HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-07/20/2005Albert J. Krupski, President
James King, Vice-President
Artie Foster
Ken Poliwoda
Peggy A. Dickerson
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MINUTES
Wednesday, July 20, 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. Brewnell Johnston, Esq.
Assistant Town Attorney for Trustees
Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant
Heather Tetrault, Environmental Technician
RECEIVED
q
NOV 18~ ~5 .~
·
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 at
8:00 a.m.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to approve,
TRUSTEE KING seconded. All AYES.
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 at
7:00 p.m.
WORK SESSION: 6:00 p.m.
TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve,
TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES.
MEETING DATE WITH TOWN BOARD TO DISCUSS MOORING:
August 1, 2005 at 5:00 p.m.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES.
I. MONTHLY REPORT: For June 2005, check for $11,574.27 was
Board of Trustees 2 July 20, 2005
forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town
Clerk's Bulletin Board for review.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Welcome to our regular monthly meeting.
Item 3 is the list of the State Environmental Quality review,
otherwise known as SEQRA. It is resolved that the Board of
Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby find that the
following applications more fully described in the public
hearings on the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, July 20th
are classified as Type 2 actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and
regulations and are not subject to review under SEQRA.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
Belvedere Property Management, LLC -- SCTM#117-8-20
Louis Giglioli -- SCTM#123-3-17
Laurel County Estates Property Owner's Association --
SCTM#128-6-3
BCB Realty Holding Corp. -- SCTM#45-4-8.3
Estate of Eileen Goldner-- SCTM#56-5-22
Karol Filipkowski -- SCTM#53-5-2
Ronald Pazzaniese -- SCTM#135-3-8
Donald ladanza -- SCTM#15-3-11.1
Barbara and Sandy Reibling -- SCTM#57-2-32
Ernesto Ad riano -- SCTM#18-3-6.12
Larry Kulick -- SCTM#87-3-61
Athanasia and Bill Kartsonis - SCTM#14-2-3.13
James and Marina Mitchell -- SCTM#115-17-17.11
David McEIroy -- SCTM#14-2-3.14
Robert's Custom Homes -- SCTM#31-18-3
Lewis and Helaine Teperman -- SCTM#21-2-16
John and Joanne Gouveia -- SCTM#44-1-11
Mary S. Zupa -- SCTM#81-1-16.7
Gerard Keegan -- SCTM#70-10-52&63
Alan Cardinale -- SCTM#122-3-1.4
IV. RESOLUTIONS -- ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
1. Meryl Kramer on behalf of MARILYN PASIERB &
MATTHEW BLOCH requests an Administrative Permit to construct
a second-floor addition to the existing dwelling and install
a new sanitary system on the landward side of the dwelling.
Located: 680 Truman's Path, East Marion. SCTM#31-12-2
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Pretty straightforward. I don't see where
there's even a need for hay bales there because it's so
heavily vegetated. I would suggest that there be dry wells
Board of Trustees 3 July 20, 2005
for the roof runoff on the roadside but nothing on the
lake side. I move that we approve the application for Marilyn
Pasierb & Matthew Bloch.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES
2. Clement Charnews on behalf of ROBERT & CELLA
SWING requests an Administrative Permit to construct a roof
and screen walls on the existing deck. Located: 445 Island
View Lane, Greenport. SCTM#57-2-27.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh This is a permit that was issued September
19, 2001 for an addition of the second floor and a septic
system and it was a large project that was approved, and
then we proceeded to grant an amendment for fill in 2003.
Of course, that permit has expired. Now the applicant's
come in, just simply for an Administrative Permit, and
there's a picture here, if anybody would like to see it, if
they can remember back in 2001 here on Island View Lane, and
the application is to construct a roof and some retaining
walls on the existing deck, instead of the whole project.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I don't have a problem with that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The original permit was for a major
reconstruction. This is just to cover the deck with
screening. Any comment? I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We approved these with dry wells, so if
you could draw them on.
V. RESOLUTIONS-MOORING & ANCHORAGE/STAKES/DUCK BLINDS:
1. FRANK PASSANANTE requests a Mooring Permit in
Gull Pond for a 20 foot boat, replacing Mooring 13. Access:
Public.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Just a simple replacement, I'll make a
motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
2. LAWRENCE HEIT requests a Mooring Permit in
Richmond Creek for an 18' boat, replacing Mooring #872.
Access: Public.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
Board of Trustees 4 July 20, 2005
VI. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS:
1. DONALD IADANZA requests an Amendment to
Permit fl4815 to replace the stairway leading down to the
beach. Located: 855 Soundview Road, Orient.
SCTM#:15-33-11.1.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I didn't see a problem with it. There's
actually only nine feet extending beyond the edge of the
bulkhead. CAC recommended approval with the condition that
a planting plan be submitted for restoration of the bluff
after work is completed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is it acceptable, the whole plan?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Sure, it's actually only nine feet off
the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The problem is Mark held up the
application, deemed it incomplete. Now, why don't we vote
on this.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Nine feet of stairs out beyond the
existing bulkhead, which is tiered up on the bluff. Okay.
I'll make a motion to approve the amendment to Permit 4815
to replace the stairway with the condition that the LWRP is
consistently filled out.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
2. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of GERARD
KEEGAN requests an Amendment to Permit #5600 to include a
concrete wall, deck, hand-trim the phragmites, and
revegetate. Located: 100 Beachwood Lane,
Southold. SCTM#70-10-52 and 63.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is Cathy here? Does she want to say
anything?
TRUSTEE KING: I didn't think we had a problem with the
revegetation plan.
MS. MESIANO: Right. When I spoke to the Trustees at that
meeting last week, I did submit all the required
documentation, the revegetation plan, the new survey, the
gentleman who drew the revegetation plan had submitted it to
your office. Heather had indicated she had no problem with
it. So if you have any questions, I'll be happy to address
them.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Conservation Advisory Council recommends
approval of the application dated May 27, 2005.
MS. TETRAULT: It's exempt because it's a revegetation. But
can you put on the amendment, I would suggest something
about survivability for the new plantings, maybe also a date
Board of Trustees 5 July 20, 2005
that it can be done by. We left it open and the Trustees
said they would like to see this done.
MS. MESIANO: I don't have a time line, but you give me a
date and it will be done by that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh October 30th, and then it has to be
reviewed again for survivability.
MS. MESlANO: Do you look for a percentage or do you have
specifications for survivability?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't have a set policy.
MS. MESlANO: I would assume it's what's reasonable.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Assume we go out there and it's not
completely gone.
MS. MESIANO: Even I wouldn't call that reasonable.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We've seen that.
MS. MESlANO: If you have natural plantings, I would think
that the dominant species are going to thrive and
overtake.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the
request for Amendment to Permit #5600 to include a concrete
wall, deck, hand-trim the phragmites, and revegetate with
the stipulation that it be planted by October 31st and
reviewed one year from that date for survivability.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES
3. DONALD & VIRGINIA RUSS request a Transfer of
Permit #2057 from Winifred J. Harris-Allen to Donald &
Virginia Russ, as issued on August 28, 1985. Located: 230
Jockey Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM#70-5-8
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf
of this application? I measured in the field, what is
permitted does not exist, and I see reason just to transfer
what's existing in the field rather than what's on the
permit. What's existing is a two and a half by 10' ramp, a
4' by 4' platform, and a ramp going down to a 5' by 20'
float. They have a permit for a 8' by 20' float. It's not
there now, that's an extra three feet.
And it would be a problem for navigation there. I would
approve the transfer with the amendment to these dimensions,
or just outright deny it and let them apply again. They
applied for a transfer. I'd give them the transfer, let's
transfer what's existing, but I don't want to transfer
what's on the existing permit.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's bigger on the plan than what's
there.
Board of Trustees 6 July 20, 2005
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can't give them the transfer. They're
requesting a transfer, can we give them a new permit?
We've done that in the past.
MR. JOHNSTON: I don't have a problem with that.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Deny the transfer and issue a new permit?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Right.
MR. JOHNSTON: In lieu of.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to deny the Transfer
of Permit #2057.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE POLIWOD^: I'll make a motion to issue a new permit
in place of Permit 2057 to represent what's in the field, a
4' by 4' platform secured to the bulkhead with a two and a
half by 10' ramp leading down to a 5' by 20' float, and it
will be stipulated that a new set of plans be submitted
prior to issuing this plan.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to go offthe regular
meeting?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: So moved.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKi: All in favor?. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before we start there's 41 public hearings
on the agenda. However, a number of these have been
postponed and we will not open the hearings. Number 1,
Angelo Padavan has been postponed; 9, Matt-A-Mar By the Bay;
17, J & C Holdings has been postponed; 24 James Murray and
Susan Segur; 26 Sim Moy; 35, Larry Kulick; 36, John
Mulholland; 37 Virginia Bontje; 38 Michael Carlucci; 39,
George Baldwin; 40, Dennis Hranitzky; and 41, Vincent &
Carol Manago.
COASTAL EROSION AND WETLAND PERMITS:
2. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 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.
