HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-02/16/2005Albert 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
Tele~phone (631} 765-1892
Fax (631} 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MINUTES
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
7:00 PM
Present were: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President
James King, Vice-President
Artie Foster, Trustee
Kenneth Poliwoda, 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, March 17, 2005
at 8:00 a.m.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to approve,
TRUSTEE KING seconded. All AYES.
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 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 November 17, 2004.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to approve,
TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES.
I. MONTHLY REPORT: For January, 2005, a check for
$5,976.71 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.
Board of Trustees 2 February 16, 2005
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Welcome to our regular monthly meeting. I
have a resolution here, the Board of Trustees of the Town of
Southold hereby find the following applications more fully
described in the public hearing from the Trustee Agenda
dated Wednesday, February 16, 2005 are classified as Type II
actions pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review rules
and regulations and are not subject to review under SEQRA:
James lannone SCTM#51-1-17
Liliana Nealon SCTM#52-5-24
Charles M. Wendy SCTM#56-5-28
Anthony Cacioppo SCTM#92-1-4
Skunk Lane Trust SCTM#104-3-18.1
James Murray and Susan Segur SCTM#145-4-3
Robert and Eileen Schiavetta sss57-1-3
Nancy Carroll SCTM#90-1-21
Thomas Willdigg SCTM#86-1-4.1
Lauren Praus & Mark Schwartz SCTM#111-1-13.1
Mary Raynor SCTM#116-4-21
Virginia Conway SCTM#115-10-4
IV. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh There are a number of items tonight that have
been postponed. Under Applications for Amendments, Number
6, Gregory Mazzanobile there will be no action on this
evening.
MR. FITZGERALD: May I ask why?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Because it hasn't been resolved. We
closed the hearings, we're withholding decision.
MR. FITZGERALD: When can we expect an answer?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As soon as we have the information we need
to get and are satisfied with our review.
MR. FITZGERALD: It would have been nice if we had known
about it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It was not supposed to be on the
agenda. I didn't know it was on until about 5:30 tonight.
MR. FITZGERALD: I must be missing something.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It wasn't on for hearing anyway. It
wasn't on for public comment. It shouldn't have been on
here at all.
MR. FITZGERALD: Are you saying that was the way it was left
at the end of the last meeting?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Correct. It wasn't going to be on the
agenda automatically this month.
MR. FITZGERALD: Isn't that ordinarily the way it works?
Board of Trustees 3 February 16, 2005
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Once the hearing is closed, no.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 3, Schembri Homes has been
postponed, this is under Wetland Permits and Public
Hearings. Number 11, J and C Holding is postponed. Number
12 Barry Ball and Kimberly Vanzee is postponed. Number 13
Mary DiGregorio is postponed. Number 14, Alan Cardinale is
postponed. Number 15, James Murray and Susan Segur are
postponed, and Number 2, Angelo Padavan postponed.
1. LAUREN PRAUS & MARK SCHWARTZ request an Administrative
Permit to construct a second-floor addition on to the
existing single-family dwelling. Located: 375 Fisherman's
Beach Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 111-1-13.1.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I looked at this this afternoon, someone
commented on checking on the buffer along the
bulkhead. There was already decking going almost all the
way around. It's just going straight up to the second
floor. I have one concern only because it's very close to
the water, there's not a lot of work area, I guess they can
work on it along the road side. So I didn't have any
problem. I'll make the motion to approve the request to
construct a second floor addition to the existing
single-family dwelling at 375 Fisherman's Beach Road in
Cutchogue.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For public information, what we're acting
on now and also the next section of the agenda are not
really public hearings, however, if anyone has any comment,
please don't hesitate. We'll welcome any comments.
2. MARY RAYNOR requests an Administrative Permit to
upgrade the existing septic system. Located: 575 Beachwood
Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#116-4-21
TRUSTEE KING: We all looked at this. It's an upgrade of
the system. I don't think any of us had a problem with it.
I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
3. Nigel Robert Williamson, Amhitect on behalf of CLAUDIO
AND CAMILLE SCIARA requests an Administrative Permit to
install a 16' by 32' above-ground swimming pool, deck and 6'
high vinyl fence. Located: 235 Rabbit Lane, East Marion.
SCTM#31-17-9
Board of Trustees 4 February 16, 2005
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this. It wasn't staked so
I'll make a motion to table. I just have to comment, I went
to look at the site on Sunday, there were no stakes in the
ground, nothing was staked. I couldn't make heads or tails
of how far into the wetlands you are going to run the fence,
how close the pool would be to the wetlands.
MR. WILLIAMSON: There were no ribbons?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No, nothing. What I'd like is staked
corners closest to the wetlands for the pool and deck, and
stakes where the fence will end. I'll probably recommend 10
feet back from the wetlands delineation line where the
baccharis was, give a 10 foot easement for the
animals. What you have along this fence here four homes and
there's six foot vinyl fence. I wanted to see exactly where
it was. The property line wasn't specific. How far off
these houses this fence would be. It seemed like a pretty
big project for the area. The fence was actually bigger
than some of these homes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When I looked at this I didn't notice the
fence. I only saw the pool part of the application. It
didn't seem that big a deal. So the fencing you think is
more of an issue than the pool itself?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes. I think the fence would be a bigger
issue, you're blocking off the wildlife corridors above the
lake itself.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How far down did the fence go?
MR. WlLLIAMSON: It was three foot off the tie line. There was
yellow flags there about four, five weeks ago. On some of
the pictures you can see the ties.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Pictures on the sides. How far is it proposed
to go down off the water?.
MR. WlLLIAMSON: Three feet offthe tie line.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There is no fence in the whole area. I was kind
of uncomfortable looking at the size of this fence and going
right up to the wetland edge.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You don't want to segment the wildlife
corridor.
MR. WlLLIAMSON: I kept it offthree feet but if it's 10
feet you want.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Again, it wasn't marked.
MR. WlLLIAMSON: I apologize, on the pictures you can
actually see the ties on there. It was originally --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC didn't look at this?
MS. MCGREEVY: No.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh
MS. STANDISH: It was an Administrative Permit.
Board of Trustees 5 February 16, 2005
MR. WILLIAMSON: So this goes over until next month?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: March 23rd we'll be voting on it.
MS. TETRAULT: The hearing is the 23rd, they will go over
there on the 17th.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I made a motion to table. Do I have a
second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
4. Richard Romeo on behalf of JOSEPHINE PEARLSTEIN
requests an Administrative Permit to construct a screened
enclosure on an existing deck. Located: 2225 North Sea
Drive, Southold. SCTM# 54-4-23.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is something I saw today. It's on
the Sound. I have a picture of this. If you would like to
see the picture. It's a wooden deck. Is there anyone here
to represent Mrs. Pearlstein? We're going to move on then --
or against it? Move on to the next one.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make the motion,
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. ALL AYES.
V. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS:
1. THOMAS WlLLDIGG requests an Amendment to Permit
#5614 to include the existing 16' by 43' deck. Located:
440 Shore Lane, Peconic. SCTM#86-1-4.1
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I had this one. The only thing I would
comment on is that the steps weren't on the plans. Heather
did I hand this to you? They also have that split-rail
fencing that goes along all of those houses, there's a path
going down to the creek and the phragmites have been cut.
had a little bit of a concern with that being washed out
there. I didn't see on the permit that there was anything
about paths.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's off their property. They don't own
that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay. I didn't have any problem with
the deck, but there are four stairs going off the back of
it. I didn't know if you wanted it on the plan. There are
four steps about five foot wide, which I didn't have a
problem with. But going down this split-rail fence there's
a walkway going right down to the water, the phragmites have
been cut so that water's going to drain right into that. I
would recommend that that be let to grow back.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Do they need to grade it, put wood chips
down to prevent it from being bare dirt? No one owns the
creek front there.
Board of Trustees 6 February 16, 2005
TRUSTEE KING: Who does it belong to?
MS. TETRAULT: It's a conservation easement. It has to
stay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know who has the deed to it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Put it in with the stipulation -
TRUSTEE KING: Should they get permission whoever owns it
to cut that back?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I would guess so.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My concern too is that it goes down to
the edge of the creek. This is all phragmites.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why don't we table this. I think this is
before you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Ithink one of the first ones I was
on. So we table it to find out who owns that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Heather, could you find out who owns the
fee title to that and send them a letter that there's an
erosion problem developing there and we'd like to see that
addressed.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And we'd also like the existing steps
need to be on their survey. I'll make a motion to
table.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We should find out who owns the path and
they should take steps to insure that it doesn't become a
gully.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's just going to wash out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Wood chips even gravel would stop it from
becoming a mud hole.
