HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-09/22/2004Albert J. Krupski, President
James King, Vice-President
Artie Foster
Ken Poliwoda
Peggy A. Dickerson
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-1366
BOARD OFTOWNTRUSTEES
TOWN OFSOUTHOLD
Present were:
MINUTES
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
7:00 PM
Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President
James King, Vice-President
Artie Foster, Trustee
Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee
Peggy Dickerson, Trustee
E. Brownell Johnston, Esq. -
Assistant Town Attorney for Trustees
Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant
Heather Tetrault, Environmental Technician
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 at
8:00 a.m.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to approve, TRUSTEE DICKERSON
seconded. All AYES.
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 at
7:00 p.m.
WORK SESSION: 6:00 p.m.
TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA
seconded. ALL AYES.
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of June 24, 2004.
TRUSTEE KING moved to approve, TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded.
ALL AYES.
Approve Minutes of July 21,2004.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA
seconded. ALL AYES.
Board of Trustees 2 Sept. 22, 2004
I. MONTHLY REPORT: For May, 2004, check for $5,522.03 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.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Welcome to our regular monthly meeting.
We have a number of different categories to go through
tonight before we get to the public hearings. Although the
other categories, such as Administrative Permits, Moorings,
Amendments, Transfers and so forth are sort of
administrative, you can comment, just please be ready to
make a comment. Because of the lengthy agenda, we try to
move these things along as quickly as possible. So, if you
would like to make a comment be ready, come up to the
microphone and state your name for the record.
First item is Resolutions and Administrative
Permits. Administrative Permits are items that require a
permit because they are legally under the jurisdiction of
this Board; however, because of their environmentally
innocuous nature to require a site visit for the whole Board
and don't require a public hearing.
III. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
1. JEANNE WHATMOUGH requests an Administrative Permit to
replace in-kind a failed septic system. Located: 180 North
Riley Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM # 122-3-38
TRUSTEE KING: I looked at this. It's just a matter of
upgrading the septic system moving it closer, further away
from the wetlands. I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
2. HUGH SWITZER requests an Administrative Permit to
replace in-kind a failed septic system. Located: 2700 Mill
Road, Peconic. SCTM # 67-5-2
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I had a little trouble finding this.
It's the same thing, they're going to abandon two cesspools
that are closer and they have already got a hay bale line
set up, and they're going to replace it closer to the house,
closer to the road, farther away from the wetlands. I'll
Board of Trustees 3 Sept. 22, 2004
make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
3. Samuels and Steelman Architects on behalf of DAVID
HOFFMAN requests an Administrative Permit to renovate
interior spaces of residences with new 5'-10' deep by 8'
wide covered entry porch. Located: 1230 Ruch Lane,
Southold. SCTM #52-2-36
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this. The work to be
performed is on the front of the house far away from the
wetlands. I didn't see any reason to deny. I make a motion
to approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
4. Mark Schwartz on behalf of ALAN AND TERESA SUCHER
requests an Administrative Permit to replace the windows
and doors of the existing dwelling and remove and replace
the existing cedar siding and asphalt roof shingles.
Located: 60 Haywaters Road, Cutchogue. SCTM # 111-1-6.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It was all of the work is to be within
the existing house with no additions outside the existing
footprint. I make a motion to approve the Administrative
Permit to replace the windows and doors of the existing
dwelling and remove and replace the existing cedar siding
and asphalt roof shingles.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
5. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of
CHARLES DIGNEY requests and Administrative Permit to allow
for the passive restoration of a previously vegetated area
comprised of phragmites and measuring 50' by 80' feet(4,000
square feet) situated within the southwestern section of the
subject property. Located: 350 West Creek Avenue,
Cutchogue. SCTM#: 103-13-2
TRUSTEE KING: This is the one we looked at with the
violation. It's basically grown back. Trim the phragmites
to one foot.
MS. TETRAULT: That's what we talked to him about, that he
would be able to trim it to 12 inches and continue to do
that.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. So I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: And give him permission to keep the
Board of Trustees 4 Sept. 22, 2004
phragmites trimmed to a 12 inch height, if necessary. Do I
have a second?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES
6. John Nickles, Jr. on behalf of PATRICIA WIEDERMAN
requests an Administrative Permit to allow for the as-built
deck. Located: 450 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold.
SCTM # 90-2-15
MR. NICKLES: John Nickles, Jr., Southold, representing Pat
Wiederman 450 Cedar Point Drive East. I'm here to take any
questions from the Board.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We've been to this house before on the
bay. There's a small deck on the water side.
MR. NICKLES: I'd like to note that the deck is no closer
than the porch, the main porch, that sits off the front of
the house on the water side.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES.
IV. RESOLUTIONS-MOORING & ANCHORAGE/STAKES:
1. JANICE RATTI requests a mooring in Mattituck Creek for a
boat no larger than 35.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is for a mooring in Mattituck Creek.
Can you give us a little history on this, Lauren?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh There's nothing on this property now; is
that correct?
MS. STANDISH: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh You want to go take a look at this? I'll
make a motion to table this.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
2. DANIEL MCGOVERN requests an onshore/offshore stake off
his property for a boat no larger than 18'. Located: 830
Oak Street, Southold. SCTM # 77-1-4
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I"11 make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
V. RESOLUTIONS -OTHER
1. JEFFREY HALLOCK requests a Wetland Permit to cut into
Board of Trustees 5 Sept. 22, 2004
the ground of right-o.f-way for the installation of
underground utilities, to cut base of existing dirt roadway
to upgrade with stone material. The proposed driveway
landward of right-of-way. Located: Diachun Road,
Laurel. SCTM # 127-3-9.1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before we have any action on that, we have
to read the SEQRA resolution. "Resolve by the Board of
Trustees of the Town of Southold that the application of
Jeffrey Hallock more fully described in Section 5 of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday September 22, 2004 is
pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations an Unlisted Action.
"And be it further resolved that the project will have
no significant potential adverse environmental impact and
therefore a negative declaration is made." That's the
motion; is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MR. JOHNSTON: Opposed?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No.
MR. JOHNSTON: Four to one.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's just the SEQRA resolution. Now
I'll read a resolution:
"Whereas Jeffrey Hallock applied to the Southold Town
Trustees for a permit, under the provisions of Chapter 97 of
the Southold Town Code, the Wetland Ordinance for the Town
of Southold, application dated December 6, 2002.
"Whereas said application was referred to the Southold
Town Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and
recommendations;
"Whereas a public hearing was held by the Town
Trustees with respect to said application on May 26, 2004,
as well as many other hearings, at which time all interested
persons were given an opportunity to be heard;
"And whereas the Board Members have personally viewed
and are familiar with the premises in question and the
surrounding area;
"And whereas the Board has considered all the
testimony and documentation submitted concerning this
application;
"And whereas the structure complies to the standards
set forth of Chapter 97 of the Southold Town Code;
"And whereas the Board has determined that the project
as proposed will not affect the health, safety and general
welfare of the people of the Town;
"Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Board of
Trustees approve the application of Jeffrey Hallock to cut
Board of Trustees 6 Sept. 22, 2004
into ground of right of way for installation of underground
utilities and to cut base of existing eight foot wide dirt
roadway and improve with stone blend materials, realign two
eight foot wide sections of the existing roadway and improve
with stone blend material and improve proposed driveway
landward of right of way with gravel, for total of 1,425.68
feet along as shown on the survey prepared by John C. Ehlers
and last revised April 16, 2004;
"And be it further resolved that a total of 15 trees
located east of the road will be removed and cut and the
stumps will be ground in place to final grade. 12 trees
west of the road will be trimmed, limbed and under-story
vegetation will be removed in an area equal to approximately
380 square feet as shown on the survey prepared by John C.
Ehlers and last revised April 16,2004;
"And be it further resolved that prior to any tree
removal and grinding and/or road construction, a continuous
line of staked hay bales shall be placed on the west side of
the eight foot road to the southern property line of Suffolk
County Tax Map Number 1000-127-3-10.1. The improved roadway
shall be graded to direct surface water landward east and
prevent runoff from entering Brushes Creek. All debris in
the right of way and to the west shall be removed off site
and no lighting shall be installed along the right of way
except for the illumination of the eight foot road bed;
"And be it further resolved that the road only is to
be used for the access to the building lot owned by Jeffrey
Hallock, Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000-127-3-10.1;
"And be it further resolved that the Town of Southold
Trustees remove all as depicted in the plan surveyed by John
C. Ehlers last dated April 16, 2004 and all as detailed in
the Long Environmental Assessment Form that lies August 26,
2004."
Note on the end, Any action, including clearing and
future road improvements will require further review from
this office. Permit to construct and complete project will
expire two years from the date the permit is signed. Fees
must be paid, if applicable, and the permit issued within
six months of the date of this notification. Inspections
are required at a fee of $50 per inspection and this is not
a determination from any other agency. This is a motion; is
there a second?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. Artie?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Aye.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No.
Board of Trustees 7 Sept. 22, 2004
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: Aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Aye.
VI. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS
1. WILLIAM AND JOAN CORWIN request an Amendment to
Permit #5941 to replace the existing collapsed cesspool in
the same location. Located: 14915 New Suffolk Avenue, New
Suffolk. SCTM #116-3-17
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak to this application?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It's not a public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm sorry, these are amendments. I
think it's been done already.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I think it has been.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Ill make a motion to approve the
amendment to Permit 5941.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
2. MICHAEL KENIN requests an Amendment to Permit #4984 to
include an as-built 10' by 12' floating dock and to transfer
Permit #4984 and #5044 from Arif Hussain to Michael and Kim
Kenin. Located: 420 Lakeview Terrace, East Marion.
SCTM #31-9-11
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I know we all looked at this at field
inspection. We have a general consensus that we deny this
and have a smaller float that measures 6' by 20' or smaller.
MR. KENIN: If I rebuild it 6' by 20' or smaller, you will
approve it?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's the general consensus.
MR. KENIN: How does that work? I'm new to this process.
Would I have to apply for the permit or take your word now?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We can amend it right now.
MR. KENIN: In terms of the configuration, the square
footage is exactly the same and what it would mean is that
it would be long and narrow instead of more or less square
the way it is.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The problem we have with the 10' by 12'
float is that it covers the bottom completely where there is
no light that gets down to the center of the 10' object;
where if it's six feet wide, there's always some light that
hits the bottom.
MR. KENIN: As we all know, phragmites are a very aggressive
predator. I don't think they're going to have any trouble
Board of Trustees 8 Sept. 22, 2004
growing around that dock. From what I've seen, having been
there briefly and talk to my neighbors, they're moving
forward at a rate of about a foot a year, and I can see from
the plans of the previous owner I have only had this
property for a year that the phragmites were already
encroached upon the built dock for which a full permit was
obtained by the previous owner.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: A longer dock will give you a few more
years of use.
TRUSTEE POLIWQDA: This is a floating dock. It's over the
water, it's not just the phragmites on top of the marsh.
MR. KENIN: Alternatively, if I remove this dock and where
the steps are, you went down to the steps, and lowered the
last portion to water height, would I need a separate
approval for that? The footprint stays the same. The
height of the last horizontal platform gets lowered.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No.
MR. KENIN: So I could still do that, take this thing out.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right.
MR. KENIN: The measurements you approve would be what?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 6' by 20' or smaller.
MR. KENIN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I make a motion to deny this amendment.
MS. TETRAULT: But approve the transfer of the name?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Correct. And put in 6' by 20'.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And approve the amendment for a 6' by
20'.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I basically want to deny.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Don't deny, modify.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the
amendment Permit Number 4984 to include a 6' by 20' float or
smaller and to transfer Permit Number 4984 and 5044, from
Arif Hussain to Michael and Kim Kenin; do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
3. J. Kevin McLaughlin, Esq. on behalf of JOHN AND JOYCE
SAMPIERI requests an Amendment to Permit #5841 for a
one-story addition to the existing one-family residence.
Located: 1380 Bayberry Road in Cutchogue. SCTM #118-2-12
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Good evening. The reason we're back here
before the Board is we had gone through all the processes,
got all our permits, went out to bid and the project came in
about double what my clients anticipated. So we had to
scale back the project. So now it's a one-story addition as
opposed to a one and a partial two-story addition.
Board of Trustees 9 Sept. 22, 2004
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's actually smaller than what was
originally proposed. I see no problem, and I'll make a
motion to approve the amendment to Permit Number 5841 for a
one-stow addition to the existing one-family residence.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
4. En-Consultants on behalf of ROSEMARY AND SEBASTION
AVOLESE request an Amendment to Permit #5829 to relocate and
replace the existing sanitary system with new, Suffolk
County Department of Health services -- conforming sanitary
system and modify configuration of proposed additions.
Located: 4150 Wunneweta Road, Cutchogue. SCTM #111-14-24
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here?
MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants. Briefly,
Peggy, it's a similar project, after we went for review at
the DEC, the additions were actually scaled back somewhat,
moved to a greater setback and when the original permit was
approved, Artie had asked us did we have any plan to replace
the sanitary system. As it turned out, the system was
underneath where the addition was going to go, so the old
system's going to be removed. It's going to be replaced and
it's an improvement on what the Board's already approved.
This project originally started as a renovation to be done
in time for the daughter's wedding, so that was a fairy
tale.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC recommends approval of the
application with the condition a berm is installed at the
end of the path sloping down towards the bulkhead in order
to catch any runoff, and dry wells and gutters are installed
to contain any roof runoff.
MR. HERMANN: Is that a path?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It says a berm installed at the end of
the path sloping down towards the bulkhead. There's a
walkway that --
MR. HERMANN: I don't think there's any berm installed. We
would use hay bales and stiltation fencing temporarily. I
don't think the DEC would want to see any, nor would I
imagine why you would want to see a berm constructed there.
Just something to contain construction.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I"11 make a motion to approve the
amendment to Permit Number 5829 to relocate and replace
existing sanitary system.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
Board of Trustees 10 Sept. 22, 2004
6. Jeffrey Strong on behalf of STRONG'S MARINE requests a
One-Year Extension to Permit 5654 as approved on November
20, 2002. Located: Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck.
SCTM # 122-9-6.2 and 122-4-44.2
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I noticed that Mr. Strong is here, was
here.
MR. STRONG: Am here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This came in the day of inspections, we
never got a chance to look at it. So we'll table it until
next month so we can take a look at it. And I don't think
you'll be penalized a month because we didn't get out
there. So I'll make a motion to table the request for an
extension because your request was timely.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
6. Alpha Consulting on behalf of JON NOWAK requests a
one-year extension to Permit # 5623 for a 4' by 30' catwalk
and 4' by 8' stairs and piling-pulley system. Located: 565
Bayview Avenue, Southold. SCTM # 52-5-22
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's for an extension for 30' catwalk.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Make a motion to approve the one-year
extension.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to grant a one-year
extension for Susan Becker for her dock.
MS. TETRAULT: It came in before field inspection.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to rescind the motion to
approve the One-Year Extension for Susan Becker. All in
favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We need a motion to go offthe regular
meeting.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: So moved
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE
FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS
ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF
PUBLICATION FROM THE SUFFOLK TIMES. PERTINENT
CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS
FROM THE PUBLIC.