MS. MOORE: Here we are again, continuing. I also note that
the stairs is scheduled as Number 8, I don't know if you
want to take it out of order and deal with everything at the
same time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, the stairs don't fall under Coastal
Erosion, this is under Coastal Erosion, that's why this is
Board of Trustees 7 July 20, 2005
under a separate category.
MS. MOORE: Fine, I'll wait. I still haven't gotten any
comments. We've given you everything that we always
had. From your own statements you say that the stairs,
because they're already there and they're being replaced and
repaired, it doesn't fall under coastal zone, that was the
situation when the structures were repaired the first time.
The fact that it wasn't done with a permit prior to doesn't
obviate the fact that it didn't require a permit to begin
with.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It does under the new Chapter 97, it
does.
MS. MOORE: Whether or not it does is still an issue that
is -- nonetheless, what we did is we came in with a permit,
and we're now asking for a permit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As far as I know, we're waiting for a
determination under the consistency review for the LWRP,
everyone's going to hear that tonight. LWRP is the Local
Waterfront Revitalization Program that the Town Board has
adopted recently and has sort of become something of a
puzzle for the rest of us, and we have to wait. The Town
Board has appointed someone to review these applications for
consistency under the LWRP, which is a document that sort of
dwarfs the Town code. Unfortunately the LWRP coordinator
hasn't --
MS. MOORE: And he's on vacation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He happens to be on vacation but he's left
quite a few of these applications unresolved.
MS. MOORE: Just something to think about, and Brownell will
advise you on this, I don't remember off the top of my head
that LWRP has a time frame in it that once it's been
submitted that if the LWRP coordinator doesn't respond by a
certain day, you can deem the process continue.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I thought it did.
MS. MOORE: I thought it did too.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKk I thought it had a 20 day or 10 day.
MS. MOORE: There is a time frame, I don't have the law in
front of me, but it should be something that you could look
into, and if you can get the answer, maybe you can move on
some of these applications. Nonetheless, the LWRP doesn't
supercede the code, the Town code. It's not a super law,
it's a policy statement and if the policy statement goes in
contravention of the law, I think we're going to be in court
a lot because it was not put through a public hearing as a
legislative act. It was put through as a policy statement,
a compilation of prior studies and policies, and a lot of
Board of Trustees 8 July 20, 2005
touchy-feely stuff. The bottom line is that the code, you
can proceed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm not disagreeing with you. We didn't
adopt it. So if you think that this Board's handling it
incorrectly, by all means address the Town Board who adopted
it. We're trying to grapple with how to deal with this, or
talk to the Department of State. We're not comfortable with
it as it stands now.
MS. MOORE: The Department of State is very good with your
offices calling getting answers, even more so than the
private individual. They don't usually respond to private
individuals. They are there for agencies as a resource. I
would encourage you to use that as a resource. I didn't
think you were going to have so many caught under the
LWRP.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Almost all of them. We didn't think there
would be either. I'll make a motion to table the
application.
MS. MOORE: Just let me know if the LWRP, does that mean
that Number 8 is going to be tabled as well? Because that
was all part of the original -- LWRP only applies to coastal
zone, it doesn't apply to the wetlands ordinance, I think it's
only CZM -- no, it's the Building Department that doesn't get caught
unless it's CZM. I'm saying if you are about to adjourn
about 90 percent of what's here because of the LWRP, I think
you should tell the people that are.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We did that last month.
MS. MOORE: Okay. So this one is held up because of
LWRP. You will let me know when you respond.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to table.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES
MR. SCHWARTZ: You don't want to hear from anybody who wants
to speak against the application?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry, I don't have a problem with
that. I'll reopen the hearing. The problem we're having,
as far as we know we can't consider the review complete
until we receive the LWRP comments. And we have a thick
packet of those here tonight for all the other remaining
public hearings that we can address tonight. So as we go
through and address each file, we're going to review those
comments and make a decision. I have no problem opening the
hearing if you're going to make comments on this
tonight. We're not going to resolve anything tonight, and
you might want to hold your comments.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I'd like to make a very brief comment.
Board of Trustees 9 July 20, 2005
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to reopen the hearing
on Lewis and Helaine Teperman.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Benjamin Schwartz from Cutchogue, and it's
one of the more pleasurable beaches in Southold town where
this property's located. And I'm glad the Board is going to
go through the process with the LWRP, but I can't see how
this application could in any way conform to anything that's
in the LWRP. This application is diametrically opposed to
preserving the natural resources and beauty of our town for
everyone. This application is about one owner who initially
had a little shed down there with a deck that extended over
both property lines on both sides of the property. Now they
have pulled that back so it's on both property lines. Even
if it was rebuilt, I don't see how it could be approved.
We're anxious to see the Board get on with removing the
brand new beach house on the beach there. And we're
wondering with the stairs application, obviously tied
together, you can't do a separate application for every
piece of wood. Is it possible that this Board could order
the stairs removed since there would be nothing for the
stairs to attach to? The stairs go between the two houses.
They're an auxiliary use, and if the beach house at the
lower end is removed, then maybe the stairs should be too.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Just to answer you, it's sort of doubtful
because most people have stairs just to access the beach.
Is there any other comment on this application? I make a
motion to retable the hearing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES
WETLAND PERMITS:
1. PETER COWAN requests a Wetland Permit to install
an in-ground swimming pool and patio and for the existing
fencing. Located: 435 Mockingbird Lane, Southold.
SCTM#55-6-15.57
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here to comment on this
application? Here's the positive, the LWRP is filled out
consistently as far as the Town's concerned with the
LWRP. However the current location of the fence is within
the 75 foot conservation easement area and it is in
violation of the covenants and restrictions filed March 9,
1990 in Liber 11030, Page 495 to the subdivision. The fence
is not permitted within the 75 foot conservation easement
area. It must be located on the outside of the area.
Additionally, as indicated in Clause E of the covenants and
Board of Trustees 10 July 20, 2005
restrictions, the area cleared maintained within the 75 foot
conservation easement area must be restored to
pre-disturbance conditions within 60 days of the above
date. So you're consistent but it's not too favorable.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh He's consistent with the pool.
MR. COWAN: I met with Mr. Terry on Tuesday, I took
photographs of everything, I wrote a letter to the Planning
Board, I asked if I need an attorney. He said you don't
need an attorney, just explain why you need to keep it. I
said, okay, I did that, and he said it looks fine to me.
And that was the last thing I talked to him about until now.
I explained why I cannot remove the fence, so there's a
dangerous situation behind my house. I have a small child
in my house, so if I remove the fence it's not worth it. In
other words, I won't build the pool, I'll just leave the
fence and protect my family, because that's what the Town
Board is telling me to do. You're telling me to remove the
fence. I can't remove the fence because there's a dangerous
situation behind my house.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh What exists there apparently in your deed,
in the covenant and restrictions filed March 9, 1990 Liber
11030, Page 495 of the subdivision, it says there's a
conservation easement in the subdivision that wouldn't allow
a fence in that area. That's a separate issue with the
Town.
MR. COWAN: It says a permanent structure within 75 feet,
right?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It says here the fence is not permitted
within a 75 feet conservation easement area.
MR. COWAN: One of the recommendations was I put a
split-rail fence there instead of a chain link.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We told you last month, you have to
resolve this -- this is a Planning Board issue in the
covenants and restrictions. You have to resolve this with
them.
MR. COWAN: Isn't Mr. Terry part of that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We need a determination from the Planning
Board.
MR. COWAN: I spoke to him personally and he said it was no
problem. I spoke to him Tuesday.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'd like to see something in the records
from Mr. Terry or the Planning Board saying that this is the
fence. We just got this from Mr. Terry July 18th saying the
fence is not permitted within the easement area. So that's
not consistent with what you're saying.
MS. TETRAULT: In the file, so all the Trustees know, there
Board of Trustees 11 July 20, 2005
is a letter from the Planning Board from Jerry Woodhouse.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We do have a letter in the file from
Jerry Woodhouse, the chairperson of the Planning Board, if
you like I could read it for the record. The Southold Town
Board of Trustees is hereby advised that the
above-referenced property is part of the High Point Meadows
subdivision for which there are filed covenants and restrictions.
Please note that there are no structures permitted within the
conservation easement area. A copy of the declaration of
the covenants and restrictions is attached for the Board's
review, and if you have any questions feel free to contact
this office.
MR. COWAN: It says no structures at all within the 75
feet. But yet one of the recommendations that actually
Heather spoke to me about on the file was that they're
willing to give me a split-rail fence in lieu of my chain
link fence at the exact same location that the fence is now.
MS. TETRAULT: I wasn't speaking for them.
MR. COW^N: That was what I read in that letter.
MS. TETRAULT: I was just explaining to you about the
wildlife corridor.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's between you and the Planning Board;
that's not an issue for this Board. We should be
responsible to coordinate with other agencies within the
Town to say this is another Board's decision. We should
respect their decisions.
MR. COWAN: I don't know how far my pool is from those
wetlands, but I believe it's within those 75 feet. You're
saying no permanent structures can be built, but yet I'm
getting --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We didn't say that. Planning Board said
that.
