, in broken lines, and it
measures the same overall length. Here is the original permit for the structure.
You'll see that the length is about the same.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This was from 1972.3'X 32', 3'X 10' ramp, and 5'X 15'
float, with two pileS.
RICHARD LARSEN: Now this survey doesn't show the ramp and float because
they weren't in the water at the time it was surveyed.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The difference is, the "T" is out here, and then you add
your boat. Now your 8' further in the creek, or more. There's plenty of room but
we also look at pier lines. I recall going out there, looking up and down the
creek, and right where it was, basically where it should be, in line with all of the
neighboring docks. It prevents the jumping effect.
RICHARD LARSEN: So you take into consideration then the width of the
vessel that's moored at the dock, not just the length of the dock and the float.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Well in this case, the pier line looks the same.
RICHARD LARSEN: The advantage to the vessel that's docked at the float, is
that, if you dock the boat the way it is now, when you go landward from the
most seaward portion of the float, you start to get into lower and lower water.
the bow of the boat could start of run aground. That's why we turned it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You don't have soundings on this do you?
RICHARD LARSEN: We do on the cross-section. We have a DEC permit and
we sent you a copy of that. I don't know if you have it in your files.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On field inspection last week, the Board had no problem
with the replacement of the retaining wall, provided there be a non-turf buffer
placed behind it, after construction. As far as the dock itself goes, our field
notes show you can replace the dock in-place.
RICHARD LARSEN: You'd approve it out straight but if it went out a "T", you'd
say no to that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't thing we would mind if you turned it to a "T", but
not to go out any further. What's applied for here is an extension.
RICHARD LARSEN: Well you know why because it's the same overall length.
51
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I understand all of that. The point is, you're adding
extra. I think that's what the Board objected to.
RICHARD LARSEN: So, if we change it to the way it was?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Exactly what you have there is fine.
RICHARD LARSEN: I'll make a new sketch and bring it in.
JOHN JOY: The layout of the creek, it drops off, (inaudible). If I turn the float
sideways, it gives me the ability to keep a boat there at all times, no matter
what tide it is.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The problem with that is...how far is the canal?
JOHN JOY: (inaudible) As far as footage goes, I can't...there is plenty of room
for boats to pass by.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The problem is it's public bottom.
JOHN JOY: But if I turn it sideways right where it is, (inaudible)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't want to say get soundings across the creek, and
to show us how wide the channel is there, if the Board is not going to approve
that anyway. If you could prove that the channel is wide and the Board is going
to say "no" anyway, I don't want to put you through that.
JOHN JOY: As far as the jutting out of the other docks, my neighbor to the
south-side doesn't'even put out her dock. They are a rental and they don't
even have a dock out. They have it tied up and it's been like that since I've
owned it, and that's about two years. The other neighbor is out further. As far
as exact footage wise, I could stand at the edge of my dock and look at the
mid-size of his boat, so he is further into the creek also. As far as exact
footage, I couldn't tell you that.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: From our perspective, you already were out further
than both your neighbors.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I thought so too.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We actually thought you were perfectly in line, right
where you were, and if you went out 9' more, you would be out, forming a
triangle into the creek.
JOHN JOY: What about on the other side now. If he hooks up his dock, he'll be
much further out from me. ~
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We didn't see that. We're looking at fixed piers. That's
how we calculate it. Everyone else's fixed piers seemed to end within 8' of the
marsh.
JOHN JOY: (not using microphone)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken I think is right though.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You could shorten your catwalk 8'. That would work.
JOHN JOY: (inaudible)
RICHARD LARSEN: Well get new plans and send them in.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're saying bring it back so the boat would be right
here, right?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So you can take off 6'. Your total length now is 32', 42'
...(inaudible, talking). We'll go back again. If we're going to go back again, we
need soundings going out say, 100', to show us where the channel is.
52
RICHARD LARSEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded, ALL AYES
20. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of WILLIAM LOIS & BINA COMES requests
a Wetland Permit to install approx. 330 If. of rock revetment along the bank of
two contiguous lots, consisting of approx. 300 cy. 3-4 ton armor cap stone, 600
cy. 2-3 ton armor cap stone, 300 cy. 1-2 ton armor cap stone, over 350 cy.
bedding stone and 350 cy. core stone and filter fabric and associated access.