Board of Trustees l 1 Sept. 22, 2004
PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF.
FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS IF POSSIBLE.
COASTAL EROSION & WETLAND PERMITS
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf
of D. CLAEYS BAHRENBURG has been postponed. The application
was returned, and if anyone is here tonight, we'll open the
hearing and listen to your comments. If no one's here, then
the Board will take no action on this tonight. It's just
that it was advertised. Is there anyone here for that
application? The reason there's no decision going to be
made tonight because there's some question about coastal
erosion hazard area, which our Board also has jurisdiction
over under Chapter 37 of the Town code. So we didn't do any
review on this under Chapter 37, Coastal Erosion or under
Chapter 97, Wetlands. So, until we get a few things sorted
out, basically we didn't even start the review. So no
action will be taken tonight. If you would like to make a
comment, you could, but I'm not sure it might not be an
application, we're not sure. If, in fact, we're required to
have a public hearing on this matter -- are you a neighbor,
sir?
AUDIENCE MEMBER (Male): Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh You would be renotified. If we're going
to have another public hearing on this, you will be
renotified. Does anybody else have any interest on this
application? If you would like to say something, go ahead.
AUDIENCE MEMBER (Female): I'm also a neighbor of that
particular one, and I was just wondering, would we be able
to do a written?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Yes.
2. ROBERT AND CHERYL MCCALL request a Wetland Permit to
construct a two-car garage and porch. Located: 10725 New
Suffolk Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM #116-1
MR. MCCALL: I'm Robert McCall and I guess you've had a
chance to look at the property. Is there any questions I
can answer? We were looking to construct a garage on the
western-most end of the house, and the new porch which would
actually be not as far away -- further away from the
wetlands than the existing house currently is by about seven
feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We looked at it last week. The only
Board of Trustees 12 Sept. 22, 2004
conditions -- and I'm not sure they're in the plans -- are
to put dry wells, to contain your roof runoff?
MR. MCCALL: It's in the plans.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think the Board had any other
comment. Is there any other comment?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to approve the
application of Robert and Cheryl McCall at 10725 New Suffolk
Avenue in Cutchogue.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES.
3. ALLA IMENNOVA requests a Wetland Permit to install a
12' by 16' shed. Located: 295 Mockingbird Lane
in Southold. SCTM # 55-6-15.59
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment
on this application? If not, as far as the Board, I was the
one that looked at this. It's setback 50 feet off.the
freshwater wetlands. I didn't see a significant
environmental impact of putting a shed in this location.
And just to mention, the CAC disapproved it because they
believe that there should be 100 foot setback from the
wetlands. I looked at this, and I'd like to stress that
it's not a tidal wetland. It's more a mud wetlands. I
couldn't even find baccharis. I find 50 feet is plenty. If
there's no other comments I make a motion to close the
public hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland
Permit on behalf of Alia Imennova for a 12' by 16' shed as
per the location on the survey. As shown on the survey.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
4. NICHOLAS NOTIAS requests a Wetland Permit to install a
30' by 14' in-ground swimming pool, deck and fence,
construct a 60' long by 5' high retaining wall and backfill
with 40 cubic yards of fill; remove the diseased oak tree
and trim the brush located on the bluff. Located: 460
Inlet View East, Mattituck. SCTM # 100-3-10.11
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on this
application?
MR. NOTIAS: Yes, my name is Nick Notias, and I'm here to
Board of Trustees 13 Sept. 22, 2004
answer any questions on the application.
TRUSTEE KING: I looked at this with Heather on Friday, did
anybody else have a chance to look at this? Any other
comments on this application? Anybody else? We didn't have
a problem with the pool. The pool is all right. This is a
very steep bluff. The property line is actually down the
bluff. To build a retaining wall, it's going to be
tricky.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Wouldn't it be better to build it at the
top of the bluff?
MS. TETRAULT: Much better. This is stable.
TRUSTEE KING: This is state land on the other side.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: That whole area easy riddled with those
real tricky bulkheads, retaining walls as you go up Summit,
some of them you look up --
TRUSTEE KING: Just for the record, I'll read the Southold
Advisory Council recommends Southold Town Board of Trustees
approve Wetland Permit application to install a 30' by 14'
in-ground swimming pool, deck and fence and disapproval to
construct a 60' by 5' high retaining wall and backfill 40
cubic yards and the removal of the diseased oak tree. So
it's, I don't know. I don't like the idea of going down
that bluff.
MR. NOTIAS: If I can interject, regarding the retaining
wall, we showed the property line on the original survey but
getting in the bluff and actually down in there with
Mr. King realized how steep - we were willing to compromise
and bring it up more toward the top of the bluff more
towards the lawn, where the steepness of the bluff was less.
So set it back up a little bit, bring it actually closer to
the lawn, but actually take out the oak tree and take in
that area right there. See the oak tree's on the bluff to
begin with. A lot the roots on the oak tree have been
underpinned. The roots just hang in the air as it gets
bigger.
TRUSTEE KING: If he's going to put the pool here, I can
picture a good northwester, it's going to be in the pool and
in the deck. If it happens.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We looked at this in the office, and I
think that the Board would rather see the retaining wall at
the top of the bank and you can put your pool behind that.
MR. NOTIAS: On the drawing the thicker dark line would
illustrate the location of the retaining wall, which
actually is on the property line, but it's very difficult
with such small scaling to outline it. It probably would be
more suitable at the top of the bluff than it would at the
Board of Trustees 14 Sept. 22, 2004
bottom. Again, I wasn't ever in a position when I actually
went down there, and I didn't realize how steep it was.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. And it's vegetated so it's
probably pretty stable.
MR. NOTIAS: It's very stable.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh So you don't want to disturb that. So, do
you have a measurement? Can we approve this with something
subject to a --
MR. NOTIAS: We were considering something about two feet
offthe oak tree where Mr. King and I were standing, I think
we brought that up. I think it was like a three foot
setback from the oak tree stump.
TRUSTEE KING: I said about two feet down behind it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Behind it?
TRUSTEE KING: Behind it.
MR. NOTIAS: We want to avoid putting it as far down on the
slope as possible.
TRUSTEE KING: I'd be more comfortable if everyone looked at
it myself.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're going to table this. We'll all look
at it next month. We'll give you a decision in October.
MR. NOTIAS: Can I get a partial approval on the pool right
now?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The pool is no problem.
MR. NOTIAS: And also the approval on the removal of the
tree and table the retaining wall, because that's the least
of -- that's one of the issues we have the most flexibility
on. We feel that the tree --
TRUSTEE KING: If this was today, it would be a
nondisturbance area. I don't have a problem approving the
pool and all that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Fine. That will get you going on your
pool permits. We'll take a look at the tree.
MR. NOTIAS: It's an awfully large investment to build right
in the line of a falling tree. And I don't know if that
would become an environmental issue, God forbid it fell into
the pool, pool collapsed, and then drained 30,000 gallons of
chlorinated water into the creek. So I would prefer to have
the pool and the tree kind of go together hand in hand, so
if I can get the approval and start the process with the
Building Department, that would be great.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We'll do that with a pool. The tree we'll
take a look at. But I don't know if you're going to get a
Building Permit that quickly.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll split it. I'll make a motion to
approve the pool component of this application, and table to
Board of Trustees 15 Sept. 22, 2004
the next field inspection to look at where the retaining
wall is to go and look at the oak tree.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
5. CEDAR BEACH PARK ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland Permit
to repair the residential driveways, currently dirt roads,
by grading and covering with bluestone chips.
Located: Cedar Beach Park at Bayview.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in
favor of the application?
MS. PRENDERGAST: My name is Theresa Prendergast, I'm the
president with our association.
We approached this project with our association because
of a couple of reasons. First of all, in the 10 years that
I've been out here, specifically in Southold, the roads have
been a continuous source of a bone of contention basically
within the association, they're in a constant state of
disrepair. These roads exist as right of ways. They're
dirt roads; many are riddled with pot holes. Some of them
over the years have been paved and some of those have pot
holes beginning to develop in them. We're asking for a
Wetlands Permit because there are several areas along the
way that are in proximity of the wetlands. The entire
repair is not in the jurisdiction, but part of it is, so we
approached you to obtain that permit. The other reason why
we have approached you about this permit is that it's a
significant safety issue and we are trying to bring the
roads in compliance with the Town zoning codes which specify
that you have to maintain an access of 15 feet by 15 feet --
in other words, 15 feet wide by 15 feet high -- in a
passable condition. And right now our roads are not in good
shape. I know you have been out there to inspect them, and
I hope you agree with me that they're not particularly
passable. If there's any questions about the permit I could
have Lee answer them for you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment about this
application?
MR. ADSON: Yes, Raymond J. Adson, I live on Orchard
Lane. Specifically for the record we would like to know
what roads are included in this permit.
MS. PRENDERGAST: I brought a map.
MR. ADSON: Why don't we read them off for the record?
MS. PRENDERGAST: I'm going to read from a letter that was
specifically sent by certified mail registered return
receipt to the people, the eight properties that are on
Board of Trustees 16 Sept. 22, 2004
Orchard Lane and a portion of Clearview Lane. The roads
that we intend to repair, which are the roads outlined in
orange on the map up front include Cedar Beach Drive south
of the Park Association sign, Private Road, West Orchard
Lane, which is not a named road on the map that you're
holding in your hands, it was recently renamed as Orchard
Lane because of a child having a choking incident down there
and the EMS not was not able to find the road. Oakwood
Drive, which is labeled as Oakwood Drive on your map, but,
is in fact, labeled as Oakwood Court down in our
neighborhood Clearview Road, which will only include the
cleared portion between Oakwood Drive and Private Road,
Lakeside Drive North, Cedar Point Drive East, Lakeside Drive
South, Inlet Way, Cedar Point Drive West, Midway Road and
West Lake Drive east of West Lake Inlet.
MR. ADSON: So it's my understanding you have no intentions
of including Orchard Lane or Clearview or Breezy Path?
MS. PRENDERGAST: That's correct.
MR. ADSON: Thank you.
MR. MAUS: My name is Tom Maus, I'm a property owner in
Cedar Beach. Some of these roads are already stoned. They
may need maintenance and I basically have a question, if
road maintenance requires a Wetland Permit?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Due to the extent of the work here,
normally road maintenance wouldn't; because the extent of
the work here and the scope of it, we felt it was better to
get a maintenance permit and it could be done without any
further action from this Board. In other words, if there
were potholes developed in one place or the other it could
be maintained, either graded or filled without any action
from this Board. We wanted to look at this, which we did,
we drove down here, and as a Board we looked at all the
roads. Being somewhat familiar with it but never looking at
it in that respect.
MR. MAUS: Well, my basic question is if all of these roads
need to be included in this application, that's all.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would you like to answer that?
MS. PRENDERGAST: It seemed to me to be the most efficient
thing since all the roads that I just read off have
traditionally been part of the Cedar Beach Park Association
to include all of those roads in this application because
all of them are in one way or another in need of some
repair. Some roads are worse off than others, but each of
them needs something done. If it's brush removal that has
to be done; if it's tree removal that has to be done; if
there are pot holes, they have to be filled.
Board of Trustees 17
Sept. 22, 2004
MR. MAUS: These roads have been, some were more than
others, have been maintained through the years without the
necessity of obtaining a permit from the Board.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It's just that things get more complicated
and it seemed like the easiest way to handle it.
MR. JOHNSTON: For the record, could you indicate which
property you're the owner of on this map?
MR. MAUS: It's Lot 67 on the map.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment?
MRS. MAUS: We own a home on Clearview Road, have owned it.
for 30 years. My road meets the specifications. It needs a
little repair now, but my road is repaired, and I'm not
going to pay $800 to do something that I've been doing for
30 years. I've belonged to the association, they have never
come into a dirt road and maintained it. What they have
done is plowed, that's what we pay for, we pay for snow
plowing and insurance. Now they want to come in and charge
everybody regardless of how they maintain their roads for
something we have been doing for 30 years, you can come down
my road, see if it needs the work.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: This application is just for a permit to do
the work. Whether or not you want it done is something
you've got to settle amongst yourselves. This is just for a
permit to be able to maintain the roads on a regular basis
without having to come here and get a permit each time you
want to do it. So, if you have internal problems among the
association as to who wants to do and who doesn't want to do
their road, that has nothing to do with us.
MRS. MAUS: I realize that, but I didn't realize that when
you maintained your roads you had to come here to get
permission.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Much of the work is outside our
jurisdiction but some areas are adjacent to.
MRS. MAUS: I know the ones adjacent to the water. I
realize that, that's not my land.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We really felt that it would be better to
get a permit on this because of the proximity of the
wetlands on a couple of these places.
MRS. MAUS: Okay. All right.
MR. PROVENCHER: I hate to beat a dead horse, but like Mrs.
Maus was saying. I was president but for the three years I
was in office, we covered the roads, and we never applied
for permit. I don't see where it comes under your purview
anyway, frankly.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I believe under the new code it does.
MR. PROVENCHER: Which new code, sir?
Board of Trustees l 8 Sept. 22, 2004
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Chapter 97?
MR. PROVENCHER: When was this enacted?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh March.
MR. PROVENCHER: March of this year?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MR. PROVENCHER: We were never informed. Because that gives
you rights you really don't have. It's a private area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our jurisdiction extends 100 feet from any
fresh or saltwater wetlands and any activity within that
area.
MR. PROVENCHER: It doesn't necessarily incorporate the
roads.
MR. JOHNSTON: Any roads within 100 feet.
MR. PROVENCHER: But all the roads aren't within 100 feet,
not entirely.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not entirely, no. Only certain areas.
TRUSTEE KING: Doesn't make sense to break this out, break
that out and break that out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think it's understood that the roadwork
that's proposed here, only certain sections are within our
jurisdiction.
MR. PROVENCHER: Which are?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anything within 100 feet of tidal or
freshwater wetlands. So it's only certain sections within
the whole project. The project itself isn't inclusive of
the entire Cedar Beach Park, as so noted on the survey, so
our concern is only small areas within the whole project.
Inasmuch as -- this is just like part of a project on one
single and separate residence where only one portion is
within the Board's jurisdiction and not, you want to build a
garage on your property 120 feet of the wetlands, it's not
within our jurisdiction, but it's still on your property.
MR. PROVENCHER: Yes, but involving the Town, also involves
your infringing on the rights and privacy of the homeowners
in that area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't understand how.
MR. PROVENCHER: I don't know how far you're going to carry
this because I haven't read the statute you just quoted.
MS. TETRAULT: It's the same as it's always been, protecting
the water, all the creeks and waterways of Southoid Town
since the Andros Patent. This is to make sure that if
there's a clearing or road work being done near the water
maybe there's hay bales placed, whatever restrictions are
put on it, so that that water be protected. That's really
all it's written for.
MR. PROVENCHER: I can understand that portion of it, but
Board of Trustees 19 Sept. 22, 2004
the scope of it bothers me, frankly.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I don't understand how because it actually
projects you. This is a fairly large project, and everyone
had to be noticed. So everyone, because of our process,
everyone is noticed that this is going to take place. So
anyone could come up and comment because they knew it was
going to happen.