TRUSTEE KING: It doesn't seem to be a problem with the
pool, the problem is with the fence.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We don't have a problem with the pool or
the fence. It's the Planning Board that has the problem
with the structures. That's in your deed and in the
subdivision. That's got nothing to do with our Board.
MR. COWAN: But Mr. Terry, with the LVVRP, that's the
Planning Board, I met with him. I gave him photographs what
I was talking about, wrote a letter to the Planning Board.
He told me as far as he was concerned, it wasn't a big
issue. I come here tonight thinking I was going to get
approval, now he says no. Now your hands are tied.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We also have a letter in the file from the
Chairman of the Planning Board.
Board of Trustees 12 July 20, 2005
MR. COWAN: I only met with him two days ago.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: With the chairman of the Planning Board?
MR. COWAN: He said I didn't fill out one thing on the form,
I went down to the office, filled it out, took photographs,
and wrote a letter to him, brought it down to him. I asked
do I need to get an attorney, he goes no, and now we come
again, another month later, I still can't get a pool in my
house.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't see where it's --
MR. COWAN: I understand your situation that the covenants
and restrictions say no, I have neighbors with fences and
they obviously got permission to put them in.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Maybe.
MR. COWAN: The covenants and restrictions have a gazillion
things in there saying you can and can't do something on
Mockingbird Lane.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't see how we could disregard that.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I don't think legally we can disregard
that.
MR. COW^N: My question to you is what do I do now? Do I
have to get an attorney to go to the Planning Board to over
do this covenants and restrictions?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We told you last month that this is a
Planning Board issue and you have to go to the Planning
Board.
MR. COWAN: I did go to the Planning Board. I saw the guy
in charge of the LWRP. I went to his office in the other
building upstairs, saw him on Tuesday.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI; But you didn't talk to the Planning
Board.
MR. COWAN: Doesn't he work for the Planning Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MR. COWAN: Isn't that the same thing?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI; Not when we have a letter in the file from
the Chairman of the Planning Board saying that no structure
is allowed in that conservation easement area of that
subdivision.
MR. COWAN: So he was unaware of this letter from his
chairperson?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have no idea what he's aware of or not
aware of. We told you last month you have to resolve this
with the Planning Board.
MR. COW^N: I went to your Town Trustees' office a couple
weeks ago, they said go to the Planning Board. I go to the
Planning Board, they said go to the Town attorneys. I go to
the Town attorneys, they said you got to go to the Town
Board of Trustees 13 July 20, 2005
Trustees. it's a cimle, no one wants to take care of it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can't.
MR. COWAN: I was in with Heather and Diane. I sat with
attorneys they brought two more attorneys in to answer my
questions. They said Town Trustees can take care of
this. So now I'm back here again.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Al, why don't we approve the fence,
stipulating that he needs a letter from the Planning
Department approving it.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: The paper says it's not permitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is the same scenario as existed in
another subdivision, and we could not issue a permit for the
fence in that area because there was a conservation
easement.
MR. COWAN: Can't you just issue me a permit for my pool?
If you're saying the fence is not your jurisdiction, ignore
the fence and that's my problem with the Planning Board, but
I'm asking you for a permit for my pool.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 'But the fence is in our jurisdiction.
MR. COWAN: You just told me the fence isn't in your
jurisdiction, you told me the fence is the Planning Board's
jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The fence is also in the Planning Board's
jurisdiction.
MR. COWAN: You just said you can't issue anything on the
fence because it isn't in your jurisdiction. So ignore it
and give me the permit for my pool, and I'll take up the
fence with the Planning Board with an attorney if I have to.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's still in our jurisdiction. We can't
ignore it's on the record now.
MR. COWAN: Then you can decide if it's yes or no?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then it would have to be no because it
would go against the Planning Board. So that's why we
didn't want to say no, we wanted to say why didn't you try
to resolve this with the Planning Board.
MR. COW^N: I thought I did. I went to everybody in every
office everywhere in this Town, and they keep sending me to
somebody else.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think you have to talk to the Planning
Board.
MR. COW^N: Here we go again. I spqke to the Mr. Terry, who
works for the LVVRP, I went to his officeI sat down with him
for ten minutes in his office, with photographs, a letter
and everything, and I went to this building it said
"Planning Board." As far as I'm concerned I met the
Planning Board. Now just because he was doing a different
Board of Trustees 14 July 20, 2005
job that day and not a part of the Planning Board, I don't
know.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKi: I don't know what he was doing that day
either.
MR. COWAN: Obviously nothing because he led me down a false
trail here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Brownell, what is the recommendation?
MR. COWAN: What was the date on that letter you said you
met with the Planning Board?
TRUSTEE POLIVVODA: June 21,2005 from Jerry Woodhouse. The
letter from Mark Terry is July 18th.
MR. JOHNSTON: Did you see the July 18th letter?.
MR. COWAN: No.
MR. JOHNSTON: Show him the Jerry Woodhouse letter.
TRUSTEE POLIVVODA: It's June 21st (handing), that's what he
wrote.
MR. COWAN: You're telling me that the Planning Board's in
charge. Planning Board tells me that the Town attorney's in
charge, and they tell me that you're in charge.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is like saying the DEC has
jurisdiction, the Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction,
the Trustees have jurisdiction, Suffolk County Health
Department has jurisdiction, a lot of people can have
different jurisdictions on the same project on the same
property. It doesn't mean that any one person is or isn't
in charge. We went through this last month.
MR. COVVAN: I thought I took care of it. I went to see
everybody in this town, filled out everything I was supposed
to fill out, took pictures, wrote a statement to them about
why I have to have the fence there. I went to Mr. Terry,
said do I need an attorney; he said, no, we can sort it out
between our own departments. That was two days ago.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You see the letter he sent us.
MR. JOHNSTON: Is this consistent with what he said to you?
MR. COWAN: No, not at all.
MR. JOHNSTON: You see what a position Mr. Krupski and the
other Trustees are in, if this is the formal thing that he
sent them and you said to him anything else, how can they on
the record not accept this?
MR. COWAN: Do you have a copy of what I gave him and the
photographs I gave him?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes.
MR. JOHNSTON: Do we have his response?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is his response.
MR. COWAN: But do you have the letter and photographs?
MR. JOHNSTON: Do we have a response similar to what you
Board of Trustees 15 July 20, 2005
thought he said?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No, it's completely contradictory.
MR. JOHNSTON: Al, I'm sorry, you have to go with the formal
response.
MR. COWAN: I took pictures of the fence, I explained to him
I didn't know I needed a permit, to be honest, but when I
put the fence in, I left a six foot buffer between the back
of my property and the marsh, and it's already grown in.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's the not the issue. The issue still
is and I can't give you any more of an explanation except
that we have the LVVRP coordinator saying something different
from what you said he told you. You have to meet with the
Planning Board, Mark Terry works for the Planning
Board. Call the Planning Board office and make an
appointment with the Board.
MR. COWAN: Can the Town Trustees tonight give me a permit
for my pool if the fence is not there, or can they give me
permission to keep the fence, one way or the other?. Do I
have to come back here again?
TRUSTEE POLIVVODA: Legally we can give you the fence at the
75 foot mark according to the covenants and restrictions.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what I thought we had recommended
that this fence be brought up to the pool so it's your pool
fence and your fence, and yet it's not in the easement.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Take that approval tonight and take that
to the Planning Board and work with them, and if they say
you can put the fence where you want it, you come back to us
for an amendment. But you can get a permit tonight for a
pool and a fence.
MR. COWAN: I can, thank you.
TRUSTEE POLIVVODA: Any other comments, from the public on
this application? Any other Board comments?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Make sure you put the revised plan in.
TRUSTEE POLIVVODA: if not, I'll make a motion to close the
public hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: i'll make a motion on behalf
of Mr. Peter Cowan to approve the Wetland Permit to install
an in-ground swimming pool, patio and for the existing fence
to be removed to the 75 foot conservation easement line, as
well as a revised plan put in place in our files.
MS. TETRAULT: Would you add in there the draining of the
pool doesn't go into the 75 foot conservation easement?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Stipulate also the backwash.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you hear the resolution?
Board of Trustees 16 July 20, 2005
MR. COWAN: I did not.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I approved the pool, approved putting the
fence up 75 Conservation easement line, as well as putting
the back wash system, and a revised plan.
MR. COWAN: Actually, Mr. Terry did ask me that question
when I met him two days ago.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES
MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Krupski, do you have any problem if I
said give Mr. Cowan a copy of Mr. Terry's lette~
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, not at all, it's a public letter.
2. 40C LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
4' by 55' timber walkway 3.5' above grade, a 3' by 14'
timber ramp, and a 6' by 20' floating dock. Located: 635
Waterview Drive, Southold. SCTM#78-7-10.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There is an LWRP and it says
inconsistent. It says the proposed action is located within
a DEC critical environmental area, the proposed detail
construction practices of the dock has not been identified.
It's recommended that the applicant identify the proposed
construction practices. It says Goose Creek is a listed
critical environmental area by the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation, which entitled the area to a
heightened level of protection. It is recommended that the
Board of Trustees consider the below information and
require the following outstanding items to further the
policies of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program.