MS. TETRAULT: Are they allowed to put a path through there?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what it leads to. Whose property
it is.
2. ROBERT & EILEEN SCHIAVETTA request an Amendment
to Permit 5664 to include a retaining wall 40 long and
between 27"-33" in height at the south end of the driveway,
and four foot wide steps. Located: 320 Harp Drive,
Southold.
SCTM#57-1-3.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: CAC recommended approval as long as the
buffer remained intact. The only comment I have is that all
the activity looks like it's 75 feet beyond the
canal. Anybody else have a comment? If not, I make a
motion to approve the amendment on behalf of Robert and
Eileen Schiavetta.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
Board of Trustees 7 February 16, 2005
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
3. VIRGINA CONWAY requests an Amendment to Permit
#1812 to include the existing 5' by 8' jet ski float at the
end of the dock. Located: 5150 New Suffolk Avenue,
Mattituck. SCTM#115-10-4.
TRUSTEE KING: CAC recommends approval with the condition
that the float is prepositioned parallel to the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Do they have a floating dock on the
property?
TRUSTEE KING: This just shows the dock.
MS. TETRAULT: We had said no more bottom coverage.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we all talked about it. And said if
they want to do that, they can modify the existing float put
the jet ski on, but no jet ski float just for that use. So
I would recommend denial and recommend they modify the
existing float to adapt se they could put the jet ski on
that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh See why we recommended that? Because if
people just add on there is really no size limit to the
float. So if someone wants to modify their float to include
a jet ski run up, that's fine, but it's got to be in the
confines of the bottom coverage, otherwise the bottom
coverage gets too big. It just grows and grows.
4. THOMAS E. CHRISTIANSON requests an Amendment to
Permit 5996 to relocate the proposed septic tank to the
north side of the leaching pools. Located: 7065 New
Suffolk Avenue, New Suffolk. SCTM#117-5-30.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mr. Christianson got a letter from the
DEC; they required the septic tank be relocated to the north
side of the leaching pool. The leaching pools be relocated
as shown on the revised plan. The revised site plan also
gives a required distance to the tree indicated, and the
covenant will be added to the deed after the permit's
granted. So I'll make a motion to approve the amendment.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES
5. Patricia C. Moore on behalf of NANCY CARROLL
requests an Amendment to Permit 5481 to add a second-floor
and renovation of the existing dwelling with replacement of
existing deck, construct 13' by 39' deck, 16' by 24' garage,
and 8' by 58' porch. Located: 350 West Lake Drive,
Board of Trustees 8 February 16, 2005
Southold. SCTM#90-1-21.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I've looked at this numerous times. I'll
make the comment for CAC that they recommended approval with
the condition that dry wells and gutters are installed to
contain the roof runoff and installation of at least a 50
foot non-turf buffer. I agree. I'd approve this also. I
was thinking more in line of a 20 foot non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE KING: What's there now?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There was some beach grass down on the
east side of the property. It's behind bulkhead, so it's
more ornamental-type thing. Any other comment? If not,
I'll make a recommendation to approve an amendment to Permit
5481 with the condition that a 20 foot non-turf buffer be
installed as well as dry wells and gutters to handle the
roof runoff.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
7. INGER BOYAJIAN requests a One-Year Extension to
Permit #5711, as issued on February 26, 2003. Located:
2400 Bay Avenue, East Marion. SCTM#31-16-8.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Doesn't appear to be any changes in
anything, just an extension. I'll make a motion to approve
the request.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
8. Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of
LOIS ANDERSON requests a One-Year Extension as issued on
March 18, 2003. Located: 2515 Calves Neck Road, Southold.
SCTM#79-4-45.5
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Looked at it today, no problem. Keep it
the same, it's in-kind/in-place. I'll make a motion to
approve the One-Year Extension to Permit 5728.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
9. Mark Schwartz, AIA on behalf of JAMES SLECKMAN
requests the last One-Year Extension to Permit 5525, as
issued on April 24, 2002. Located: 150 Oak Avenue,
Southold. SCTM#77-2-5
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Do we have a file on that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm reading the notices we have shown the
roof drainage to new dry wells on the survey. It's from the
architect. It's a rebuild on a house,
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Looks like a 75 foot setbacks off the
Board of Trustees 9 February 16, 2005
wetlands. I don't have a problem. I'll make a motion to
approve the last One-Year Extension to Permit 5525 on behalf
of James Sleckman.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: We should go back to Number 4.
4. Richard Romeo on behalf of JOSEPHINE PEARLSTEIN
requests an Administrative Permit to construct a screened
enclosure on an existing deck. Located: 2225 North Sea
Drive, Southold. SCTM# 54-4-23.
TRUSTEE KING: We just reviewed this. It's just an
enclosure on a deck, I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I need a motion to go offthe regular
meeting.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING
APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM
THE SUFFOLK TIMES. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ
PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.
PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF. FIVE (5)
MINUTES OR LESS IF POSSIBLE
WETLAND PERMITS
1. JAMES IANNONE requests a Wetland Permit to
replace the existing staircase to the beach. Located:
19105 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 51-1-17.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to speak
on behalf of this application?
MR. IANNONE: I am James lannone. Good evening, Members of
the Board. My wife and I have a house here in Southold.
The house has been in the family for many years. There's an
existing staircase built many years ago. I have color
photos if anyone wants to see. The stairs, rather than
repair them, which I could, I'd rather just replace them,
make them safe and up to snuff. I went through the proper
channels and got a permit from the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation, which I attached and attached
plans for it. I just want to make it safe for my wife and
Board of Trustees 10 February 16, 2005
my daughter, that's it. Thank you very much. If anyone has
any questions.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would anybody else like to comment on
this application?
I looked at this as far as the Board's perspective,
the stairs are falling apart disheveled, and he just wants
to replace them in-kind/in-place. I have no objection. CAC
recommended approval of the application with the condition
the bluff is revegetated after the construction of the
stairs and no treated lumber is used. I'm indifferent.
What material will you be using for the record?
MR. IANNONE: CCA.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm indifferent on the type of material
because this is not touching the water. It's above the
tidal marshland. With that, any other Board comments? If
not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE PQLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit
to replace the existing staircase to the beach for James
lannone. Any destruction to the bluff should be revegetated
also. If you don't revegetate it, you might end up blowing
it out, and be in a worse position than you already are.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
2. LILIANA NEALON requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a second floor addition to the existing dwelling,
construct a one-story garage, screened porch, and removal of
the wood decks in the rear yard. Located: 395 Bayview
Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 52-5-24.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak to this application?
MS. NEALON: I'm Liliana Nealon. This has been my weekend
house for eight or nine years, and I moved to Southold
permanently in May. I just want to make it more comfortable
for me and my family, build a second story, insulate it, it
got a little cold this winter, and just fix it up. Thank
you, if you have any questions.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else who would like to
speak to this application?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were all there. I think it's pretty
self-explanatory.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We did have recommendations for a berm
and non-turf buffer on the top at the slope. CAC recommends
approval of the application with the following conditions:
Board of Trustees 1 l February 16, 2005
Dry wells and gutters are installed to contain the roof
runoff.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Which are on the plans.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay. Installation of a 50 foot non-turf
buffer or half the distance to wetlands, whichever is less,
and a four foot wide non-pervious path through the 50 foot
buffer. We did discuss a berm. It's all lawn. Well, it
was all snow, actually. I don't know; do you remember that,
Heather?.
MS. TETRAULT: We talked about a berm on the next one.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Oh, okay. Do we want a non-turf buffer
here?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think so. It is what it is. And
they're going to eliminate any roof runoff with the dry
wells, which are on the plans.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the
Wetland Permit to construct a second floor addition to the
existing dwelling, construct a one-story garage, screened
porch, and removal of the wood decks in the rear yard.
Located: 395 Bayview Avenue, Southold.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's with dry wells and gutters
installed. All in favor? ALL AYES.
4. Jeffrey T. Butler, P.E. on behalf of MICHAEL
GRIFFIN requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing
dwelling and construct a new dwelling, driveway, two-story
deck, and a septic system. Located: 435 Pine Place, East
Marion. SCTM#37-4-14 and 15.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment?
MR. BUTLER: Yes. I'm Daniel Butler from Jeffrey T. Butler,
P.E. on behalf of Michael Griffin.