MR. MAUS: Could the permit be limited to just those areas
that are within the jurisdiction?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's all we can grant anyway. We can
grant this permit, but really we have no authority to grant
anyone anything outside of our jurisdiction. So what's
going to take place on say Lakeside Drive -- I'm taking that
as an example -- apparently the work there is going to be
nonjurisdictional compared to this Board. So we really are
granting anyone nothing for that, but it's part of the project.
MR. MAUS: How would the permit read to make it clear what
it covers and what it doesn't cover?
MS. TETRAULT: Any road work within 100 feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any work within 100 feet of tidal
wetlands.
MR. MAUS: Will that be written in the permit?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That would give the association the right
to maintain the roads in that area any time they wanted to.
They don't have to do the whole work, they can patch as need
be or do the work as need be.
MR. JOHNSTON: Maybe if you think about this, an applicant
representing your association said, can we have a permit
from you to cover anything that we're doing, we're not
saying you have to do something, somebody there is saying if
anything we're doing is within that 100, you give us
permission.
MR. PROVENCHER: This is actually broader in scope.
MR. JOHNSTON: But the point is, as Arthur said, one of the
Trustees, you don't have to do anything. The association is
asking this government Board, are you okay if we do some of
this; and the Board is saying we have looked at the areas in
our jurisdiction, and we say it's fine, or if that's what
they say.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
MR. JOHNSTON: They're not saying that you have to correct
the Main road, Route 48 or anything else, they're just
saying what you have asked for, we give you permission to
the extent that you need our permission.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To the extent that you need it to be done,
not that it has to be done either.
Board of Trustees 20 Sept. 22, 2004
MR. JOHNSTON: You don't have to do anything. I'm just
reiterating what Mr. Foster said, and what all the other
Trustees are saying. They're not requiring you to do
anything. I'm a little confused, the association and
applicant says, do we have your permission if we want to do
some of this to do it. And that association may only fix
the road in front of Lot 151, and the Trustees are not going
to say you've got to do it in front of 152, but they're
giving you permission to do it as they requested. So you
don't have to come back and ask us. So I'm a little
confused.
MR. PROVENCHER: I'd like to know the extent of your
jurisdiction.
MR. JOHNSTON: 100 feet of our jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You came to us, we didn't come to you.
MR. JOHNSTON: It's on the web site just give him a copy.
It doesn't make any difference.
MR. PROVENCHER: Fine.
MR. JOHNSTON: If you don't want to do any of the work, you
don't have to.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? I'll make a motion to
close the hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to approve the application
for road maintenance on the survey Cedar Beach Park marked
in pink, the one that I have, noting for the record that the
Town's jurisdiction is only on the repair of the roads
within 100 feet of tidal wetlands.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
6. WILLIAM GOGGINS requests a Wetland Permit to add top
soil to site for regrading purposes due to replacement of
septic system, install a six foot wide deck parallel to the
bulkhead, install a six foot wide deck parallel to the house
24' in length, replace the bulkhead in-kind, and renovate
the existing dwelling. Located: 1780 Jackson Street, New
Suffolk. SCTM #: 117-10-14.1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on
behalf of the application?
MR. GOGGINS: Good evening, I'm William Goggins. I
submitted the application. If you have any questions, I'm
here. I have nothing to say unless you have any questions.
Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there any other comment?
Board of Trustees 21 Sept. 22, 2004
MR. BRESSLER: Eric J. Bressler, Wickham, Bressler, Gordon
and Geasa, Mattituck, New York, On behalf of Patsy Rogers,
the neighbor to the northeast of this particular project.
This application tonight, somewhat peculiar given
everything that's been going on down there. In fact,
somewhat more than peculiar; in fact, I'm not even sure why
this Board would even entertain this application at this
particular juncture. I take it that the Board has been down
and has seen this project.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Yes.
MR. BRESSLER: Seems to me that the cart was put somewhat
before the horse for a long period of time down here, and I
take it the Board is also familiar with the history of this
project and what's going on with the other boards and
entities that have jurisdiction over this project. Is that
true, Mr. President? Are you aware of the issuance of the
stop work order and the necessity for variances as indicated
by the Building Department?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I am not.
MR. BRESSLER: What we have down there at least as far as
this Board is concerned is the situation where the applicant
has come before you to approve something that in large part
has already been performed. I find this problematical.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Happens all the time.
MR. BRESSLER: Indeed. But under the new code, I find it
most peculiar, again, that the Board would entertain this
application. Under the new code where you have wetlands
violations, those are supposed to be cleared before anything
gets done, no permits are to issue.
Now, if the Board were to tell me that there were no
wetlands violations issued, then I'd have an even greater
problem with this particular application. Why not? This
project is not going forward, it has not gone forward
according to plans; there's a stop work order from the
Building Department; there are variances required; there are
notices of disapproval. This project was undertaken and
prosecuted without the necessary permits. And while Trustee
Foster, you may be correct that things like this are done
all the time, and I don't dispute that, that nonetheless,
does not make it appropriate when you're dealing with
something as massive and as sizeable and as far-reaching as
that project. The size of the house dwarfs anything nearby.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think that's out of our jurisdiction,
Eric. The house didn't need a Trustee permit for the house
work. That's out of our jurisdiction.
MR. BRESSLER: They're seeking a permit for renovation,
Board of Trustees 22 Sept. 22, 2004
that's what your notice says.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Renovation for what? Not for the house.
MR. BRESSLER: Renovation for what?
MR. JOHNSTON: It is.
MS. TETRAULT: Last month it wasn't but the Building
Department came in to us and said we needed to.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I apologize it wasn't but now it is?
MR. BRESSLER: Yes. I think the Building Department so
determined and the applicant's still before this Board, and
I think the horse ought to be put before the cart, there's
violations down there, they've got to be dealt with, and I
think the Board has to consider very carefully exactly
what's going on down there. Not only does the house dwarf
the neighbors, the garage which arguably is not within the
Board's jurisdiction dwarfs the garage. There's an
application for fill for the septic system, where was this
Board when that was being done?
In short, I don't think that this Board ought to do
anything at this point unless and until there are other
permits obtained as required by this Board's code, the
amended Chapter 97; where are all those permits? So I think
this is somewhat premature before this Board. I think the
violations have to be cleared, and if there are no
violations, I want to know why there are no violations. Any
other citizen, as I'm sure everybody's well aware, would
have a ton of violations they would have to clear on this
project.
Not only that, even in the face of the stop work order,
if the Board was down there and noticed, undoubtedly, the
roofing scaffolding up there on the roof, the project's
being actively roofed, I don't think that qualifies as
merely closing it in. I think there's a lot of stuff going
on down there. I think it's all got to be cleared up, and
the Board's got to familiarize itself with the records from
the Building Department and the Board of Appeals, if that's
been filed, I have no knowledge of that at this point and to
the extent those records are not in front of the Board, I'd
like leave to put them in in front of the Board, so this
Board has a full knowledge of everything that's going on
down there in this essentially self-help project.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment?
MR. SAMUELS: Good evening my name is Tom Samuels, I live at
7092 New Suffolk Road. I have a brief letter. I'll keep it
brief.
"Dear Al and your fellow Trustees,
"in reference to the above application, please recall
Board of Trustees 23 Sept. 22, 2004
the petition of concerned New Suffolk residents submitted to
protesting the blockage of the legal littoral access of Mr.
Goggins' property along Great Peconic Bay. The access is
blocked by a fence located on his groin, which often forces
beach walkers into the bay to pass, and was erected without
a permit in violation of your regulations and the law, not
by Mr. Goggins, I might add, but by a previous owner.
"While I have no opinion on the merits of this
application, I am confident you will give it the scrutiny it
merits. Assuming you will eventually approve a permit, I
respectfully propose the following permit conditions for
your considerations:
"(1) Prohibit fence on top of groin now and in the
future at least seaward of the face of the bulkhead.
"(2) Require the reconstruction of the existing groin.
Despite recent patching of the sheathing with plywood, this
structure is less functional than the bulkhead sought to be
replaced. Per current regulations the new jetty should be
flush with the level of the beach. The extra height of the
structure has no benefit in erosion control and only acts to
block public access.
"(3) Require the removal of the Sunfish rack located
on the high tide line. Mr. Goggins is not running a yacht
club and the rack intrudes on the public domain. It will
continue to block access when the fence is removed."
I'd like to just add, briefly, that the public access
to the beach in New Suffolk particularly, but for the
benefit of the entire town is very important. While I
accept that the entire shoreline of this town cannot be
accessible due to other conditions, such as wetlands, the
wide open beach front facing Peconic Bay is not one of those
situations, and it makes the private encroachment on it even
more irksome to people that walk there on a regular basis,
such as myself. I think while Mr. Goggins didn't create the
situation, you have the authority, the jurisdiction and
opportunity to correct the situation. Thank you very much.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? Does the
Board have any comments?
MR. JOHNSTON: For the record, could you indicate the
current status of the fence, I understand that some of it
was removed?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For the record, and I'm going to ask the
applicant for confirmation, the Board inspected the site on
Thursday, September 16th, and it appeared that part of the
section of fence was removed from the top of the jetty. I'm
going to ask the applicant to clarify that?
Board of Trustees 24 Sept. 22, 2004
MR. GOGGINS: That is the case, there was a picket fence
that was installed, I don't think it was the prior owner, I
think it was three prior owners, a man named Hinch, and the
picket fence was on top of this jetty. The jetty has a
purpose of maintaining the integrity of the current yards
between my property and the property to east. The jetties
don't go straight out, they go straight out to an angle, and
I haven't spoken do the engineer, but essentially what it
does is it allows the beach to stay there, as it goes back
and forth. There's a pretty strong rip tide because Robins
Island to the north comes out with a peninsula so the
distance between my property and that peninsula is narrow,
causing a rip between tides. Every month I will lose maybe
100 cubic yards of sand, and I might get it back, it just
depends upon the winds. So sometimes where this jetty is,
the top of the sand might be two feet from the top of this
jetty, and people can walk by easily; sometimes it's four
feet. My high tide mark might be 15 to 20 feet from my
bulkhead, other times it's five feet, it just depends on
what's happening with nature and the ebb and flow of the
tide and the winds. So that's at least to let you know
about that. Right now we removed the fence. We just got a
bunch of sand from this past storm on Saturday. Now the
fence is short of the high tide mark now, but we did take
out that section of fence. I don't know what we do, keep
removing/replacing it every time the tide changes. I
understand the people want to walk past the beach, but this
is a preexisting matter. I don't have an application to
remove or add the fence; it's there just the way it is.
To address what Mr. Bressler is saying it's kind of
misinformed. We're asking to replace the bulkhead in-kind.
I didn't put the bulkhead there, the bulkhead according to
the assessor's records has been there, but I can see it's
starting to decay. So we need to replace it to prevent the
front yard from going into the sand going into the bay. As
to the decking, that's just something we want to do to make
the house nicer. The decking has not been constructed yet,
so I don't know what Mr. Bressler's talking about a ton of
violations, they don't exist. The only thing that's
happening at the house is we renovated it, and because it's
within 100 feet of the high tide mark, the Building
Department wanted to have the Trustees review it; that's why
we added that to the application. That's really the long
and short of it. Everything else was really irrelevant to
this application. We are not violating any wetland
ordinances at this time or have we in the past. Any other
Board of Trustees 25 Sept. 22, 2004
questions?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We might. I'm going to ask the Board to
take a look, unfortunately we've got quite a collection of
photographs, to refresh their memory. This goes back to
March and comment was made on a picture in the file, the
fence, the picture was taken from the west side of the
property towards Mr. Goggins' property. It shows a
neighbor's jetty groin, it must be of recent construction,
it's vinyl, and it's Iow profile. It goes into the beach
and it's quite an impressive sandy beach in front of those
two properties. It's pretty well maintained. It looks like
it's been groomed. The Iow profile jetty does work well.
This is what it looks like in March.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's Mr. Goggins' beach?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. Correct. This is that neighbor's
snow fence that's laying in a pile here. I just want to
review the condition of the beach and the house. You can
see comment was made by someone about the house. The
picture we have from March shows the sail boats on the
lawn. Now we're in January, there's the rope.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: To identify where the end of the house
is.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is later in March. What do these
pictures show? We reviewed the file as far as the
photographs went from March and August to January of
'04. Brownell, you wanted to address the violations?
MR. JOHNSTON: It seems as if they were resolved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One says no violations, that was May.
MR. JOHNSTON: The violations were written up, then it says
it was resolved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The other one says referred matter back to
the Trustees.
MR. JOHNSTON: I don't know what that means.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was July 16th. Then there's another
one here again, it refers another matter back to the
Trustees to be reinspected, which we did and thus the
photographic record.
MR. JOHNSTON: And. Al, my legal counsel suggests that
there was a preexisting situation so the bay constable --
MR. BRESSLER: Mr. Krupski, for the record while you're
looking through that, I'd like to put before the Board the
building permits for the project down there on the
residence, which include construction of an accessory
garage, installation of an in-ground swimming pool and here
is construction of a covered porch addition and roof repair.
Then we have August 24, 2004, from the Building Department,
Board of Trustees 26 Sept. 22, 2004
wherein for the first time, an amendment was requested to
the building permit that reflected only a porch addition and
roof repair, and you will see that the Building Department
was unable to approve it for a variety of reasons and number
one on the list was wetlands permits, the whole project
changed. On the heels of that particular document is a
document dated August 27, 2004, a stop work order and a
revocation of the permit, and finally, a notice of
disapproval dated August 30, 2004 that sends the applicant
back up to the ZBA. This project changed in nature, in
scope. It changed completely. It's within the Trustees'
jurisdiction, you've been down there, you've seen it, that's
what's going on. So I respectfully disagree with the
applicant about what happened down there, and what the
current status of the project is, and I think the documents
speak for themselves.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. GOGGINS: I'd like to make a brief comment. All those
items are really irrelevant to the application before the
Board. Anything that happened with the Building Department
was a process. We were in a house where over a period of
time we learned it was structurally unsound.
We had gotten a permit -- again, it's not relevant to
this application, but I'll explain it to the people here and
also to the Board since Mr. Bressler brought it up. We got
a permit to replace the roof, re-pitch it, put reverse
gables on, new siding, windows and a porch on the landside
of the house, north side. Through the process of doing that
we got ready to re-pitch the roof, builder was there, we
started working, and the builder felt there might be
something wrong with the house structurally, so we brought
in an engineer, James Deerkovski, a man that's qualified by
the Town to do building inspections, and he came in, and he
thought there might be some structural damage.
So he suggested we replace the ceilings and the walls
on the second floor so he could take a look at the
structure. I've got five children, myself, my wife, my five
children. We removed all our dressers, beds, clothing,
toys, everything out of the second floor down to the first
floor, we were all sleeping in the living room on the first
floor. The builder came in tore down all the sheetrock in
the ceilings and the walls so it was just studs up and
electric and so forth. That's when we learned there was
some structural problems to the north and south walls of the
house.