One, the proposed detailed construction practices and
materials says the application indicates timber have not
been identified and should be outlined in writing to the
Board. Two, although the application states that the
disturbed area will be restored, a restoration plan
outlining the species, timing and specifications has not
been submitted to the Board, such a plan must be submitted
to the Board. During construction of the structure require
the encirclement of the entire project area with a floating
turbidity screen to remain in place a sufficient number of
days to allow the settling of the solids.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Basically it's a contradiction because it
says it's inconsistent yet it talks about construction
measures.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It says, I believe, I'm not sure of
this, it's inconsistent unless these are provided, so, if we
put this in the permit I think we can make it consistent.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you want to put that in the permit.
Board of Trustees 17 July 20, 2005
TRUSTEE DICI4ERSON: CAC recommends approval of the
application with the condition that the dock is in line with
the neighboring docks and the existing fence is removed. I
think we mentioned the fence also.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Artie, you were out there, it was Kenny
and I were out there. Kenny, you remember this, right?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Remember?.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes, right.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did anybody have any problems with the
dimensions?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. We found it to be consistent with the
docks in the area.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just asking.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If it's inconsistent why don't we table
it and figure out why it's inconsistent.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to table Number 2,
40C LLC request for a Wetland Permit for walkway, ramp and
dock.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES
3. MICHAEL and KATHRYN RUSSO request a Wetland
Permit to construct a screen porch in place of the existing
rear deck, construct a new porch on the landward side of the
dwelling, construct a second story addition in place of the
existing covered porch, and construct a new
garage. Located: 775 Oakwood Drive, Southold.
SCTM#90-4-22.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there here to speak on behalf of this
application? LWRP declares it's consistent. I looked at
this as depicted on the survey that shows all operations
at 90 feet beyond the edge of the marsh, intertidal
wetland. I don't find much of an environmental impact in
what they're proposing. The majority of the work is
actually 100 feet or more out of our jurisdiction. 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 of Michael and Kathryn Russo as per the plans.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
4. ERNESTO ADRIANO requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a single-family dwelling, deck, asphalt driveway,
Board of Trustees 18 July 20, 2005
and sanitary system. Located: 2195 Edwards Lane, Orient.
SCTM#18-3-6.12.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: LWRP says it's consistent with the
policy standards, require erosion sedimentary control, hay
bales, silt fencing, protect the wetlands systems, require
water quality protection measures for area, gutters, dry
wells and pervious driveways.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You saw that, Peg, right?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. CAC did not make an
inspection. There is a letter in the file with this, some
requests and concerns; would you like it read in its
entirety?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can condense it, summarize it.
TRUSTEE DiCKERSON: lam the owner of the property on
Edwards Lane Orient, adjacent on the south side. I am
writing this letter because I would like to state my
concerns. Number one, property was entirely cleared; did we
have a comment about that when we were there? Out of fear
that the clearing will cause soil runoff on the wetland
areas and the reads -- so there's a concern of excessive
runoff from the clearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Peggy, I think we were going to address
that with a planting plan on the road side.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You're right. We said 40 foot replant,
drainage and driveway. Right, and his second concern is the
asphalt driveway.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Unless they put drainage in the asphalt
driveway.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what we said. I would also like
to inform the Trustees that the survey sent to me has not
been updated since it lists previous owner instead of me,
therefore, it does not recognize that I have an existing
Board of Health permit. You want an updated plan?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other Board comments? Is there
anyone else here who would like to speak?
MR. ADRiANO: I didn't quite hear what your comments were.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There were three concerns. One was the
clearing that it would cause runoff; the second concern was
the asphalt driveway, and the last concern that was that the
survey had not been updated. We're going to ask for an
updated survey. We're also going to ask that you put a
drain in your asphalt driveway.
MR. ADRIANO: That survey was current.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you have any other comments?
MR. ADRIANO: Was it disapproved?
Board of Trustees 19 July 20, 2005
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No, we're just taking comments.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our concerns are the runoff into the
wetland area across the road, so we want to make you plant
something there along the mad.
MR. ADRIANO: That's what I want to do in the future.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're going to put that in the
permit. And your driveway same thing, we want drainage in
the driveway.
MR. ADRIANO: Yes, everything is going to be done.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Would you consider a pervious driveway
with gravel?
MR. ADRIANO: Yes, it's a gravel.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't mind asphalt. On a steep slope it
might be better for asphalt, for runoff purposes. You know
how high that was. it might be better to have asphalt and
then have him put the drainage system in during construction
that it's been done. Does that make any sense?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So the runoff problem is going to be
taken care of. The drain in the driveway will take care of
the driveway and the inconsistencies with the survey is
going to be taken care of with the Health Department. Is
there anyone else here who would like to speak for or
against this application? I'll make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So in order to get the permit you have to
change your plan to show the planting area along the read
and to show drainage in the driveway.
MR. ^DRIANO: The only reason I did that was because I have
no -- I have to get a boarding pass I cannot get the truck
to go as of now. So I have to make the clearing on that
side to go in there. It's only temporary.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. But you have to show on the
survey, you have to have somebody draw on the survey, the
planting areas, no turf, we'll make recommendations, and
then it's got to show on the survey, the surveyor can draw
it in, drainage for the driveway.
MR. ADRIANO: I will have the architect.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the
Wetland Permit for Ernesto Adriano to construct a
single-family dwelling, deck, asphalt driveway and sanitary
system with the stipulation that there will be no turf on
the 40 foot elevation, and new plans show a replanting plan
and that there be a sufficient drainage in the driveway.
Board of Trustees 20 July 20, 2005
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES
5. KAROL FILIPKOWSKI requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a single-family dwelling, deck and
driveway. Located: 65390 Route 25, Southold. SCTM#53-5-2.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here who would like to
comment on this application? We can't act on this because
we don't have the LWRP information. I'll make a motion to
table.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALI AYES
6. Meryl Kramer on behalf of BARBARA & SANDY
REIBLING requests a Wetland Permit to renovate the existing
single-family dwelling with a new second floor addition and
add a new leaching pool to the existing sanitary
system. Located: 75 Island View Lane, Greenport. SCTM#57-2-32
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment
on this application?
MS. KRAMER: This project had a Southold Trustees Permit
5681, which was issued December 18, 2002, unfortunately that
expired. In the meantime, the project has considerably
become lessened. Originally, the project was going to have
a second floor addition and that required updated septic
from the Town, and there was retaining walls and a new tank
and leaching pools and overflow. But now, I think the plan
that you have actually still shows a second floor addition,
but we decided not to increase the number of
bedrooms. Since then they further reduced the scope of the
project because of family reasons. And I have a letter here
describing that this is all kind of changing as we
speak. They are going to do a second floor, but it's really
more of a roof design where they want to make it more of a
shingle style house, so they're going to do a loft with a
sloping roof because right now it's a very shallow roof
slope. In addition, even though they're keeping the two
ground floor bedrooms that are on the ground floor now, they
decided that they would really like to upgrade the septic
because this area there is a very high water table. I did
meet with George Brown at the Health Department. He gave me
a letter approving what we were going to do, which was to
add a leaching pool to the septic. I have these letters for
you from the Health Department and from me, describing the
reduction in the scope of the project.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comment?
Board of Trustees 21 July 20, 2005
MS. KRAMER: I also have a letter, which I did not copy,
from one of the neighbors who is in support of the project.
So I could give you this and maybe we could make copies in
the hall, just one more for my record.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's fine.
MS. KRAMER: Basically we're staying within the existing
footprint just changing the roof, the siding, the windows
and adding a leaching pool.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any Board comments? I looked at this,
and I found this to be very minor just as she stated
there.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The LWRP finds this is consistent with
the LWRP. CAC recommended approval to renovate the existing
single-family dwelling with a new second floor addition and
add a leaching pool and sanitary system. They recommend adding
dry wells and gutters are installed to contain the roof
runoff.
MS. KRAMER: That's all in the plan.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If there's any other public comment? If
not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland
Permit on behalf of Barbara and Sandy Reibling pending the
revised plans, how you downsized it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor.? ALL AYES.
7. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of
BELVEDERE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC requests a Wetland Permit
to remove approximately 300 feet of deteriorated timber
bulkhead and to install in-place approximately 300 feet of
new vinyl bulkheading, to install e 8' by 65' float dock, to
remove 150-200 piles and assorted debris, and to establish a
57' by 140' area of tidal wetlands plantings. Proposed
bulkheading shall be "flood type" where on the north side of
the area of proposed plantings two foot panel openings will
be established in eight locations, and on the south side of
the area of plantings, 11 panel openings will be established
to allow tidal water to flow through. Located: First and
Jackson Streets, New Suffolk. SCTM#117-8-20.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. JUST: Glen Just of J.M.O. Consulting and I also have
George Costello, the applicant's contractor here, if there
are any questions.
Board of Trustees 22 July 20, 2005
TRUSTEE KING: The proposed action is consistent with the
denoted following policy standards, and therefore is
consistent with the LWRP provided that the following
standard best management practices are implemented.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Have you seen the recommendations of the
LWRP?