Myself and the owners as well as the contractors
met on February 6th and The Board had reviewed the
staking of the house and had requested that the house
be moved back five feet closer to the road. We have a
revised site plan showing that that we'd like to submit to
you guys (handing). We show the house as being 30'6"
from the road rather than 30 feet because we had the
adjacent houses, we took a preliminary reading of the
adjacent houses as far as their proximity to
the street and the house to the right or the south was 27
feet, and the house to the north or to the left of the
Board of Trustees 12 February 16, 2005
Griffin's residence was 33 feet, and you take the average of
those two, and it comes in about 30 feet. So we, in order to
not create a problem with getting a variance with the
Building Department, chose to pull it away six inches from
that 30 foot mark, and I guess we respectfully ask for your
approval of this site plan
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Recommend the berm along the top of the
bluff.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And show drainage for the driveway.
MR. BUTLER: Correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was it, really. If you could show
that on the plan, drainage for the driveway. Also, I'd be
inclined to approve it tonight subject to you drawing it on
the plan. Also, show -- we talked about the turf being
removed, we put that as a condition of the permit underneath
the deck, and that be a one foot berm along the top of the
bluff to prevent runoff and to be planted with a non-turf or
anything that would survive there. Native plantings that
would survive there.
MR. BUTLER: That berm it is one foot high?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh One foot.
MR. BUTLER: How deep?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: By the angle of the repose. Show that on
your plan. Draw that right on this plan, then just show
driveway drainage to contain the driveway runoff. You
wouldn't have to change the plans just add that to it. And,
do it now.
TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments? If there are
no further comments, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the
application with the changes made on the plans being changed
right now.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
5. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of ANTHONY
CACIOPPO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 24' by 24'
two story extension to the existing house, with a garage on
ground level and living space with bath above, with 9' by 8'
fully enclosed and conditioned connecting hallway to the
existing house. Located: 1455 Inlet Way in Southold.
SCTM#92-1-4
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone here who would like to
Board of Trustees 13 February 16, 2005
speak on behalf of this application?
MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald for Mr. Cacioppo. Last time
we were here you were disappointed that it hadn't been
staked, and I was disappointed too. And I understand since
then you have had an opportunity to look at it with stakes
in place. What do you think?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment on this
application?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did we remove the breezeway?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that was the consensus of the
Board if the breezeway was removed, it would back the house
up closer, and try to maximize the setback from the wetland,
which is very close there. I don't think the Board would
have a problem with that. And the staking did make it
pretty clear about the location. I'm looking for CAC
comments here. CAC comments was that it wasn't staked. But
that was back in January, so did CAC make any other attempt
to inspect?
MS. MCGREEVY: No.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Those were our comments that the house
should be brought back as close as possible by eliminating
the breezeway.
MR. FITZGERALD: I mentioned the possibility of eliminating
the breeze to Mrs. Cacioppo, who was the designer, and she
indicated there was a design reason for it being there. And
it may be that that is not the way to solve the
problem. Maybe they would want to reduce the size of the
structure and leave the breezeway. The idea I believe was
they felt it was important for folks on the land side of the
house to be able to look through and see that there was
water out there. Which, of course, doesn't mean anything as
far as the situation is concerned, but she seemed pretty
definite about needing that design feature. So we'll see if
we can't work something else out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh See the way we looked at it was that their
need was for this two-story garage, and the breezeway seemed
to be sort of something that wasn't really necessary to
fulfill that need. So we're trying to give them what they
needed and maximize the setbacks at the same time.
MR. FITZGERALD: I understand, and I think that initially
with them that was the case.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How do we resolve this now then?
MR. FITZGERALD: I think the next step is for me to go back
and say that the Board wants it moved nine feet further away
from the wetlands. You took into consideration the fact
that it is -- and it looks pretty close in the plan view,
Board of Trustees 14 February 16, 2005
but it's not that close in the profile.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. We did actually tape it out and
everything.
MS. TETRAULT: It was 50 feet to the water, which is
close.
MR. FITZGERALD: So the answer to the question is that I
will go back to the clients and say that they can't have it
both ways.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And also that the fence along the edge of
the water has to be removed. I don't know if they bought
that with the fence there or not, but the fence is --
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, all that stuff.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's just a wildlife area. So I'll make a
motion to table the application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES.
6. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of Charles
Wendy, Jr. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed
plafform 4' by 4', hinged ramp 4' by 16', and floating dock
5' by 20': Located. 765 Willow Point Road, Southold.
SCTM# 56-5-28.
MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald for Mr. Wendy. Mr. Wendy is
here also.
At the last meeting there was concern on your part
about the permitted length from the standpoint of the
requirement that it not extend more than one-third of the
way across the waterway, and I think that's defined as shore
to shore.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I have a letter here Dated January 18th
says Mr. Wendy would like to change the details of the
project reducing the length of the ramp to six feet as
opposed to 16 feet in the description.
MR. FITZGERALD: We talked about that last time, Artie,
because the two gentlemen that were here from the
association, which kind of oversees that association marina
said that they wanted the overall length to be reduced by 10
feet. It was felt, they felt that reducing the length of
the ramp from 16 to six feet would solve that problem. But
I don't think we heard about your feelings on the matter. I
understand you were there to inspect it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Yes.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any other public comments or Board
comments?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What is the total length across the
channel?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Give you one of these, Kenny.
Board of Trustees 15 February l 6, 2005
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mr. Wendy, our problem is not that you
have a dock there, it's a problem of navigation. We put
into the new code, which was policy for years, the boat and
float can't exceed more than one-third across the waterway.
As long as you work within those physical constraints, we
don't have a problem. It's got to be documented. See, the
plan that's here doesn't show a length across to the
other shoreline, then you can scale off the size of your
structure, and we can see that it's one-third or less of the
distance, then we can approve it.
MR. WENDY: What I had proposed was to reduce the end of the
dock, my dock, my proposed dock, would be 12 feet closer to
the shore than any of the existing six slips that are
there. When you're standing there and looking on say Number
4, 5 or 6 across, the distance is essentially the same as my
reduction. Now, I'm not a surveyor, but I'm sure if any of
you do any surf casting, you could probably put a 60 foot
throw cross and measure that way, or I can get a surveyor in
there and measure that way. But it will be 12 feet shorter
than any of the other six.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We just want to see the measurement. You
can go out with a canoe or kayak and tape it end to end
also. I don't think the Board's going to require you to get
a surveyor to do this.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: From the marsh edge to the marsh edge in
this case. The distance from your marsh edge to the
opposite shoreline's marsh edge.
MR. WENDY: You mentioned 16 feet. I said let's go halfway,
I'll do it 18 feet instead of 20, so that would be 14
feet. One of the problems is that Mr. Coriello, in talking
to him, he thought 10 would be adequate. He's got this 40
foot ocean liner that he's tied up to his house, and he's
worried about navigating the channel. I said how much room
do you need. He said all I need is a four foot draft, and
there's plenty of room as long as we bring the floating dock
in and they can get past it. I think 12 or 14 feet closer
than the other six that are already there would do it. I
don't have a kayak. I think we're talking about a couple
feet here or there, and if it's okay with them --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We still have to adhere to our code that
says one-third or less.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If you measure 60 feet, what would be
permitable is up to 20 feet from the shoreline. So you
couldn't have a 22 foot boat sticking out.
MR. WENDY: I'm looking at a 17 foot Key West.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That would probably be fine but the bottom line
Board of Trustees 16 February 16, 2005
is you couldn't be more than one-third from that shoreline.
MR. WENDY: I know these rules came in, this deeded
property, this deeded right for the people who are not on
the canal came in in 1966. I do have a right to explore
this and I do understand the new code whenever your code
came in. Would I be grandfathered in under the old deed
before your rules were made?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. We used these principles before we
actually formalized them in code form, it's a basic
navigability issue on narrow areas like this.
MR. WENDY: But if he's got his 40 foot cruiser, if he's not
complaining, that's the only other boat out there that's
that big.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think what you submitted is a
problem, we just need to document it. Can we approve it
subject to that?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's fine.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Approve it subject to the submittal of the
proper documentation. If we don't get it, then the approval
it null and void.
MR. WENDY: Do I have the option of reducing it to 18 feet
If I'm a couple of feet short on the other end?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Of course. Reduce the float?
MR. WENDY: The float, right.
MR. FITZGERALD: So this is measured from where to where?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Bank to bank.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Vegetation to vegetation. Should be
what's shown there would work very nicely. Any other CAC
comments?
MS. MCGREEVY: The gate was locked and we couldn't enter.
MR. WENDY: It's just a chain, you can go around the chain.
MS. MCGREEVY: The weather wasn't very good.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the
application for Charles Wendy as requested considering that
the distance is not more than one-third of the distance of
the channel from vegetation to vegetation, and this approval
is based on satisfactory measurement for just that.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
7. Michael J. Scholz on behalf of SHANNON GOLDMAN &
DEBORAH MCKEAND requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
single-family dwelling and garage. Located: 8605 Soundview
Board of Trustees 17 February 16, 2005
Avenue, Southold. SCTM#59-6-27.2.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak on behalf of this application?