The engineer suggested we do some structural work. He
Board of Trustees 27 Sept. 22, 2004
said he would prepare plans because he knew we would have to
amend our permit. While he was doing those plans, he was
overseeing the job. I had mentioned it to the Building
Department at the time, although not in writing or
anything. So we proceeded with the project. He was drawing
up the plans, and we were trying to fix the second floor.
As we were fixing the second floor, they looked at it and
said, gee, we have to make sure the walls on the first floor
can sustain the second floor; and it turned out it wasn't
able to be done. So we then had to go through that process,
and right about the time the engineer had the plans done,
the Building Department came down because there were a bunch
of complaints by the neighbors, and I informed them there
was an engineer on the job. They wanted to come down and
look at it and they said, gee, you're going to have to amend
your permit, submit an amended permit. Within three or four
days the plans were finally done, and we submitted the
amended permit and we went forward. It was at that time
that the Building Department decided we needed Trustee
approval for the renovation -- excuse me, we needed possibly
ZBA approval, and they went through it and said, oh, yes,
you need DEC, Trustee and ZBA. I immediately made all the
applications except for the DEC because we're waiting for a
topographical map for that purpose so we can show there's no
jurisdiction there. We didn't think we needed it.
As to the fill, I know it wasn't been brought up, but
I'll bring it up, but we had a cesspool that caved in --
this is a money pit if you haven't noticed so far -- this is
before the renovation started, so we had to get an emergency
permit from the Trustees and the cesspools were replaced.
In replacing the cesspools, they brought in extra fill,
which we thought or the guy who did it, thought it was part
of the permit, and I had spoken to somebody in the Trustees'
department, and they said, gee, you better submit a permit
for the soil because you had an emergency application for
the cesspools and we want to make sure everything's done the
right way. I said fine, then I might as well submit an
application for the bulkhead and the decking, I did that.
And that was before the Building Department looked at the
renovations. And then when the Building Department looked
at the renovations and said you need a Trustee permit for
that, we amended our application to include the renovations.
So I'm not this crazy man that Mr. Bressier has me made
out to be, that I go around violating things and doing
things without permission. There was a process here, and
I'm glad you people are here to hear this so they can
Board of Trustees 28 Sept. 22, 2004
understand what we have been going through. I just didn't
come in to this thing and say, I'm going to do what I want
to my property, I'm not that kind of a person, and I went
through what I believe the proper steps and advice of an
engineer and here we are today.
So, you know, since Mr. Bressler brought it up, I
thought it would be important for the Board to know what
brought us here. We had no intent on going through this.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Do you have any outstanding wetland
violations?
MR. GOGGINS: No, I do not. There were complaints mainly
because of the picket fence above the jetty. I believe the
bay constable, Mr. McCarthy, maybe that's his name, I don't
know his name, he came down, took a look. It appeared to
him it was preexisting. I believe it was referred to the
Trustees and I believe the Trustee Board went down to take a
look, and I haven't heard anything, so I assume they came to
the same conclusion. I have had at least 20 police reports
written up to me by my neighbors, complaining to the police-
department. Apparently there are daily phone calls, I
understand to the Building Department by neighbors, and I
don't know why they're doing it, but they're doing it, and
that's okay. But I'm going through the process and I'm
doing whatever I need to do to get the project through.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are the renovations of the house the
same footprint?
MR. GOGGINS: Everything is the exact footprint except the
deck, 6' by 20' coming off the first floor of the
house. That footprint has been there according to the local
people since the 1920s. So I'm not doing anything far
reaching. It's just merely putting in a deck and that was
an afterthought after we started doing the renovation.
MS. ROGERS: My name is Patsy Rogers, I'm the aforementioned
neighbor. It's interesting Mr. Goggins gives a narrative of
when he discovered there was a structural difficulty. I
think if you look at the files, you will find that he
submitted plans for a three story structure as long ago as
last September, not this summer when as he says he
discovered there were structural problems. Besides which,
many people in the neighborhood have known there were
structural problems for several years. Evidently he didn't
know when he bought the property, but other people
in the neighborhood did know that there were serious
problems. There was an engineer's report done for someone
else who was interested in buying the property who declined
to buy it after the engineer's report because of that. As
Board of Trustees 29 Sept. 22, 2004
to calling the Building Department, I have called the
Building Department approximately twice in the last week to
inquire why, although there has been a stop work order for
three weeks, work has continued unabated with no attempt to
enclose the windows on the upper floor, which you would
think might be the first thing to make the house safe, but
that has not been done. Instead, what has been done is that
upper floor has been finished, that is to say the outside of
it has been finished in the last two weeks, never mind the
stop work order. And I wanted to know how that could be? I
was told by Mr. Verity that he had given Mr. Goggins
permission -- first he told me that was to make the house
safe from small children and raccoons. Since it was on the
third floor that didn't make sense to me. But the next
thing he told me -- this was yesterday -- was that there
were hurricane straps being put in because the house would
be more dangerous open than closed. I do not understand any
of that, but I just put it out there. I still don't
understand why work is continuing.
MR. GOGGINS: I agree with her. We should be putting in
the windows because the property is now being damaged from
the winds and rains, and we had asked the Building
Department if we could finish the roof and put in the
windows, put Tyvek on the walls to secure the house; and the
Building Department has allowed me to finish the roof. And
right now they're thinking about letting me finish the
windows, but we've got permission from the Building
Inspector Michael Verity to do that. In fact, he was there
today and we walked through the house with the code
enforcement officer. We have been through it. I've been
begging them to let me put the windows in and they won't let
me at least right now they won't, but they have permitted me
to finish the roof. The problem is when they started the
stop work order, the builder left the job, and it's been
tough getting him back, so he's been sending one worker
over, so they're putting the roof on really slow. But I
welcome the windows to be installed, and if you could call
them and say, please, let him put in the windows, I'd
appreciate it, because I could really use it. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Ma'am.
MS. GOODMAN: I'm Lucille Field Goodman. I share the house
with Patsy Rogers. I have listened very carefully to
Mr. Goggins. Although we look at each other's abodes all
the time, we have not become what New Suffolk is famous for,
a small hamlet of really good neighbors. And I just want to
remind the Board that that's what is the basic issue here.
Board of Trustees 30 Sept. 22, 2004
It has been made to sound by Mr. Goggins that there's some
sort of conspiracy, 20 neighbors calls, the police, all
kinds of dreadful machinations going on to make Mr. Goggins'
and his family's life miserable. Believe me, this is not
the case. Patsy and I have lived in New Suffolk for over 25
years, when the Hinches were there, when Andy Gooddale was
there, we would go over, the bushes were always open, come
on through, I'm going to fix, I'm going to plant some trees,
I'm going to put in, my daughter's getting married, we're
going to have a party. We were good neighbors. We told
each other what we planned to do so that we could live side
by side, happily, closely, safely, protect one another, take
care of one another, really care about one another, that's
what New Suffolk is famous for. We could walk the beach,
and if the jetty or something was sticking out, we could go
up on our neighbor's property to get around to continue our
walk, with our dogs or little children or grandchildren,
without fear of getting arrested by our neighbor for
trespassing. You see, this is all new. I have never
experienced anything like this. There is no conspiracy
against Mr. Goggins. People are not calling the police
regularly and making complaint. We are trying, because we
don't know, Mr. Goggins never kept his -- we're very close
neighbors, I mean, his accessory garage where people seem to
be living upstairs is 10 feet from our property line. We're
closer than I've ever been to anybody in my life except
maybe my husband, and we are not informed of what's
happening. So we have to come through the legal
process. We have to come to you to help us see where we're
going because these are our lives. The swimming pool is
right on top of our dining room, we've become more intimate
than we ever planned to become with each other. But that's
the fact of life, change happens and we have to adjust. I
suggest to Mr. Goggins that he rethink some of his attitudes
and try to become a real New Suffolker, a real good
neighbor.
MR. BRESSLER: I just want to leave the Board with one
thought. I listened carefully to what Mr. Goggins had to
say, and if he came before you as a layperson with no
knowledge as to the laws and regulations of this town, I
would still say that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but
he doesn't. He comes here as a practitioner well-versed in
the ways and means and laws of permits and when they're
required and jurisdictional issues, He regularly represents
people before these boards and I think, the story, although
interesting, is somewhat disingenuous in that he would have
Board of Trustees 31 Sept. 22, 2004
the Board believe that he didn't know what he had to do or
when he had to do it, or it wasn't apparent to him when the
scope of the project was radically changing that he didn't
have to come before you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
I'd like to ask Mr. Goggins a question, you have a stop
work order on the house, why?
MR. GOGGINS: Because they want me to get Trustees'
approval, Zoning Board of Appeals approval and DEc approval
if required.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Normally, if Mr. Goggins had -- and I'm
thinking out loud -- if Mr. Goggins had known he had to do
all this work and didn't even put one nail out, he would
have come to this Board first, regardless, before he went to
the ZBA or before he went to the Building Department, even
before he went to the DEC; is that right? Does it then stop
us from acting on this now that he's got a stop work order
and has to get all these approvals; does it stop us from
acting on this first?
MR. GOGGINS: My building permit being issued is
conditioned upon my getting approval from this Board.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what I said. Is there anything
that stops us from acting on this?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: The last time we were down there, the next
to last time, not this past time, the old, original house
was there, right?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: We measured the septic system we went out
there and measured, it was out of our jurisdiction. The
only thing that puts it in our jurisdiction now is the 6' porch
TRUSTEE KING: About 80 feet.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's not what you measured from, you
measured from the bulkhead.
(Discussion)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Shows mean high water at the bulkhead. I
don't think it is.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is the high water mark at the bulkhead?
MR. GOGGINS: No, sir, it isn't. The high tide mark now is
about 18 feet south of the bulkhead. Last week before the
storm it was about eight feet south of the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Eight and 18.
MR. GOGGINS: I'm approximating. We got a lot of beach
dumped on us this past week. Actually, when I bought the
place three years ago it was about 25 feet. The sand moves
there erratically on a regular basis.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're looking at a project that's in and
Board of Trustees 32 Sept. 22, 2004
out of our jurisdiction.
MR. BRESSLER: Mr. Krupski, vis-a-vis your question in
Chapter 97, Section 97-21 A11, and while it has been the
practice of this Board, in my understanding, not to require
the building permit, since that's obviously the last act
that any applicant has to perform, it has been the practice
of this Board and it is the consistent with the provisions
of 97-21 that all the other permits and approvals are
required by this Board.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, we can't do that.
MR. BRESSLER: Excuse me?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can't do that.
MR. BRESSLER: You can't do what?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can't require the applicant to have
every other approval by every other board.
MR. BRESSLER: That's what your code says except obviously
the building permit because that's last. But you can
require DEC permit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can, but we usually don't. We can but
we don't have to.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Are you asking us to deny this permit; is
that what you're all about here tonight?
MR. BRESSLER: What I'm saying is in the first instance that
you can't act on it. Application shall contain the
following information, that's what it says, and that's not
there.
MR. JOHNSTON: Can you read it to me?
MR. BRESSLER: 97-21 A11. Mr. Krupski raised quite properly
the question --
MR. JOHNSTON: Can we read it one more time, please?
MR. BRESSLER: Such application shall contain the following
information: Document the proof of permits have been
applied for, are pending, have been granted including but
not limited to. Do you have all that?
MR. GOGGINS: Of course not because I don't have the permit
yet.
MS. TETRAULT: He's pending before the DEC. Do you have a
permit from the Health Department?
MR. BRESSLER: What about the Zoning Board?
MR. GOGGINS: I need Zoning Board of Appeals.
MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Krupski, what that says is that we can
require a copy of the permits that have been applied for or
are pending or have been granted. We're not saying that
they have to have been granted, come on. Read it.
MR. BRESSLER: You've got nothing before you as far as I'm
concerned.
Board of Trustees 33 Sept. 22, 2004
MR. JOHNSTON: That's not the issue, when you read 11, 11
doesn't say that they have to be granted; just saying that
we can request what has been granted.
MR. BRESSLER: Not that you can request, you shall.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No, doesn't say shall.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: What are we trying to do here is what I
want to know. Are we trying to stop the man from building
his house? Or we don't want him to have the bulkhead? You
talk about we all live here, we're all good neighbors, I got
a letter here I want to read into the record, dated August
6th, about all these good neighbors and how they're all
working together and what a nice friendly community this
is. I've been here all my life, and I'm about ready to
leave because of crap like this that goes on every month
somebody trying to prevent somebody from doing something
because maybe they can't see as much of the water as they
used to or they can't walk over the bulkhead because the
tide is higher than it used to be. You know, we're all
trying to get along together. His house is half up, we
don't want him to close it in. I don't care if it's
Mr. Goggins, Mr. Bressler, Mr. Samuels, who it is. We are
here, like the Zoning Board of Appeals, we're here to give
people relief and help them out. If we were going to go by
the code, you fire it at them and tell them to read it and
weep. If it's in there, you're good, if it isn't, we'll see
you. Let me read this letter, this is from the concerned
citizens of New Suffolk. To Mr. Mike Verity, Southold Town
Building Department.
"Dear Mr. Verity, I want to express our confusion and
concern about the way in which the Southold Town Building
Department and the Board of Trustees selectively enforce the
Building Code. We're referring to the new home construction
at the southeast end of New Suffolk Road, Fifth Street, in
New Suffolk. We have confirmed that this new home
construction is occurring without the proper permits.
Permits dated from 2003 encompass only a new pool and small
porch facing Jackson Street. This home has been demolished
and is being built anew. Why is this permitted? We
understand that the law states 'a builder who knowingly
conducts work of this magnitude without the proper permits
can lose his license.' Why do these builders have immunity?
What is the owner, William Goggins, relationship with the
Town and/or the Trustees which allows him to circumvent the
law? It is disturbing that Mr. Goggins, a prominent
attorney in the Town of Southold with apparent connections
within the Building Department and the Board of Trustees
Board of Trustees 34 Sept. 22, 2004
received favorable treatment from the Town to construct an
illegal residence above his garage and build a new home with
an additional floor without proper permits. Another
flagrant disregard for your office and the approval process
in initial construction of the third floor bay side sun
deck, while plans for two other bay side decks have been
submitted for review by the Trustees at their 8/18 meeting,
this third structure has not been accounted for.
"The foregoing facts give the impression that knowing
the right people in the Southold Town Building Department
gain privileges that the rest of the taxpayers do not enjoy.
What is known? There is an illegal residence above the
garage. Runoff from this illegal residence is damaging
neighbors' property. Building is ongoing without proper
permits. The new home which now has three floors as opposed
to two has now become the tallest structure in New Suffolk.
"What is unknown, why Mr. Goggins is able to disregard
the building code; why these actions are permitted; why the
builders have immunity; what you are going to do about it?
Although we have chosen to remain anonymous for fear of
reprisal from Mr. Goggins, we do not intend to drop this
matter without your prompt attention.
"We do not wish to personally engage in any additional
unpleasant confrontations with Mr. Goggins. His connections
are evidently far reaching.
