HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-03/23/2005Albert J. Krupski, President
James King, Vice-President
Arkie Foster
Ken Poliwoda
Peggy A. Dickerson
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone 1631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MINUTES
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
7:00 PM
Present were: 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, April 13, 2005 at 8:00 a.m.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to approve,
TRUSTEE KING seconded. All AYES.
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.
WORK SESSION: 6:00 p.m.
TRUSTEE KING moved to approve
TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES.
I. MONTHLY REPORT: For February 2005, a check for
$9,222.15 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 March 23, 2005
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Welcome to our regular monthly meeting. I
have a resolution regarding SEQRA.
Resolve that the Board of Trustees of the Town of
Southold hereby find that the following applications more
fully described in the public hearing from the Trustee
agenda dated Wednesday, March 23, 2005 are classified as
Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations and
are not subject to review under SEQRA.
JAMES REIDY SCTM#123-4-4
CLAUDIO & CAMILLE SCIARA SCTM#31-17-9
EMILIA & ILYA KABAKOV SCTM#123-8-5
LEONARD & AMY WELLESS SCTM#116-4-25
JOANNE BRANCATO SCTM#37-4-13
WILLIAM & DIANE BEARDSLEE SCTM#116-4-24
MICHAEL FERBER SCTM#35-4-15
CHRISTOPHER & GLORIA GROOCOCK SCTM#103-13-8
BARBARA & WILLIAM CLAYTON SCTM#31-14-15
STRONG'S MARINE SCTM#122-4-44.2
ROBERT & CHERYL SCHEIDET SCTM#70-10-29.2
BARRY BALL & KIMBERLY VANZEE SCTM#15-8-26.8
CHRISTOPHER & PEGGY MILONAS SCTM#33-1-14
DECLAN MEAGHER SCTM#57-1-29
SCHEMBRI HOMES, INC. SCTM#79-7-63
PETER NEYLAND SCTM#37-4-5
JOSEPH GONZALEZ SCTM#122-4-14
NORMAN & JUDITH SHAPP SCTM#89-207
JOCKEY CREEK TRUST C/O KATHLEEN DEVORE SCTM#70-6-30
DANIEL FOX SCTM#35-4-28.28
SALVATORE PRATO SCTM#35-5-28.30
ANNA & RICO VERTICCHIO SCTM#34-5-20
KEVIN O'MALLEY SCTM#35-5-21
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's my motion, is there a second?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Resolved by the Board of Trustees of the
Town of Southold that the applications below more fully
described in the public hearing item of the Trustee agenda
dated Wednesday, March 23, 2005, pursuant to the SEQRA rules
and regulations is classified as an Unlisted Action; and be
it further resolved that the applicant is required to submit
Part I of the Long Environmental Assessment Form and be it
further resolved that upon receipt of the Long Environmental
Assessment Form the clerk of the Trustees is hereby directed
to commence a coordinated review pursuant to SEQRA on Louis
2
Board of Trustees 3 March 23, 2005
and Helaine Teperman, SCTM#21-2-16; is there a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Tonight there are a number of resolutions
under Applications for Amendments and Transfers, these two
categories are not technically public hearings; however, if
anyone has any comments, we'll listen to any comments but we
try to move through these quickly so be prepared and come up
to the microphone.
Under the Public Hearing section, there are a number
that have been postponed and we will not open any of those
hearings tonight.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Did I understand you to say that Teperman
is going to be postponed until the 23rd?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No. It's a SEQRA designation, State
Environmental Quality Review Law is going to require us to
do coordinated review with different agencies. So we will
open the hearing. We might not close the hearing, but we
will open the hearing.
These are the hearings that will not be opened: 1.
Barry Ball and Kim Vanzee has been postponed; 8. James
Murray and Susan Segur; 9. Alan Cardinale; 10. Mary
DiGregorio; 18. Paul Maloney has been postponed; 19.
Nicholas Cassis; 20. J.C. Holdings; 21. Monica Kreischer;
22. Sim Moy; 23. Michael Zevitz, all those public hearings
have been postponed. And Number 1 under Coastal Erosion and
Wetland Permits, Angelo Padavan has been postponed. Many of
these applications get submitted and more information is
necessary or the applicant's plans change or they ask for a
postponement. So those applications will not be heard at
all.
IV. RESOLUTION - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
1. JAMES REIDY requests an Administrative Permit to
trim the phragmites to 1' each year, as needed. Located:
2910 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM#123-4-4
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We met with Mr. Reidy in the field. He
was going to give us a plan showing the area marked in it.
I would make a motion to approve the application based on
him submitting an area marked in on his survey showing the
area that he'd like to trim with the condition that it's a
one-year permit that we will review again -- actually, if he
wants it renewed ever again, he should submit pictures to us
in August of the area, and then we can visit the site in
January, but we want pictures of August. That's a condition
Board of Trustees 4 March 23, 2005
of the permit, and if he doesn't provide us with pictures of
August, we won't renew the permit.
MS. TETRAULT: Aisc as a condition, you told him not to mow
from the wall to the phragmites.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. So that area seaward of his
retaining wall should not be mowed lower than one foot in
height. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES.
MR. JOHNSTON: For the record, he realizes this permit is
only one permit that he may need and he may need other
permits.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's true. It should be clear on the
permit.
2. BARBARA & WILLIAM CLAYTON request an
Administrative Permit to repair and renovate the existing
residence within the existing footprint. Located: 12832
Main Road, East Marion. SCTM#31-14-15
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
3. Nigel Robert Williamson on behalf of CLAUDIO &
CAMILLE SClARA request an Administrative Permit to install a
16' by 32' foot above ground pool, deck and six foot high
vinyl fence. Located: 235 Rabbit Lane, East Marion.
SCTM#31-17-9
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is the applicant or anyone representing
them here?
MR. WlLLIAMSON: Hi, I'm Nigel.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We all looked at the site as a Board.
MR. WlLLIAMSON: I heard. The woman looking out the window
was scared.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKi: I hope she's okay. So I would make a
motion to approve that permit with the condition that the
fence can't be closer to the wetlands than 50 feet. We're
going to keep everyone back. We've done that with
structures in the past and a six foot high fence is a
definitely structure. We will want to keep a wildlife
corridor around the perimeter of the pond.
MR. WlLLIAMSON: But even for the four foot fence in the
rear you're looking for 50 feet as well?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes. That's not from the pond, that's
from the wetland delineation line.
MR. WlLLIAMSON: Not the tie line?
Board of Trustees 5 March 23, 2005
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The wetlands line, wherever the wetlands
plants are, the baccharis.
MR. WlLLIAMSON: Where the tie, T-I-E line was.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. The top of the bank, you know where
it breaks down? Somewhere between where it breaks off and
the water that's the wetland line in there, that's where all
the wetland vegetation grows, from that point upland.
MR. WlLLIAMSON: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Like a foot or two seaward of the top of
the bank, somewhere in there. But especially in light your
neighbor has a nice woodland buffer there, and there's no
fences along that whole stretch going to the east. We
wouldn't want to start putting fences along the water.
MS. TETRAULT: Do you want to see a buffer to the water? We
talked about a 10 foot buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Right, along the edge of the water, don't
mow so close, leave about 10 feet from the top of the bank.
MR. WlLLIAMSON: Right. That was on the revised site plan.
The DEC had asked for a natural and undisturbed area, 10 foot
area, between the wetland boundary and fence.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let that grow up. You can have use of the
rest of the yard, you can put a gate there and use it. We
just don't want to see a fence along the corridor along
Marion Lake.
MR. WlLLIAMSON: It's going to break his property in two
either way because now he's got to put the fence across the
back of the pool.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it won't affect it from the water
side, the animals that live near the water, it won't affect
them. They'll still have a 50 foot wide corridor they can
travel back and forth. I see what you're saying. It's so
developed on the beach, whatever gets there gets there.
MR. WlLLIAMSON: I think it's going to make it look like an
urban site.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was our thought too, to put the fence
there, of course.
MR. JOHNSTON: You don't have to put a fence.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We didn't suggest the fence. He doesn't
have to put a fence.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Especially a six foot vinyl one. He
could consider a split, post and rail.
MR. WlLLIAMSON: But still a 50 foot buffer.
MR. JOHNSTON: I don't think it's clear that he realizes
it's from the tidal wetlands line.
MR. WlLLIAMSON: Yes, I do. It's going to be probably three
feet off the proposed pool.
Board of Trustees 6 March 23, 2005
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Yes, thank you. So we can approve this
tonight but then you'll have to draw it in on the
planning.
MR. WlLLIAMSON: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I'll make a motion to approve
that with the condition that the fence be no nearer to the
wetland line than 50 feet, and that it can be constructed
around the pool and the pool be approved.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want to backwash for that dry well?
MS. TETRAULT: Yes, I think so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Also a condition a small dry well for the
backwash for the pool filter.
4. Frank Uellendahl, Architect, on behalf of EMILIA &
ILYA KABAKOV request an Administrative Permit to construct
a first floor addition to the landward side of the existing
dwelling and to construct a second floor addition.
Located: 1700 Park Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM#123-8-5
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I didn't have any problems with any of
the additions, they were going on the existing footprint.
The first floor which is coming out on a brick patio, second
floor was going straight up. However, when I walked around
the front of the house, there were some cuttings they had
cleared off some of the bluffs, and when the woman saw it,
she was appalled that it had been done. She thought when
the bulkhead had been redone it had been cleared. She said
they were going to be replanting it with natural vegetation.
MS. TETRAULT: Was it bulkheaded recently?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Done or redone?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It had been worked on, but yes, we could
check it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh What is the suggestion?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: She had already plans of doing the
replanting. I had no problem with the additions. We can
approve the additions with the condition that they bring in
a plan for replanting.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Okay.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Like Heather said, she could check the
permit for the bulkhead. Mr. Uellendahl?
MR. UELLENDAHL: I'm not involved in the application for the
bulkhead at all. I think it was done last year.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The bulkhead?
MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes. I'm just the architect.
6
Board of Trustees 7 March 23, 2005
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I didn't have any problem. The first
floor is great on the footprint, and the second floor is
also. That was the only, I think it's in here.
MR. UELLENDAHL: What is the concern about the vegetation?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It had been cleared off on the bluff;
there had been quite a bit of clearing done.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want to hold that, Peggy, and we'll
go look at it next month?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't know.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's up to you.
MR. JOHNSTON: Look at it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We'll go out and look at it and table it
for the month.
MR. UELLENDAHL: You put them both into one?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No. But before we give the permit for any
construction, we want to look at the bluff. So I'll make a
motion to table.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
5. Scott Albrecht on behalf of LEONARD & AMY
WESSELL requests an Administrative Permit for the upgraded
sanitary system. Located: 375 Beachwood Drive,
Cutchogue. SCTM#116-4-25.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I believe this is the one we
had all seen. This was the violation on the upgrade
that had been done on the front. So this is just a permit
for work that had already been done. Is there anyone
here for this permit?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's just a permit for the
as-built.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I know. What is all that soil doing on
top?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's the final grade. That's going to
be ~- the water's pretty close there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON:
I didn't have any problem with it. I'll make a motion to
approve.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Unless you want to make a motion they will
replant that. It's a dirt pile.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's their back. It's just very highly
elevated.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I don't think they have a choice. I think
that's what it is.
Board of Trustees 8 March 23, 2005
6. Meryl Kramer on behalf of JOANNE BRANCATO
requests an Administrative Permit to construct a covered
porch and mudroom on the landward side of the
dwelling. Located: 245 Pine Place, East Marion. SCTM#37-4-13
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion on that.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES.
APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS:
1. WILLIAM and DIANE BEARDSLEE request an amendment
to Permit 5958 to upgrade the existing septic
system. Located: 435 Beachwood Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#116-4-24
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I went and did that. It's the same
area. I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE PQLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
2. MICHAEL FERBER requests an amendment to Permit
398 to rebuild and extend the existing catwalk and return the
floating dock to its previous position, and to transfer Permit #398
from Walter Honings to Michael and Marlene Ferber.
Located: 1825 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM#35-4-15
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I see someone is here to speak,
Mr. Ferber?
MR. FERBER: Right.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We visited the site last Thursday, and
there's a permit issued to Walter Honings for- it's kind of
an odd permit.
MR. FERBER: It was issued in '67.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It says dock 42 feet with two pilings, but
the drawing of the dock shows a 20 foot dock, a 12 foot ramp
and a 6' by 20' float, which doesn't match the description
of the permit that was issued
MR. FERBER: I didn't buy the property from him, I bought
the property from somebody else who apparently took the
L-shaped dock and turned it into a perpendicular dock,
making the length of the entire unit approximately 76 feet.
And I was not aware, of course, of the permit or the fact
that he had changed anything, but the depth at the end of
that dock is about six, six and-a-half feet at Iow tide.
And what I'd like to do is take the fixed part of it,
extend that to 60 feet and turn the floating dock back to
the L-shape that it was in originally, giving me at the end,
I'm adding about six feet to about 75 to 80 feet at the end,
which is a depth of about six to seven feet.
8
Board of Trustees 9 March 23, 2005
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have field inspection notes.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 70 feet total from bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We measured the pier line, I think which
would be the distance between your neighbors' docks, we try
to establish a pier line, if one person has a dock that's --
MR. FERBER: Which neighbor?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Neighbor on both sides. That's what we
do, we try to establish a pier line so everyone's dock is
the same, and it doesn't provide for a navigational problem.