MR. JUST: No, but I believe George has.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Have you seen them?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you address those?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes. On Item 1, it says no CCA treated wood,
creosote, et cetera, we're using vinyl sheathing, I don't
have an alternate material for piling, I was going to use
CC,& piling and then use a CC,& stringer that's been coated
with Poly 21. I don't know if you're familiar with what
East Hampton did, Poly 21 is a plastic that actually gets
sprayed on and encapsulates the timbers, that's the only
alternative material I have.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sounds appropriate.
TRUSTEE POLIWOD,&: Does that peel off?
MR. COSTELLO: If you take an ax you can whack it and cut it
off, yes, but it's put on hot and it actually goes on hot,
and when it dries it shrinks some. It's brown in
color. It's a little ugly, but it's probably 3/16, almost
quarter inch thick material, and it looks to me that it's
almost like a spray-on plastic.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You buy these all pre-sprayed?
MR. COSTELLO: You buy the piles, dry the piles and then
spray them.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Where do you spray the stuff?
MR. COSTELLO: We don't spray the stuff, a treating place
down in Virginia.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It comes sprayed?
MR. COSTELLO: No, we don't do that in Southold town. The
second one was require the installation of a floating
turbidity screen, not a problem and you guys aro aware that
we're going to plant that box. ,&nd the other thing, policy
Number 5, suggested I use 10 inch piling, we're ahead of
them on that one. That was it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Groat.
MR. COSTELLO: Any other questions?
TRUSTEE POLIVVODA: No
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we all looked at it. I didn't have a
problem with any of it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I didn't.
Board of Trustees 23 July 20, 2005
TRUSTEE KING: Are them any other comments? If no 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
of Belvedere Property Management.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES
8. Patricia Moore on behalf of LEWIS & HELAINE
TEPERMAN requests a Wetland Permit to replace or repair the
existing stairs, landings and supports. Located: 1225
AquaviewAvenue, East Marion. SCTM#21-2-16.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone here to speak on this
application?
MS. MOORE: You've been to the site. You have seen the
condition of the stairs. They are quite dangerous. They
are swaying, they're rotting and they need to be replaced.
So here we are requesting repair/replacement.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm just going to take other comments; any
other comment?
MS. MOORE: I'm here waiting to listen.
MS. SAVASTINOVICH: Nancy Savastinovich. I have a problem
with approving this permit since there are 18 violations
with our Town and this Dr. Teperman at the time, and I
walked past there today and the stairs definitely are not
rotting, and if the Town will follow the laws and have the
applicant remove the illegal deck at the top and the illegal
house at the bottom, I think they should wait and decide on
the approval of anything on this project since there are so
many violations, and I think they should table it and wait.
Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually, just to answer that, as a result
of the violations, that's why they're here applying for
it. They're trying to resolve the violations.
MS. SAVASTINOVICH: Until they get them resolved don't you
think it would be good to wait and see what the Town's going
to decide on that property because that deck at the top is
totally illegal.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's why they're here.
MS. SAVASTINOVICH: If they came in the beginning, none of
this would have happened.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I agree.
MR. JOHNSTON: Nancy, for the record what town are you from?
MS. SAVASTINOVICH: East Marion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is another LWRP no show, so if
Board of Trustees 24 July 20, 2005
there's no other comment, Pat, apparently, the LWRP
consistency review form is incomplete, and we need a
cross-section of the stairs -- I'm sorry, the coordinator,
who's not here, needs a cross-section of the stairs and an
erosion plan and restoration plan after the stairs are built
to make that form complete.
MS. MOORE: Cross-section of the plan and post --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Planting and restoration plan after
construction.
MS. MOORE: It would have been very helpful to have been
told this for future reference.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You should pass that on to the LWRP
coordinator.
MS. MOORE: Since you seem to get those comments, it would
be helpful to know this only so I can start the process.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. We're making that change that we
shouldn't get the comments. The applicant should get the
comments immediately.
MS. MOORE: I agree.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He should let the applicant know so you
can address the comments back to him. We shouldn't be in
that Iccp.
MS. MOORE: As far as the cross-section of the stairs, we
have them there in place, and if he went to inspect, he
would actually see the stairs and a cross-section would be
required but--
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what's required. In the future you
will get that request from him, not from us. It just takes
longer if it has to go through our office.
MS. MOORE: Has Mark Terry become a new Town Board member
and a new Trustee? It seems to me that he has in a sense
superceded every agency through this LWRP. I think there
has to be some controls and some process, and I know we're
in the learning stages of working with LWRP, but it's almost
like he's this super majority of every board, and I know
that's not the way it was intended. I know that wasn't the
way it was portrayed to the Town Board when they agreed to
adopt this. When the state first came down to recommend
LWRP adoption, it was not that it was going to supercede
every Board. They were like the GAG advisory, and that's
all he provides is an advisory opinion, not a super
majority, not a veto power.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what our Board has determined how
we're going to approach the LWRP. The problem is that we
don't get the consistency report to us from the coordinator,
apparently we can't make a decision. That's the problem.
Board of Trustees 25 July 20, 2005
MS. MOORE: When I go back to the office tomorrow I'm going
to check that because I think you and if I remember correctly,
if they don't provide a timely response, that's not what
LWRP is about. It's not to create additional delays and
additional bureaucracy. It's to see that all agencies are
working in some coordinated fashion; that was the kind of
general overriding principles of LWRP, that is not what is
being implemented. I will be writing to you and if I find
out it doesn't have that provision in it, I'll certainly be
lobbying the Town Board that they have to correct their
legislation to provide for it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We agree with that. This Board is
determined to make sure that it is an advisory
recommendation, if you watch our decisions tonight, the
other decisions, you can see that.
MS. MOORE: Yes, you take some of his comments but not
completely.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't take all of them without
considering them.
MS. MOORE: That's very good to hear. I would remind the
Board that I started this process as an emergency permit.
And despite this person from Orient who keeps speaking out
and saying things weren't there, the stairs are there, they
are sloppy, there are people using the house throughout the
summer, and I would welcome all of you to come and stand on
the stairs because you won't be there long not that I'm
trying to make it dangerous for you, but quite frankly, if
you're all standing on those stairs, it's subject to coming
down. A month ago the Board said, fine, make it as an
emergency permit, and we'll determine whether or not it's an
emergency. I think Heather may have gone out and deemed it
wasn't an emergency. At this point to keep it continuing
for another month, I think it's getting to be a serious
problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You have to take that up with the Town
Board.
MS. MOORE: LWRP does not, I don't believe, triggers with an
emergency permit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's true, but I don't think this Board
considers it an emergency.
MS. MOORE: But I think you should. If somebody is injured
on the stairs I am going to advise the client that they're
going to make a claim against the Town and we're all going
to be paying because quite frankly, I have given you
photographs, your own code enforcement officer when he was
there several months ago said this is dangerous make sure
Board of Trustees 26 July 20, 2005
this gets submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We did inspect it as a Board, most of the
Board members were at the site.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Should we condemn the stairs?
MS. MOORE: The stairs are going to be grandfathered, but
you claim that they are dangerous. If they're dangerous, I have a
permit pending now to replace them, that's what I'm asking for. if
LWRP comes in later after the fact, to back up your file,
that's fine, I don't believe LWRP would have, according to
the consistency review, access to the water bodies are very
consistent with LWRP, and it's something that everybody in
this town expects. Waterfront property has to have been
access to the Sound and it certainly makes sense to have it
in a controlled stairs rather than breaking down the bluffs
to get down to the beach. So I'm asking this Board to keep
this in mind and please take this seriously, this is dangerous.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I make a motion to table this
decision.
MR. JOHNSTON: Would you mind sharing the research with me
and I will get a joint comment back to you on the timing?
MS. MOORE: I'll get that to you right away.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That could be critical. I've actually
asked Lauren to contact Mr. Ressler about this.
MR. JOHNSTON: Hopefully we'll get an answer among the three
or four of us.
MS. MOORE: Right. I would ask that this Board keep the
emergency condition in mind so the LWRP has found that there
is an exception on emergency or the LWRP, he's waived it by
virtue of not responding in a timely fashion, this Board be
prepared to issue an emergency permit prior to the August
meeting.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I made a motion. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES
10. Thomas Noormae on behalf of LAUREL COUNTRY
ESTATES PROPERTY OWNER'S ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland
Permit for the existing beach stairs. Located: Peconic Bay
Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM#128-6-3.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this
application? I looked at this myself, it's consistent with
the policy standards. CAC recommended disapproval because
no pressure treated lumber should be used within 100 feet of
the wetlands. All treated lumber should be removed as well
as the existing fence to the left of the stairway. I didn't
have a problem with the stairs, they're very well
Board of Trustees 27 July 20, 2005
built. Most of the stairs you see being built are CCA, it's
not in contact with the water. Are there any other comments
on this? I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KING: They're as-built, so it will be double the
fee, but I'll make a motion to approve the application for
these stairs. It's something we would normally approve.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES
11. Vicky Toth on behalf of ROBERT'S CUSTOM HOMES
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 22'6" by 14' deck
and sand to bulkhead demolish 17.4' by 19.8' portion of the
existing dwelling and construct new first and second floor
additions to dwelling. Located: 80 Rabbit Lane, East
Marion. SCTM#31-18-3
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak on behalf of the application?