MR. GOLDMAN: Shannon Goldman, I'm here if you have any
questions.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll star[ with the CAC tabled the
application because the wetlands line is inaccurate. CAC
requests a full wetlands review. Could you explain why the
wetland line was inaccurate?
MS. MCGREEVY: I didn't see that one. They felt it was inaccurate
when they saw it, and they wanted a review, that's it. I
really can't explain because I didn't see that parcel.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The whole Board went out and looked at
it. We felt as though the bank was basically the wetlands
delineation line. Does anyone else have a comment for this
application? How did the Board feel about this one, any
comments?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think they satisfied the setbacks.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right. The 50 foot nondisturbance
setbacks.
MS. TETRAULT: We looked at the survey, it says
nonvegetation instead of nondisturbance.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: On your survey it says 50 foot
nondisturbance, nonvegetation buffer. We'd rather see
nondisturbance.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't want it to be nonvegetation.
MS. TETRAULT: The Board said they wanted to leave the hay
bales in place.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I remember that.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: As far as when you put the hay bales line
when you put the 50 foot buffer, just leave them in place.
MS. MCGREEVY: What I do recall was there was some discussion about
the ties and what marked the wetlands. It didn't seem
accurate.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We believe the actual indicator was the
bank itself.
MS. MCGREEVY: We were looking at the ties that they tied around
it, that was one thing, and it looked like it had a lot of
wetlands there. So that's why we wanted the review.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we all looked at it. I think we
were satisfied.
MS. TETRAULT: Did the dry wells get put on the plans?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We didn't include trimming the phragmites.
If you insist on that, contact us in the summer time when
they're growing, and we'll come down and review it
then. There was snow on it. We won't include that in the
Board of Trustees 18 February 16. 2005
permit.
MS. TETRAULT: Were gutters and dry wells put on the plan?
You asked for it last time.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll just stipulate it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Before you get your permit, you'll have to
draw them on there.
MR. GOLDMAN: I actually thought they had been. We'll do it
right away.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments? If not, I'll make a
motion to close the public 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 Shannon Goldman and Deborah McKeand to
construct a single-family dwelling and garage. Located 8605
Soundview Avenue in Southold, with the conditions that there
be a 50 foot nondisturbance buffer, that gutters and dry
wells be included on the survey and the phragmite cutting
will be reapplied for in the summer time.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
8. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of
BELVEDERE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 6' by 80' extension, with wavebreaks, onto an
existing pier, to relocate three 3-pile dolphins to relocate
one ladder and to install one new ladder. Located: Robins
Island. SCTM#134-3-5
TRUSTEE KING: is there anyone here to speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. JUST: Good evening Glen Just on behalf of J.M.O.
Consulting on behalf of Belvedere Property Management.
TRUSTEE KING: The problem the Board has is with the
wavebreak.
MR. JUST: I don't know if you saw the letter I faxed over
this afternoon. I've asked George Costello from Costello
Marine, he signed a contract with Mr. Baker to do a lot of
work on various properties, to come here and describe the
actual dock. His firm is the one who prepared the plan and
he's got a lot more experience with wavebreaks than I
do.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What is the depth of the project?
MR. COSTELLO: George Costello. Eight feet, eight on one
end and probably 10 on the other end, west end is probably
about 10. That was dredged.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes, because to the west of there comes
Board of Trustees 19 February 16, 2005
straight up. I'm sure you're not going to cut yourself
short; you're going to leave at least 30, 40 feet.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes. We're going to keep them in deep water
around that corner.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I think the problem we have at these
wavebreaks is at the bottom, if they actually touch the
bottom or come within this much of the bottom, then the
water column itself just hits it and falls.
MR. COSTELLO: Do you have a copy of the drawing dated
August 2, 2004?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. COSTELLO: Can I show you my copy, which is the same
thing. I think this will clarify the whole issue. Go to
Page 3 of 5.
(Discussion)
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments on this application?
Hearing no further 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
as submitted now that we've had the wavebreak explained to
US.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MR. CONWAY: I'm here for Virginia Conway, Number 3.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Actually, we denied it. We've had a
problem with extra floats for wave runners before. We don't
allow any extra floats like that. It just makes a bigger
floating system. If you wanted to modify your existing
float to include that section, that would be fine, somehow
modify your float so you can drive your jet ski up on it. We
don't want to have an addition.
MR. CONWAY: (Inaudible).
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I've seen PVC and you get a 45 degree
angle at the edge of your dock, all you need is a foot, foot
and-a-half, two of them, acts like a runway system.
MR. CONWAY: Thank you very much.
TRUSTEE KING: We denied it, but put in there that he has
the option of modifying the 6' by 20' to accommodate the
jet ski.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Can we take a brief five minute recess?
(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
9. Land Use Ecological Service, Inc. on behalf of
L.I. SOUND OYSTER, LLC CIO TOM ANDERSON requests a Wetland
Board of Trustees 20 February 16, 2005
Permit to expand an existing dock facility to be utilized
for a commercial shellfishing and aquaculture facility. The
existing 4' by 130' plus/minus timber catwalk is proposed to
be widened to 10' to accommodate a forklift or truck. The
existing platform and 3' by 20' ramp are proposed to
remain. Seven 6' by 20' floats are proposed and to be
supported by (15) 8" diameter piles. The existing rebar and
garbage debris on the creek bottom is proposed to be removed
and disposed of at an approved offsite location. On the
north side of the property west of the existing house, the
applicant proposes to remove the remains of a dilapidated
concrete wall, and proposes to remove existing wood
landscape debris to an approved offsite location. A shed is
proposed in the same location as the previous shed location,
and proposed buffer area. South of the dock the buffer area
is proposed to extend from the mean high water to the
concrete wall. North of the dock the buffer area is
proposed to extend from the mean high water to the back edge
of the existing fence north to the property line. Located:
1240 Love Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#140-1-23.1.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to comment
in favor of the application?
MR. PALUMBO: Good evening, Anthony Palumbo on behalf of the
applicant with Mr. Hall from Land Use.
We're going around and around a little bit with this
but I believe the main issue at the end of the last meeting was
navigational hazard. That was a concern of the Board. I do
have, if I could provide, petitions with the neighbors
surrounding the area and a number of people who are familiar
with that have signed the petitions indicating they have
reviewed the application, they're familiar with that
area. A lot of them are baymen as well as the neighbors and
they indicated as the previous owner was conducting those
operations, the oyster farm, they certainly didn't feel it
was a navigational hazard, and they asked the Board to grant
this application. But otherwise, I'd be willing to answer
any questions on the application. I believe Mr. Hall
provided new surveys showing that the Federal Anchorage area
is 75 feet from the end of the dock as it exists now. That
was a concern we thought our proposed site plan would have
the trays within the Anchorage area, and I believe he also
provided a survey indicating what our plan would be, and
it's still outside the anchorage area. I believe it's at
least 10, 15 feet at its closest, the last tray, and, as I
indicated, of course, my clients, the Andersons, Long Island
Sound Oyster would be willing to put any lights up, do
Board o f Trustees 21 February 16, 2005
anything they needed to do if there were any additional
concerns even though they're outside of that Anchorage area
and at the end creek. But if there were any other concerns
of the Board, they would certainly be willing to do
whatever's necessary and whatever the Board suggests in
order to alleviate that concern.
MR. JOHNSTON: is this the first time we saw those
petitions?
MR. PALUMBO: I believe it is. Last month, that was the
issue, so we just addressed it then. I'm sorry for
providing them today, a lot of them were signed
recently. We do have a good copy of the aerial from 2000,
and I believe it was a month before the Board went out to
review the proposed amendment from Blue Point Oyster,
although there was a slight modification at the time. It
may show what the trays were like at the time; that's what
those petitioners are talking about regarding it not being a
navigational hazard.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Do we have any opposition to this
application?
MR. JOHNSTON: Is there anybody here speaking against?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Do we have any opposition to this
application? Okay.
MR. HALL: Here's the full scale aerial, which is to
scale. It's one inch equals 50 feet, and I believe that is
about 150 feet as it exists now.
(Discussion.)
MR. HALL: This aerial clearly depicts where the shallower
water is along the shoreline here.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Do you have an overlay of the Federal
Anchorage in relation to where those floats are? It doesn't
show the floats on the plan.
MR. HALL: I have a plan that shows the floats.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It doesn't appear to me that it's within
the Anchorage.
MR. HALL: (Handing.)
MR. PALUMBO: That's the edge of the Anchorage area.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's with 25 floats.