Approx. 300 cy. of material will be excavated from the site and used to backfill
the top of slope behind the revetment. The revetment will be set at a 1:2 slope
with a bottom elevation of-2' and a top elevation of +12'. The backfilled area
will be re-vegetated as required with native vegetation and a 10' non-turf buffer
will be maintained. Clean-up and removal of dangerous debris, consisting of
construction material, concrete, tires, containers, old creosote bulkhead, etc.,
on the site. All activity to be performed manually. Located: 57875 & 58105
North Rd., Greenport. SCTM#88-2-8&9
(VIOLATION OUTSTANDING)
POSTPONED AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST
21. Julia Pleitez on behalf of ROBERT K. SCRIPPS requests a Wetland Permit to
demolish the existing garage and rebuild a garage on a new foundation with
the same footprint. Addition of a balcony on posts max. 5' projecting on east
side and addition of a staircase on the south side projecting 3'-6". Located:
2475 Pine Tree Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#104-3-6
POSTPONED UNTIL MAY AS PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST
22. Centerbrook Architects and Planners, LLC on behalf of SAMUEL & LAURA
MARSHALL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story addition to the
exiSting residence, containing a garage, bedroom, and full bathroom. Located:
Crescent Ave., Fishers Island. SCTM#6-1-4.2
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application until a field
inspection is made. TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES
23. Docko, Inc. on behalf of LUCIUS L. FOWLER requests a Wetland Permit to
relocate an existing 10'X 20' float with four new restraint piles and install a new
3'X 20' hinged ramp. Install seven new tie-off piles, all waterward of the
apparent high water line. Located: Equestrian Ave., Fishers Island. SCTM#9-
3-9
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application until a field
inspection is made. TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES
24. Docko, Inc. on behalf of RICHARD BINGHAM requests a Wetland Permit to
extend an existing 6'X 30' fixed pier to reach suitable berthing depth all
waterward of the apparent high water line. Located: Central Ave., Fishers
island. SCTM#6-4-2
53
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application until a field
inspection is made. TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES
25. Docko, Inc. on behalf of HAY HARBOR CLUB requests a Wetland Permit to
maintenance dredge +/-3' in the diving area around the swimming dock.
Dredged material will be used for upland fill purposes. Located: Bell Hill Ave.,
Fishers Island. SCTM#3-1-3
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application until a field
inspection is made. TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to go off the Public Hearings and go back to the
Regular Meeting, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES
V. RESOLUTIONS: '
1. Resolution to adopt revised and updated Duck Blind policies and procedures.
TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve the Resolution, TRUSTEE
DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES
2. Mark McDuffee on behalf of THE LAGOON ASSOCIATION requests an
Emergency Wetland Permit to dredge the entrance to the channel to -6' MLW,
and place dredge material down the beach. Located: Nassau Point,
Cutchogue. SCTM#118-2-11.4
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING
seconded. ALL AYES
3. VlCKY PAPSON requests an Amendment to Permit #5695 for minor changes
to the upper level retaining wall. Located: 11120 Main Rd., East Marion.
SCTM#31-13-7
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE FOSTER
seconded. ALL AYES
VI. MOORINGS:
1. JOHN E. MCDONALD requests a Mooring Permit in Broadwaters Cove for a
30' boat, replacing Mooring #108. Access: Public.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE FOSTER
seconded. ALL AYES
2. ALBERT & SHARON RAVA request a Mooring Permit in East Creek for a 12'
bOat, replacing Mooring #61. Access: Public
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE
DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES
54
MANOUEL CHANGELIS requests a Mooring Permit in Gull Pond, replacing
Mooring #26 with a 19' boat. Access: Public.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE
FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES
4. THOMAS SHEARIN requests a Mooring Permit in East Creek, replacing
Mooring #907 with a boat no larger than 20'.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE
DiCKERSON seconded. ALL AYES
5. CHARLES & MIMI COLOMBO request an onshore/offshore stake off of their
property, on East Creek, for a 13' boat.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE
FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES
6. JAMES MCGLONE requests an onshore/offshore stake in James Creek for a
20' boat, replacing Stake #S38, located at the end of Rochelle Place, Mattituck.
(or replace Mooring #11 in James Creek)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE FOSTER
seconded. ALL AYES
7. WARREN CROON requests a Mooring Permit in James Creek for a 19' boat,
replacing Mooring #694.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE FOSTER
seconded. ALL AYES
8. CHARLES R. KNISPEL requests an onshore/offshore stake off of private
~ property, on Cedar Beach Creek, for a 16' boat.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE
FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES
9. MARK & LORRIE ANN SAPORITA request an onshore/offshore stake off of
their own property, on West Lake, for an 18' boat.
TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE
DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to adjourn the meeting at 1:00 AM, TRUSTEE
DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES
Respectfully submitted by,
Lauren M. Standish, Senior Clerk
Board of Trustees