If somebody's dock goes out farther, it becomes a
navigational issue because people have to go around it.
MR. FERBER: How far out did their docks go? I didn't
measure their docks.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We didn't measure their docks, we try to
establish a line between them.
MR. FERBER: The property runs at an angle.
MS. TETRAULT: You have 68 feet from the bulkhead to the
pier line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We got 68, feet we rounded off to 70.
Someone standing on the neighbor's dock, we measure out your
dock until we are in between the two neighbors' docks.
That's how we --
MR. FERBER: What is the maximum you can give me?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 70 feet from your bulkhead.
MR. FERBER: And now you say it is what at the current time?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Your permit reads 42 feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The permit doesn't make any sense but the
description doesn't match it.
MR. FERBER: I didn't know a permit existed when I bought
the property. I thought what he had there was legal. Of
course, he had been there for 20 some-odd years. I had no
reason to question. I'm trying to get out to a depth of
six to six and-a-half feet at Iow tide, which would probably
need me about 75 feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The problem is, the way the creek is
there, you'd be sticking out.
MR. FERBER: If l can't bring the boat in, the stern of the
boat is going to be sticking out considerably more than that
because of the depth as it comes in. I want to turn
the dock L, so I can park the boat parallel. If I bring the
bow of the boat in as far as I could at Iow water, the stern
of the boat would be sticking out far further than the dock.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't see where we can allow you to go
out --
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You probably have a five foot ball.
MR. FERBER: I don't want to do that. We're very important.
9
Board of Trustees 10 March 23, 2005
We want to keep it very nice. If we could get to 75 feet
total from the bulkhead, that would probably achieve the
objective.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The reason that pier line is so important
is so your neighbors don't start jumping out. All of a
sudden the pier line becomes this, then it's this. Everyone
starts jumping five feet.
MR. FERBER: There are some piers out that extend
considerably further out.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: In that creek right now, 70 feet would
maintain a continuous pier line that exists.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have an aerial picture here, if you
would like to see it. It really shows the different --
MR. FERBER: You're basically saying that I have to go --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The boat won't be there the whole time
anyway, but the dock will be there.
MR. FERBER: 12 months. If there's any way we can slip a
couple feet in there?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's the problem, you can't, then
everyone wants a few extra. You can see how it looks if
they go out further. They're going to block you out.
MR. FERBER: The stern of the boat is going to stick out
there, and I'm worried that somebody's going to come along
and -- it's a 43 foot boat.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You're 20 square feet of additional
bottom coverage. If we give you five more feet, 20 square
feet of bottom coverage, it would end up in a possible net
result of say six neighbor docks, it would could end up 120.
MR. FERBER: You're thinking ahead?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Oh, yes.
MR. FERBER: Well, I'm going to have to live with what you
give me. I have no choice about that. Will there be a
permit issued then?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It will be a permit issued in your name.
MR. FERBER: I'll be able to extend the fixed dock. In
other words, you're giving me total of 70 feet from the
bulkhead, right?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. FERBER: Then you have no problem with me extending the
fixed dock because I'm turning the floating dock. It will
end up at 70 feet the same way.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Working it backwards it will be
approximately if you have a 20 foot ramp?
MR. FERBER: 12 foot ramp.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: And a 6' by 20' float, overhang 4 feet
plus 12 feet, that's 16 feet. You can have a 54 foot fixed
10
Board of Trustees l 1 March 23, 2005
catwalk.
MR. FERBER: 54?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's what it will work out to, 54, plus
a 12 foot ramp, plus a 6' by 20' float.
MR. FERBER: If that's all I can get, that's all I can get.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can approve this tonight, but you're
going to have to give us a new plan showing that.
MR. FERBER: Are you going to give me something in writing
or should I write it out and have my person o-
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We'll have it on the record, we're not
giving you the permit. We'll approve it tonight, so if you
come in with the plans tomorrow you can get the permit.
MR. FERBER: The permit's to read?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You want this perpendicular to the
shoreline or do you want it parallel to the shoreline?
MR. FERBER: The dock, the floating dock will be
parallel. The ramp will be the same as it is now, just
extended and replaced with the newer one.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What length ramp do you have now? You
want the same length ramp?
MR. FERBER: The ramp is 12. The ramp is not going to
change. It's the same ramp. So you want a new plan with
the fixed dock being --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It will be whatever the dock builder draws
it in as, depending on however they extend the ramp out.
MR. FERBER: You're giving me a total of 70 feet?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct. And I don't know if we
want to transfer that old permit. It's so vague it has a
different description. It doesn't match the drawing. So
it's kind of useless.
MR. FERBER: We're getting a total of 70 feet, I have to
draw that in, the ramp, the floating dock and the fixed
dock.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. We'll make a motion to approve the
dock for Michael Ferber with the catwalk ramp and float not
to exceed 70 feet from the existing bulkhead, and you have
three two-pile dolphins; why do you need three?
MR. FERBER: I don't want to come back and find the boat at
the end of the creek on its side one day. I want stability
there, and that's what the builder suggested.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh There's two at one end of the float and
one at the other end.
MR. FERBER: Also because the float is only 20 some-odd
feet, I have to have something to tie it off to.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We could only approve a 6' by 20' foot
float.
11
Board of Trustees 12 March 23, 2005
MR. FERBER: That's what I have now, isn't it?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, well, in your -- we're getting into
that old permit again. In the old permit it's a 6' by 20'
float. In the current code it's for a 6' by 20', so we
couldn't approve anything larger than that.
MR. FERBER: I'm sorry, I lost you. The permit allows for
a 6' by 20', and I have a 6' by 20'?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MR. FERBER: So what's the problem? I'm not changing the
float at all.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Who is your dock builder?
MR. FERBER: Angelo.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's a lot of pilings.
MR. FERBER: It's a lot of boat.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm thinking of Henry Smith's dock. He
has a 45 foot boat, he has just single pilings at each end.
I've never seen a double pile.
MR. FERBER: I just need to feel comfortable since we don't
live there year round.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I figure a double pile on each end is
more than sufficient.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't have a problem with the extra one
there. It's tight to the float, it's not like it's out in
the open. And the doubles come up just as well in the ice
as the singles. Don't let him tell you otherwise. We have
pictures.
MR. FERBER: That's why I have the bubbler in there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to approve that with
catwalk, ramp, 6' by 20' float with a three pile system to
hold the float.
TRUSTEE POLlWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If we have to transfer that permit, we'll
transfer it tonight if our attorney thinks it's appropriate.
Otherwise, it will be a new permit
3. CHRISTOPHER & GLORIA GROOCOCK request an
Amendment to Permit 6043 to include the distribution of the
excavated soil from the digging of the new foundation onto
the existing lawn area between the house and the top of the
bank, and to construct a retaining wall along the top of the
present bank. Located: 1030 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue.
SCTM#103-13-8
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We looked at this on Thursday, and we have
no problem with that if you keep the retaining wall in line
with your neighbors, with Mr. Whipps, just follow that same
12
Board of Trustees 13 March 23, 2005
line of retaining wall across.
MR. GROOCOCK: As a matter of fact, in our original letter
there was another issue which relates to the demolishing of
the house that we are rebuilding and putting extensions
to. The reason that we are coming back to you is that this
was suggested by the Southold Building Department.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I don't think we had any problem with
that. That should have been included in this resolution
MR. GROOCOCK: That's right.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's why I flipped the page. I expected
to see it on Page 3, and it wasn't there.
MS. STANDISH: No, it should be there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll add that in. Also to demolish the
house and to rebuild as planned.
MR. GROOCOCK: We're not changing the footprint.
In essence, the end result is going to be the same, we just
have to go to it by different methods.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It was just published that way. It just
never made it into tonight's agenda.
MS. TETRAULT: They asked for the retaining wall pretty
close to the bank, it's just going to be back in line with
Mr. Whipps.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It will match up with Mr. Whipps.
MS. TETRAULT: You also said no turf in front of the
house.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can do plantings there but we don't
want to see lawn.
MR. GROOCOCK: No.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to approve that as
written in the public hearings notice. Actually, if you can
come in tomorrow and draw it on your survey with that
retaining wall showing it with Mr. Whipps.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
4. STRONG'S MARINE requests an Amendment to Permit
5654 to install 20 linear feet of sheathing on the interior
side of the north/south bulkhead adjacent to the
travel-lift. Located: Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. SCTM:
122-4-44.2
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You didn't have any problems with this?
TRUSTEE KING: I didn't look at this.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I thought you had been down there. I
went down assuming you had looked at it, so I didn't
scrutinize it that much. I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I'm
familiar with the area.
13
Board of Trustees 14 March 23, 2005
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mr. Strong called me on this about a month
ago. It's not a big deal.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
5. ROBERT & CHERYL SCHEIDET request an Amendment to
Permit 5962 to construct a docking facility with an open
grate platform one foot above elevation. Located: 2570
Clearview Avenue, Southold. SCTM#70-1029.2
TRUSTEE KING: Remember this one, Kenny?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Where there was a platform, the steps going
up open grate, foot off the ground.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is the grate, this is the ramp,
that's the float.
TRUSTEE KING: I make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
6. GERARD & CAROLYN SCHULTHEIS requests the last
One-Year Extension to Permit 5746, as issued on April 30,
2003. Located: 1640 First Street, New Suffolk.
SCTM#117-5-46.3
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve a One-Year
Extension.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
7. JOSEPH CASARONA requests the last One-Year
Extension to Permit #5517 as issued on March 20, 2002.
Located: 705 Birch Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM#83-1-36.1
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This permit is a stabilization of the
bluff. 700 cubic yards of clean fill to be regrading the
existing slope, all material trucked to an off-site location
approximately 2,700 square feet of bluff face to be
augmented.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I thought this project was done.
MS. STANDISH: It was started. We only had one section --
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We didn't have a problem with this last
time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How can you start something like that and
not finish it?
MS. STANDISH: There were two parts to it.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There's also a proposed 4' by 8' access
timber access walk.
14
Board of Trustees l 5 March 23, 2005
MS. STANDISH: I think it was the stairs --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh, okay.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I make a motion to approve this
extension.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
8. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of BROADBLUE,
LLC requests a One-Year Extension to Permit 5752, as issued
on April 30, 2003. Located: 230 Wiggins Lane, Greenport.
SCTM#35-4-25
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would make a motion to approve the
One-Year Extension. We took a look at it, and the
bulkheading work was completed. On the plan it says 15 foot
wide backfill area to be revegetated upon project
completion. Could we just include in our One-Year Extension
letter that since that work has been done and completed,
we'd like to see the area revegetated this spring, including
the 10 foot wide area to be planted with spartina altema
flora in the intertidal zone with a fiber all, that that
should be planted this spring. They shouldn't wait until
the house is built. It's got nothing to do with the rest of
it. I'll make a motion there.
MS. TETRAULT: You also had said to repair the silt fence
and put a line of hay bales up.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Include that in the letter
too.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
9. ROBERT VILLANI requests a transfer of Permit 5942
from Sandford Bernhardt to Robert Villani, as issued on
June 24, 2004. Located: 4340 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck.
SCTM#122-4-30
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
10. Charles Sidorowicz on behalf of MARK BAISCH
requests a transfer of Permit 4010 from Norman Wiedersum to
Mark Baisch, to repair the existing docking facility.
Located: 1425 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 35-4-11.
TRUSTEE KING: Charlie, you need the nine feet? I know we
talked about six feet in the field as far as the float being
off the bulkhead. That was the only question the Board had.
MR. SIDOROWlCZ: On the north side of us and on the south
15
Board of Trustees 16 March 23, 2005
side of us both docks and both pilings are out eight
feet. To the north, the piling is out eight feet with a 10
foot dock. Our piling is out nine foot with a six foot
dock.
TRUSTEE KING: So you're inside the pier line?
MR. SIDOROWlCZ: Yes. We'll move the north piling in one
foot, but we'd like to move the south piling out to
straighten it out with the dock on the south. That's
all. We don't want to go out any further than anyone else,
but we'd like to be in a straight line with it.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to suggest he just amend this, if
they're looking for that hot tub?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, that's fine.
TRUSTEE KING: We talked about a hot tub.
MR. SIDOROWlCZ: Yes, I didn't have time to put that one in.
TRUSTEE KING: We can do with this amendment, and come in
and draw it in later.
MR. S~DOROWlCZ: That's fine.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application
with the inclusion of a hot tub placed up on the bank near
the house with the drawing on the plans to indicate where
the hot tub's going.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
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
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is the public hearing portion of the
meeting. I need a motion to go off the regular meeting.
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll go over these again, in case someone
came in later. There are a number that have been
postponed. Number 1, Barry Ball and Kimberly Vanzee has
been postponed. Number 8, James Murray and Susan Segur is
16
Board of Trustees 17 March 23, 2005
postponed; 9. Alan Cardinale is postponed; 10, Mary
DiGregorio is postponed; 18, Paul Maloney is postponed; 19,
Nicholas Cassis is postponed; 20, J. and C. Holdings is
postponed; 21, Monica Kreischer is postponed; 22, Sim Moy is
postponed; 23, Michael Zevitz is postponed. And Number 1
under Coastal Erosion and Wetland Permits, Angelo Padavan,
is postponed. These items we will not have a public hearing
on any of these public hearings tonight.
2. CHRISTOPHER & PEGGY MILONAS request a Wetland
Permit for the existing beach stairs and deck on the bluff.