"Concerned New Suffolk residents."
I don't think I would like to live in a community with
nice neighbors like that; that's all these friendly
people -- maybe everybody ought to come out and try to help
the man with his situation instead of -- it's like the old
bushel of crabs, you know, when the new, young crabs just
about to get out of the bushel, an old one reaches back and
yanks him back in again.
MR. BRESSLER: That's an interesting observation. And one
thing strikes me, I just can't imagine for the life of me,
given the fact that what was set forth in that letter about
the absence of permits, the expansion of the scope of this
matter is also why this Board would take the position that
this is not at all important and shift the blame onto the
neighbors when you have clearly a structure that was not
properly permitted. People come before your Board routinely
on matters that are so much more trivial and less important
than building a structure of this size and magnitude, that
for me to hear this kind of response and to have the Board
say, well, it's half-way up, what are we going to do? I
have not heard that from this Board before. If you don't
Board of Trustees 35 Sept. 22, 2004
have the permits, I have seen this Board jump all over
people. And what I'm hearing only to me goes to reenforce
what was in the letter. I think this Board ought to
properly be asking, is this -- assume you're even going to
consider it -- is this an appropriate environmental project;
are we going to look at something 30 some feet in the air
where a height variance is needed.
Now you made light of the fact that people are losing
their views, but your code says that aesthetics are a
concern of this Board, it says that. So to make light of
that fact is not fair. Also to make light of the fact that
there are obstructions about people using the beach,
something of very near and dear concern to this Board, I
think it ill befits the Board to make light of those
particular considerations.
What you have here is a serious situation with a
variety of violations that has to go at a minimum to the
Board of Appeals, and I don't think it's fair to shrug this
off and say what kind of neighbors are these. I don't think
it's fair, and I think that the Board ought to look at this
on its merits. And you're asking me what I want you to do;
I don't think should be considered until you find out
whether this is going to be permitted at all. Then I think
you got to look hard at all the factors in your code to
determine whether you're going to permit such a thing. And
I think when you look at it that way, you're not going to do
it.
Finally, one other comment about boarding up and
putting in windows, put up the plywood like everybody else.
I don't take your points, I don't think they're fair in this
instance. I've seen this Board, like I said, come down on
people who have done a lot less, a lot harder. I've seen
them violated. I've seen them in criminal court for
building much smaller things and doing less without a
permit. So that's my response to that, but that's my
response to that. Further than that I don't want to go
because we don't need to debate the philosophy of the
Trustees. I think it's clear what the neighbors are
concerned about here. I think it's clear the stuff was done
without permits, and I think you have to take a hard look at
everything before you, and decide when, if at all, you're
going to approve this stuff.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I'd like to make one
comment. That is what I was trying to get at before when I
asked this Board how they think the Board should conduct
itself. What started out as first of all the pool and the
Board of Trustees 36 Sept. 22, 2004
garage and the north side of the property was not
jurisdictional for the Trustees and we took no action on
those as we legally should not have.
The house itself is currently -- see, this is where the
high tide line changes sometimes dramatically, doesn't
matter because what the applicant has provided us with a
survey received July 6, 2004, the applicant has provided us
with a survey showing us that the house is jurisdictional;
that's the material we're working on right now. In response
to that, he has applied. So we have before us an
application received August 23, 2004, to install a deck on
the bulkhead, a deck parallel to the house and what's added
to it is renovations -- there's other items also, just to
keep it brief to try to keep this moving along --
renovations to existing structure, which are apparently
ongoing. So now it comes to us as to what should this Board
do. Personally I think we should keep moving this along,
and that would be consistent with other applications that we
get that have to go to other agencies, such as the ZBA. Now
if the ZBA comes back, this comes before the ZBA and they
say this is unacceptable, it's got to be two degrees to the
north and five feet to the south, whatever, the applicant
has to come back to this Board to amend their permit with
us, and that's routine that happens fairly often. We grant
a permit, ZBA either approves or disapproves, and if they
disapprove, the applicant comes back to this Board. We're
the first Board that acts almost every time.
MS. GOODMAN: Perhaps I misunderstand what you're saying,
but there is in the papers in front of you a notice of
disapproval from the Building Department; is there nothing
in that packet of papers from the ZBA?
MR. JOHNSTON: August 24th letter?
MS. GOODMAN: No, this is August 30th.
MR. BRESSLER: Notice of disapproval dated August 30th that
you have.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have that, thank you.
MS. GOODMAN: Pursuant to the ZBA's interpretation in Walz
5309, such construction will thus constitute an increase of
the degree of nonconformance, therefore the as-built
construction is not permitted. In addition, the as-built
addition constitutes a third story, which is not permitted
and so on. It seems to me that's very relevant here, and I
would ask you to take a look at that letter.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, that's from the Building
Department.
MR. GOGGINS: As you know I can't get to the ZBA without a
Board of Trustees 37 Sept. 22, 2004
notice of disapproval, that's the first step in the
appellate process. So the Building Department has to give
me a notice of disapproval so I can go to the ZBA to get
relief, so it's just part of the process. The words that
are used, notice of disapproval sounds bad, but every time
somebody makes a building permit application and it does not
in line with the code, the Building Department issues a
notice of disapproval. You can't even submit an application
to the ZBA without a notice of disapproval from the Building
Department. It's just part of the process. It may sound
bad that I got a notice of disapproval but it's just a first
step in the zoning process.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: In rebuttal to your statement which is in
rebuttal to mine, you're not talking about a dock or a boat
ramp, you're talking about a house that a man doesn't have
to live in any more. It's a little more far reaching than,
oh, the dock is illegal. We find them every month that we
go on field inspections, we find unpermitted structures. So
what do we do? We make them come in and get a permit. And
we don't put them in the gallows out in front of Town
Hall.
MR. BRESSLER: Sometimes. Is this Board going to permit a
three-story house next to the wetlands? That's in your
code. Are you going to give thought to that? When was the
last time you approved a three-story house right next to the
wetlands. I ask you to look pretty hard at your code and
determine if that is appropriate. That is not just a Zoning
Board of Appeals issue at all.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Height has nothing to do with us.
MR. BRESSLER: Of course it does. Read your code. You have
to consider all the factors, they're listed in your code.
MS. TETRAULT: What is the height difference from your old
house to your new house?
MR. GOGGINS: It's about five to seven feet. We had
originally gotten a permit to re-pitch the roof. I can't
remember what the numbers are, but the pitch was Iow and we
got a permit to raise the pitch, and then we got a permit to
put reverse gables, and that was a permit that was issued
and that's the permit that we acted on initially. When we
found out about the damage, when they started rebuilding it,
they rebuilt it, and they built it a little bit higher than
it was before. It's not that much higher. It does meet the
height restriction, but the Building Department looked at it
and said, gee, because the attic ceiling is higher than
seven feet, it's not an attic according to our code, it's a
third floor. So now we're calling it a third floor because
Board of Trustees 38 Sept. 22, 2004
the ceiling isn't seven feet high. You can go all over town
and find new structures that have third floors where the
ceiling is higher than seven feet, they were approved so be
it, they got their approvals. Mine, the Building Department
is being very strict, they're looking at everything I'm
doing, and I think they're being overly cautious because
there are so many people looking at what's going on
there. So when the engineer did the plans, he made sure
that the plans were within the code, but he didn't know and
I certainly didn't know that if the ceiling height in the
attic was higher than seven feet, it would be considered a
third floor. Again, that's an issue for the Zoning Board of
Appeals not for the Trustees it's all within the same
footprint.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're trying to look at this strictly from
an environmental impact factor, we routinely get plans like
this for houses. We don't care where the kitchen is or what
kind of fireplace they're putting in. We're looking at
environmental factors and how you start out with a house,
like we have pictures back in March, which is a big house,
and you're replacing it with something that is bigger, and
no one ever replaces it with something smaller, what is the
environmental factors of that action. That's what I'm
concerned with, I'm not looking at what it looks like.
MS. TETRAULT: Roof runoff, standard.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're looking at roof runoff, standard
environmental factors. Usually we look at how to improve
the environmental conditions on a site by site basis.
MR. BRESSLER: Under 97 28-1 and J, clearly you are mandated
to consider aesthetics. So I take your recent comment in
conflict with your own code. While you may not in the past
routinely looked at that, you must make a finding regarding
that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Aesthetics of the entire project, not
aesthetics of how many lights should be in each window.
It's an interpretation of the code, it's not like a porch
post I think should be blue not white, that's not the kind
of aesthetics that are written into the code.
MR. BRESSLER: You have to make a determination under J, and
if that's what goes into your determination that's the
determination you'll make.
MR. JOHNSTON: I would like to enter into the record 97-21
B, which in essence says the Trustees may waive in part or
in whole 97 21A, a bunch of other sections including 11. So
you often do do that, and although it's been suggested that
you don't have the ability to do that --
Board of Trustees 39 Sept. 22, 2004
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We do.
MR. JOHNSTON: -- we know you do, and we can move on.
Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are we ready to close the hearing? If
there's no other comment, I make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would someone like to make a motion.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Specify that the deck along the bulkhead
is on the upland side so he doesn't put it on the beach.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the
application of William Goggins to add top soil to the site,
replace the septic system, install a 6 foot wide deck
parallel to the bulkhead on the upland side of the bulkhead,
make that change to the application because it's unclear on
the survey, install a six foot wide deck parallel to the
house 24 feet in length, replace the bulkhead in-kind and at
the same elevation.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: In place or just in-kind?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, in-kind/in-place.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: What is it now?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Wood but it's not in contact with the
water. Do you want vinyl?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Replace the bulkhead with vinyl. Remove
the four foot high white picket fence from the top of the
jetty. The jetty is in poor condition, and it's obvious
it's going to have to be replaced in the near future, and I
would like to suggest, unless the Board objects, issuing a
permit for its replacement, a Iow profile jetty similar to
what the neighbor has to the west, when the jetty is
replaced and it can be replaced without further action by
this Board, I'm just looking for a length, shows 55 feet,
but we usually measure these, subject to the Board's having
the jetty measured. We need a plan for the jetty, Iow
profile. We need dry wells and gutters to contain roof
runoff, the turf is to be removed underneath the deck on the
house and underneath the deck adjacent to the bulkhead to
provide for drainage.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did you say renovate the house?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. I said renovate the structure. The
turf has to be removed underneath both decks. The boat
racks have to be stored above high water. The boat rack has
to be stored landward of the bulkhead. This picture shows
it landward. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
Board of Trustees 40 Sept. 22, 2004
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Are you agreeable to all this?
MR. GOGGINS: From what I can hear, yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You want to set a timetable on this?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: How can you do that with the groin?
MR. GOGGINS: I got a longer timetable on the bulkhead and
jetty because that's a substantial investment.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The issue with the picket fence, the
picket fence could be removed within a month, the picket
fence on top of the jetty, within 30 days.
MR. GOGGINS: You want me to remove the whole fence?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Yes. Yes, that would be fine. The permit
for the other stuff is good for two years, with two one-year
extensions.
TRUSTEE KING: Just me speaking, a Iow profile groin I think
would really alleviate a lot of bad feelings there and the
beach would remain exactly the same.
MR. GOGGINS: When we get the money to do it, we'll do it.
Thanks.
7. MICHAEL and JOANN NICKICH request a Wetland Permit to
construct a 4' by 68' catwalk, 2 and-a-half foot by 12' ramp
and a 6' by 20' floating dock, and create an access path to
the docking facility. Located: 4297 Wells Road, Peconic.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on
behalf of this application?
MR. NICKICH: My name is Michael Nickich, I'm the owner of
the residence and on behalf of my wife and I, we would like
to say we're very glad we're living in Peconic.
MR. JOHNSTON: So is your neighbor.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For the record, the applicant's neighbor
is at the end here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have revised plans received on the 20th
showing a 30' -- showing a 69' catwalk including steps,
which was discussed on field inspection. The CAC comments
recommend approval with the condition that the access path
to the ramp is a natural path. I'm not quite sure what that
means.
MR. JOHNSTON: Where it is now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What does natural mean? Is there any
other comment? I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We spoke with the applicant about trees in
that no disturbance area in that subdivision, I think that's
all understood what has to get left, once you get above 100
Board of Trustees 41 Sept. 22, 2004
feet then you can clear.
MR. NICKICH: Let's make sure we're talking about the same
things, when I showed you guys the trees that we wanted to
relocate, the cedars, everyone was in agreement the ones
that were beyond the 100, and then there were two cedars
that you strongly suggested we're not going to get
permission to relocate, but there was a dead tree right in
the path where we wanted to put the dock, it's the rotted
tree.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I said it when I was there, I said not
this tree, that's only my --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Because it's a perfect place for ospreys
or other birds of prey to nest, that's my opinion.
MRS. NICKICH: Peggy, if I may, in the time that we have
owned the property, which is six years, an osprey hasn't
landed there yet. And there's an osprey nest right in the
creek that it does nest in, and it's not the highest tree on
the property. There's other trees that birds do go to
constantly.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm one of five on the Board, that's my
opinion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken, what's your opinion?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If there's a dead limb on the tree, cut
it off, so it doesn't hit you on the head when it falls.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The only reason I don't have a problem
with removing it is because it's the best place for a
catwalk. Artie, I don't want to hang this up.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Do you want me to get into it?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: If you let them take the dead tree down,
they can't put it on my property.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is it part of the permit or is the
permit just for the catwalk?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, it says to remove trees in the
non-disturbance area. They requested it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is it part of the permit? It says to
create an access path to the docking facility.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It doesn't have to be. It's part of the
application. The one here in the file says remove trees in
the nondisturbance area.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm saying not to.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't want to lose the resolution
because of that tree.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Then I'll vote no and you guys can vote
yes.
Board of Trustees 42 Sept. 22, 2004
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Take it, otherwise you're going to have to
move the catwalk and clear more.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's my feeling, you'll have to clear
more to move the catwalk. I'll make a motion to approve the
application for the new plans that came in with the removal
of the dead tree in the area that the catwalk would start
in.
MS. TETRAULT: Do you want to specify three foot above the
marsh, or would that be in the plan?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No. Actually, he's got a very Iow profile
little catwalk here that you're going to have t6 amend
because the DEC is not going to approve this as it's drawn.
Because they're going to make you put the catwalk three feet
above the grade, and what I would suggest, actually what I'd
like to do, is give you a three foot wide dock instead of a
four foot wide dock, I'm sorry that didn't come in on field
inspection. And then you would be able to lower it, the DEC
would let you lower it.
MR. NICKICH: Follows the grade, it's right there. We'll
make it a three feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve a three foot
wide catwalk, two and a half foot above the wetlands.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In the location of the dead tree.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
MS. TETRAULT: Do the plans show because when you said the
catwalk would go eight foot past that marsh area where the
grasses are; does it show that, or are they not specified in
the plans?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, they don't. We'll put that in the permit. Anything
else?
MS. TETRAULT: Well, the Board said they were going to
recommend stake and pulleys.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Right now he has stairs, that's easier.
MR. JOHNSTON: Does he want to ask for it now so he can have
it?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can include that in the permit, after a
year if you decide you want a stake and pulley, you'll have
the permit for it for two years or five years.