MS. TOTH: Hi, I'm Vicki Toth on behalf of the applicant.
On this survey that was submitted to the Town, I'm
realizing it was not included back there a request to put in
a new septic system that would have a retaining wall around
it in the front of the house.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I didn't understand that.
MS. TOTH: They're proposing a new septic system because
Suffolk County Board of Health Services if you add a bedroom
you have to certify that the existing system is sufficient,
which they believe this one is not.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But that's reflected on the plan?
MS. TOTH: Right. But it's not on the application, and I
just realized it should probably be addressed in the
application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right. Well, we reviewed the plans,
so we considered it.
MS. TOTH: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before we make any comments, is there any
other comment for or against the application? Does the
Board have any comments? LWRP recommends this is
consistent. They wanted native landscaping, drought
resistant plants. CAC comments? CAC recommends approval,
no turf on the seaward side of the house, gutters and dry
wells and no CCA lumber. The Board recommended virtually
the same thing, there be no turf seaward of the house itself
and dry wells and gutters to contain roof runoff.
MS. TOTH: I'll make sure that that's addressed.
Board of Trustees 28 July 20, 2005
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there's no other comments, do I have a
motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the
application with the condition that there be no turf seaward
of the house and that there be gutters and dry wells to
contain the roof runoff.
MS. TETRAULT: When we were there a question came up how
much sand is going to be placed?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In the application, do you have how many
yards of sand, please?
MS. TOTH: I'm not sure. It was depending on if the deck was
going to be granted. The bulkhead's there. It's not going
to be something that would be running off into the water.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If it does it's sand on the beach.
MS. TETRAULT: It's just so when we write the permit we know
what we're putting.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I made the motion, is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES
12. Charles Cuddy on behalf of BIEL ASSOCIATES, LLC
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family
dwelling and to remove the existing sanitary system and
install a new sanitary system on the landward side of the
dwelling. Located: 1315 Watersedge Way,
Southold. SCTM#88-5-68.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKi: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. CUDDY: I would, I'm Charles Cuddy on behalf of the
applicant. This is a parcel that's been owned for 20 years
by the applicant. It's in an R40 zone, it's behind a
bulkhead. We have attempted to really place the house as
best we could back from the water and yet leave enough room
in the back, in fact, a little greater than the
requirements, with the neighbor in the back. We have had
Health Department approval. The Health Department reference
is R10-0360 and they approved this particular map with this
particular set-up on it. And I have a copy of that. This
has been consistent I believe with the LWRP, if I understand
it correctly, I think that was in the file. And as noted,
we're going to remove the shed and we're going to remove the
old cesspools. And I believe it's appropriate that it be
approved. Thank you.
Board of Trustees 29 July 20, 2005
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is theirs any other comment?
MS. BREEN: Hi, Paula Breen, 1365 Watersedge Way. I own the
house directly in front of the proposed property. I have a
letter with the co-owner of this house Dorothea Nelson that
was sent to the Board the other day. I'd like to briefly go
through some of the points. Some of them may not be your
issues but they may be something to bear in mind in making
whatever recommendation you make or tabling it for further
information.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Excuse me, as you go through the issues,
the Board make note that of the ones we'd like to see
addressed.
MS. BREEN: The first issue, it has to do with the setbacks,
there are a number of setback issues. The first setback
issue, which is the issue of the setbacks from the water,
while I understand what Mr. Cuddy is saying about trying to
meet the setbacks, I think we said at the last meeting that
the demarcation of the high tide mark is off in the first
place, it is the bulkhead. The 50 feet measurement allows
the Town Trustees to give a 25 foot variance for that. I
believe the setback should be 75 feet. The second setback
issue is a little bit moms complicated and I've become a
little more educated in the month between the meetings. I
consulted the Building Department because in looking at the
survey I had a copy of, it seemed to me the measurement on
the side yard that was done was measured from the middle of
the right of way, and my understanding was that it should be
from the edge of right of way. I went to the Building
Department who indeed confirmed this fact, that it should be
35 feet from the edge of the right of way, which would then
move the home I think nine and a half feet to the east.
In addition to that and looking at this plan, the
Person at the Building Department caught something else and
said to me that he believes that the home is set up
incorrectly on the land. He thinks that the right of way,
he believes that the Building Department will deem that the
right of way is the only egress for this home; it's
essentially the street for the home not Watersedge Way,
therefore the house should be flipped and face the right of
way. in that event, I believe Mr. Cuddy has said they put
the cesspools or the sanitary system where they have gotten
approval for it from the Health Department, and I would
believe that that would have to stay there. It would
necessitate the house being closer to the water, which then
would become another issue for you because the setbacks
would be decreased or less of a setback. That's the
Board of Trustees 30 July 20, 2005
setbacks issues.
I have another issue having to do with the elevation
of the house. As I see it, it says it's going to be a 14
foot first floor elevation. I have concerns about how this
will be achieved and what the effect will be on my property
since he's directly in front of me. I don't understand
everything about crawl spaces or whatever. I do know in
that flood zone you're not supposed to have a crawl space, a
neighbor of mine built one and had to fill it with soil to
about a six inch level. I don't know how this would be
achieved but that is a concern for me. I don't know if it's
going to be top soil or built up the foundation above the
level up four feet.
I also have some issues with the placement of the
sanitary system, even though it's been approved. It's only
five feet from my property line. If it could be moved
anywhere further away, I would feel more comfortable about
it. I don't know exactly what the statutes are about it,
but that's my concern. The second concern has to do with in
the event that there is construction that occurs, I think
you can see the map on the survey that my current sanitary
system is placed probably in the only place it can be, edge
of the right of way. So I'm concerned about how will any
kind of building equipment get back to build this home
without passing over my cesspool and sanitary system, I'm
very concerned about that. I do understand that probably by
law if it's damaged, someone will have to repair it, which
won't be me. But if it does get repaired, it's going to be
an environmental issue as well as a health issue, as well as
a personal issue if that gets ruined.
The other issue also concerns the right of way,
and that is constructing the water line. Currently on the
plan the applicant wants to run a water line under the right
of way, which is my property. As far as I understand, the
definition of a right of way or easement, it is for access.
I don't believe it includes construction as part of that
definition, and if it does, I'd like someone to show me
where it does because I can't find that definition
anywhere, it seems to me a little bit worrisome that an
owner of another property can construct something on my
property even if they pay for it.
The last thing has to do with the fact that in
looking at the file that the applicant has with the Board of
Trustees, there is a notation that the applicant has a
letter of nonjurisdiction from the DEC, where I understand
that the DEC is a separate agency, and as Mr. Krupski said
Board of Trustees 31 July 20, 2005
earlier, you all rule on the same kind of issues, but you
have to have multiple rulings.
I just want to mention in our reseamh with a very
reputable firm used by the Town as well as by others within
the town, attorneys, et cetera, Aerographics in Riverhead,
actually, the most recent aerial photograph further proves
or shows that there's no bulkhead prior to 1977. I
understand that the ruling about whether the DEC has
jurisdiction or not has to do with a critical date in
1977. There were no further photographs until 1980. So I
would respectfully ask the applicant to prove it.
That's basically what I have to say. I have some
letters here that I would like to present to the Board from
neighbors who could not attend because they're traveling and
out of town. Simply supporting the view of the adjoining
neighbors and not the applicant. So, thank you very much.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Most of those comments and
concerns really won't be addressed by this Board. They're
for different agencies as far as the setbacks go, as far as
the right of way goes, damage to your property, obviously
your septic is out of our jurisdiction, our jurisdiction is
only 100 feet.
MS. BREEN: With respect to the Building Department,
however, and that would be prudent to go to them -- if the
setback's going to change as a result of the location of the
house, will it come back to your Board again?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MS. BREEN: So we go in a circle?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Absolutely. If we approve, something
changes, and some other agency, whether it's ZBA, DEC,
Building Department, any other agency makes a change, they
have to come back to us for an amendment. But we're usually
the first agency to act because you have to start somewhere.
MS. BREEN: Okay. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment?
MS. BENOWSKI: Good evening I'm Lauren Benowski. I own the
property at 1355 Watersedge Way adjacent to 1315 Watersedge
Way where the Biel Associates propose to build a three to
four bedroom home.
And my husband and my first concern is the high tide
mark as shown on the survey prepared for Biel Associates is
incorrect. The tide hits our bulkhead and also hits the
adjacent and at high tide is up at least two feet beyond the
bulkhead and higher in storm or certain calendar seasons.
We have a basement in our home. We often have flooding in
our basement and not just during a storm. How can we
Board of Trustees 32 July 20, 2005
propose a site, we have a crawl space, which our water level
is higher than our crawl space. We have serious concerns
about the placement, proximity of the cesspool to our
freshwater well and our sanitary system. They appear to be
too close to the required distances from our property line,
septic and water systems. The bulkhead and the jetty on
the applicant's property appear to be in disrepair. There
is sand seeping out behind the bulkhead and along the entire
run of it. We are concerned about the environmental issues
this arises as well as the effects on the safety of our
bulkhead and the safety of ourselves and family and
friends.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments?