MR. HALL: And it's still 10 feet off, approximately 8 to 10
feet off the northeast corner.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Let me go through the history here. This
is in March of 2000. This photograph, in '94 we issued a
permit for the dock. I think it's important to follow this
and relate it to the photograph. In '94 we issued a permit
for the 100' by 4' dock; we updated the plans dated March
26, 1996; in '96 we approved for a 30' by 64' area for the
Board of Trustees 22 February 16, 2005
floating trays. That was a halfway back plan. That was in
the middle, it only extended 15 feet past the end of the
dock. In '96 in May we granted an amendment to place
floating trays at the end of the existing dock -- not to
stick out further, I'm sorry, that's what that was. So in
May of'96 we approved the floats. I'm guessing there were
12. In '99 we denied a request to add eight piles at the
end of the existing floating trays as ice breakers, five
piles to hold the trays and a 3' by 18' ramp and a 12' by
12' float because it impedes navigation and it is a Federal
Anchorage area. In 2000 we amended the permit again in
April. Now in April of 2000 to amend it for a 3' by 20'
ramp cantilever off the pier with a work float, and I would
imagine that it would show the ramp and the work float off
here. So this is what was permitted here as of
2000. Personally, I was on the Board then in '99 when
the request was denied to extend this out because it was a
navigation issue, and I still have concerns about navigation
there. I don't have a problem increasing the size of the
dock for access, and I don't have a problem with letting
them -- and except this permit would be more specific than
the last permit was in that this permit would say I would
permit so many floats at the end of the dock; the permit
would only be valid for those floats. It would be two
permits. The dock permit would be separate that would be
permanently permitted with a ramp and float for access to
the water. Then the oyster grow-out racks would be a
separate permit. We're doing this in aquaculture now all
over. It's sort of a separate permit, so if it's never
used, like in this case Blue Point they abandoned it, the
permit would become invalid completely, and everything would
have to be removed, the oyster growing portion, not the
floating dock or the dock portion. That's based on the
history of it. It's always been an issue there. It's the
same issue. Nothing's really changed.
MR. PALUMBO: I think with the rows of trays here in this
photograph, you can see none are behind the end of the dock,
and ultimately in recent years when it was bought there were
about 30 trays in the water. I know we discussed that at
length and almost didn't want to mention that they were in
violation, but the fact of the matter is that the floats
cannot really be put in more shallow water because they're
six feet long and they need obviously to float at all times
so the only usable water is off the end of the dock as it
exists now. I think we clarified the navigation issue as
far as the Anchorage area, I don't know if that was
Board of Trustees 23 February 16, 2005
clarified in '99 to the extent that we've done it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: it wasn't marked, it was just a general
concern.
MR. PALUMBO: If the Board could possibly consider, if
you're going to do a separate permit for the trays to
possibly go maybe a row or two further away from the dock
because even though Blue Point Oyster was permitted to go
half in, half out from the end of the dock toward the shore
is completely useless for these types of trays. So we would
ask that it looks like the only usable water is off the end
toward the Anchorage area. So if the Board would consider
maybe expanding that slightly since we have clarified the
Anchorage issue, I think that would be beneficial.
(Discussion.)
MR. PALUMBO: Could we have it without prejudice see how it
works for a year or so and have the ability to come back to
the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. You might at that point with
success find a shallower float.
MR. PALUMBO: Sure. I certainly would advise them. That
would be great.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One more detail --
MR. HALL: The floats are going to be 4' by 20', 4' by 12'
and off the ramp would be 6' by 20', that's for the landing
of the ramp, and the other two would be for an area to moor
a boat.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What do you say, Ken?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That sounds fine to me.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Attic, what about the extra floats for docking?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's fine. You have to give them an
opportunity to succeed here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Any other comments? 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. We're trying to reduce this as much as
possible. We wanted to know if you could handle that eight
foot wide fixed dock?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I make a motion to reopen the hearing.
MR. PALUMBO: A quick comment about that. I spoke to
Mr. Anderson about that, and he said I tried to be as
conservative as I could with our original application, 10
feet with a truck, which was really needed to properly
maintain these trays they weren't that well maintained, and
that's why it's a bit of a mess, the whole site. In order
Board of Trustees 24 February 16, 2005
for them to propedy maintain them he said you really do
need a truck and you can't necessarily tip toe outside of
the truck, alongside it. Basically the 10 feet was all he
was asking for not expecting to be reduced at all, so the
eight feet really wouldn't work.
TRUSTEE KING: You mean a truck, like you drive over the
road?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think he's talking about a forklift.
MR. PALUMBO: Whatever it may be. They didn't expect to be
reduced at all. He said he wanted to make as conservative
an application as possible. So unfortunately the 10 feet is
something they're stuck with.
TRUSTEE KING: Single wheel forklift, 4,000 pound machine
is about a 45 inch tread width, dual tire. What are you
going to use, a tractor?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: That's a different story, that's a lot wider
tread.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Eight feet's pretty tight.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve a 100' by
10' wide dock, a 6' by 6' platform and 3' by 20' ramp, 6' by
20' float, 4' by 20' float, 4' by 12' float, and 20 floating
oyster trays to be placed on an "L" at the end of the dock
secured by 10 pilings --
MR. HALL: The total pilings there is not only for the
oyster trays, it's also for the floats on the south -- west
side of the pier, that's total pilings for the project,
15. It's only eight for the oyster trays.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, 15 pilings. Make that 15 pilings,
and we would need the other conditions on the permit that
were mentioned in the original description would stand with
the buffer area, the shed, the removal of the wall, the
removal of the debris, the underwater debris to be
removed. The buffer area should be planted, the cleaned up
buffer area, should be planted with honeysuckle or beach
grass.
MS. TETRAULT: I can give them a list.
TRUSTEE KING: Can we have a time frame on removing that
rebar and all that debris on the beach in the intertidal
area? Can we get that out of there in a certain amount of
time?
MR. ANDERSON: I figure when the guy comes out to set the
dock.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Debris to be removed at construction. The
permit is conditioned on the dock and the floating docks and
the platform and the ramp to be part of a docking system.
Board of Trustees 25 February 16, 2005
The oyster grow-out trays to be part of an aquaculture system
that if they are not used for aquaculture that the trays
themselves have to be removed out of the creek, but the dock
and the floating docks and the ramp and the platform will
remain as part of the dock system as opposed to the trays.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is one of the biggest docks in the
creek, it was a big deal for us.
MR. PALUMBO: We appreciate it.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You're going to issue two separate permits
one for the dock and one for the aquaculture.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Two separate numbers.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
10. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of
SKUNK LANE TRUST GlO BRAD & MARY KRAUSE requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a single-family dwelling with deck,
sanitary system, and pervious driveway. Located: 9105
Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM#104-3-18.1.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak in favor of this application?
MR. HALL: Dan Hall, Land Use Ecological in favor of the
application. I just have some revised surveys that just
show a new sanitary system because they're proposing four
bedrooms now. I'd like to present them to the Board
(handing).
TRUSTEE FOSTER: What are they doing with the bedrooms?
MR. HALL: I think they had three, now they're proposing
four, so they needed to upgrade the sanitary system.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Standard system so it includes up to four
bedrooms.
MS. TETRAULT: What is the distance of the sanitary system
from the wetlands?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's way out there.
MR. HALL: 140 plus.
TRUSTEE DIGKERSON: The one discussion we had down there was
that there would be no sod in front of the deck and that the
non-turf begin at the nine foot contour.
MS. TETRAULT: You said nondisturbance not non-turf.
MR. HALL: The 50 foot buffer be extended to the nine foot
contour?
MS. TETRAULT: Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC recommends disapproval of the
application until a plan for the disposition of the trees
over eight inch DBH is submitted, three 24 inch DBH. Doris,
can you help us out with that?
Board of Trustees 26 February 16, 2005
MS. MCGREEVY: Diameter Breast Height.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Whole nondisturbance.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We only have jurisdiction of 100 feet,
we're limited there. The rest of the property they did have
those nice trees so we noticed that, that it was something
else in previous times, there were specimen trees there, but
we only have jurisdiction within 100 feet. So we would be
limited there. We only have jurisdiction up to the front of
the house. It's doubtful that they would tear those out.
Those are really nice specimen trees.
MS. MCGREEVY: We're requesting it anyway.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Sure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Of course, we need dry wells to show roof
runoff.
MR. HALL: That's acceptable. What was the contour, no turf
on the seaward?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Nondisturbance. Come up and we'll mark
your survey. This is fine, this 50 foot here, then we pick
up at the top of the bank there. That makes it more uniform
and usable because that does drop off sharply. It's
unlikely they're going to want to develop that anyway.