MR. NICKICH: The answer is yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Amend the application to include a stake
and pulley 20 feet past the end of the catwalk.
MR. JOHNSTON: But no greater than one-third across.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No greater than one-third across. So
we're looking at a three foot wide dock, two and a half feet
above the marsh, with the stake 20 feet off the end of it,
Board of Trustees 43 Sept. 22, 2004
and the last part of the dock, not including the stairs,
will be eight feet past the edge of the marsh, and we will
approve this tonight, but we'll need a new plan reflecting
those changes.
MR. JOHNSTON: Why don't we get the measurement across the
creek then we can tell them exactly how far the one-third
will be.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think the one-third is an issue
there, the creek's so wide.
TRUSTEE KING: The length of that dock and 20 feet it's not
going to be any more than one-third.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
KRUPSKI: All in favor?.
POLIWODA: Aye.
KING: Aye.
FOSTER: Aye.
DICKERSON: No.
8. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of GRACE AND JOSEPH
FINORA requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately
184 linear feet of vinyl Iow sill bulkhead adjacent to
rip-rap emplaced in association with New York State drainage
pipe; dredge approximately 10' by 90' area seaward of
bulkhead to a maximum depth of -2' apparent Iow water to
reclaim eroded intertidal sediment place approximately 35
cubic yards spoil landward of bulkhead and seaward of
existing wetland vegetation in unvegetated intertidal area
and plant spoil with spartina alterniflora 12 inches on
center to re-establish and restore vegetated intertidal
marsh. Located: 45 and 135 East Legion Avenue, Mattituck.
SCTM #: 122-3-12 & 13.
MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann, En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicants, Grace and Joe Finora. I know the Board is
familiar with this site. This is adjacent to the New York
State Department of Transportation drainage pipe down on Bay
Avenue. The pipe used to be directing drainage basically
right toward the direction of the curved shoreline along the
Finora property. It has eroded the embankment badly. It
has eroded the tidal wetland vegetation that used to exist
in what is now a basically denuded mud flat at Iow tide.
DOT has recently, as I'm sure the Trustees are aware,
replaced that drainage pipe. The pipe is now angling
slightly more towards the marina. In order to spare some
time for the public, I'll say that I do know that the Board
is concerned about the eastern-most extent of the project
where you get past that mud area and you get into the area
Board of Trustees 44 Sept. 22, 2004
where the Iow marsh or intertidal marsh is reasonably
stable. So what I suggested or what I would suggest is we
would be agreeable to eliminating the 45 most easterly feet
of that bulkhead to restrict the area below sill bulkhead
construction. Then I'd have to revise the dredging as well
so it doesn't go over into that shoreline.
It's a real rough diagram but, Al, this is what you and
I talked about and just to eliminate that whole section of
wall and sort of angle as obtusely as possible. We don't
want to create a corner there because we will get erosion
there, so sort of tie it in, and basically it will keep that
part of the marsh intact, won't disturb it, so basically
that would be reduced, that 97 foot section would be reduced
to 52 feet, that 16 foot return would be eliminated, and
we'd have what I'm guesstimating would be about a 12 foot
angle of return here; then I would just have to
recalculate -- the dredge area wouldn't have to be as large
because we wouldn't need as much fill, but I don't know what
those numbers are, I'd have to recalculate that. I just
wanted to run that by the Board. If that's okay, we would
then recalculate the dredge area and the spoil.
But I think it's a good project. It's a perfect area
for a Iow sill bulkhead to work, not only to control erosion
for the applicants upland, but also to recreate an
intertidal marsh area that has been largely bossed into
public drainage.
If the Board has any other questions about it, I'll be
happy to answer it.
TRUSTEE KING: Rob, we were out there and Mr. Finora said he
had a permit for a dock I guess he was (inaudible) or
whatever. I'd kind of like to see that on this plan so
everything's together.
MR. HERMANN: I spoke to Mr. Finora about that, my only
hesitancy about there is that I need to find out from him
when that permit was originally -- or actually when the dock
was originally constructed. I have a copy of the Trustees'
permit, it was dated in February of 1984.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Peggy's father signed the permit.
MR. HERMANN: At that time he would also have needed a
permit from the DEC. I have some reluctance to throw that
in with this project, because I would also have to address
it with the DEC. It takes time to find the permit; if by
chance there is no permit, it will cause to us to get
delayed. And I have spoken with personnel at the DEC who I
believe are going to look also favorably upon the project
and are willing to sort of expedite it so the work can be
Board of Trustees 45 Sept. 22, 2004
done as closely to the completion of the DOT project as
possible. So I would prefer not to introduce that into this
plan.
TRUSTEE KING: Later down the road it could be an
amendment.
MR. HERMANN: Right. Because we did include in the notes
here that the existing dock on the property farther from Bay
Avenue, that has to be removed and replaced. It probably
does not now need to be if we're going to eliminate that
last section of bulkhead, but I know he's probably looking
to reconstruct that. So I might have to come back anyway
for both of those structures. So if the Board wouldn't
mind, just because I don't know how much is going to be
involved with tying the dock in, if he has a permit for it
and he's removed it -- it's my understanding he removed it
in anticipation of the DOT project. So given that he has a
permit for it, it's been temporarily removed, I don't know
why the Board would absolutely need it to be shown on this
plan. Maybe I could revise the plan to include a note that
references your permit that it has been removed in
anticipation and that we would come back or something like
that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's just that we saw so we thought it --
MR. HERMANN: I appreciate it, but the permit just reads
application to construct floating dock in James Creek as per
specifications on application, but I don't know what the
specifications on the application even were. I mean, I have
this diagram, but it doesn't exactly show precisely where
the dock is supposed to be. So, I guess my point is I would
like to have some time to address it.
MR. JOHNSTON: Rob, in your permit you are requesting to
replant the spoils with spartina alterniflora, can you tell
me why you chose that as opposed to the spartina patens or
the juncos gerardia or the other things that we discussed earlier today?
MR. HERMANN: Because it's in the intertidal area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there's no other comment, I'll make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKi: I'll make a motion to approve the
application based on amended plans as discussed.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES
9. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of
ROBERT KELLER requests a Wetland Permit to construct an
Board of Trustees 46 Sept. 22, 2004
attached garage/addition with porch and decking, construct
an attached second story addition to the existing dwelling,
and to remove/replace the existing gravel driveway.
Located: 380 Knoll Circle, East Marion. SCTM # 37-5-11
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to speak
on behalf of this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson for Suffolk Environmental
Consulting for the applicant Robert Keller. We have before
you a survey prepared by Joseph Ingegno, which shows the
addition that would be constructed on the landward side of
the house. Also we have revised and actually scaled it down
on a site plan that was done by Mr. Keller's architect
(handing).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is this different from what we reviewed in
the field?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. The one you looked at was about 1,819
square feet. This was about 703 square feet, and it was
done to pull it away from the marsh, and to get it on to
higher elevations. This is an addition that's on the
landward side of the house. I don't think there are any
real environmental concerns. The septic system is in the
area of the turnaround in the driveway. There's nothing
that really can be done in connection with this project
related to the septic system. And it's not the type of
project that would result in the triggering of a permit for
the septic system in any event.
The proper~y is mostly bulkheaded. The adjacent
neighbors on both sides are bulkheaded. There is just a
small open area on the -- I guess it's the western pot[ion
of the properly that contains a high marsh with the surface
waters being seaward therein.
You have with you a letter from Joan Egan. Mrs. Egan
lives on the east side. I've discussed the application with
her. Her concerns relate to the weight of the structure and
the stability of the bulkhead. I don't simply see that has
a concern because it's placed on the landward side of the
house. She's also concerned about Mr. Keller's gas grill
and I assured her I would talk to Mr. Keller about that.
The project is fairly simple and straightforward. I'm here
to answer any questions you might have.
MS. TETRAULT: Al, do you remember the Trustees wanted to
know where the septic system -- where it was, if it was
going to be replaced?
MR. ANDERSON: The septic system is up near the street,
there's no reason to replace it. It's at the distance away
from the wetlands. There's no other place you would put it,
Board of Trustees 47 Sept. 22, 2004
there's been no septic failures that we're aware of.
There's no reason to fool with it.
MS. TETRAULT: They always ask for the upgrade.
MR. ANDERSON: If it were on the seaward side, it would be
on the application I assure you.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: How old is it?
MR. ANDERSON: The house has been redone, I'm going to say
it's about five or six years old. We had come before you
for the front deck.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: And you did the septic system at that time?
MR. ANDERSON: The house was re-done and they got hung up on
the front deck. We had actually represented them with the
DEC on that.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: We noticed some underground roof gutter
pipes.
MR. ANDERSON: I don't know what the dry well situation
is. You can certainly add them for the addition. I don't
think dry wells are an impediment for Mr. Keller or anyone
else.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: They may be there, Bruce, there's pipes
coming off the leaders.
MR. ANDERSON: Do the pipes go underground?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: We couldn't see them going out of the
bulkhead anywhere.
MR. ANDERSON: Probably has dry wells, but we should
probably add some for the addition.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Anything else, Bruce?
MR. ANDERSON: Fairly simple application.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Anybody else have any comments? Mrs.
Egan submitted a letter from what I can read, I have strong
objections in regard to the Keller enlargement.
MR. ANDERSON: I can paraphrase, she was worried about the
addition, the weight on the bulkhead. She's doesn't'get
along with them, that's clear. And she's very upset with
his gas grill, which, I assured her I would speak to him
about. Apparently the steak fumes waft across the property
line. Her house is only four and a half feet from the
property line. Maybe he should be a good neighbor and put
the gas grill somewhere else. That's what I will suggest to
him. We're not here for a gas grill permit.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you.
MR. PETER: My name is George Peter, I'm the president of
the Gardener's Homeowners Association, where Joan Egan and
the Kellers live. I'm aware of their disputes. The Kellers
are held in high esteem by everybody in the neighborhood,
they're organized, orderly. They have landscaped some of
Board of Trustees 48 Sept. 22, 2004
our property between their property line and the roads.
They're very well thought of in the association. Our real
estate committee has looked at everything and it has nothing
that violates our deed, which goes back to the '30s, so
everybody's in favor of the construction. All I can say in
regard to that grill, is that unfortunately the wind
generally blows nine times out of 10 in her direction, and
I've been arguing with her for years on this thing, and I
keep telling her blame mother nature, not Bart Keller, so I
just want to let you know in our respect everything is fine.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments? If not, one other
Board comment was that the driveway needed some drainage,
some large surface area there, needed to put a dry well to
catch some runoff.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I think if you're willing to resolve
this, I will come back with a plan that will provide for the
dry wells in the driveway, also for the addition because
they're not shown on the plan and they should be.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Hay bales during construction?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes, a line of hay bales. I'll make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland
Permit on behalf of Robert Keller to construct an attached
garage addition with a porch and decking, construct a second
story addition to the existing dwelling and remove and
replace the existing gravel driveway and stipulate that he
provide dry wells for the driveway's runoff as well as a
line of hay bales during construction.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
10. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of
BRUNO FRANKOLA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
1,120 square foot single-family dwelling and sanitary
system. Located: Northfield Road, Southold.
SCTM # 71-1-19.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak on behalf of this application?
MR. ANDERSON: When we were last here we had a public
hearing and a number of people from the community did show
up to express their concerns. I felt at the time we did
address those concerns. They mainly had to do with issues
of flooding, issues of the septic system being five feet
Board of Trustees 49 Sept. 22, 2004
from the road, runoff, things of that nature. My
representation was and still is that the septic system is
completely complaint with the applicable regulations,
including the five foot separation off the front lot line,
which is a Health Department requirement. Folks should
understand, though, that there is the actual paved edge of
the road is some 10 feet off the front lot line, and that
may be a source of confusion.
What we did was, the suggestion of your staff, we put
the house and we rotated it into what would be the northeast
corner as to maximize the setbacks from the wetland. That
setback was maximized to 50 feet, it was in the order of 22
feet prior to do that. We provide you with plans showing
that. The particular wetland in question is, it's really an
extension of a much more viable system that's located some
200 feet away to the east, and the back end of this wetland
is actually lawn, it's actually a lawn encroachment from the
neighbor who lives directly south of the property and we
submitted photos showing you that lawn encroachment.
There's no regular exchanges of water in there,
although presumably under a nor'easter-type condition,
hurricane-type condition waters from the creek, which is
some distance from the property, would be expected to at
least saturate the area. High marsh, marsh vegetation is
basically is phragmites, grousel and high marsh spartina
behind the phragmites to the south and away from the
project.
You asked us to stake out the property, stake out the
residence that was turned to relocate away from the
property, that was done. And I think we have covered all
the bases on this, but I'm here to answer any further
questions you may have.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We did go and look at it on Thursday,
but some of the neighbors felt the stakes had been moved.
MR. ANDERSON: The surveyor did them, we did not stake them.
We made sure he did that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There are some letters filed, to
paraphrase, please delay the destruction of our wetlands,
the concerns, pollution from construction debris and septic
disposal, post construction negative impact on our waters.
Mark and Margaret Bridgen had listed the four points. Last
month at the Trustees meeting you tabled a discussion your
reason for tabling was to have it restaked. When you
visited the site, the owner of the property still had not
restaked the location. They still felt it hadn't been
restaked. Notice of the Town Trustees meeting this month
Board of Trustees 50 Sept. 22, 2004
was not posted on the lot increase. In addition, the
neighbors weren't notified about the meeting.
MR. ANDERSON: Right.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: If this Wetland Permit is a request for
a variance, then that must mean there are already established
laws and protocol to protect these wetlands.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is this a variance?
MR. ANDERSON: No.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And then it asked if DEC permits and
Health Department permits.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, and they are applied for.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any Board comments?
TRUSTEE KING: Did CAC look at it at all?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, CAC looked at it and disapproved
it, this is at their meeting June 15th, so they didn't see
the updated plans; their recommendation as of June 15, 2004
was for disapproval was because the proposed house was too
close to the wetlands, and you moved that back. Is there
anybody else here that would like to speak for or against
this permit?
TRUSTEE KING: Any fill going to be brought in here at all?
MR. ANDERSON: No.
MR. CONLOW: My name is Andrew Conlow, I used to live at
Margot and Mark Bridgen's house. I've lived in that
neighborhood for over 30 years, and I still maintain some of
the houses there and mow their lawns and whatnot. Bruce and
I know each other, and I have to say that that land, I have
not seen saturated -- I have seen underwater, during
hurricanes, during nor'easters, during tropical storms.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: How about Saturday, what did it look like
Saturday?
MR. CONLOW: I wasn't there Saturday, I can imagine it was
pretty backed up there. I take care of that house that's
right next to their property, not the Hamilton's house, the
Lyman's house to the east of that property. I have seen
their lower lot, the water line actually come up there
during a hurricane or a tropical storm. I actually see
seaweed up on that lawn. So saturation is, I would say, is
not the right word, I would say underwater is the right
word. That's really all.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seaweed from where?