MR. REILLY: Jim Reilly, I'm the neighbor on the west side.
Actually, the east side of the property in question. I just
have two issues. One, the last meeting the CAC recommended
disapproval of the application because the project was not
staked and the placement of the dwelling and the sanitary
system appears to be too close to the wetlands. Now, the
LWRP came back and said it's consistent with the policy
standards; how is the Board going to rule versus the
decision from Mr. Terry?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How would we rule?
MR. REILLY: You made one decision, he's come back and said
it's consistent; what does consistent mean versus your
decision that the placement of the dwelling and sanitary
systems appear to be too close to the wetland.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We didn't make that decision.
MR. REILLY: It's in your letter here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's a C^C comment. That's a
Conservation Advisory Committee. That's an independent --
MR. REILLY: Have you two advisories then. It's up to you
to make this decision.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Their disapproval was based on the project
not being staked, we saw it staked. And the sanitary
system, I don't know how it appeared to them to be too close
to the wetlands. On a survey that was submitted by the
applicant it shows it to be 101 feet, our jurisdiction to
the bulkhead is 100 feet. So technically that sanitary
system is out of our jurisdiction. We did climb through
the poison ivy to measure that.
MR. REILLY: The other item I had, I said the conformance of
97-27, which the resident is well in advance of our
property, is there any decision going to be made as to the
location of that relative to us? Because that's in
Board of Trustees 33 July 20, 2005
violation of that particular provision. The back of their
house -- actually the back of my house looks at the front of
his house.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We did address that in the field, we took
measurements. And we agree with you that it is in
advance. So we're going to address that.
MR. REILLY: The only other thing on the application you
said you had DEC nonjurisdiction. Well, they probably got
an aerial view of that prior to the August '77 date, which
is one of the requirements of DEC to prove that the bulkhead
was in place. There are two other items that must be met,
number one that the bulkhead must be at least 100 feet and
parallel to the tidal wetlands, and that's met. The other
one is that the bulkhead structure cannot have any breaks,
holes or gaps. Apparently the bulkhead that we're looking
at is in disrepair and definitely has holes and gaps in it.
So I think DEC might have to come back in and review
this. This is from DEC.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's possible. But quite often we would
have to make the decision first.
MR. REILLY: Yeah, I know. You made a decision about five
years ago when I built my house that I could go about 16
feet seaward, and DEC knocked that down without a
hesitation. And I can't see them allowing this to happen
without reacting to it.
MR. JOHNSTON: Could you give your town of residence for the
record?
MR. REILLY: Southold, 1195 Watersedge Way.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments?
MR. FOX: My name is Tom Fox, I've owned the house at 975
Bay Haven Lane since 1980. I'm familiar with the area, and
I think the clustering of the houses in that area and the
environmental impact makes the whole project inappropriate,
and here's my letter in support of the opposition.
MR. JOHNSTON: Is that in Southold?
MR. FOX: Southold.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment?
MS. EPIFANO: My name is Pat Epifano from Watersedge Way and
Bay Haven Lane. We currently own two homes, one of which
we're selling and the other one of which we're moving into
on Watersedge Way. I concur with the findings of my
neighbors and I do have grave concerns regarding this.
MS. PETIT: Hi, I'm Jo Petit. I live at 970 Watersedge Way in
Southold. And my main concern is an environmental
one. I've lived there six years now, and I have watched the
water slapping up further and further on the bulkhead and
Board of Trustees 34 July 20, 2005
we've lost beach. And the thought of any kind of variance
being given to decrease the setbacks is a real concern of
mine. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment?
MR. CUDDY: It's somewhat troubling on the behalf of the
applicant to hear how many people have found reasons to
prevent him building on a lot that's been there since 1957.
This is a filed map, this is the map that Mrs. Breen bought
subject to, which shows these lots, all the lots there. The
gentleman that was concerned about his house being further
back is because he has a much bigger lot, so he can build it
further back, but I would point out to you that this
neighborhood has been developed over a period of time, and
for 20 years of that time, my client has owned this lot and
has not disturbed the lot, and I think at a point in time
he's permitted to get a building permit. And I would point
out to you that we also have to go to the Zoning Board of
Appeals. So if these people want a second shot, they're
going to get that before the Zoning Board of Appeals and I
would point out to Mrs. Breen that the easement that she's
concerned about was created in 1957, two years before this
map was filed. The easement is perpetual in nature. It is
not only perpetual, it's for all purposes -- that's the
exact language of the easement. We can put a water main in
there. We can use this lot and I respectfully request that
you approve our request to make use of a lot, as I said, my
client's owned for 20 years. But I would like to hand up
this map because I think it's important that it be part of
this file.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Mr. Cuddy, we'd also like to ask in
consideration of this application, there's a jetty that's
out in the bay, it's a couple of sticks of wood out in the
bay, that that be removed at some point.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Does anyone have any other comment? Any
Board members?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We should probably consider moving the
structure back in line with all the houses east and west.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. I think we measured nine feet we
wanted to move it back.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One of the concerns was the setback in
relation to the adjacent homes, and it's always been the
Trustees' recommendations that these structures be kept in
line with the neighboring homes, sort of like a first pier
line on a creek, on a dock, and that would be one of our
recommendations on this application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And nonturf.
Board of Trustees 35 July 20, 2005
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh How would you define the front, Peggy?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We said out in the field 50 foot
nonturf.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Okay. If there's no other comment, I'll
make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Based on the information submitted, I make
a motion to approve the application for Biel Associates,
LWRP was consistent, the CAC recommended disapproval because
of the septic. I'll make a motion to approve the
application with the condition that the house be moved back
nine feet from the bulkhead to be consistent with the
setbacks in the neighboring houses and that there be a 50
foot nonturf buffer back from the bulkhead that would allow
for no use of fertilizer or pesticides in that nonturf
buffer, and that the jetty be removed, the jetty on the side
of the bulkhead be removed, and the shed be removed.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES
AUDIENCE MEMBER: There's two jetties there, which one
should be removed?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: East side. I'm sorry, the jetty to the
west side, west side to be removed.
MS. BREEN: Are you not addressing the right of way
setbacks?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct. That's a problem with the
Building Department or ZBA.
MS. BREEN: Where do you deem your setbacks from?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The bulkhead.
MS. BREEN: You're only from the water?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. The 50 foot buffer's going to have
to be noted on the survey. All in favor?. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Take a five minutes recess.
(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
13. RLH Land Planning Services, Inc. on behalf BCB
REALTY HOLDING CORP. requests a Wetland Permit to demolish
an existing building being used for a restaurant and
construct an office/medical building with an apartment above
and a bank building. Located: 74825 Main Road, Greenport.
SCTM#45-4-8.3.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there anyone who would like to comment
on this application? Any Board comments?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We met on the site with the applicant and
as far as I can see it's consistent with what we discussed.
Board of Trustees 36 July 20, 2005
There's just an odd space back here, I'd rather see filled
in. There's a 50 foot Trustee setback and then it goes into
a 25 foot Trustee setback, and I think they should just
round that corner off, the northwest corner. Leave the
garbage dumpster there, it's kind of odd, round it off just
northwest of that. See how one setback comes in and it
leaves a little odd pie shape?
MR. KIEL: Greg Kiel, Southold. If we have that setbacks. I
know there's a lot of garbage in there, we still want to be
able to clean to that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MR. KIEL: We have no problem with that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could you mark that on this plan? That's
the only thing I could see.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any other further comments? I'll make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor?. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to approve the
application for RLH Land Planning Service noting the
amendment that they just made on the plans.
MS. TETRAULT: Just a question, did you read the LWRP best
management practices for this? Does anybody want to review
those or put them into the resolution?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually we were just going to get into
that.
MR. KIEL: Storm water pollution plan.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, the dry wells and the drainage is
shown on the plan already prior to construction, a hay bale
line is recommended at the buffer area and just a condition
of the permit that except for garbage removal, the buffer
area should be left in an undisturbed state. That's it.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I made a motion to approve the application.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor?. ALL AYES
14. Ward Associates, P.C. on behalf of RONALD
PAZZANIESE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
one-story addition to the existing single-family
dwelling. Located: 400 Richmond Road East,
Southold. SCTM#135-3-8.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak in favor of
this application?
MR. WARD: Richard Ward, from Ward Associates, P.C. on
behalf of Ron Pazzaniese. If the Board has any questions,
this is a small addition on the landward side of an
Board of Trustees 37 July 20, 2005
existing residence.
TRUSTEE KING: It is consistent with the LWRP. CAC did not
make an inspection. We looked at it, dry wells for the roof
runoff?
MR. WARD: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: And there was a pile of debris in the
wetland, we'd like to see that removed on the west side.
MR. PAZZANIESE: That's storm debris.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you're standing on your deck it's to
the west.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That will kill all that vegetation.
Where is the septic system?
MR. PAZZANIESE: On the other side of the house.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'd rather see that located as far
landward as possible, especially on a construction like
this, we'd like to see the septic upgraded. So you have lot
of room in the back here. (Discussion)
We're talking about an upgrade on the septic system
because of the water quality in the creek. So we're going
to require that the septic system be upgraded to the
landward side of the house during construction.