Located: 2400 Sound Drive, Greenport. SCTM#33-1-14
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I did this. Is there anyone who would
like to comment on this application? No one here for or
against this application? As far as the Board, I inspected
this. Al, I found another deck here that was 10' by 30'.
They said it was built in 1977, 1978 area. I don't know how
the Board feels about the deck.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On the beach?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's in the toe of the bluff, it's in the
bluff down near the beach. It's large, it has a small shed
on it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Does this have a permit on it?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No. And there's two 5' by 10' foot
platforms also, which are less significant, but the 10' by
30' is fairly significant. I don't know which direction
does the Board want to go?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I think we should approve that.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I can approve two platforms and a third
platform to match the other two, and they can remove the
rest of it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How about the shed?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It depends the direction the Board's
going to take on the future of the Long Island Sound and the
size of the decks on the bluff. I don't know if coastal
erosion will allow it, and the shed on the deck. We got 5'
by 10' platform, 5' by 10' platform, this measured it's
almost 30' by 10'.
MR. JOHNSTON: Is it seaward of the coastal erosion line?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's on the beach.
MR. JOHNSTON: Is that an area where there's a coastal erosion
line?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. I would say don't approve that. I
would say I don't have a problem with approving the stairs
with the platforms, and I would say it can't be
reconstructed with those size platforms, it can only be
reconstructed with 4' by 8', as per the code, but that the
17
Board of Trustees 18 March 23, 2005
deck at the bottom -
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What do you think about the 5' by 10'
platforms?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I would note it in the permit saying they
shouldn't be reconstructed. So I would approve it now, but --
what shape are they in?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Fairly good, they've got a couple years
in them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When they're replaced it should be
replaced with 4' by 8'.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Jim, do you agree with that?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. JOHNSTON: Are you on Page 37-10 at the bottom
unregulated activity?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I was at 37-17.
MR. JOHNSTON: I was looking at accepted and unregulated
activities. The stairs solely for pedestrian use, built by
an individual owner limited purpose of providing
noncommercial access to the beach. But I don't know about
the shed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It doesn't include, there's a big deck at
the bottom, that's the problem. This is only Chapter 97,
don't forget.
MR. JOHNSTON: This is 37.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But don't forget Chapter 97.
MR. JOHNSTON: Right. I can't get an exception for the deck
or the shed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The deck wouldn't be an exception at all.
MR. JOHNSTON: That's before I get to 97.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is the deck in the beach or the bluff?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It says approximate bottom of the bluff,
which it is, it's the bottom of the bluff approaching the
beach. You have one set of stairs after this large deck.
i'd say within 20 feet of the actual beach itself.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The following activities are prohibited on
bluffs: All development unless specifically allowed in
37-17B, and the only activities allowed are minor
alterations in accordance with the Coastal Erosion Permit,
bluff cuts in accordance with a Coastal Erosion Permit, and
new construction, modification or restoration of walkways or
stairways in accordance with the conditions of a Coastal
Erosion Management Permit and nonmajor additions to existing
structures on bluffs pursuant to Coastal Erosion Management
Permit. I mean, unless you go into a square foot basis, I
think a deck is separate from the stairs. You wouldn't call
it an addition to the stairs. I would think that would be
18
Board of Trustees 19 March 23, 2005
prohibited. I would think that would keep the
vegetation from growing thero, right?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked underneath this deck to compare
the vegetation to the left and right and there is none. They
should probably have to replant under this deck if we make
them remove it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They should probably be required to do
that. We've never allowed a deck on the bluff yet. We
couldn't issue a permit for this one just because it's built.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: They're specifically asking for existing
beach stairs and deck on the bluff, they're asking for a
Wetland Permit for that. I don't see any reason why we
couldn't deny it fiat out. Let them reapply for
something we would approve, since it is against code. State
the reason why it's against whatever code it is, 37 point
whatever it is.
MR. JOHNSTON: They didn't apply for what they need.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Let them come back and reapply for what
they do need, which is a set of stairs.
MR. JOHNSTON: That's your point, right?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Kenny's point. It's fine.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I make a motion to deny the request for a
Wetland Permit on behalf of Christopher and Peggy Milonas.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MR. JOHNSTON: Denying without prejudice?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Absolutely.
3. DECLAN MEAGHER requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a second-floor addition, expansion of the first
floor, enclosed screened-in porch, and in ground swimming
pool. Located: 750 Blue Marlin Drive, Southold.
SCTM#57-1-29
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this
application?
MR. MEAGHER: I'm Declan Meagher, the applicant. I don't
know if you want a presentation or I'll respond to any
questions.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll read the Conservation Advisory Counsel
recommended approval with the condition of a 20 foot non-turf
buffer, dry wells and gutters are installed to contain the
roof runoff, and a new sanitary system is required, it
should be installed landward of the blind. I think as far
19
Board of Trustees 20 March 23, 2005
as the buffer goes, we should address that if the bulkheads
ever change. And we need to see dry wells on the survey for
the roof runoff.
MS. TETRAULT: And for the swimming pool.
TRUSTEE KING: And for the pool backwash.
MR. MEAGHER: We intended to do that on the drawings that
are to be submitted for a building permit.
TRUSTEE KING: Other than that, I don't have anything
further. Does anybody else have anything further? I'll
make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application
with the requirements stated as far as dry wells go.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
4. SCHEMBRI HOMES, INC. requests a Wetland Permit
to construct a single-family dwelling, on site sewage
disposal system, and pervious driveway. Located: 1025
Seawood Drive, Southold. SCTM# 79-7-63.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here to speak in favor of
the application?
MR. SCHEMBRI: I'm Pete Schembri, how are you? I guess we
reviewed the site together, and we have done all the changes
that the Board has asked us on the site plan.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Before we make any Board comments, would
anyone else like to speak on this application? Okay. We
had a discussion last Thursday about the size of the house
and the fact that it was a single story house, and the Board
felt it would have less impact if you made it a two-story
house; it would have a smaller footprint, and I think that
would be a bit better for that location.
MR. SCHEMBRI: We wanted to have a two-story house, but the
Building Department, because we were going to have part of
the foundation exposed in the rear, said that in Southold
they didn't want us to do a two-story house on that lot
because they didn't want it to be a three-story house. So
we did the site plan for the one-story, Mike Verity had
asked us to do it. We originally wanted to do a two-story
house.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we would rather have a two story
house there, you could make it into a smaller footprint.
Environmentally it would be better. We're going to
recommend that tonight. Another thing the Board was looking
at was a 30 foot setback off the road to try and bring that
back and try to maximize the wetland setback, and you're
20
Board of Trustees 2 l March 23, 2005
going to replant in the back.
MR. SCHEMBRI: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Okay. We need a replanting plan for that
showing that, and then when we get that, we can vote on
that. And we're going to make that recommendation. If you
want, we can make it in writing to the building inspector.
MR. SCHEMBRh That would be great. He has the plans for
the two-story. We originally went with that and they just
said they didn't want it to turn into a three-story
house. It was a two-story house. So he kind of told us to
go back to a ranch, so that's what we did.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right. If there's no other comment,
we'll make a motion to table the application until next
month.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 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 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, Southold. SCTM#
92-1-4.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak on behalf of this application?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, Jim Fitzgerald on behalf of
Mr. and Mrs. Cacioppo. When we were last here the
Board mentioned in kind of a generic way it was too
close to the wetlands, and I said I would take it back to
the designer, who is Mrs. Cacioppo, who is here with
us tonight. She said that the thing that's called a
breezeway on the survey, which is not really a breezeway in
the ordinary sense, it's a connecting hallway, is really
essential to both to design aspect and the proper
functioning of the various components. The first reason is
that if the new building were moved over close to the
existing building, it would eliminate the access to the
basement steps, it would eliminate any way of getting to the
rear of the property without going through the house or
through the garage, and it would close off the windows in
the dining room, which is that part of the house which is
immediately adjacent to the proposed construction. I think
that the point I would like to make to the Board is that the
structure that we're proposing is going to be behind a four
or five foot existing retaining wall, and I think that the
21
Board of Trustees 22 March 23, 2005
presence of the wall kind of gets the construction out of
the too close to the wetlands category. We can, although
the survey showing the proposed work shows the corner of the
new structure on the retaining wall, that's because it's a
computer and it doesn't understand. We would of course,
stay landward of the retaining wall, and even so, as you can
see on the map, that's 52 feet from the edge of the
wetlands. So I would like to suggest to you that it's not
really too close to the wetlands, and that we can, by making
appropriate minor adjustments at that particular point, at the
corner of the garage, stay with the design that has been so
carefully worked out and not be too close to the wetlands.
And if you would like to hear the details of the importance
of the design, Mrs. Cacioppo would be happy to go into that
for you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Didn't we have some discussion?
TRUSTEE KING: At the last meeting we talked about the
possibility of reducing the size of the garage.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. Is there anyone else who would
like to speak for or against the application here, before
the Board discusses? That's what I thought.
MS. TETRAULT: You said you wanted to bring it back 10 feet
away from the water, that's what I have.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We discussed the possibility since you
didn't want to give up the breezeway, we had discussed
shortening the distance of the proposed two-story garage not
getting rid of the proposed breezeway, but of shortening
this distance here (indicating). We still feel it's too
close from the last minute. I don't know whether this was
feasible from a design standpoint.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Just take shortening this.
MR. FITZGERALD: Why would this be not acceptable?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The code I was looking for here, the
setbacks for a residence is 100 feet. So by putting that,
that's basically like putting another house, like putting
this house here.
MR. FITZGERALD: Then doesn't the presence of the retaining
wall have something to do with that? Shouldn't it?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think the retaining wall was put in
because I remember that the new driveway construction to
keep your elevation up for that new driveway that we
permitted. But it still wouldn't meet the setbacks and to
me it's like putting an extra house on right in that
area. And when we first inspected it, I think the Board
didn't have a problem if that breezeway was eliminated
because that would keep it as part of the house, but this is
22
Board of Trustees 23 March 23, 2005
like almost like making it -- it does say garage. Is
there living space included in there, in the garage?
MR. FITZGERALD: There will be living space on the second
floor.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's how I feel about it. It's like a
house, and it doesn't meet the setbacks.
MR. FITZGERALD: What is this that you feel?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It doesn't meet the setbacks because
you're bringing another house within 52 feet.
MS. CACIOPPO: I'm Danielle Cacioppo, homeowner. Was the
setback also contingent on an elevation as well, as long as
you're 10 feet above?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's a DEC requirement.
MS. CACIOPPO: Okay. We were willing to consider if they
shortened the size.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We try to maximize the setback
completely. That's why when we originally looked at it, we
thought it would be acceptable if you removed the breezeway,
bring it back almost an additional 10 feet to the house.
MS. CACIOPPO: Right. But that's not functionally possible
because of the stairs to the basement.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Would you consider shortening the
distance the size of the structure from 24 to 16?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Instead of a three car, it will be a two
car.
MS. CACIOPPO: It's only a two car now. It's not possible
to fit three cars in 24 feet.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Do you have fencing all around the
wetlands?
MS. C^CIOPPO: Deer fencing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I recommended in the field, before we
give issue of any permit, we recommend that all that be
removed.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We've said that every time the permit's
come up.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We've said that many times.
MS. CACIOPPO: Okay, we're not aware of that. Okay.
MR. FITZGERALD: I'm not sure I understand the 100 foot
setback there; are you saying you don't allow the
construction of residences within 100 feet of the wetlands?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. That's a recommended minimum in the
code. Construction of accessory structures of existing
family dwelling provided the subject activity will not have
undo adverse impacts of the wetlands and the setback is no
less than 50 feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Based on the code --
23
Board of Trustees 24 March 23, 2005
MR. JOHNSTON: The 100 foot setback is very clear in D-lA.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. Unless you go to accessory
structure for single-family dwelling, which is 50 feet.
MR. FITZGERALD: If we took the breezeway out, it would be
okay.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what we said before, yes.
MR. FITZGERALD: How does the wetland know if the
breezeway's there or not there?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Without the breezeway it moves the
structure just that distance.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What we meant was, when we said eliminate
the breezeway, we meant not just physically eliminate it,
but eliminate the breezeway and slide the whole garage
adjacent to the house.
MR. FITZGERALD: I understand. If we eliminate the
breezeway and make this an accessory structure, it's okay
because it's 52 feet from the wetlands.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No. It's 52 from the inlet.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The delineation line. There's wetland
between the inlet and that.
MR. FITZGERALD: I'm still having trouble with the 100 foot
setback.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was for a residence.
MR. FITZGERALD: But you're saying, in other words, the
Trustees will not permit the construction of residences
within their jurisdiction?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. That's a suggested minimum I mean
anything outside of 100 feet --
MR. FITZGERALD: It's outside your jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's correct. And if possible that's
what we'd rather see on a piece of property where that's
possible.
MR. FITZGERALD: But you have this very night --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, but quite often that happens, and
nobody's here because they can construct outside of 100
feet, so they're not here. All the people that could,
they're not here tonight.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Since you don't want to reconsider not
doing it without the breezeway, would you consider doing it
reducing the size of the garage? Was that something you
would consider?.
MS. CACIOPPO: I guess I would consider it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you want to rethink it?