(Discussion.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else who would like to
speak to this application? Any other comments? Comments
from the Board? I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve this on
behalf of Skunk Lane Trust and Mary Krause request for their
permit for single-family dwelling with deck, sanitary system
and pervious driveway with a 50 foot nondisturbance buffer
at the nine foot contour, non-turf up to the deck, dry wells
and gutters to contain the roof runoff and a four foot path
to the dock with wood chips.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Clarify, the 50 foot buffer or nine foot --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, both.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Whichever is bigger.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to go back to the
regular hearing?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So moved.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
COASTAL EROSION & WETLAND PERMITS
Board of Trustees 27 February 16, 2005
1. JOHN BETSCH requests a Wetland Permit and a
Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a new single-family
dwelling and garage, in place of the existing, and to be
built on pilings. Located: 2325 North Sea Drive,
Southold. SCTM# 54-4-24.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on
behalf of the applicant?
MR. KELLEY: Christopher Kelley, Twomey, Latham, Shea and
Kelley for the applicant.
Before we get started, I want to clear up a couple
of issues to make sure they're not issues as we go forward
here. First, I have the signed authorization from my
client, which I understand was required. I'll get that to
you in a second.
There were two issues that were raised. One
had to do with the survey of the property and
the scale that was used because there were two different
versions of the survey. One had a one inch per 20 inch
scale and one a one inch for 30 foot scale. I want to make
sure that's no longer an issue. We sent a letter January
25th, which you all got a copy of that which clarified that.
I want to confirm that's not an issue?
TRUSTEE KING: Not an issue.
MR. KELLEY: The second thing I want to clarify that we are
not actually here for a Coastal Erosion Permit because that
has been dealt with by the Town Board on the variance that
was granted after your denial in August. What we're here
for now is only a Wetland Permit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I read that because it was on the agenda.
That is an issue that we are -- the Coastal Erosion, we
adopted that in '91, and we adopted it from the State. The
Town Board adopted it, and they graciously gave it to the
Trustees to administer. And we are administering it for the
Town, but it's a State law. And from time to time the State
does check up on us and see how we are working on that, and
from time to time we have to ask for clarification.
Sometimes it's something physical as do you consider this
the toe of the bluff, or sometimes it's something mechanical
like the clarification of the way we should actually
administrate the code. So we're still waiting for
clarification from the State on what exactly the Town Board
did procedurally. They might very well have granted a
variance from the whole code, but does that mean that the
applicant doesn't have to get a Coastal Erosion Permit at
all? Because the Town Board can't issue one.
MR. KELLEY: No, what they did was they granted the relief
Board of Trustees 28 February 16, 2005
necessary. This was an opinion that was given to us by the
Town attorney's office. We understood that was no longer an
issue.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He also gave us that opinion. Over the
course of the years we do communicate with people in the
state who run the program for New York State. We want to do
what we're supposed to do. We want to do our job.
MR. KELLEY: I believe that the issuance of the permit now
is a ministerial task on the part of this Board. The only
impediment, and I just re-read the decision, the decision of
the Board from August 18 -- the reason for the denial was
the fact that you couldn't grant us a permit because we
couldn't have that type of expansion in that type of area.
Well, they varied that; they said we're okay with that.
That relief having been granted, there's no impediment to
the issuance of the permit. It should now be a ministerial
act. It's not discretionary. I believe that's the opinion
of the Town attorney.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not in that case because if they had just
granted a variance for that portion of the code, which we
thought they had originally, then we would be able to
address all the other standards in Chapter 37.
MR. KELLEY: If you go through the findings, they addressed
all the standards in Chapter 37, you can see that. Use the
analogy of a Zoning Board of Appeals and a building
inspector. In this example, you're acting as if you're a
building inspector, and Town Board acts as if its the Zoning
Board of Appeals. Once the variance is granted, the
building inspector doesn't have discretion to deny the
permit. In this case you are the administer of the permit
once the variance is granted, you no longer have the
discretion to deny.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think we're inclined to deny
anything tonight. That wasn't our intention. We want to
make sure the law's been followed out properly. We're not
saying we are not going to act on this tonight, by any
means. We'd rather act on this tonight and withhold
judgment on the Coastal Erosion. In case in fact, the Town
has acted improperly or not completely, and then we could
address that if that's the case. That's the way I'd rather
handle it, is say the Town attorney has advised us the
Coastal Erosion has been handled properly by the Town
Board.
MR. KELLEY: Are you questioning the Town attorney?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We just want to make sure it's been done
properly. To be honest with you, this variance comes up
Board of Trustees 29 February 16, 2005
three times since I've been on the Board. It's very rare,
no one's familiar with it, there's a lot of questions. And
when we get audited by the State, we want to make sure the
Town's doing the correct job. We'd rather act on that
Chapter 97 tonight and proceed that way.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Did we get a determination from the
Department of State?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: So we're waiting for a determination from
them, correct?
MS. TETRAULT: We wrote to them and haven't heard
back. They're in the process of writing back to us.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would rather not hold this up waiting
for them, that doesn't seem right. We'd rather act. They
might very well say Southold Town acted properly,
everything's fine. I mean, we have no reason to believe
they're going to be unhappy with Southold's decision, it's
not that either. We'd rather, it's the State law, we'd
rather make sure we did it properly. This is kind of
foreign to us.
MR. KELLEY: Here is that authorization you requested
(handing).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. KELLEY: I'd like to briefly refresh your recollection
about the facts of the application since it's been August
since the Board really addressed the application. The
property we're talking about consists of 26,800 square
feet on North Sea Drive. It fronts on the sound and is
zoned R40. It's improved with a one-story house built on a
concrete block foundation, I assume you've all been out to
see it. Ground coverage there is 1,782 square feet with the
existing dwelling. To the east is a public parking lot for
McCabe's Beach and to the west is a residence owned by the
Pearlsteins, who I see were on the agenda tonight for
screening in a porch. That house was granted approval to
expand by a Coastal Erosion permit that you issued for a 432
square foot footprint for a two-story addition that amounted
to 864 square feet in total. Our search of the records
indicate there was no Wetland Permit issued for or required
of the Pearlsteins immediately next door, even though quite
clearly --
TRUSTEE KING: What did you say the square footage of the
existing house was?
MR. KELLEY: 1,782.
TRUSTEE KING: Existing now in the footprint?
MR. KELLEY: Yes.
Board of Trustees 30 February l 6, 2005
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'm referring to a letter from your firm
May 25th of last year. What would you say the current size
of the home is now?
MR. KELLEY: The current footprint is 1,782 square feet.
Proposal is for a footprint of 1,800 square feet, exclusive
of decking, which was for the first floor of the structure
plus the garage of 600 square feet. The usable square
footage of the first floor is 1,800 square feet, livable
space.
MR. JOHNSTON: With the decking is it 2,800 square feet
including with the two-car garage?
MR. KELLEY: Approximately 1,000 square feet of decking and
600 square foot garage.
MR. JOHNSTON: Or according from your letter a proposed new
construction will increase the existing footprint by
approximately 53 percent; is that correct?
MR. KELLEY: Only when you take into account the decking.
Without taking into account the decking it's a 33 percent
increase of the square footage of the first floor of the
dwelling.
MR. JOHNSTON: So that first paragraph is still correct?
MR. KELLEY: Correct.
MR. JOHNSTON: We're trying to get the numbers, that's
all.
MR. KELLEY: I'm going to give you the numbers if I can just
get through this. The applicant's proposing demolishing the
existing house, and, in fact, improving the situation with
respect to erosion and wetlands, dune preservation issues
because the proposal is to make the house FEMA compliant and
putting it on piles, eliminating the cinder block
foundation. The DEC has issued a nonjurisdictional letter,
which is in the file, I have a copy for you (handing). I
show that to staff. All structures are setback minimum of
118 feet from the mean high water mark shown on the survey.
The area's served by public water.
Now, this application was submitted in November of
1983, it wasn't until August of -- excuse me -- November of
2003, it wasn't until August, 2004 that the application was
denied; an appeal ensued on the Town Board and in November,
2004 they granted the variance that we were discussing. Now
we only need to submit a Wetland Permit to move forward
with construction.
Since there's been a history here I ask that you
incorporate by reference both the record previously before
this Board as well as the record before the Town Board in
your deliberations. With respect to that record, I have
Board of Trustees 31 February 16, 2005
here the resolution of the Town Board I'd like to draw
attention to -- I have copies for each of you -- because
several findings are made by the Town Board which address
not only the issues in the Coastal Erosion Permit, but the
Wetland Permit as well, because a lot of the standards are
similar. I have highlighted in yellow on the second page
those important findings already reached by the Town Board.
I would like to put them in the record.