MR. CONLOW: Harbor Lights Creek, it comes over the creek
comes on the marsh. I've lived there over 30 years. I've
been there since I was seven, eight years old, since
1967. I've seen Goose Creek Bridge, which is down the road
aways, the bridge is the only thing above water. So that's
Board of Trustees 51 Sept. 22, 2004
my comment, thank you.
MS. TETRAULT: It is in a flood zone.
MR. ANDERSON: My response, if you look at the survey, we're
in an AE-8 flood zone, this house is located between the 8
and the 6 foot contour. This is simply a house that will
not have a basement because the regulations won't permit it,
and that the septic system itself is placed on the highest
part of the lot, and that contrasts greatly with the
property due west owned by Hamilton, which would be leaching
pools, according to the survey, are down on the Iow part of
the lot.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: No basement?
MR. ANDERSON: Cannot have a basement on this property, the
reason is the modern regulations relating to the FEMA
preclude a basement. It would have a crawl space.
MS. EBELING: Barbara Ebeling, I live to the south of this.
I have a wood pile on this survey and that wood pile is
floated. I live to the south of this property and the wood
pile has been surrounded by water and has actually moved.
The water comes right up to my pool fence. I was not there
Saturday. I was in Lake George, which it didn't rain, but
it does come up.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Go ahead, ma'am.
MS. BRIDGEN: Hi, I'm Margot Bridgen. We live at 1700 North
Parrish Drive, we're across the road from that property.
And I guess since we've gotten off the track a little bit
before tonight, I just want to take a minute to say that we
are good neighbors, and however this turns out, we'll be the
first ones there with a casserole if this goes through. I
have the same question tonight that I had in June when I
first found out about this, and that is why anyone would
want to build a house on this lot.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: There's no more land.
MS. BRIDGEN: That's not a good enough reason. If they want
a water view, which I guess must be what they're going for,
they're going to get a real close water view, and it's not
going to be the water that they want to see is what it seems
like. And I guess I'm concerned that if this does go forth,
and a house ends up on the corner that is higher and dryer
than the rest, what happens when the CO's been granted and
all the permits are granted and everybody's gone, what is to
prevent them from deciding that they want to fill that a
little bit of that? At that point is it just neighbors
policing?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's usually pretty effective, that's
usually the case.
Board of Trustees 52 Sept. 22, 2004
MS. TETRAULT: Anything closer than a hundred feet.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: We only can deal, as stated earlier, with
environmental issues. It's not up to us to determine
whether a lot is buildable or not buildable, that's up to
the Building Department and Federal Emergency Management
Agency.
MS. BRIDGEN: So as long as they have met the requirements.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: We just have to deal with the environmental
issue. It's obviously a deeded building lot. It's shown on
the map that it's a deeded building lot. I've heard the
statement so many times, there's no such thing as an
unbuildable lot, there have been a couple since I've been on
the Board, but they have to do whatever's necessary to make
it accommodating.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: They moved it back.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's not our decision to determine that
it's not a buildable lot, unless the environmental issues
are such, the constraints are so that you couldn't put the
house in there and we've had a couple of them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What we normally do in a lot, regardless
of its size, is we try to make setbacks that are going to
protect the wetlands. In this case a lot of that area is
already mowed. Actually I'd like to put no mowing adjacent
to the wetland area.
MR. ANDERSON: Behind it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That would be on their property.
MR. ANDERSON: I guess Barbara Ebeling is mowing where the
wood pile is. I don't want to get the woman in trouble. I
don't think -- my view is because ii you go down to the back
of the property, wetlands do come in various grades, and
what I keep saying we show you the high marsh located as per
the tidal wetland map, in the right-hand corner, this is
really a swale; it's really what we're talking about. I do
agree that under extreme storm conditions it would flood, I
do agree that when it rains, water would seek the Iow spot,
I agree with all that. But this is not the type of
situation, where you have surface waters involved, you might
have shellfish involved, that sort of thing. And the high
marsh is dominated by my least favorite plant of all, which
you all know what that is. So you make the best of what you
can. It is a small house on a small lot, and it's what we
have here. And I understand it's the last undeveloped lot
in the neighborhood. And every time I come on an
application, that's always a problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Because that's the one that's left.
MR. ANDERSON: That's right. And people live in
Board of Trustees 53 Sept. 22, 2004
neighborhoods. They don't like to see change, I understand
that too, but it is someone's lot.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Normally we would like to see a
nondisturbance, can we put a 50 foot limit around that
wetlands as far as possible around the house?
MR. ANDERSON: I would suggest you do something variable so
you're not inviting a violation down the road. And we have
given you a sketch showing that I believe.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Clearing limit.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: 50 foot clearing limit, 50 foot
nondisturbance, isn't that what we're looking at?
MR. ANDERSON: The other thing you need to put dry wells and
hay bales.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You have dry wells, you could put the hay
bale line at the clearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You have elevations on that survey?
MR. ANDERSON: We're good, there is a test hole.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh it shows four eight. I would suggest that
we move this along.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Board is happy with all those
conditions. I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Make a motion to approve the Wetland
Permit to construct 1,120 single-family dwelling and
sanitary system on Northfield Road in Southold on the plans
with the edge of clearing and ground disturbance so there
would be nondisturbance area along that line with staked hay
bales, gutters and dry wells.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you very much.
11. Allan C. Dickerson on behalf of CHARLOTTE DICKERSON
requests a Wetland Permit to construct beach stairs from the
top of the bluff to the beach. Located: 4630 Blue Horizon
Bluffs, Peconic. SCTM # 74-1-35.51
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in
favor of the application?
MR. DICKERSON: I'm Allan Dickerson. The only reason we're
asking for this is that because we have no public access to
the beach. The closest one is Goldsmith Inlet, which is
between one and two miles to the east, and Duck Pond Road,
Cutchogue, which is probably four or five miles to the west.
We're about 30 feet above the high water mark there, and
we're in the process of constructing a cottage there and
Board of Trustees 54 Sept. 22, 2004
we'd like to have access to the beach.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, anybody else like to comment?
Do I have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to approve?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to approve the
application.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I will recuse myself.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? FOUR AYES.
MR. JOHNSTON: Did you recuse yourself on the last one, I
was unclear?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, I did recuse myself on Charlotte
Dickerson.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'd like to see after the stairs are
done, a little replanting after the stairs.
12. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of
SUSAN H. JEFFERIE$ requests a Wetland Permit to remove the
existing concrete block wall and patio, to construct a
screen porch, gates, sitting wall, open cabana, pool,
enclosed cabana and pool equipment. Located: East End
Road, Fishers Island. SCTM # 1-2-11.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of
the application?
TRUSTEE KING: If there are no comments, I'll make a motion
to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the
application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
13. Environmental East, Inc. on behalf of RITA M. JONES
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-story 10' by
26' addition on the landward side of the existing house.
Located: 1335 Island View Lane, Greenport. SCTM # 57-2-15
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment
on this application? If not, I looked at it, as far as the
Board is concerned it's self-explanatory, it's the landward
side of the house, far from the wetlands. The only thing
I'll recommend is for dry wells and gutters for roof runoff.
So if no other Board comments, I'll make a motion to close
the public hearing.
Board of Trustees 55 Sept. 22, 2004
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland
Permit on behalf of Rita M. Jones with the addition of dry
wells and gutters for roof runoff containment.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll recuse myself from Number 13.
14. Swim King Pools on behalf of ANTHONY IENNA requests a
wetlands permit to install an 18' by 36' in-ground swimming
pool. Located: 2400 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM # 78-2-41
MR. IENNA: Hi, I'm Anthony lenna, i'll answer any questions
you may have.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any comments, neighbors? If not, as far
as Board comments I looked at this; I met with Mr. lenna. I
didn't see any problem with it. CAC recommended approval.
They recommended hay bales placed down prior to the
construction, no problem there. It's a good idea. If any
other comments.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Put in the dry wells for the backwash.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes, I mentioned that. If no other
comments, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland
Permit on behalf of Anthony lenna for a swimming pool with
the condition that hay bales are placed down prior to
construction as well as a backwash dry well for the pool
itself.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
15. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of ANDREW WEINER
requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing dock and
replace with 152' by 4' fixed open catwalk with three pile
bays at a minimum height of 3.5' above vegetated grade, 20'
by 32" aluminum ramp, 6' by 20' float secured by two 2-pile
dolphins, with 15' by 4' ramp to grade at landward end of
catwalk. Located: 2185 Westview Drive, Mattituck.
SCTM 107-7-12.
TRUSTEE KING: There's a question on who owns the land,
because the previous owners wanted to get a permit for the
dock, and there was a question on ownership, it was actually
Trustee land, and they wanted to get a quick-claim deed
through us. Then the property was sold, and we never heard
Board of Trustees 56 Sept. 22, 2004
about anything. Now there's an application in for a whole
new dock. So we have to figure out exactly where the
property line is and how much of it is Trustee land.
I'll make a motion we table this until we get the
ownership of the land resolved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually, we should put it on for field
inspection anyway, well, you'll take a look at the file,
fill us in if we need to see it again. We probably do, they
have a permit for some dock.
TRUSTEE KING: The original name was Gallagher.
16. Coastal Consultants, Inc. on behalf of PECONIC LAND
TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to replace in-kind/in-place
three existing weirs waive breaks; resurface approximately
280 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with PVC
corrugated sheathing within an existing hatchery trough;
maintenance dredge to minus 6' mean Iow water removing
approximately 140 cubic yards clean sand from area of
approximately 700 square feet within the weir; dredge to
minus 4' mean Iow water approximately 265 cubic yards clean
sand fill from an area of approximately 2400 square feet
within hatchery trough; excavate/clean out an approximate
40' long culvert connecting the hatchery trough on the north
side of the building and the lagoon on the south side of the
hatchery removing approximately 80 cubic yards clean sand;
disposal of approximately 580 cubic yards total of clean
sand dredge material upland on applicant's property with
capacity of approximately 640 cubic yards, raising grade
approximately 2'; all dredging to be undertaken twice over
10 years with disposal of the second dredging upland on the
applicant's property or in approved upland disposal site.
All dredge material is clean sand. Replace existing Quonset
Hut building with a Morton Steel or equivalent building.
Located: 10273 North Bayview Road Extension, Southold, SCTM
# 79-5-20.2.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak on behalf of this application?
MR. STANTON: Donald Stanton, Coastal Consultants on behalf
of Peconic Land Trust. The project is well-described in the
section that you read. There have been no changes to it,
and I'm here to answer any questions you might have.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think there were some questions about
how the property was going to be used afterwards. That was
a consideration because we went out on the site and it
Board of Trustees 57 Sept. 22, 2004
looked like, I don't know, it looked like something that I
didn't expect. And we just wanted to know how the project
was going to be used, because obviously anything that's put
into the Quonset Hut is going to be directly flushed into
the bay, that was one of our concerns.
MR. STANTON: I think that question can be best addressed by
Karen Rivera.
MS. RIVERA: I'm Karen Rivera, I manage the preserve with my
husband Greg. You're questioning what the use would be of
the property? The use of the greenhouse would basically
revert back to the original use, which would be to put
shellfish in racks or cages in the greenhouse and hold them
or grow them in there to market size, possibly put in tidal
updwellers, but they would be contained within the trough in
the greenhouse. That creek way is filled in so that
anything that can be done inside that building that was once
done inside that building can no longer be done in there
because there's no water depth. Actually, the tide doesn't
even run in there at Iow tide. So everything's had to be
moved out onto that long dock that you saw. So we're trying
to make that a useful facility again.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We had some discussion with the Peconic
Land Trust afterwards, and they're going to send us their
plans, and we're going to review them first just to get a
better idea about how to proceed down there.
MS. RIVERA: In terms of how they want to manage it?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, just the physical facility is one
thing, but, like I said, anything that's done. I mean, we
walked in the Quonset, we were afraid to walk down any
further because it was in such disrepair, there was a lot of
garbage and whatnot, and anything that falls into the
Quonset gets flushed out to the bay.
MS. RIVERA: Right. A lot of the stuff in there, because
the site was not used for so long, needs to be taken out --
so you're referring to the black poly pipe that was way back
in the building?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There was all kinds of -- we went in from
the bay side, there's all kinds of stuff.
MS. RIVERA: All that needs to be taken out so it can be
cleaned.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: What do you do with the oysters after
they're market size?
MS. RIVERA: Sell them. Part of the facility will be used,
there's a cooperative that would lease space from the Land
Trust and also we do work with researchers, public education
and restoration projects. We donate seed to the Town.
Board of Trustees 58 Sept. 22, 2004
TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's what the money gets used for? The
money from the sale of the shellfish gets used for those
projects?
MS. RIVERA: The cooperative actually works with
researchers, like we would work with the SPAT folks, for
instance.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: The money's used for funding, in other
words, from the shellfish is used for projects?
MS. RIVERA: More it works where we put our time into
projects. In other words, if a researcher had a project
that involved let's say growing bay scallops and they wanted
to work with commercial folks because we produce so much
product that they can do things on a commercial scale, then
we would work with them on a project. So we would put in
our time and effort on the research project and work with
the researchers.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Where does the money from the sale of the
shellfish, where does that go?
MS. RIVERA: To the individual companies.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: So it's a private entity really?
MS. RIVERA: I brought a narrative that I can give you that
describes the cooperative if you want to know who would be
using the site. The cooperative is a non-profit. It's a
group of small scale growers that work together because
there is no opportunity to access waterfront for small scale
growers, you know, to buy a million dollar piece of property
to grow shellfish, you're just not going to get a return on
your investment. So that's how we would access the
property, but the projects that would go on down there would
be commercial production of shellfish by small scale
growers, but we would also work with public education,
restoration groups like SPAT and researchers; that's how we
function. We have been in existence since 2000. We started
in Connecticut, and right now we're working on a project in
the Oyster River Coalition to establish oysters in the
rivers. But it's more we put in our time and effort.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You're confusing me. The cooperative's
not for profit but you're dealing with commercial growers?
MS. RIVERA: The cooperative is the entity -- it's like an
umbrella. In other words, the cooperative sells the
product, but then they pay the grower for the product that
they sell. So it's an entity through which the money flows;
it's a different sort of business entity. But it would be
like a grain growers cooperative. They more exist out in
the midwest. It's a grower's cooperative so we can pool our
product and sell and access markets.
Board of Trustees 59 Sept. 22, 2004
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You also mentioned allow access to all
baymen.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We want to see what the Land Trust says
about that.
TRUSTEE KING: I had a question on the old oyster boat; who
does that belong to?
MS. RIVERA: Paradise Point, the first tenant the Land Trust
had.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Paradise Point Homeowner's Association?
MS. RIVERA: No, it's Paradise Point Oyster Farm, Robert
Parino.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is his intention with that? That
looks like part of the garbage that's laying around there.
TRUSTEE KING: We've been asking them to move that for quite
a while, I think, as a matter of fact, probably under our
code should be removed. It's not seaworthy at all. It's an
accident waiting to sink. It's got tar paper and plastic
patched over holes. It's not seaworthy in my estimation.