MS. CACIOPPO: Reducing a certain dimension, but I
wouldn't say in half, by 12 feet, that doesn't seem
possible for the functional standpoint of what we're
24
Board of Trustees 25 March 23, 2005
looking to gain. Ideally we're looking for a two-car
garage. We could possibly reduce the size of the
breezeway by a few feet and then reduce the size
of the garage by a few feet.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC tabled the application because the
garage was not staked at the time. However, it appears to
be too dose to the wetlands. So Conservation Advisory
Counsel agrees with our determination that the structure's
too close to the wetlands.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you want to reconsider --
MR. FITZGERALD: You mean from the standpoint of this 100
foot setback?
TRUSTEE KING: From the standpoint of where the wetlands
are.
TRUSTEE PQLIWODA: Our concern in the field was 50 feet from
the wetland delineation line. Whether it was the breezeway
or the garage, we wanted that proposed structure moved eight
feet further from the wetlands to create a 50 foot buffer
between the wetlands and that new structure.
MR. FITZGERALD: But that means it would be within the 100
foot.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes. Still within our jurisdiction, but
we would allow it.
MS. GACIOPPO: So they have to work on eight feet. It's
hard to know if that's possible.
TRUSTEE DIGKERSON: You could work with it.
MS. GAGIOPPO: That's a lot of feet.
TRUSTEE DIGKERSON: Do you want us to look at it in April
and stake out some options with that in mind, reducing the
size?
MS. CACIOPPO: Stake out other options?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. And we'll come look at it in April
and we'd also like to see the fence removed when we come
look at it.
MS. CACIOPPO: I don't know if that can happen before
then.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's going to have to happen anyway. The
problem is it obstructs all wildlife from that whole
area. It's not only stopping deer, it's stopping everything
else though. If you had a fence that just stopped the deer
that would be fine.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to table.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
6. David Corwin on behalf of PETER NEYLAND requests
25
Board of Trustees 26 March 23, 2005
a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing deteriorated
timber bulkhead with vinyl sheet bulkhead along same line;
maintenance dredge approximately 330 cubic yards of bottom
to obtain a depth of five below mean Iow water, use 100
cubic yards of spoil as backfill material, dispose of
balance of spoil materials at an upland location. Located:
60 Bayview Drive, East Marion. SCTM# 37-4o5.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment
on this application?
MR. CORWlN: David Corwin. I don't have any comments, but
if you have any questions, I would try to answer them.
MR. HILBERT: My name is Russ Hilbert, I'm Mr. Neyland's
direct adjacent neighbor and I was not notified. If you
look at Mr. Corwin's filing here, if you look at Lot 6
that's my property. Obviously the list of property owners,
I'm not on it. This came to my attention over the weekend.
I'd like the opportunity to look more closely at the
drawings and make a comment. I'd obviously like to have a
bit more time on this. I am Lot 6 and 7. My bulkhead
immediately adjoins Mr. Neyland's bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have any comment on that, Mr.
Corwin?
MR. CORWlN: I made a mistake. I corrected it and sent a
notice to the address in the assessor's records.
MR. HILBERT: This was brought to my attention last week by
my neighbor.
MR. JOHNSTON: Who did you send it to?
MR. CORWlN: Sabrina Kirkpatrick.
MR. HILBERT: It's my wife.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I see. It wasn't done in time, is that it?
MR. HILBERT: We're not listed on the property owners here,
so hence, we were obviously not notified. Clearly we are
his neighbor.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It says you received a notification on
March 14th.
MR. HILBERT: It was mailed that day. We don't live out
here. We live in the city. This was only brought to my
attention by one of my other neighbors that I was not on the
list for notification.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Can we table this?
MR. CORWlN: Sure.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You can come down to our office and thumb
through any information.
MR. HILBERT: Sure. I just wanted the opportunity to talk
to Mr. Corwin.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Wait a second. We only need one week's
26
Board of Trustees 27 March 23, 2005
postmarked notice according to the code.
MS. STANDISH: It has to be postmarked one week before the
hearing according to the code.
MR. JOHNSTON: it's Chapter 58.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh While we're all here, do you have any
specific concerns?
MR. HILBERT: Yes. I'm sort of looking at this. This only
came to my attention through my neighbor, noting the fact
that I was not on the list of people being notified.
Obviously the amount of backfill that's going to be dumped
adjacent to our property was an issue. So, as I said, I
only have this over the weekend. I haven't had a chance
to look at it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I didn't have any conversation with Mr.
Corwin or Mr. Neyland about this. In our experience it's a
pretty straightforward replacement. I would think that it
would be standard.
MR. HILBERT: Yeah. I'm just asking that I get the
opportunity to look at it more closely.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh if Mr. Corwin has no problem with that.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You were legally notified, but it's in
your court.
MR. CORWlN: I will say one thing, Mr. Hilbert knew about it
prior to my meeting the code's request for sending the
notice because it goes back. The president of the property
owner's association asked me -- he pointed out the mistake;
I corrected it. And he asked me to send it to some other
address, now whether the notice would have gotten there
quicker, I don't know, but I sent it to the address in the
tax records. If the gentleman wants more time, it's not
going anyplace fast because the DEC still has to look at it,
but I would ask if you have any questions that you would ask
them tonight so it would be settled in a month.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think we had any real concerns. I
think we want the standard non-turf buffer around the
replacement.
MR. CORWlN: I showed that on Sheet 3.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Beyond that it was pretty
straightforward. You have an old permit there dredging to
four feet below mean Iow water.
MR. CORWlN: I don't think there was one.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We have one in the file, 1985.
MR. CORWlN: I had asked, and --
TRUSTEE KING: I had in my field notes make that four
feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that's what we would recommend,
27
Board of Trustees 28 March 23, 2005
four feet.
MR. CORWlN: The problem with that location is because it's
at the north end of the creek, all the silt fills up there.
So if you dredge the five feet, in two, three years you got
four feet. So I mean, I'd rather go the five feet because
it's basically Mr. Neyland is maintaining the whole digging
the silt out of the whole body of water.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Did you ask for 10 foot maintenance
dredge on that?
MR. CORWlN: Ten year, no, I didn't.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Year, I'm sorry. You might want to do
that also, just in case there's a problem, he can --
MR. CORWlN: My experience is though people just don't get
around to doing it every 10 years, even though they
should.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Depends how severe it is. Do we have any
other concerns?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I didn't.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken, can you table that then?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to table it.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE POLiWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES.
7. Eh-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of JOSEPH
GONZALEZ requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
second-story addition on an existing, one-story, one-family
dwelling and install a drainage system of drywells.
Located: 2700 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#122-4-14.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak to this application? I looked at this. Conservation
Advisory Counsel recommends approval of the application with
the condition dry wells are installed landward of the house
that has already been indicated on the proposed activity.
Install drainage system, dry wells all depicted on the site
plan. This is a straight up addition. And the only
condition that I would make on the application since
construction is already going to be going on around the
house, and I'm sure that the lawn will be worked on
afterwards is that the 10 foot buffer be installed in front
of the bulkhead, even though the bulkhead's not being
redone, the house is being worked on, and the lawn's going
to be redone.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I agree.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No one else to speak at the hearing,
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
28
Board of Trustees 29 March 23, 2005
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the
application for Joseph Gonzalez for the second-story
addition on the existing one-story, one-family dwelling with
dry wells and gutters with the condition that a 10 foot
buffer be installed or put in front of the bulkhead during
construction.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
11. Patricia C. Moore on behalf of LEWIS AND
HELAINE TEPERMAN requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal
Erosion Permit for the existing beach house. Located: 1225
Aquaview Avenue, East Marion. SCTM#21-2-16.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone interested in commenting
on this application.
MS. MOORE: Dave Cicanowicz was here earlier and he couldn't
stay for this portion of the hearing. I would like to have
an opportunity to submit an affidavit by Dave Cicanowicz,
who is familiar with this property and can attest to the
fact that the condition of the property before the repairs
were done to the existing structure and to the decking.
I have in my file a faxed affidavit, the original's
coming in the mail by Donna Palumbo. Donna Palumbo and her
husband live on this beach so they're very familiar with
this property. She resides at 1095 Aquaview Avenue in East
Marion. I'll put on the record that she says, 'Tm very
familiar with the Teperman residence and the existing
conditions before and after repairs to the existing beach
structures. The structure on the beach appears to have been
built in the 1950s and contains plumbing with an old compost
toilet, electric, shower, kitchen and living area. The
Tepermans replaced the old toilet with a high-tech
self-contained toilet." I also know that he removed a stove
from in there because it was somewhat unsafe, at least in his
opinion. She says, "The building improves the appearance
and the value of all our proper/les. Prior owners loaned
out the house to friend in the summer and this building was
used by them for barbeques and parties. The Teperman family
has fixed up the building and cleaned up the property. The
family is quiet and considerate of their neighbors. The
existing beach structures were not enlarged in any way, in
fact, the decking was cut back from its original size. The
beach in front of my property and the Tepermans' property is
a private beach with limited access. Many of the homes
along the beach have beach structures from the 1930s, and we
29
Board of Trustees 30 March 23, 2005
value the continued use and enjoyment of our property. I,
on behalf of myself and my husband, Albert Palumbo, support
the application by the Teperman family and support the
Trustees granting of the permits." So I'll put that in your
file.
What I did is I also took a photograph for your
records. This structure I gave you photographs previously,
but I'll put another one on the record during the
hearing. Mrs. Palumbo was kind enough to look through her old
pictures and happened to have very fortunately a picture of
this structure before it was reshingled and she also has a
photograph of the front of this structure as you're looking
to the east, and you can see that the decking was quite
large around the structure. There was significant stairs,
and then another platform at the end of one of the
decking areas. So I have that photograph in your file
already, but I'll give you another one. Then I also have
photographed down the beach, I'm sure most of you have been
down there, you saw there are several structures. The way
that this particular community has been developed in East
Marion, there are a lot of beach bungalows on the beach that
were very typical of the day, and you can see the various
conditions of the property. There's a very nice one to the
west that's a cottage that's actually much larger than what
we have got. We've just got a little -- it's a beach
cabana, and you can see that there's a cottage down to the
west, and on the easterly side there's quite a large
structure that could use some repairs along the bank. So
I'll give those photographs to you and the affidavit
(handing).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MS. MOORE: I have a survey, and I didn't make a copy of
it. It's a very poor survey that's why it was very helpful
to have Mrs. Palumbo's photograph. The survey is from a
Frank Salamone, who apparently was a prior owner in 1973,
Van Tuyl prepared the survey. It shows the house and it
shows stairs down, it shows a beach house. It's very poor
quality. The photograph does show the significance of this
structure. At the time the work was done, they thought
repairs would not be an issue, under the coastal zone permit
process it does refer to maintenance and repair of existing
structures as an unregulated activity. Had he come in
before the work was done, I think it would have been a
simpler process for everybody involved because you would
have seen that everything is there. The stairs down to the
beach I might suggest that we amend the permit to include a
30
Board of Trustees 31 March 23, 2005
potential replacement of those stairs or reconstruction of
those stairs because I had noticed how difficult they are to
go down, but my second or third time down there the stairs
could or should be repaired or replaced. Everything else
there is in good shape. Some things were repaired recently
and other things don't require any repairs whatsoever. I'll
give a copy of the survey to you.
For the record the Tepermans only bought this
property in, it appears to be, May of 2004. I recall it was
in the summer that they purchased this property. So they
were quite surprised with all the way contractors do
business out here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll take other comments.
MS. MOORE: Nothing more, if you have any questions I'll be
happy to try to address them and as I said, I will provide
you with an affidavit from Dave Cicanowicz who couldn't
stick around from earlier today.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Before I take other comments I do have one
letter that came in today that I'll read.
"1 write to you as a year round resident of East
Marion who regularly walks the Long Island Sound shoreline
to express my deepest concern over the above-referenced
violation. I hope you will use the full force of your
office to secure the complete removal of this exceedingly
inappropriate structure on the fragile shoreline where it
was, to the best of my understanding, constructed without
the benefit of any required permits.
"1 believe the subject construction violates every
tenet of responsible coastal development policy that has
been advance for the past 25 years, and I am very concerned
if it is allowed to stand, this project will set a new
precedent for other property owners and their attorneys to
exploit our coastal resources in the future.
"Should this property owner seek to justify this
project as a legitimate reconstruction of a preexisting
non-conforming use, I would strongly disagree by my
observation and recollection having regularly walked along
this beach for several years. Subject construction appears
to be a significant expansion of the preexisting cabana or
beach shack that once stood on the subject site. In fact,
even a cursory examination of the current structure, with
its air conditioning, French doors, plumbing, outdoor
shower, electrical supply and bluff side retaining wall
suggests that the current renovations have made this
structure far less conforming to the current than it ever
was previously. I am also concerned about the extensive
31
Board of Trustees 32 March 23, 2005
cutting of stabilizing bluff, stabilizing vegetation that
apparently coincided with this project. Ironically, the
property owners may have placed their own extensive new
construction at even greater risk by eliminating the bluff
vegetation that currently aids in stabilizing tons of soil
located directly and steeply above the subject structure.
For the sake of maintaining bluff feature and minimizing
potential risks associated with its clearing, I hope that
any resolution of this violation will also address the issue
of bluff restoration as part of the overall disposition of
this case.
"In closing, I would like the opportunity to express
my appreciation to the Board to express my views on this
project. I am extremely hopeful that the Trustees will take
the necessary action to protect and preserve our public
beaches for those who make passive use of them today and for
generations yet to come. If I can provide you with any
additional information or assistance, please feel free to
contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, Robert
Testaluca.