Referring to 2B it says the applicant owns no other
site in town in which to construct a year round home and the
proposed project may not be located on any other portion of
the property without the need for variance.
C states, applicant has incorporated all reasonable
means and measures to mitigate adverse impacts on natural
systems and their functions and values have been
incorporated into the activity's design at the property
owner's expense. The applicant's proposal contains measures
to protect the natural protective area by constructing the
home on pilings in compliance with all FEMA regulations and
incorporating an upgraded septic system. That's another
advantage here environmentally, we will get a new state of
the art septic system on the property.
D states for the reasons stated above, the
development will be reasonably safe from flood and erosion
damage. In addition, evidence has been submitted that this
property has been accreting rather than eroding in recent
years. I draw your attention to a statement in the record
previously from the surveyor indicating that the property is
actually accreted over the last years, 24 feet. Given the
proposed transition from a foundation to pilings, the
reconstruction will be safer from potential flood and
erosion damage than the existing structure.
At E, the Town Board finds the variance requested is
the minimum necessary to overcome the practical difficulty
or hardship. The proposed reconstruction will be comprised
of approximately 1,800 square feet of residential footprint
and living space, plus approximately 600 square feet of the
garage. This proposal is an increase of approximately 33
percent above the current seasonal use structure, which
covers a footprint of approximately 1,800 square feet.
Moreover, the proposed structure, flanked on the side by a
municipal beach parking lot and in the immediate
neighborhood of larger residential homes, is in keeping with
the character of the neighborhood, and immediate neighbors
have expressed approval of the project.
So this Town has already found those essential
Board of Trustees 32 FebruaD, 16, 2005
findings, which I think are relevant, as I said, to the
Wetland Permit as well as the Coastal Erosion Permit.
If you have been out to the site and seen the
staking, and you can see if you align yourself with the
northernmost stakes, which would be the edge of the decking,
that in fact, looking west you can see structures that
actually are closer to the water than the northern terminus
of the deck. You can see also the other structures, and
we'll talk about that in a second, we have photographs and
maps to show the other structures that are built along that
street, some of which were expanded without Coastal Erosion
Permits, some of which were expanded without Wetland
Permits, few of them had both.
The Wetlands Permit jurisdiction that you're dealing
with tonight is under Section 97-20. It's interesting that
the jurisdiction that you have as a result of this being
determined to be a dune, which is something you did in your
prior decision, for the purpose of tonight's proceedings
we're not challenging that it's in a dune. It's clear that
if we're in a dune everybody along that stretch is in a
dune, but the interesting thing in the code is there is no
required setback from a dune. There's no delineation of
dune, a crest or peak of a dune that some ordinances that
regulate those things have. You have a required setback
from a bluff line and you have a required setback from
wetlands. We meet those setbacks because there's no bluff
here, and we have the 118 feet from the edge of the
wetlands. We also meet all the zoning setbacks. We meet
all the coverage requirements. We have, as I mentioned
earlier, the coastal erosion variance; and there's no DEC
jurisdiction. So in all respects in terms of the objective
criteria applied to this type of project, this project is
conforming. We're not asking for a variance. We meet all
the setbacks.
In order to be entitled to this permit that we seek
tonight we need to show compliance with the standards and
those standards are set forth at Section 97-28 of the code.
I'll just run through them, subparagraphs A through J in the
code.
First criteria is whether the project will adversely
effect the wetlands of the Town. Well, we meet the
setbacks required by the Town, in fact, we exceed them. And
I submit to you there will be no impact adverse or otherwise
on the wetlands of the town.
Criteria B, will the project cause damage from
erosion, turbidity or siltation. Well, the Town Board has
Board of Trustees 33 February 16, 2005
already determined that that will not occur. In fact, this
situation will be improved with respect to potential erosion
because of the construction methods being utilized which
will be FEMA compliant. The Town Board also took note that
this stretch has also accreted over recent time.
Criteria C, whether the project will cause saltwater
intrusion into the freshwater resources of the town, and I
will submit to you since we're going to be using public
water, that pumping freshwater which might induce saltwater
intrusion is not an issue in this application.
Criteria D is whether the project will adversely
effect fish, shellfish or other beneficial marine organisms,
aquatic wildlife and vegetation or the natural habitat
thereof. We will submit that there will be no effect on the
habitat for fish or shellfish or marine organisms, the
question is whether wildlife and vegetation would be
adversely effected, and there will be some slight increase
in the footprint, but as you'll note, the north side of the
structure towards the wetlands is completely vegetated with
beach grass, and we would maintain that after construction.
We also would be willing to do whatever other plantings the
Board recommends or conditions a permit on.
Criteria E, will the project increase the danger of
flood or storm tide damage. In fact, no, the project will
decrease the possibility of storm tide damage because it
will be elevated on pilings.
Criteria F, will the project adversely effect
navigation or tidal waters or the tidal flow of the tidal
waters of the town. I would submit to you that that
criteria is not applicable here since we're not, as many of
the other applications tonight were, asking for any sort of
coastal structure that would protrude into any navigable
waters.
Likewise with criteria G, the project will not
change the course of any channel or natural movement or flow
of any waters.
Likewise with H, it won't weaken or undermine the
lateral support of other lands in the vicinity. We're not
going to be digging down. We're putting in pilings. There
won't be a problem with lateral support.
Criteria I is a catchall, whether the project will
adversely effect the health, safety and general welfare of
the people of the Town. And I would submit there's been no
evidence to date in any of the proceedings gone on now for
over a year that that would be an issue.
With respect to criteria J, will there be an adverse
Board of Trustees 34 February ! 6, 2005
effect on the aesthetic value of the wetland and adjacent
areas. I would submit that there will be no more aesthetic
impact than what's already happened in that area. There are
houses, the property's improved, and the most aesthetically
blighting aspect of the neighborhood is probably the
blacktop parking lot that takes up the lot to the east and
the comfort station there. If you want to increase the
aesthetic value, those are the first things we should work
on I think.
So I submit to you that we have established and
satisfied the criteria in the code between the findings made
by the Town Board and the evidence you have in the file, we
meet all the criteria for the issuance of a Wetland
Permit.
One of the things I want to bring up to you so the
Board fully understands what's happened to the neighborhood
in the past is what type of projects have been approved in
the neighborhood, in the exact same dune land area with the
exact same or similar proximity to wetlands. This is a
board showing -- this was actually prepared for the Town
Board's hearing -- you can see the Coastal Erosion hazard
line, the property of the applicant going west, and the
houses that have been approved along the way, the size and
general scale of them. It was very eye-opening to take a
walk today from the parking lot down to here and looking
visually how those houses are juxtaposed vis-g-vis each
other and the dunes, and they're all in the dunes, and most
of them didn't have to come here for the Wetland Permit,
some came in for Coastal Erosion Hazard Permits. You can
see the size and scale of some of these structures. This is
the immediate neighbor where she approved a 450 plus square
foot footprint for a two-story structure. This is the
original house, this is the addition. I'll go over the
numbers with you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just for clarification the word "dune" was
put in about a year ago to the Wetland Code, that's a new
addition.
MR. KELLEY: So these folks didn't get --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh They didn't get duned.
MR. KELLEY: This structure, Paskov here. 4,500 square
feet, doesn't even include the garage below. Valley. We
didn't find any permits at all for Valley, 3,300 square
feet, no permits for either Wetland or Coastal
Erosion. Pearlstein next door had Coastal Erosion but no
Wetlands. Von Zuben had no Wetlands permit. The only thing
we could find was not for the construction of the house, but
Board of Trustees 35 February 16, 2005
we could only find something on file for a wall and patio.
Rosiki was 1,844 square feet, not including the garage but
looking at that construction I can't believe it's 1,844
square feet, it's got to be larger than that. Some of these
figures were taken from the assessors records, because
that's the only place we could get them, and I think some
was estimated.
So you get a sense of all the structures in the
neighborhood in the dunes, they're all landward of the
coastal erosion hazard zone. They all have the same
impacts and they're all roughly the same distances.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Seaward of the coastal erosion.
MR. KELLEY: Seaward, I'm sorry, seaward, north of the coastal
erosion hazard line. Same thing with the tax map. So you
can see how the lots are configured.
We're in the character of the community with the
house. We're no more disruptive of the ecological values or
the erosion preventing values of the dunes than any of these
other structures, and similar to the case law on Zoning
permits and variances, I submit that you cannot treat
similarly situated applications differently. When the facts
present themselves as similar, you have to be consistent
with what your rulings are. Otherwise you have a serious
problem with the Supreme Court.