MS. RIVERA: I guess what I can say about the project is the
intention is to clean the site up and make it useable and
make it so that those types of things aren't down there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's really -- I mean, I've been working
with the Land Trust down there for years since the whole
property was developed, and that's new, that wasn't there
like 10 years ago.
MS. RIVERA: You mean the oyster boat?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MS. RIVERA: No, it wasn't.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's something somebody dragged in there
and left. Is it used? What is the purpose of it? Why is
it there?
MS. RIVERA: I would love to see it go.
MS. TETRAULT: It was brought in by Rob when he was a tenant
before Karen.
MS. RIVERA: He's not a member of the cooperative. He has
nothing to do with this.
TRUSTEE KING: But he still has stuffthere on the property.
MS. RIVERA: He's still leasing space from the Land Trust on
that property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's one of the issues we have to deal
with the Land Trust. Because environmentally it could be a
problem and all that other gear that's laying around.
TRUSTEE KING: That's something we have to address, all
these years.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If it sinks it's sitting on our bottom.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If it sinks it's our problem.
Board of Trustees 60 Sept. 22, 2004
MS. RIVERA: It's not the intention of the site to have
derelict boats down there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Go back to Mr. Stanton. We need a little
more detailed specs on the building itself, height?
MR. STANTON: Well, the height of the building that would
replace this would be the same height of the existing
building. You may have noticed that the existing building
was in a state of disrepair not to mention the foundation it
was sitting on, and it's, of course, the purpose of this
project here to restore the foundation for the building to
clear the trough and the culverts both in and out of the
building and to replace the building itself with something
with integrity to last some 30 years or so or possibly
more.
With respect to the site itself, in the process of
doing this work, certainly any materials on that site in and
around that building that don't belong there would be
removed, I'm talking about the local area, the working area
where the building would be replaced and its foundation
replaced.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right. I'd like to table this until
we get more information from the Land Trust.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES.
MR. STANTON: Do I understand that the additional
information has to do with the operation of the site; is
that correct?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mostly, yes.
MR. STANTON: But this specific plan to replace the
foundation, the building and the weir at the Shelter Island
Sound and dredging of the culverts on both ends of that,
that that portion of the project is acceptable as described
and shown in the plan?
MR. FOSTER: Are you going to replace the concrete
foundation as well as the building?
MR. STANTON: The timber foundation would be replaced with a
PVC equivalent to it in-place. So in other words, we would
be replacing the walls of the troth, if you think of it,
from the inside out. There are two concrete culverts at
each end, they would remain but dredging is required because
it's not a continuous flow of tidal water through the trough
at all times because there's been so much silting on the
Shelter Island Sound side and some on the south side where
the lagoon is. So the purpose is to make this a functional
working plant.
MS. TETRAULT: He was asking if you would approve of the
Board of Trustees 61 Sept. 22, 2004
specifics here?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We should get all the information.
MS. TETRAULT: I didn't know if you wanted to talk about
those things.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No. We need to review everything.
There's no point in going over part of it. Questions are
still out there. It's a big project. From what's down
there now, it does not look that promising, kind of rough
looking. We kind of want to make sure from an environmental
standpoint it's an operation that's not going to have an
negative impact in the short or long term.
MR. STANTON: If I may say, the specific things that we're
asking to get approval for don't involve some of the aspects
of the site that you mention. We're talking specifically
about replacing things not in-kind, but with a better
material, PVC, but in-place, same dimensions as exist now,
and again, to restore the flow through the facility.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We wanted to get an idea of how the
facility would be used.
MR. STANTON: Yes, I understand.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you have any DEC permits yet on this?
MR. STANTON: The application is in DEC, and they're
operating on it now. We haven't gotten a result yet.
MS. RIVERA: I just wanted to add one more thing, the site
is in disrepair and part of the reason that it does look the
way it does down there is because that building is in such
bad shape. The intent is to fix the building and have that
part of the process of cleaning up the property and making
it function better and look nicer and not be causing any of
Board of Trustees 62 Sept. 22, 2004
the concerns that you expressed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Okay
17. Samuels and Steelman on behalf of THOMAS CHRISTIANSON
requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing dwelling
and construct a new a 862 square foot dwelling and sanitary
system. Located: 7065 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk.
SCTM 117-5-30.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment
on this application?
MR. CHRISTIANSON: Yes, I'm Tom Christianson. I know some
of you have gone and looked at the property. I want to give
a little bit of a history of what brought me to this point.
My wife and I got the property several years back and our
intention was to rebuild the existing house. It's a circa
1800, we're not exactly sure when the house was built. It's
been a residence as long as it's been built, but because of
the different requirements that would have to be asked for
variance for the different requirements by the building code
and everybody, we weren't sure what to do, whether to
rebuild it. Some of the Trustees came out. I know Al and
Ken and I think Peggy and Lauren came out and we looked at
it. The suggestion was instead of trying to rebuild the
house where it was and then try to put the septic system out
further, closer to the wetlands, it would make more sense
you would like to see us move the house further in and that
way we'd get the 40 foot setback off the road, as the Town
would like us to have, and also allow us to put the septic
system up in the high ground, and so we pursued that. And
that's where we're at. We're applying to the DEC, to the
Health Department and to you prior to going to the Building
Department. And Ill answer whatever questions I can.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any Board comments? We looked at it
twice, three times.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Yes, we have been there a number of times.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Are we happy with this plan?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I don't know how else you could do it. I
think you just need to show a a hay bale line and a
nondisturbance line.
MS. TETRAULT: The one thing you said because it's so close
to the water, maybe should have some kind of berm or some
kind planting of buffer which would improve what's there,
which is a line of phragmites.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Do you have a suggestion, Heather?
MS. TETRAULT: Sure. Take out the phragmites and put in
some baccharis uplands.
Board of Trustees 63 Sept. 22, 2004
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In what area?
MS. TETRAULT: Along the water.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: One comment was to have a nondisturbance
buffer at the four foot contour line, rather than a set
fixed number of 30 feet or 40 feet, you can see your way
through the four foot contour line on the lay of the land.
We set nondisturbance buffers on every wetland permit.
You're really tight there.
MR. CHRISTIANSON: I understand, and I would have included
it but that's not my area of expertise. As Al said, we
tried to figure out where best to put the septic system.
The house never had a septic system, the previous owners had
an outhouse.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: By the survey, you'd probably want to
live in your septic system, it looks twice as big as your
house.
MR. CHRISTIANSON: People say it's a small house and it is,
but we also want to keep it within keeping with the size of
the lot and what has been in New Suffolk for all these
years, and I picture we can have a comfortable, single
bedroom, somebody asked me today if I would consider going
to a larger home on the lot, and I just don't think, I
wouldn't feel right about a larger home. It would be
heavier flow on the septic system. I think a single bedroom
dwelling, which is what has been there for all these years
would be the max for the lot. It's a good for the lot, but
I don't think it would be good for a family of eight or 6
people. Somebody asked me, they said, I have a family of
six, would you consider building. I said no. I think the
suggestion that the Trustees made when they were there,
which is reflected in the plan is the only one we could come
up with that would allow us to maintain a residence there.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Other comments from the CAC recommends
approval with the condition the house is moved to the
northwest and the septic tanks are relocated to the south as
necessary. And the two large oak trees should not be taken
down. CAC further recommends the storm water committee
investigate the Town drain in front of the subject property.
MR. CHRISTIANSON: There's a drain that brings a lot of silt
in. The idea of the oak trees is definitely to leave them.
It's pretty important to us. I live across the street. I
don't want to see more taken down than needs to be taken
down. Moving the house, the suggestion to the north?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We looked at that in the office, in the
field when we went out there. We couldn't see where that
was going to make a ~- if you moved your house five feet one
Board of Trustees 64 Sept. 22, 2004
way or the other how that will make a difference.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Environmentally moving it one way or the
other, I didn't see a big change.
MR. CHRISTIANSON: Again, my feeling was, reading over the
concerns of the DEC and your articles too, it seemed to me
the square footage of the house is going to remain the same.
I don't think we're going to affect the wetlands. In terms
of placement of the house, I never thought of it to the
north except that would put it even closer to the wetlands
and we tried to maximize the distance from the wetlands for
the house and the septic system, and the trade off by moving
the house, it only moves the house something like five or
six feet closer to the wetlands than it is now by going east
with the house.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I think this Board was comfortable with
the plans submitted. If no other comments make a motion to
close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll recommend approval of the Wetland
Permit on behalf of Thomas Christianson to demolish the
existing dwelling and construct a new 862 square foot
dwelling and sanitary system. Located: 7065 New Suffolk
Road, with the condition that a hay bale line be placed down
at the four foot contour line during construction. And
we'll allow that to remain there after construction to
establish the nondisturbance buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You need some kind of elaborate plan to
replant the phragmites there.
MS. TETRAULT: We can do it.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Get your house squared away and we can
work on the wetlands.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Put that in as a component. That the
applicant can work with the Trustee office to replant some
of the phragmites area with wetland.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: As a second condition have a replanting
plan as part of the permit.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
18. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of THEODORE
LAOUDIS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 252'
retaining wall within 18 inches in front of existing
retaining wall using C-Loc 4500 vinyl sheathing, 9 inch
diameter piling, and 6' by 6' foot stringers, place 45 to 50
cubic yards of clean, trucked-in fill between existing and
Board of Trustees 65 Sept. 22, 2004
new retaining wall; place 1,500 to 1,800 pound boulders in
front of new retaining wall; reconstruct existing 5.5' by
20' stairs; construct a new set of 5.5' by 20'stairs on the
south side of the property; remove and dispose of a total of
107' of bulkhead and construct a total of 107' of bulkhead
using C-Loc 4500 vinyl sheathing; remove and dispose of the
most seaward 20' section of existing jetty and construct a
new 20' section of jetty using C-Loc 4500 vinyl sheathing;
remove and dispose of a 35' section of bulkhead and
construct a new 35' section of bulkhead using C-Loc 4500
vinyl sheathing. Located: 405 Kimberley Lane,
Southold. SCTM 70-13-20.3 and 20.4.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here who would like to speak
in favor of this application?
MR. COSTELLO: George Costello, Senior, representing
Mr. Laoudis. Back in August 30th of this year, I had a one
line recommendation from the DEC and that was to restore the
existing jetty to the original height, and I think that's
what Mrs. Dickerson asked me at the last public hearing,
that was all they said.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that shown on the plans?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: If there's no other comments, I'll make a
motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application
as stated.
TRUSTEE POLiWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
19. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of JOSEPH
K. LOGIUDICE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by
108' fixed timber catwalk with a boat-lift. The catwalk is
proposed to be elevated a minimum of 4' above the apparent
high water mark and will utilize four 4" by 4" piles with a
depth of penetration 6' plus, and (26) 6" diameter timber
piles with a depth of penetration of 10' plus. The boat
lift is proposed to be an "Alum-A-Vator" utilizing (8) 10"
diameter timber piles with a depth of penetration of 10'
plus. Located: 10995 North Bayview Road, Southold.
SCTM # 79-5-20.13.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on
behalf of this application?
MR. HALL: Yes, Dan Hall with Land Use. Boat lift has been
removed from the project, just four 10" diameter tie-off
Board of Trustees 66 Sept. 22, 2004
piles, and since the last meeting, which I guess had been
tabled, we went out and did some site investigations on the
bottom sediment and observations, and we submitted a letter
to that on August 8th indicating there was a concern
regarding some eel grass that washed up. And we looked
around with masks. I went there a couple times, we couldn't
find any eel grass growing on or near the site, and the
sediment on the site was consistently coarse sand and rocks,
had some algae and seaweed growing on it, which is not
consistent with transporting sand in the area of the
proposed dock.
I'll answer any questions the Board might have
regarding this.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I guess we were mistaken. It was codium
grass that was growing out there, not eel grass. We assumed
it was eel grass because there was about a 3 inch mound of
eel grass up and down the shoreline, so we looked out and
saw this massive vegetation, and it ended up being codium,
which is equally important because it does provide sanctuary
for scallops to set on.
MR. HALL: We didn't observe anything other than sea lettuce
on the bottom in the area of the dock.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We had our environmental technician look
at the site. She took 100 foot by 100 foot sample of the
site, which she sampled and found several species there.
She found codium fragile, filamentous red algae, channeled
whelk, spider crabs, hermit crabs, sand crabs, lady crabs,
crepidula fornicate, large shell clams, razor clams, large
schools of silversides (Menidia menidia), ghost shrimp, tube
worms. Sounds like quite a bit.
MR. HALL: I'm sure in a 100' by 100' area anywhere in the
bay you would find those species, I would imagine.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That would probably be the area impacted
by a vessel and a dock.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My biggest concern in this particular
application is that it's area of unaltered shoreline, and
that it's very pristine, and there's not a lot of docks and
that one of the main goals of the Peconic Estuary program is
no net shore increase of hardened shoreline in the Peconic
Estuary. Who looked at this?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I did. I'm just trying to move it along.
MR. HALL: There's some groins associated with the inlet, to
the west, and to the east there's another dock. I don't
know how far away it is.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There is one dock far down to the east,
and that dock I fished out in those waters for the last 20
Board of Trustees 67 Sept. 22, 2004
years. I've never seen a boat docked alongside that dock
yet. That guy has a rubber dingy, when he comes in with his
vessel, he anchors it probably 300 feet offshore, and he
runs a rubber raft to that dock, which, in that case --
MR. HALL: There's four feet of water depth at the end of
the dock. So at least two and-a-half feet separation
between the boat there and the bottom.
MS. TETRAULT: Just notice from what I gave you too just had
some of the things to keep in mind is the location because
there have been docks around the corner that in ice and
storms they have just torn out and washed up down the beach.
So it's a pretty bad location as far as the northeast.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Some of those pilings from the docks
around the corner are just east of Cedar Beach. They're
sitting on the beach.
MS. TETRAULT: They're still there from two winters ago. I
think that, and what Peggy said in the new code there's all
kinds of things about keeping the beaches that don't have
docks without docks.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh If there's no other comment.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There's one other important comment to
mention that there is a fish trap out there, and this dock
will likely have an impact on the fishery of that fish
trap.
MR. HALL: It's pretty far to the northwest. I saw it.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Not that far away.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We're going to reserve judgment on this.
We're not going to vote tonight. Reserve our decision.
20: Land Use Ecological Service, Inc., on behalf of SKUNK
LANE TRUST CIO BRADLEY AND MARY KRAUSE requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a timber catwalk with ladder at the end
of the catwalk. Located: 9105 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue.
SCTM # 104-3018.1.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment?
MR. HALL: Dan Hall of Land Use. I believe this is what was
discussed on in the field.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is what we discussed, we met with
Kelly in the field.
TRUSTEE KING: If there's no other comments, I make a motion
to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
Board of Trustees 68 Sept. 22, 2004
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve as per these
new plans we have.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Recess for a moment.
(A brief recess was taken)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to give one one-year
extension to Susan Becker for a 4' by 60' dock in Richmond
Creek upon payment of what is due to this office, which
includes the normal fee plus the extension fee.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.