"For the record, please note I that I hold a BS and
MS in Environmental Science and have served as adjunct
professor of Environmental Studies at Long Island's
Southampton College for the past 15 years. My entire
professional career has been spent in the area of
environmental impact assessment. I have worked as a
biologist and environmental analyst for the Suffolk County
Office of Ecology and currently serve as president of a
non-profit conservation and planning organization based in
Southampton Town."
Is there any other comment?
MS. MOORE: I did find a survey for the file, and I also
have a letter from Palumbo, which was the original letter
she was going to send. When I heard there was somebody
running around the neighborhood claiming that this building
didn't exist, she called me to let me know this, and Mrs.
Palumbo volunteered to prepare the affidavit based on her
knowledge living there on the beach, that this building did
exist, is shown on the survey and is shown in your
photographs as having been there for a very long time. I
believe this property may have been Lorne Greene's property
way back in time, and has quite a long of history as do
most of the properties along this beach. There are certain
rights that people have when they buy a property with
preexisting structures, and I think that the biologist or
the gentleman that spoke would certainly agree that people
32
Board of Trustees 33 March 23, 2005
who have an existing structure, all of the ordinances, all
of the regulations recognizes that there's a constitutional
right to preserve the structures that you have. Certainly
they cannot be expanded upon, and that's not been the
case here. So I want to put that on the record.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could we see that?
MS. MOORE: And we also have the neighbor who is an
impartial observer felt very strongly that there was some
misrepresentations going around as to that there was
supposedly no structure here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comments?
MS. SAVOSTONOVICH: Good evening. I'm Nancy
Savostonovich. I have been fortunate enough to have a small
ranch home in East Marion with beach rights for 11 years.
Over this time I have watched and heard plenty of land being
developed, diminishing one of the last frontiers of the
north fork. When building permits are visible on these
sites, it's good to know some form of law was followed, but
when building takes place regardless of our laws and
ordinances, well, that's a crime.
I'll be clear as I can on this. You cannot build a
house on the beach. It violates the law. Case in point,
this beach house was constructed along with extensive
decking without a permit. Natural beach growth was
destroyed in making room for it. Originally, one of those
quaint storage sheds, it was demolished in the fall of
2004. Nothing was left. The owner applied for a permit
after this, February 15, 2005. In the meantime, an actual
house with insulation, heating, central air conditioning,
electric was built before Christmas of 2004. Again, the
nerve of applying for a permit after the house was built.
Also, their application to build has gnarling
problems. They refer to this previous structure as a beach
house. It was not. It was a little storage shed, similar
to what exists along the beach now. The applicant in their
description also has the nerve to say they intend to repair
the existing structure that was torn down and replaced.
They stated, purpose of operation is to repair existing
structure. Again, it was torn down and built without any
permits in the fall. Why were they so-called repairs? Was
it air conditioning? On the subject of the closest distance
between nearest existing structure and upland edge of
wetlands, the applicant states 15 feet, no change. Of
course there's a change; they built this on the high tide
line. A house on the high tide line. It gets better. Does
the project involve excavating or filling? Applicant writes
33
Board of Trustees 34 March 23, 2005
no. You would have to be blind not to see that there's a
retaining wall in the bluff cut in five feet. Another one
on question a proposed slope throughout the area of
operations, the response is flat; it's a bluff. Since when
is a bluff fiat? I don't get it.
In regard to all these violations, I believe these
people have lost the right to have any structure on the
beach, decks, walls, roofs structures such as these need
permits. A hard structure on the beach has a destructive
impact on the movement of the natural flow of the sand and
pebbles and will in time undermine their own land and that
of their neighbors. This bluff will be lost. How we will
we get it back? I have walked this beach for 11 years.
The nor'easters have been so bad at times there's been no
beach. The water is five feet up to the bluff, you can't
even walk.
The applicant's attorney claims this was merely a
repair job. Take a look at it, no house like that existed
before, everything is new. I saw them build it. When a
violation like this occurs and Southold Town laws are
broken, shouldn't the affected wetlands be restored to its
prior condition? This Board knows the law and I'm sure you
will enforce it. If the owner does not restore the bluff,
Mother Nature and her nor'easter will. And I have a letter
from another person that lives in that area.
"Dear Town Trustees, we are property owners on
Star's Road in East Marion and we are outraged to see the
destruction of the natural shoreline on the beach just west
of Star's Road.
"The new Marden house built right
on the beach is an eyesore and an affront to the natural
environment. We have been enjoying this beach for 20 years.
I have never seen anything new built on the cliff or the
beach. It is a violation of the public trust to allow this
house to be there. We are counting on you to demand that
the beach and the cliff be restored to its previous state.
Thank you, Karen Sorbien and Martha Start." There's the two
letters (handing).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment?
MS. PHILIPS: Good evening, my name is Ann Phillips from
Cutchogue. I too am against the permits because according
to the New York State Coastal policy, Policy Number 12 it
says: "Activities and development in central areas will not
be taken so as to minimize damage to the natural resources
and properties from flooding and erosion by protecting
natural protective features including beach, dunes, barrier
34
Board of Trustees 35 March 23, 2005
islands and bluffs." And this beach house is built into the
bluff. Therefore, I think that this person should not get
their permits. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment?
MS. SAWASTYNOWICZ: Hi, Marilyn Sawastynowicz from
Cutchogue.
I just have a question, she's saying it's okay
because it was existing and doesn't require permits to have
the work done on that. I mean, can you explain that to me,
how that could be so?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I can't.
MS. SAWASTYNOWICZ: Thank you, I thought it just went over my
head. What would be the process at this time since it's
already there? It's built and there were no permits, what is
the process?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we're going to have to sort
through all the information that's been submitted. I am
going to require some more information from of the
applicant. We could ask for invoices from construction from
2004 and 2005 to get to the bottom of what was built and
when it was built. There are a lot of different surveys
here, but things have changed over the years and you can see
that based on what's been submitted by the applicant how
things have changed. And things have changed there and
certainly the law has changed out there. It's not like
we're going to act on this tonight, there's no possible
way.
MS. SAWASTYNOWlCZ: When those original buildings were
built, they were built back in the '50s. So there were no
zoning codes?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There were no permits required at that
point.
MS. SAWASTYNOWICZ: So if a structure were torn down and
rebuilt, there would be no grandfathering in anything?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Can I ask you a question? Was that
building at one point completely torn down?
MS. MOORE: No, not at all.
MS. SAWASTYNOWlCZ: I walk there all the time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're saying --
MS. MOORE: My understanding was that the building was
there. You can see the condition of the building from that
photograph. Find out the date of it. It's not that long
ago.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you submit the photograph?
MS. MOORE: I gave you a photocopy of it. I don't want to
lose my only original.
35
Board of Trustees 36 March 23, 2005
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Could you find out the date of that?
MS. MOORE: Yes, I'll find out from the person who took it
what was the date.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: What part of the building is not new?
MS. MOORE: I don't think there's any doubt that this
building was there; there shouldn't be any doubt.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But was it ever completely torn down?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: It was a different building.
MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, I'm not going to answer these people.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No, you can't talk out of line, thank
you.
MS. MOORE: But I will find out the specifics of it from the
owner. Remember, he owned the property in '05. So anything
prior to that date I wouldn't know about, nor would the
properly owner. He did the reshingling of the structure and
you can see that the decking was there. You can still see
there are some cedar posts; if you look under the building,
you will still see the original cedar posts.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think there's a question whether
there was a structure there or not. The question I asked
was that structure removed and a new structure built there?
MS. MOORE: Yes. I wouldn't know. I would have to find
out. I'll find out. You asked for me to tell you if was
demolished.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
MR. JOHNSTON: To help us know that Al orthe Board had
wanted possibly as would David Cicanowicz a proposal to do
whatever work or invoice or something. He's probably paid
for construction, right?
MS. MOORE: I'll see what the owner has. He probably paid
for work to be done, yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Who was the contractor?
MS. MOORE: I don't know.
MS. SAWASTYNOWlCZ: They would have needed the required
permit to do the construction?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They should have?
MS. MOORE: Keep in mind, it's a matter of opinion as to the
language in the regulations, it's under Coastal Erosion
Maintenance and Repair of Existing Structures is an
unregulated activity. It's not a permit requirement. In
the Wetland Ordinance, there is specific language with
respect to existing structures as well. So at least our
position is this was an existing structure. Mr. Cicanowicz
already had advised you that the decking to repair you
obviously have to remove the slats and put down a new
one. The survey shows that the decking that was there may
36
Board of Trustees 37 March 23, 2005
have encroached over the property line, so that would have
made sense why it was cut back. You see on the right-hand
side, Long Island Sound is the north, on the right-hand side --
but it's right on the line, over the line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Which survey?
MS. MOORE: It's the original '73 survey. The survey we
have now is a relatively, I think it's a newer survey. The
scale is one inch equals 50. That's why it's so difficult
to read on the
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'm talking about this survey.
MS. MOORE: I'm talking about the very old one. Oh, this
one is I think this must have come --
MS. STANDISH: That probably comes from the Building
Department.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's no scale on that that's why I was
curious.
MS. MOORE: Keeping in mind this is not a survey. This is a
drawing and generally what happens is you're identifying the
particular, it's probably for sanitary information. So
don't know that it's actually to scale.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's why I was wondering.
MS. MOORE: Looks like a Health Department drawing. I
didn't have that. That's why I didn't understand what you
were looking at. These all pre-date the Coastal Zone law,
is '91 and your wetland laws, I don't think were on the
Sound at the time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not until '91. That's what I wanted to
bring up for the public record for this first hearing,
things changed from 1973 to 1974, we show a deck landward of
the edge of the cliff, and now this deck is over the edge
which wouldn't be allowed under Coastal Erosion and it wouldn't
be allowed under Chapter 97; in fact, Chapter 97
specifically says no decks or platforms shall be permitted
on or near bluffs.
MS. MOORE: You don't know when it was changed. You have a
survey from the '70s. I'm telling you that Gordon Ehlers
would not have done -- that is not a survey, that is an
engineer's drawing for a sanitary system, because that's
what Gordon Ehlers used to do is engineer systems for
sanitary systems. So be careful what you look at that
for. You're looking at it for one reason, but the way it
was prepared and submitted would have been for a sanitary
design. So we don't know for sure that the structures that
he may have taken from an old drawing which we don't know.
What is existing today is what the client repaired of
structures that were there when he bought the property.
37
Board of Trustees 38 March 23, 2005
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't know that. That's up to the
applicant to prove that.
MS. MOORE: That's why the photograph is helpful because it
clearly shows --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The photograph isn't dated, so it isn't
helpful at all.
MS. MOORE: You can tell vintage-wise, look at the other
structures around it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That doesn't address the big deck at the
top of the bluff, which isn't allowed under Coastal Erosion,
it doesn't say when that decking was built.
MS. MOORE: You can see that the decking that's there now --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can see that --
MS. MOORE: Then I will have testimony from Cicanowicz what
was done before the repairs were done, that's why he was
here to try to explain to you what was there when he
first went to the property with Dr. Teperman, what was done
afterwards, there were no structural changes to the
walkways, the stairways to the platforms.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But the platforms, there's different issues
that we have to resolve. Start with the decking. At the
top of the deck you can show -- you see what's in the file
that the deck has changed from above the bluff, now the deck
starts below the bluff, which is a violation of Chapter 97
and 37, no platforms are allowed associated with stairs
larger than 16 square feet, and yet this decking all around
the beach house which wouldn't be allowed under Chapter
97.
MS. MOORE: You're using today's laws. I'm saying it's
preexisting.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You don't show us it's preexisting. What
you show us from 1973 doesn't show us any decking around the
building at all.
MS. MOORE: This '73 survey?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Correct.
MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, I don't know how you can see what's
decking and what isn't from this survey.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It shows something and it shows a building
around it.
MS. MOORE: It says beach house, with a one inch equals 50
scale and stairs going down.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But no deck.
MS. MOORE: And what looks to be kind of a wide area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I think what has to happen is the
applicant, Mr. Teperman, is going to have to show us that
some or all of this or part of this has been built, when it
38
Board of Trustees 39 March 23, 2005
was constructed and he can do that as Mr. Johnson suggested
with construction invoices; he can also do that with
surveys.
MS. MOORE: I think if he had surveys they would be with
you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Surveys would be the best way to prove
that.
MS. MOORE: For the record because the meeting earlier
today, with respect to vegetation, for the record for the
homeowners that are here listening, there was a contractor
that was not hired to do any clearing or any cutting of
vegetation who did that solely on his own. That was Chris
Moore went, for the record. He went out there. He was
supposed to be cleaning up garbage, demolition debris that's
blown around from the winter and from the work on the house,
and he went out there without any permission, certainly
without any direction to go and do the things that he did.
So we have already offered to this Board, with our
landscaper, somebody that Dr. Teperman respects and has
worked with for the past year, we have offered to do a
restoration plan despite the fact that it wasn't my client
who directed him to do the work. It's in his best interest
to make sure the bank is stable and the vegetation is
good.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As mentioned in that letter I read, it's
important he not destabilize his own bank. There's also an
issue of the retaining wall that's built into the bluff.
MS. MOORE: The one right behind the structure?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MS. MOORE: To my knowledge, all of that was there, and it
makes sense given because it's three tiers, it's only three
tiers, and it's where all the mechanicals are on the
structure. So it would make sense that you would be cutting
back that area for the mechanicals for the structure that
was there. So that again, it would seem to me it's logical
that that was aLI there, and the work that was done by
Dr. Teperman, again, predates him or its existing
structure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He can prove that then.