I've got copies of the permits we were able to find
for these other houses, Paskov, Peadstein, Von Zuben. I
would submit to you that we have established the criteria
for entitlement for a permit. We have done things to
mitigate the best we could. We have added coastal erosion
benefits to this application over what's existing. I'd be
happy to answer any questions you have about the
application.
TRUSTEE KING: The only question I have, I hate to sound
stupid, but you said the existing house that's there now is
1,782 square feet. I have just scaled if off and come up
with 1,150. Why do I come off with so much smaller?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I got 1,052.
TRUSTEE KING: I got 1,152.
MR. KELLEY: Maybe the lines on that survey are confusing
because they're so many dotted ones.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is that inclusive of the wood decks? I
probably added the wood decks in that.
MR. KELLEY: It may have include the wood decks, may have
included the garage. It's a total footprint.
TRUSTEE KING: That's what I've drawn out to what's there,
unless you square it off somehow. There's 120 square foot
Board of Trustees 36 February 16, 2005
in the breezeway.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You got 100 square feet more than I did. I
included the breezeway, but I didn't include the decks.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where did you get 10 by 20 on the
breezeway?
TRUSTEE KING: It's just confusing to me. To see such a
big difference.
MR. BETSCH: I'm John Betsch. Maybe I can clarify some of
that for you. That square footage was provided by Mr.
Krupski's footprint, it includes, breezeway, garage, decking
and the cemented areas that are covered by cemented areas,
so it comes up to 1,786.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Cemented areas?
MR. BETSCH: I was told total footprint.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Where did you learn that?
MR. BETSCH: That was a message from --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't recall saying that.
MR. BETSCH: It was a telephone message on my machine.
MR. KELLEY: Footprint is footprint. It's not defined in
the code in any event. If you compare the footprint to 782
square feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Under the Wetland Code, with the word
"dune" added, the dune would be the natural protective
feature on the property. Now, if you take a look at the
aerial photographs submitted, Heather provided us with
these. It's hard to refer to this one on the table because
it's so fuzzy, if you could refer to this one here showing
the neighboring three houses to the west. Now, we have made
numerous onsite inspections, we're pretty familiar with the
property. The dune runs through here, and if you notice the
setbacks to the road is much smaller here. What the Board
felt is if the house could be moved back in line with the
other houses, the dune could be restored. You're not
talking about dune restoration, you're talking about sand
and beach grass, the dune could be restored, it could be
built on pilings like the other houses for the obvious
benefits of the owners and to the environment.
MR. KELLEY: I don't think we have an issue with that. I
think we have to maintain a 50 foot setback there. I think
we have room to go only 10 feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We looked at that in the field.
MR. KELLEY: They probably preexist.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that would be your setback for the
area. The dune could be reestablished. I think there's
room.
MR. KELLEY: The septic system here. I think there's
Board of Trustees 37 February 16, 2005
room.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That would satisfy me.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That would satisfy me too.
MR. KELLEY: No problem with that at all.
MR. BETSCH: The house next door to me Mr. Pearlstein is
closer to the road. He's nonconforming to the zoning.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is what we noticed when we were there
one of the previous times. These houses are more or less in
a row, so you'd move your house back in line with theirs,
reestablish the dune in front, because their setbacks from
the road you can see are fairly consistent.
MR. BETSCH: At the moment my house is I believe 68 feet or
something, the proposal is to be 50 feet from the
road. This is Mr. Pearlstein is about 38 or something. We
could compromise, I'd come back to five feet or something.
So I'm not maybe 45 feet; is that what you're saying?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, no, we'd like to have it more in
line.
MR. BETSCH: But he is not conforming. I don't want to have
a probiem with the Zoning Board.
TRUSTEE KING: I thought they take those three houses and
take an average of those road setbacks.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's existing homes there. That's not
like asking for something -- we've required that from people
from time to time because we have required it, because of
wetland setbacks on restricted lots. They have to go and
get the variance for that as long as it's conforming to the
community?
MR. BETSCH: Would it be appropriate to live with the
setback requirement of 40 feet?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm not sure.
MR. BETSCH: For[y feet would move my house 10 feet back
closer to the road, would help with your dune question and
also be in compliance with the Town zoning.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Might be more like 15 feet, I'm not sure.
MR. BETSCH: Then I have a problem, I'm 35 feet --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you sure?
MR. BETSCH: Yes. I could show you Mr. Pearlstein's survey
when he got his when he went to the Zoning Board because his
house the way it's built on an angle.
MR. KELLEY: I request we incorporate in the record the
Pearlstein survey.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They're 39 feet.
MR. KELLEY: So a 40 foot setback will get you where you
need to be.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We rarely have anyone kicked back to us
Board of Trustees 38 February 16, 2005
after we request a variance, very rarely.
MR. KELLEY: Forty feet is what the neighbor has.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The only issue then is the deck.
MR. KELLEY: If the whole thing goes back, the deck goes
back too. Everything gets moved up.
MR. BETSCH: The original plan for the house was trying to
accomplish keeping it on the same whole footprint to be
easier to explain.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What is your total footprint including
deck?
MR. KELLEY: 1,800 in livable space and 600 in the garage.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 3,400. I was just confused on the
percentage increase because you're using deck and cement and
everything else on the original application and you come up
with 1,782, and now you're proposing 3,400. That's
presenting nearly 100 percent.
MR. KELLEY: But we're only increasing livable space.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right. Take away the livable space on
what exists, it's probably a similar ratio.
MR. KELLEY: It is what it is, and the Town Board approved
it.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: For our clarification.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we're looking at the Town Board
approval like what we look at the DEC approval. People a
lot of times come in with a DEC approval, that's fine for
the DEC, but it doesn't have bearing on our end.
MR. KELLEY: The standards for their approval are actually
stricter. Here we're not asking for a variance, we're
conforming.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't know what we ended up with.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Ten feet, the house, everything comes back
10 feet and the dune is restored.
MS. TETRAULT: Would they stake that location?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh You can see it off the old house. It
doesn't push it back that much. If you take 10 feet off of
that, you push it to here, that's where the old house
is. See what I'm saying? We're looking to average the
three houses in the front. If you come back to the middle
of the existing house it's about 15 feet, but then the deck
comes out. We're really trying to re-establish that dune
line, which really goes through your house now.
(Discussion.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Our concern with the dune is we want
this house closer, and you're concerned about going to the
whole zoning issue. If we could move this back and
communicate to the Zoning Board that our main concern is the
Board of Trustees 39 February !6, 2005
dune, so you wouldn't have to go through the process is what
I'm saying.
MR. BETSCH: Suppose we cut the deck back by five feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's fine with me.
(Discussion.)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The house would come back ten feet, the
deck would come back five feet. The deck would start at the
front of the house.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Cut five feet off the deck. So you're
actually moving it back 15 feet as a result of that. Moving
the house ten, then five feet off the deck, that's 15 feet.
Is that going to impact the septic system? Yeah, just flip
it the other way.
(Discussion.)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're getting a 40 foot setback now
instead of 50. I'm not sure if you went to the ZBA what
they would say. It's doubtful they would go down to 37.
MR. KELLEY: Because they take the attitude, can you do what
you want to do without a variance, and yes, you can do what
you want without a variance.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh After careful deliberation, are there any
other comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to approve the
application with the condition that the house be moved
landward 10 feet and the seaward deck be reduced by five
feet, and there be no turf on the site as it currently is,
and that the dune on the seaward side of the deck be
restored to the existing height on the westerly side,
the dune be restored to that height and planted with beach
grass on 12 inch on centers after construction from east to
west property line.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
MR. KELLEY: Thank you very much. How do we proceed with
the Coastal Erosion?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have to wait to see what the State
says. It might be something, it might be nothing. We have
no indication of what the State's comments are going to
be. Like I said, we were audited last August by the State
and they were requesting some of our practices, and I think
we cleared them up. But this kind of raised a lot of red
flags for them. We don't contact them on a
daily basis.
MR. BETSCH: You have approved something, now, can I go
Board of Trustees 40 February. 16, 2005
hypothetically go to the Building Department tomorrow and
say Trustees have approved it?
MS. STANDISH: You have to get our permit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You have to get a new plan and then
showing that and the dune restoration and all that, which is
just description on the survey.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have to go back on Number 1,
Thomas Willdigg, an amendment to include the existing deck, it has
to include the restoration of the fence, the path has to let
naturalized down to the water, that it cannot be used, and
that the survey has to show steps off the deck also. So
they have to give us revised plans.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to add two more
qualified people to the Shellfish Advisory Committee, make a
motion to add Nate Andruski and John Holtzaphel.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
(Time ended: 10:10 p.m.)
RECEIVED 4~
ag'.ol o ~m
~^Y 1~ 2005
-- -~thold Town Clerk