MS. MOORE: All right then.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any other comments?
MS. SAWASTYNOWlCZ: Everything that she's saying, everything
predating, that's why we have these codes and laws now, I
don't know why you keep stressing that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If things are predated, then they do have
certain rights that the Board recognizes.
39
Board of Trustees 40 March 23, 2005
MS. SAWASTYNOWICZ: If it was torn down, though, and they're
not having any permits for anything here, there were no
permits whatsoever.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If it was built before requiring a permit,
then it was legally built. What we're questioning is
besides of the clearing, which was an obvious violation and
we saw that that day, besides the clearing, what we're
questioning the size of the building, the function of
the building; was it built as a house, which it seems to be;
is it supposed to have a septic system; is it supposed to
have waste coming out on the beach? The retaining wall
behind it, is that new; all the decking around it, when was
that built, the platform on the stairs and certainly the
deck hanging out of the bluff seems to be a new deck. So we
have to have -- it's really the burden of the applicant to
prove when this was constructed.
MS. SAWASTYNOWlCZ: One more comment because there were
other buildings along that beach there. The same thing
would happen to those if something's not done.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Absolutely.
MS. MOORE: You can see that all the other cottages are
there similarly constructed over the years. But that's the
regulations come in today, they are when new construction
comes in, when somebody comes in and wants to build that,
certainly that would be a difficult thing to do under
current laws, but there are certain grandfathering rights.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before I make a motion to table this, are
there any other requests of the applicant from the Board?
I'd like to see a survey with one foot contours.
MS. MOORE: A current survey?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. And with the coastal erosion line on
it. We don't have that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Any other comment?
TRUSTEE KING: Do they own down to the high water mark; do
you know? Do you have a deed description, meets and bounds?
MS. MOORE: Unfortunately he sent me a cover sheet but not
his deed. I don't know.
TRUSTEE KING: Can you find that?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
MS. MURRAY: Ann Murray, I live in East Marion and I have a
couple questions.
Wouldn't the homeowner have needed a permit to do
construction even if that was a grandfathered building so to
speak; to do any repairs or anything, wouldn't they have
needed a permit from the Town?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Under Chapter 97, yes, under Chapter 37, I
40
Board of Trustees 4l March 23, 2005
don't know. Under Chapter 97, yes.
MS. MURRAY: Chapter 97 is the coastal?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's the wetland.
MS. MURRAY: And what is the Board going to do now, you
postponed this for environmental review?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh If the applicant wants to get permits for
anything like this, they have to prove when it was built,
and we also need to see a revegetation plan for the bank
that was being devegetated.
MS. MURRAY: So that's postponed until April?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know if we'll have --
MS. MOORE: Because of the survey that may take a little
longer.
MS. MURRAY: So there will be a legal notice?
TRUSTEE KING: No. It automatically comes up on the next
month's agenda.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If the applicant can't get a survey done
in a month's time, then they'll postpone it automatically,
and then at that point in time you can call the office,
before the next meeting, which is April 20th, you can call
on the 18th and say will it be on the agenda. Then you can
get an answer from Lauren yes or no. Then it will
automatically come up on the May meeting.
MS. MURRAY: Two quick questions: What are the Board's
options here now? Have you inspected the place?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Yes.
MS. MURRAY: After you have done that and you get all the
legal papers you think you need from the applicant you
decide whether or not it's grandfathered; do you have the
power to impose fines?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Certainly. Especially for the
devegetation.
MS. MURRAY: And is there any possibility that you might
order the structure to come down I guess is my last
question.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's too early for that.
MS. MURRAY: But as a possibility, you have the power to do
that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. All the decking around it is
prohibited. I can't understand how all the decking got
built like that, and earlier this evening somebody applied
for as-built decking on the Sound, we had to deny it based
on the code it's just impossible. Just because it was
built, we couldn't justify it, couldn't say well, it's
built, that's okay. It's a clear violation of both
codes. Someone just goes and builds a deck there and says
41
Board of Trustees 42 March 23, 2005
it's as-built, and now I'll pay you double the fee and I'll
keep it. I'll pay $500 and I'll keep it. We couldn't allow
that.
MS. MURRAY: So you have the option to have someone remove
whatever they build?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. I'll make a motion to table the
hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Can I just make a short comment? My name is
Benjamin Schwartz, I live in Cutchogue. I don't believe
there's anything in the U.S. Constitution about
nonconforming uses. You know, I love history too, but I
like the future and the future of the Town of Southold's
important to me. This is one of the most beautiful beaches
in Southold on the Sound. There is no history of year round
houses on the beach there. There's one other structure
there that is on the beach that's a house. I don't believe
they have any residence upland. The fact that they used to
use it for barbecuing, having a year round, insulated, air
conditioned, heated house, I know a lot of people who would
like to live there, but it's not a place where people should
be living. I'm not even sure that house would be legal
anywhere in Southold. I don't know whether it's built to
code or not. But I can't believe that any part of it is
preexisting. It would be like if you told me you have a
2006 car and it's an old one you fixed it up.
The owner who put that in there, that house is in
the center of the cove. I don't remember anything
there. I'm sure there was a little structure there, but
that wasn't there. The way they changed the roofline, and
the front of that house, I believe that if this Board
doesn't order that that house be removed and the bluff be
restored, that will not be an easy thing, but if that
doesn't happen, I believe in the winter storms when the
water hits that house, it's going to bounce back and take
all the sand. It's one of the best swimming beaches on the
Sound, nice cove with sand there. I think there's something
offshore that protects that area, otherwise all those
storage sheds, the little cottage that's there wouldn't
still be there. It's a great place and I hope we can keep
it that way. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Just one question, Pat. Is
there any septic system on that building?
MS. MOORE: Originally there was a kitchen with a stove,
there was a bathroom in there with a -- I'm not clear if it
2
Board of Trustees 43 March 23, 2005
was compostable or not, but there was a bathroom in
there. My client took the toilet that was there out and
replaced it with a self-contained toilet. There seems to be
a misunderstanding of what this is. This is a typical beach
cabana. It's not a dwelling; it's not designed as a
dwelling; it doesn't have the capacity under the state
building code as a dwelling. It is a cabana and it has all
the same things it had before, just instead of a toilet that
either compostable or goes down into the bay wherever it
might go, it's a self-contained unit. The client took out
of the cooking stove, it was old and dangerous and there was
no need for a cooking stove in there. There's a sink, and
an outdoor shower, that's it, and the only air conditioning
as I saw it was a little air conditioning unit I think in
the window in the back. So that itself doesn't make a
habitable dwelling. It's the same cabana it's always
been. In fact, the photograph that I have from the prior
look, it still has the same roof line, it still has the same
walls.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Briefly, we're going to summarize what
we're going to need for continued review.
MS. MOORE: You want a copy of the deed, you want a
revegetative plan, you want me to see if the client has
invoices for the work that was done, if I have any surveys
for the existing, if we can locate them, again, my client's
only owned the property for a short time. We will get you a
new survey of the existing structures. That's all I have.
TRUSTEE KING: Name of the contractor that did the work.
MS. MOORE: Okay.
MR. JOHNSTON: And a copy of David's work, his proposal and
or his work program.
MS. MOORE: Cicanowicz, no problem.
MS. TETRAULT: The sink and the shower, the gray water
that's just going into --
MS. MOORE: It's supposed to be going into a dry well there
for just sink, like you would wash your hands, but the
toilet is self-contained.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What happens to that self-containment?
MS. MOORE: It would have to require pump-out like a
boat. I'll find out. It's very high tech, but I don't know
what it is.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How would that be pumped out?
MS. MOORE: We have a boat and take it out and go. It's not
that big a holding tank. I don't know if this one might be
higher tech, that that might have its own little bugs that
eat the stuff. I'll find out the details of it. I only
43
Board of Trustees 44 March 23, 2005
know from Mr. Palumbo that it's a very high tech toilet so
there's no environmental issues.
TRUSTEE KING: Is it heated in there?
MS. MOORE: I don't believe there's heating, I think it has
an air conditioning unit, but that's it.
TRUSTEE KING: I noticed a vent up on top of the roof, ~
didn't know what the vent was for.
MS. MOORE: Could be toilet, but I'll check, I didn't think
it was heated, but maybe there's propane or electric.
MS. TETRAULT: The plumbing, is that running from the house
down under the bluff? Because we didn't see any pipes.
TRUSTEE KING: I would assume it's from the residence.
MS. MOORE: Whatever the plumbing was at the time probably
has continued. I don't believe there's been any replacement
of it.
MR. MCCARTHY: Seth McCarthy, 3540 Star's Road, East
Marion. I have lived here for 11 years, and the thing with
the sewage and toilet, the only way you can get a pump out
boat in there is if it's flat bottom, and the nearest marina
west of it is quite a few miles away.
MS. MOORE: I probably am wrong on that.
MR. MCCARTHY: I want to clear that up. I fished there for
11 years that I've lived there, and the animals in the area,
it's totally abundant with everything, and I'm just kind of
worried about this. You could really wreck it up there, and
as you can see from the pictures it already has. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you.
12. Pat Moore on behalf of NORMAN and JUDITH SHAPP
request a Wetland Permit for the existing docking facility,
consisting of a 3' by 30' timber dock, a 3' by 12' ramp, and
a 6' by 16' floating dock. Located: 485 Orchard Lane,
Southold. SCTM#89-2-7
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Would anybody like to address the
application?
MS. MOORE: My client is in contract to sell the property,
and the buyer wanted to be sure that we had a permit for the
dock, understandably. And I think we asked for the transfer
to the buyer's name. What happened was when I went looking
for the permit, I went back to three owners and never found
an actual document that was clearly identified as a dock
permit, but everybody -- you probably know this property
because you issued a permit for the house, the dock was
there, you have seen this property a couple of times. What I
just found out today was that the gentleman by the name of
Bradigan, there may be a permit in the Bradigan file, I
44
Board of Trustees 45 March 23, 2005
didn't have that particular name at the time, Bradigan sold
to Benati and Licari. Benati and Licari were the property
owners of both properties, the one next door and this
one. They subdivided the property, and they actually had a
dock on this property, and I did find a permit application
for Benati which said I want a permit like the dock next
door, which left me very confused because I had no idea they
were talking about the dock that was already on the property
when they subdivided. They went and got a permit for a dock
on the one to the left, when you're facing it.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: West.
MS. MOORE: To the west. So this is either a grandfathered
dock that was there or it was a permitted dock from
Bradigan. We're talking three or four property owners
before Shapps. When they bought the property, they bought
with a dock there, and the representation was that there was
a permit for this dock. I went through two property owners
back and couldn't find it nice and clear, something where I
could hand over to a buyer and say this was the permit from
the dock. The records were a little bit confusing to say
the least. So we came in on an as-built with a double
permit fee, when, in fact, the clients bought the property
with the dock. Prior owners Licari and Benati had the dock
on it, and it may be the property owner Bradigan that the
permit name might be -- you might find a permit. Is there
something in your files that you're going to surprise me
with?
MS. STANDISH: Did you check laser fiche?
MS. MOORE: No, I didn't find it. That's all I have with
respect to the dock. We just need to have an actual
physical permit so we can transfer it to the perspective
purchasers so they don't have issues down the line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll address the dock first. CAC
recommends disapproval because the existing dock and
facility doesn't match the plans.
MR. WILDER: I didn't visit it but they couldn't reconcile
it.
MS. MOORE: We actually had this plan drawn based on the
dock that's there. So I don't know how it wouldn't match
because Bob Fox drew it based on the existing dock.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I walked out there and it was going up in
the air. I measured it. I thought it matched. They made
me go.
MR. WILDER: I didn't do the visit so I don't know.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There is an issue in the file, we had a
big problem with the Shapps with clearing violations?
45
Board of Trustees 46 March 23, 2005
MS. MOORE: Right. There was, that was a landscaper that did
some clearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKk I'm going to recommend we take no
action on this until we get this revegetated --
MS. MOORE: What vegetation? Because I went out to look, I
came in on a violation because the landscaper had cleared
beyond the hay bales, and I went out specifically to take a
look and they haven't touched the nondisturbance area. You
had a designated nondisturbance area, and it's obvious from
the look of the grass and the grounds that it has not been
disturbed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh, no. It's obvious that they couldn't
have disturbed it more.
MS. MOORE: No.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Maybe you have the wrong spot.
MS. MOORE: I was there. Do you have a picture?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Yes. See, everything's gone. They were
supposed to replant with Iow bush blueberry, Regina creeper
and black cherry alternating five gallon sizes 12 inches on
center. That was the plan that we have on our file, but
oddly enough, there's nothing there that meets that
description.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I remember that too.
MS. MOORE: I remember that too. I was looking for
disturbance. I was like, oh, good, I don't have a violation
because they didn't go beyond.
MS. TETRAULT: And this path was approved at four feet not
six feet.
MS. MOORE: So what do you want them to do?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They can plant now. I'll make a motion to
table the application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES.
13. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of
JOCKEY CREEK TRUST C/O KATHLEEN DEVORE requests a Wetland
Permit to construct 175 feet of bulkhead immediately in
front of existing bulkhead using C-Loc vinyl sheathing.
Located: 635 Lighthouse Lane, Southold.
SCTM# 70-6-30.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to speak
on this application?
MR. COSTELLO: My name is John Costello, I'm with Costello
Marine Contracting, and we are the agents for Kathleen
DeVore on this application. If the Board has any questions,
the Board looked at it, it's a simple job because the
46
Board of Trustees 47 March 23, 2005
existing bulkhead does not have the necessary penetration,
the beach level has dropped considerably in the past few
years as evidenced by the survey that was submitted and the
penetration is letting the bulkhead fail. And we're trying
to keep it as closely as possible in front of that. There's
one section that has collapsed last year, and we put a
temporary repair in it trying to hold it so the lawn doesn't
go out into the creek. If the Board has any questions, let
me know.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Does anyone else have a comment in the
audience? For the Board I looked at this, whether to go out
in front of or replace in-kind/in-place that was the
question because they blended in with the property lines.
MR. COSTELLO: The one on the west side is out.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It is out, right?
MR. COSTELLO: And the one on the east side has a right
angled return that butts into it on the east side.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The question had it's already
intertidal in front of it.
MR. COSTELLO: Unfortunately, yes.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Things are thriving.
MR. COSTELLO: You can see that that beach has dropped, as
you can see, at one time -- I don't remember when-- that was
used as a dump.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There's a motion by the CAC it recommends
approval of the application with the condition that a 50
foot non-turf buffer landward of the bulkhead.
MR. COSTELLO: Forget it.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 50 feet of rocks.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why couldn't you do it in-place?
MR. COSTELLO: You can, if you want to excavate to a major
degree. It's a cost issue.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But you show excavation in that area on
the plan anyway.
MR. COSTELLO: To replace it in-kind when the tide goes in
there look at that excavation. We're doing excavation for
the banking system basically. If you excavate down into the
bottom you will either lose fill out into the waterway, or
you're going to have to excavate three times as much, you
got to pull it back so the tide does not rise and fall into
the area.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Not too many years ago there used to be a
marsh in front of that bulkhead.
MR. COSTELLO: Recently, until the last two or three years,
actually the owner of the property wanted to plant beach
grass because there was a beach from the bulkhead.
47
Board of Trustees 48 March 23, 2005
Unfortunately, it doesn't exist anymore.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I don't know what caused that. It just
all disappeared.
MR. COSTELLO: Different winds, different tide levels, but
there are some areas that never eroded that are eroding.
Actually, this area here, that bulkhead's been in there for
a while, and the beach level has dropped considerably.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I personally believe it was his
fertilizer that killed that grass, just the angle of the
slope. I had a gut feeling.
MR. COSTELLO: It's a theory.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Just the way I analyze that. You look at
the slope there is with the deterioration in that bulkhead,
it's a very green lawn with a lot of fertilizer, that's
probably a factor.
MR. COSTELLO: Did you ever see the beach grass with
fertilizer, the spartina with fertilizer? It does quite
well, quite well. Go to Northport where they farm it and
look at the fertilizer. The wave energy, that sand --
fertilizer doesn't take the sand away and drop the beach
level. The wave energy is increased off that bulkhead has
reduced the beach considerably. Look at the survey. That's
why you need the penetration, the bulkhead is failing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh There's no doubt about that.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I felt like it should be in-place because
it's not a direct line.
MR. COSTELLO: If it was in-place it would still be the
arched curve has anything to do with the erosion.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It was far from a nice smooth curve.
MR. COSTELLO: It was simply a curve.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Environmentally sound.
MR. COSTELLO: It's environmentally sound either way. The
debris that comes out of there and the water in the topsoil
and whatever debris is back there, and there was a creosoted
bulkhead behind there too. You know what the contaminants
in creosoted bulkhead materials are.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Sure. Any other comments from the Board?
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 Jockey Creek Trust CIO Kathleen DeVore
to construct 175 feet of bulkhead in-kind/in-place of the
existing bulkhead using C-Loc vinyl sheathing and 20 foot
non-turf buffer. Located: 635 Lighthouse Lane, Southold.
MR. CQSTELLO: Is that standard?
48
Board of Trustees 49 March 23, 2005
MS. TETRAULT: The code says when you rebulkhead you're
required to have a non-turf buffer.
MR. COSTELLO: It's logical to try to keep fertilizers
percolating down through the soil.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It depends on the area, how much room.
Some people don't have enough room to get 10 feet, sometimes
it's four feet.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I believe it's a personal, it's a site by
site situation.
MR. COSTELLO: Keep consistency, please, so we can design
it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If it's a small backyard, 10 feet, if it's
a very large, well-manicured lawn, then 20 feet. That's
fairly consistent as to what we've been doing. If they have
an objection, if they want it different, they should appeal to
us for a different size.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I don't think they would get 15 feet.
MR. COSTELLO: If you're going to be consistent, that's what
I'm saying, because they have the Rugosa Rosa in that one
area. It has to be thinned.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Cost of the -- it's all going to be
destroyed and replanted. It has to be thin. Location at
635 Lighthouse Lane, can I ask for a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
MR. COSTELLO: What was that buffer?.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 20 foot non-turf.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that 20 feet in back of the bulkhead
going to be destroyed during construction?
MR. COSTELLO: If we take the other one out?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Yes.
MR. COSTELLO: If we have one east wind, the answer's
probably yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Under normal construction?
MR. COSTELLO: No.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How much?
MR. COSTELLO: 15, it's a short bulkhead. You probably have
to excavate 10 feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have no problem with 15. We always try
to go with what area's going to be destroyed. Unless you
think it should be 20.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'd work with 15 feet. You recommended
20, so I went with 20.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Peggy?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I can go with 15.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Next one. We'll need a new plan showing
49
Board of Trustees 50 March 23, 2005
for that buffer.
MR. COSTELLO: Prior to the issuance of the permit, okay.
14. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of
DANIEL FOX requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge
existing canal to a depth of 4' to 6' feet below mean Iow
water. A total of 426 cubic yards of dredge spoil will be
removed and deposited at an approved upland site.
Located: 470 Wiggins Lane, Greenport. SCTM#35-4-28.28
MR. COSTELLO: Again, John Costello, with Costello Marine
Contracting. We are the agents for the applicant, Mr.
Daniel Fox.
If the Board has any questions, I'll certainly be
glad to answer them.
TRUSTEE KING: It was a question to the extent of the
dredge, if I remember.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why does the whole area have to be
dredged, why not just around the dock and the area to get in
and out?
MR. COSTELLO: Because we're trying to get a tapered bottom
on an angle that will stay for a good long time. That whole
canal, and if the Board wants to know I'll give you a little
history on the canal, was dredged to a prevailing depth of
eight feet. I have the original contract of what that was
dredged to. It's privately owned land. What happened
before the bulkheads were put in there was a major degree of
slumping of materials, since then the bulkheads have been
installed, the displacement of the soil from the bulkheads
shoaled up a good portion of that canal. Now they're trying
to reclaim some of the slumping materials so that they can
adequately moor their boats. Some of the depths of water
there are minimal, and that whole entire canal needs some
degree of dredging. One of the earlier applicants you
wanted -- you asked or for some revegetation of the spartina
Alterna flora, there is none, there hasn't been any, and
it's not going to survive in there because it's a slumping
of land, drifting out to the eight foot depth of water
because of the acceleration of any water off a flat-faced
bulkhead. That's why most of those places are shoaled up.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this. It seems like when you
walk down the catwalk you have some hard fertile bottom,
probably a lot of creatures.
MR. COSTELLO: Very unsuccessful planting clams there
because I own one of the pieces.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's a healthy piece of bottom though.
It seems like a lot of activity.
50
Board of Trustees 51 March 23, 2005
MR. COSTELLO: One thing about it, it is good sand. The
only type place you're going to find any siltation is out in
the (inaudible).
MR. COSTELLO: Right. We're just trying to keep the minimum
depth to keep the angle to maintain itself. You can see on
the cross-section.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The cross-section covered everything, but
we don't want to start the dock and keep --
MR. COSTELLO: But the planned view covers everything but
the cross-section shows it should all be dredged, but
unfortunately, many of it shouldn't have been bulkheaded at
one time, but probably should never have been dredged in the
beginning, but it was. I had the original contract, and I
think this Board has copies of it too.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's what Ken was concerned about, could
you leave alongside the bulkhead, start further out?
MR. COSTELLO: It's going to slump anyway. It's going to
move once we dredge more out. It's going to move
anyway. We're not going to dredge next to the bulkhead, I
can tell you why, the bulkhead might not take the dredge,
you can't, but it is going to slump off. If you dredge
offshore of that, you're going to see that the bottom is
going to change basically like the submitted drawing. It's
going to be the fact unfortunately.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I don't have a problem with it, private
bottom dredge canal. Peggy?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I agree.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Those poor critters.
MR. COSTELLO: I'm sure there's a benthic community, and I'm
sure the benthic community will come back to that silted
bottom. I wish I could get to grow clams there. I've
thrown them over thero many a time,
TRUSTEE KING: Any other 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.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll aye since it's private bottom.
15. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of
SALVATORE PRATO requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance
dredge existing channel to depth of four feet and six feet
below mean Iow water, remove approximately 376 cubic yards
51
Board of Trustees 52 March 23, 2005
of dredge spoil and remove off property to an approved
upland site. Located: 580 Wiggins Lane,
Greenport. SCTM#35-5-28.30
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment?
MR. COSTELLO: Again, John Costello. We are the agents for
Mr. Prato and his wife. It's very similar to the
application and it's adjoining the application prior to
this. And again, we're only attempting to try to draw if
down, minimally to allow less slumping and try to maintain
the existing channel and the canal.
TRUSTEE KING: This is basically just a duplication of what
we just saw. The only thing I failed to read the CAC
comments on the last application. I'll read them on this
one. It's approval on condition of a 10 foot non-turf
buffer landward of the bulkhead. It's just for dredging,
there's going to be no disturbance. I think the non-turf
buffer should be addressed when the bulkhead is finished.
MR. COSTELLO: As you look at the photographs we submitted,
I think there is a small non-turf buffer there presently, and
we are know not going to try to touch the buffer whatsoever.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Sand and gravel.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would require that --
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: -- with the bulkhead.
MR. COSTELLO: I think some day and some future time there
will be a bulkhead application submitted.
TRUSTEE KING: If there's no other comments, I'll make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
16. Costello Marine contracting Corp. on behalf of
ANNA & RICO VERTICCHIO requests a Wetland Permit to dredge
an approximately 70' by 40' area to a depth of four feet
below average mean Iow water, patch bottom half of 50 foot
of existing bulkhead below lower stringer with vinyl
sheathing. Install a new bulkhead at 28 feet around
existing drainage culvert. Install a 4' by 5' cantilevered
platform leading to a 32' by 20' aluminum ramp leading to a
6' by 30' floating dock secured by one pile and two two-pile
dolphins. Located: 980 Manhasset Avenue, Greenport.
SCTM#34-5-20
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone who would like to speak in
52
Board of Trustees 53 March 23, 2005
favor of the application?
MR. COSTELLO: My name is John Costello and we are the agent
for the applicant.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Can we get that culvert out of there?
MR. COSTELLO: We can't. I used to own part of this
property, and I used to own part of the property that was
across the street where the wetlands are. That's a good
piece of wetlands.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The culvert drains the state road. Did
you look at this, Peg?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I have one question. The Tommy Troyan
land, what will the salt be coming from his property where
the dredging occurs?
MR. COSTELLO: We're basically avoiding his property to some
degree, even though Troyan will probably be making some
degree of an application. We're staying away from his
bulkhead.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It looks very unstable.
MR. COSTELLO: Because it's unstable, he was concerned about
that, that's why we left that little buffer in there.
MR. WILDER: Just a concern, where I guess the culverts are
going under the road, there's one with a large piece fallen
off, there's another one buried there. I don't know if it
still serves any purpose.
MR. COSTELLO: No, it doesn't. It was abandoned.
MR. WILDER: The other side of the road is collapsing. So I
think the town engineer has to look at that.
MR. COSTELLO: The DOT is going to.
MR. WILDER: I'm not familiar with that type, but that
road's going to go --
MR. COSTELLO: That's why we're putting that piece in there.
There's a degree of road going. The DOT is only going to
let us patch the culvert and put in sections of that by
their standards. It has to meet DOT standards or it's not
going to be approved by DOT.
MR. WILDER: Who is responsible for repairing that road?
MR. COSTELLO: It's Southold Town road but the culvert is
state road.
MR. COSTELLO: Unfortunately that's one of the problems of
filling that creek in.
MR. WILDER: I don't know if the bulkhead is going to wash
it worse on the other side. I have no idea. I'm not
familiar with that area.
MR. COSTELLO: We're a little bit familiar with the
bulkhead, but we still have to build it to the New York
State DOT specification, that is an additional expense, but
53
Board of Trustees 54 March 23, 2005
we need their permission, and it's a heck of a toll, it's
too bad.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're not going near the Town culvert,
you're only bulkheading in front of the state cement
culvert?
MR. COSTELLO: He only owns that corner.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Should we not as a Trustee agency still
be concerned with the culvert, and make a recommendation to
the Highway Department, separate from that application we
should write a letter to the highway department.
TRUSTEE KING: It's almost plugged up. It can be a
recommendation from the drainage committee to the Highway
Department.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's not the State culvert, that would be
the Town culvert, right?
MR. COSTELLO: It is certainly doing some filling in of that
creek.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Heather, could you do that from our
office?
MS. TETRAULT: Yes.
MR. COSTELLO: I want to try to explain one thing that was a
little bit unordinary on this application, and that was the
size of the floating dock. The floating dock, the
individual that owns this is on in age, he's in his 80s. He
just recently had a stroke, and he asked if we could put
in -- originally we were going to design it with a 6' by 20'
and a 16' ramp. He says I wonder if I can narrow the ramp,
to get the narrowest ramp, we narrowed it to 32 inches. We
lengthened the ramp to 20 feet so he's occupying a piece of
the float, and I know that this Board has a discretionary
ability to waiver the size of the float or enlarge the size
of the float, ordinarily I told him that this Board wants 6'
by 20', but we'll submit it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is he handicapped or in a wheelchair?
MR. COSTELLO: No, he's not in a wheelchair. He has one
arm. Only for safety. It's at a dead end and he's not
interfering with any other traffic in the area. Hopefully
this Board could --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think in light of that we should go and
take another look at that. We could close the hearing and
withhold judgment.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Stake the float.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Close the hearing and withhold judgment,
and we could take a look at it in April and vote on it in
April. I don't think the Board had issue with any other
part of the project. So it's not like we want to reopen the
54
Board of Trustees 55 March 23, 2005
hearing.
MR. COSTELLO: I think most of the project is probably good
for the environment.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It certainly isn't going to hurt it down
there.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Protocol it's normal to stake where the
float is.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
17. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of
KEVIN O'MALLEY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 114'
of bulkhead in front of existing; reconstruct deck and
railing in-kind/in-place; dredge in the front of bulkhead to
minus 4'; reconstruct 4' by 7' cantilevered platform leading
down to two 3' by 12' ramps onto one 5' by 34' float and a
5' by 24' floating dock. Located: 175 Dawn Drive,
Greenport. SCTM#35-5-21
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to speak
on behalf of this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, Costello Marine Contracting on
behalf of Mr. O'Malley. If you have any questions. It's a
simple replacement.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Does the Board have any comments on this?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I don't think we did.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We looked at it. We felt it was all
existing, it's private bottom. We didn't have any problems
with it. CAC, they recommend a 10 foot non-turf buffer,
we'll apply that when the bulkhead jobs come in.
MR. COSTELLO: There's a deck back there. You're talking
about a non-turf buffer excluding where the deck is?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Including the deck. But that wouldn't be
on this permit.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We're not going to apply that now. When
the bulkhead work comes in.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is for the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: i'm sorry.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Yes, so add that in, 10 foot inclusive of
the decking.
MR. COSTELLO: So where the grass starts, I can't have
grass anymore. You were there, there's no grass to speak
of.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It might have been snow.
MR. COSTELLO: Ten feet back he's going to lose his lawn and
I'm going to have to put gravel in there?
55
Board of Trustees 56 March 23, 2005
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Gravel or you can plant it with natural,
anything other than turf.
MR. COSTELLO: Gravel okay?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That would be fine. If no
other Board comments, 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
application on behalf of Kevin O'Malley for a permit as
submitted with a 10 foot non-turf buffer behind the
bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
MR. JOHN COSTELLO: Could I ask one question on the
postponement for the other one? I believe it was supposed
to be staked, you needed it staked, Maloney.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: 18.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right. We looked at it, and there was no
staking. There is an island offshore there. You go down
there tight, you got a very, very narrow channel. I don't
see how you could put a floating dock, plus a boat on the
outside and expect to be less than a third of that channel.
I don't think there is 20, 25 feet of navigable water. So a
six foot wide float, that would cover 18 feet of navigation,
dealing with two to three feet on the outside. You're
probably better off applying for a fixed structure.
MR. COSTELLO: There was a dock there at one time, as
you saw on the survey, the 1966 survey. I just want to know
what I'm staking out.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: For your convenience and your client's
convenience, apply for the fixed structure up to the edge
where the deep water is, and maybe for one single pile east
or west of that structure.
MR. COSTELLO: I'm aware, the channel is very
narrow. That channel is in dire need of dredging, the whole
thing is.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's always been like that.
MR. COSTELLO: Don't say always. I can remember before you
were born. It needs maintenance.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Just giving you a heads up.
MR. COSTELLO: So just take the float in a "T" shape type of
thing so to minimize the channel.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Stake a float or a dock?
MR. COSTELLO: The dock, because I doubt the DEC would
allow the float to sit on bottom. I just wanted to make
56
Board of Trustees 57 March 23, 2005
sure we have it staked out properly.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to go back to the
regular meeting?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you for coming tonight, Bill.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Bill, did you have any questions or
comments?
MR. WILDER: I've done a lot of research because I was
looking at the property 10,900 something over on --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Loguidice.
MR. WILDER: He wants to build a dock all the way up and
pulling up everything we can. There's lots of information
out there, there's more coming. A lot of people are doing
it, disturbing the bottom, stirring it up. It doesn't
restore itself. CCA leaches out 50 pement of whatever's
left daily. So it deteriorates down until it's almost all
gone. But it's killed everything within so many feet. So
there's a lot of information on that, and non-turf, I love
non-turf.
Let me say something, and again, this is all the
states and the federal government are saying the worst
soume of pollution for the oceans, the bays and so forth
and so on is runoff, and it's fertilizers, farm runoff, road
runoff. So any time we can strike, we put it down and
there's some, well, why don't you guys make up your mind how
much non-turf you want. I think we will be trying to make
some recommendations as you review through the law, and one
of the things we came up with is that non-turf should be 50
feet or one-half the distance between the dwelling and
wetlands, whichever is smaller. Does that make sense?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to appoint Kenny Homan
as a member of the Shellfish Advisory Committee for a term
of one year to expire on December 31,2005.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh One other item, this thing on Mazzanobile,
I was considering introducing a resolution tonight on
Mazzanobile. However, today at 1:41 p.m., we received a fax
from Esseks, Heifer and Angel, who represent Mr. Mazzanobile.
It says:
"As you know, we are the attorneys for the Applicant
in the above-captioned matter. I understand there's a
57
Board of Trustees 58 March 23, 2005
meeting scheduled tonight and the Board could act on the
above-captioned application. I also understand you may not
have a full Board tonight. On behalf on the applicant, I
respectfully request no action be taken on the
above-captioned application unless a full Board is
present. Respectfully yours, Stephen R. Angel."
I had brief discussion about this with
Mr. Johnston. I would say that --
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We're a full board. I'd say three is a
full board.
MR. JOHNSTON: You have the ability to make a decision. If
you would like, that's my legal determination. I can
outline, as I have outlined for all to listen, if you have
read the memo by Kieran Comoran, if you have read the memo
by Heather Tetrault, you have enough information that you
can make a decision tonight. I would ask if you do it
tonight, you incorporate those two memos into your
resolution or the concept of those two, that you considered
them. And I think basically you have an ability, as I
shared with you, to revoke the permit if you feel that the
permit was not vested, and the concept of a vested permit is
some permit that has been given and some work has
been done on it or some financial interest has been made,
then you have a problem of revoking that permit. If you
don't feel that there's a vested permit, then you can revoke
that permit. If based on Kieran's memo, there's two or
three more paragraphs to that, but basically, Heather, I
would say that that's pretty much what he said.
Similarly, if you feel that there is a change in the
legal standard right now and the permit has not been vested,
you can revoke the permit. The typical example of that is
if you issued a permit to build a structure, such as a
hospital or gasoline station, and now it's zoned residential
and no activity's been taken yet, you can revoke that permit
because you really want to have a house there instead of the
original hospital.
If you feel that you have been misled with the facts
or you feel that when you originally issued the permit there
was some information that was left out intentionally or
otherwise, you can reconsider the permit as long as it's not
vested.
But I think that if Al and Jim feel the same way
they did and none of these things apply, then they can't be
arbitrary. Ken and Peggy, you before have decided that the
permit shouldn't be granted, and you had more freedom of
what you thought the facts were without being arbitrary. I
58
Board of Trustees 59 March 23, 2005
think that's enough said.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What happens if it is two two?
MR. JOHNSTON: First of all two to two what? We have two
different legal items before us, Peggy. We have an
amendment, the concept of approving or denying an
amendment. We also have before us the concept of revoking
the permit. So you could have different votes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: To make it simple, if there were two
ayes to two nays.
MR. JOHNSTON: Then it's a tie and there's no action
taken. You need votes.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Will it be tabled?
MR. JOHNSTON: It's not tabled. It's as if it's a no as to
the amendment. But if you vote two to two to revoke, then
the permit still exists. Am I clear?.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No. What do you mean still exists?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I thought we couldn't deny the amendment.
MR. JOHNSTON: Those two can deny the amendment because they
thought that this thing shouldn't be approved anyway. The
two of you said that at the point in 2002, you said this was
fine, right?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But if it was two nays to two ayes --
MR. JOHNSTON: For which?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The one where you said that it would be
null and void, it would be as if there was no application,
is that the amendment or to revoke the permit?
MR. JOHNSTON: If you were to vote two in favor of denying
the permit, and two in favor of approving the permit, the
amendment would not be approved. So it would just stay as
if you denied the amendment. You need three affirmatives to
approve the amendment. I think that's clear, isn't it? Is
it clear to you, Ken?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Very clear.
MR. JOHNSTON: Is it clear to you now, Peggy?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes.
MR. JOHNSTON: Jim, is it clear to you?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. JOHNSTON: Al?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Absolutely clear.
TRUSTEE KING: The only question I have, and I talked to
Lauren today, was vested interest. What vested interest
this man has in this permit.
MR. JOHNSTON: For the record, Jim, I can answer that for
you, but I can help you in the sense that it's my
understanding and, Lauren, maybe you can correct me, that
this is a contract vendee. He does not own the property
59
Board of Trustees 60 March 23, 2005
right now. He has a contract to buy the property, and to
the best of my knowledge, Jim, there was no construction on
the property. So the way we would arrive at a significant
amount of financial expenditure for a vesting using Kieran's
standard, would be adding up the attorney's fees, but in the
Garret Strang kind of architectural fees, the site plans,
all of that kind of thing. But I don't know if his contract
price is for $300,000, which I think might be close to the
number, and if he has spent $3,000 or $4,000 or $5,000,
there is no standard. There is no standard
dollar. Obviously if he spent $50,000 there probably would
probably be a vesting. Jim, I can't answer your question on
how much he spent.
TRUSTEE KING: That's something I would like to know. This
man maybe invested a lot of money in this. it's been going
on for two, three years now. He had an approved
application. It's a question I have. It's like now you're
going to pull the rug out from underneath him after he's
invested all this money. I don't know, I'd love to see the
land preserved.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think it's a valid question. I can't
answer how much has been expended because I don't
know. Those are the legal issues.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I understand what Jim's saying and
Mr. Fitzgerald's been asked to provide that information, I
think we should wait on a vote until we get that
information. We can't ask the applicant and then say, it
wasn't important. The problem with that is that I don't
care what it is -- you don't know what the number's going
to be, and how should that influence the vote on the
environmental significance of the project.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's my problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But he's been asked the question, I think
we should wait.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You should wait for the answer.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: How is that number going to affect the
vote?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It doesn't matter.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Whether it's $100 or a million dollars.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's not as if the applicant is waiting
anxiously for an answer. They requested it be postponed.
It's not like someone is stalling the application by asking
for more information. It's actually the applicant that's
been asked for information and has asked that the
application not be voted on anyway.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Brownell, you had said before that if
6O
Board of Trustees 61 March 23, 2005
those that had voted for the permit felt that any of the
information was misleading or incorrect, it would be
foreseeable why they might reject the permit now. But would
that also apply to information that was received afterwards?
We didn't have that interdunal information at the time that
the original permit vote was made; so can a legal reason be
that there was lack of information? You said if there was
any incorrect information, or if someone had withheld the
information, does that also include information that was --
MR. JOHNSTON: Whether it was intentionally or
otherwise.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We just didn't have all that information
that we had in February or January. So that was a lot of
information that was very relevant to this permit. Does
that also include or allow them to make a different
judgment?
MR. JOHNSTON: Not to make a different judgment, but to make
a different decision. What I'm trying to say is, did you
not have the facts right?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It wasn't that they weren't right, it
was a lack of having that information.
MR. JOHNSTON: There's no if you have seven facts it's right
or if you have eight facts it's wrong. It's a concept of
did the facts and circumstances as we understand them now,
are they different from when we understood them. And you
used the facts that were available and decided that they
didn't meet the standards, I'm telling you that the
standards haven't changed for issuing a building permit.
It's different from docks because the standards for docks
under 97 now are different from the docks before. But let's
assume that residential housing, the standard is the same,
the standard three years ago is the same as it is today.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, but the information was lacking.
What I'm saying is when Al and Jim made that decision, they
did not have the information interdunal swale or Larry
Penny's information. I'm just saying, does that allow them
to change the decision?
MR. JOHNSTON: It would allow it. But they have got to in
their minds they have got to say that there's a change in
the facts.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There was a change in the facts. I'm
pleading my case here, there was a change in the facts.
MR. JOHNSTON: i'm saying, that has to be something that's
in the heart of each one of the four of you, do you feel the
facts are different?
MR. JOHNSTON: It's a question of is
6l
Board of Trustees 62 March 23, 2005
there a change in the facts as they apply today?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Brownell, that's what I'm saying. I'm
saying after the original permit decision when we all voted,
since that time, the information has changed. More
information was brought to light.
MR. JOHNSTON: The information hasn't changed. The
knowledge of the information is here that wasn't before.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's a technicality.
MR. JOHNSTON: We're going to postpone.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're not going to postpone, we are
postponing. No action is taken. So moved. Close the
meeting.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES.
Southold Town Clerk
62