MR. PAZZANIESE: What if I have the water quality tested? I
know it's not contaminated.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a general standard thing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We ask everyone.
TRUSTEE KING: Especially when you're this close and you've
got room to move it further landward.
MR. PAZZANIESE: Do I have to put another cesspool in? The
driveway's a bluestone driveway, there's never any water
there because it just drains. There's a difference between
a cesspool and a septic as you know. A cesspool is just a
tank; can we just put a tank in?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're talking about a septic upgrade.
MR. PAZZANIESE: The drainage, the water table's about 12
and a half, 13 feet, and we are bringing in -- there's two
1,000 gallon tanks, I think, cesspools, because there are
single concrete block tanks here, and one of them barely
ever gets used because the drainage is so good. So I'm
asking, if you want me to move them, I guess I have to put
it up in here someplace. It's obviously a lot less
expensive to put a concrete tank in versus a leaching pool,
a septic system is a closed tank. It's a different process.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: If you're going to upgrade the system put a
septic tank and a leaching pool.
MR. PAZZANIESE: I'm asking, the only difference is if you
put a tank in, then it leaches straight down.
Board of Trustees 38 July 20, 2005
TRUSTEE FOSTER: A tank is a solid contained unit.
MR. PAZZANIESE: I know what it is. It doesn't make any
sense because it just drains anyways. I'm trying to avoid
digging up -- I just put in a bluestone driveway, it filters
it. You know what I'm saying, Artie, it's far away. This
is all gravel and sand in that driveway.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's subsurface. It's draining downward
until it gets into the water table then it moves laterally.
MR. PAZZANIESE: But everything is pitching back from the
house.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Away from the pond you mean. The further
away you get it, the better you're going to be.
MR. PAZZANIESE: I can put it in anywhere here you want,
what I'm asking is --
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Were you planning to do a septic upgrade
anyway?
MR. PAZZANIESE: No.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: And it's here now?
MR. PAZZANIESE: I had Peconic come in. I want to pump it
every three years, he said the drainage is it so fanatic
here there's no pooling here anymore. I mean, if you want
me to move it, I guess I have to, but I'm saying the
difference between a cesspool and a septic tank. A septic
tank is a concrete box --
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I put them in for 40 years.
MR. PAZZANIESE: Oh, you know. The cesspool, is a leaching,
it goes straight down, so the idea is the leaching is going
to be in the same area.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: The solid containment is what the septic
tank is used for. That contains the solids, and runs off
and leaches into the ground. It keeps the solids contained.
MR. PA??ANIESE: But in the cesspool it does the same thing.
Because the leaching pool -- rather a cesspool is a concrete
box all the way around, it just has slats in the upper
level.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's years ago.
MR. PAZZANIESE: I was hooking at them.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You're talking about a leaching pool,
that's the overflow. The septic tank is the first
containment in the line. It goes into the septic tank, goes
through a baffle and then an inverted drop, and out of that
goes into the leaching pool.
TRUSTEE KING: You've actually got room to get them right
out of our jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: That would be the thing to do. So what is
your depth, what is your depth to water here; do you know?
Board of Trustees 39 July 20, 2005
MR. PAZZANIESE: 12 and a half feet.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You can put in a septic tank and a 10 by 10
leaching pool.
MR. PAZZANIESE: Where do I find to do the right thing?
Tell me what we ought to do and we'll do it.
MR. WARD: We'll do it. It's going to be a condition of it.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Then you take it from there
TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments on this
application?
MS. MOBLEY: I am speaking on behalf of my sister and
brother-in-law, Joan and William Mobley, who own property in
the area. We would like to request moratorium on these
permits being the property in question is right now being
checked out for code compliance and the Building Department
for numerous alterations to the original structure without
any permits, without any DEC permits, without anything. It
blows my mind that they are applying for a permit to build
behind the house away from the water when all the damage has
already been done up to and onto the beach. I have
photographs, there's massive decking, there's ramps and I
have never seen an aerial photograph used as an application
for a building permit. It is incredible. And I have the
original paperwork from the Town that does not indicate all
these decks, the porch was made into part of the house with
heat, there are numerous exits, sliders, new windows, all
things have been done on this property through the years
since Hayson sold it. What's going to happen if you give
them a permit to do it, you may have the Empire State
Building there.
MR. JOHNSTON: Do you live in Southold, ma'am?
MR. PAZZANIESE: I live in Greenport, which is Southold Town.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone's welcome to speak at our meetings.
MR. PA77ANIESE: The question I have is that --
MR. JOHNSTON: Sir, it's not your turn, wait until she's
finished.
MS. MOBLEY: She can read the notes if that will satisfy your rules.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Anyone can speak. You're free
to speak.
MS. MOBLEY: I just wish that you would wait until the findings
are in. I would like to give you these photographs that
show all that was done to the house, and I would like you to
look at this paperwork, which I would like back, because
it's the only paperwork we have. That ramp goes all the way
down on to the beach.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were at the site last week.
MS. MOBLEY: This shows all the work, I'm confused, is this
Board of Trustees 40 July 20, 2005
application about to be done that's already done?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, some of it.
MS. MOBLEY: It's very confusing. I don't know if it's deliberate
or accidental.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know. That's the way it was
submitted. It came with a survey.
MS. MOBLEY: That was the original survey when he purchased the
property.
MR. PAZZANIESE: You notice here, when I bought the
property, the owner drove his tractor here, that's the way
we were brought in because that entrance, he had a shed, you
couldn't get to that side, so when I closed, I realized, I
got the survey I realized, I said I can't drive on people's
property, that's what they did forever because they're all
friends. So I took this set of stairs out, and I used this
set of stairs and I had the owner take this shed that he had
there away so I could come that side, so I wouldn't go on
anyone's property. The ramp's been there I thought since I
bought the house it's been there forever.
MS. MOBLEY: No. That ramp was never there. I've been there
since 1962.
MR. PAZZANIESE: There was absolutely there. This is
ridiculous. It's the same ramp that my next door neighbor
has, so whoever put my ramp there put his ramp there.
MS. MOBLEY: There are no patios, no decks, no whatever. The
deck is there? Where's the permits? You own the property, you're
responsible for permits.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This says 1989 wood deck in front of the
house.
MR. PAZZANIESE: Excuse me -- what do you -~ the deck has
been there.
(Discussion)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Wait a second.
MS. MOBLEY: Can we also be privy to this whole conversation that
was going on that nobody could hear?.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The discussion centered around a question
the Board had. The conditions that the Board would normally
put on a project like this would be to update, one you need
dry wells and gutters to contain the roof runoff, so when he
builds it, he's got to put dry wells in the ground connected
to his gutter system. Second thing, we always look for
on the creek here is the septic system upgrade because
usually these older houses along the creek have the septic
systems very close to the wetlands. So we're going to
require him to move the septic system back on the landward
side away from the wetlands. That's what the whole
Board of Trustees 41 July 20, 2005
discussion was about.
MS. MOBLEY: We couldn't hear, I think that about covers it. They
request that you hold off on these permits until these
questions are resolved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's how these issues are resolved. We
issue a permit tonight, he has to go to the next agency, to
the ZB^ and to the Building Department.
MS. MOBLEY: Doesn't he have to go to the DEC?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You usually comes to our agency first, you
have to start somewhere. As he goes through it, if he has
to make changes he's going to have to go through us. If the
DEC, Building Department, anybody says you have to make a
change in the plans --
MS. MOBLEY: I don't have a problem with what he's adding. I'm
concerned that --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's how the process works.
MR. PAZZANIESE: You don't even live there, ma'am.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's okay. Anyone can speak. Any other
comment? If there's no other comment, I'll make a motion to
close the hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the
application with the condition that dry wells and gutters be
installed to contain the roof runoff and that the septic
system be moved landward of the finished project and the old
septic system be filled in.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you want it to be out of our
jurisdiction?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think it would be. No, I think the
applicant's going to provide us with -- Mr. Ward, you're
going to provide us with a plan showing the new septic
system. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ,And the debris is to be removed on the
west side.
15. Charles M. Thomas, Architect, on behalf of
LOUIS GIGLIOLI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
first and second floor addition to the existing dwelling,
construct new decks, remove the existing attached garage,
and construct a new three-car detached garage.
Located: 1275 Bungalow Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#123-3-17.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak in favor of the
application?
Board of Trustees 42 July 20, 2005
MR. THOMAS: Chuck Thomas, here to answer any questions you
may have.
TRUSTEE KING: CAC recommended approval with the condition
that gutters and dry wells are installed. Now I'm looking
for the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why isn't this exempt?
TRUSTEE KING: This is pretty straightforward. There's no
impact on the creek at all.
MS. TETRAULT: I think it may be exempt. There are just a
few things exempt, I think this is one of them.
MR. THOMAS: I filled out.
TRUSTEE KING: There's no comment from our coordinator.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Do you think this was exempt? This seems
consistent with exemptions.
TRUSTEE DiCKERSON: Generally speaking --
MS. TETRAULT: There is a whole list of things that are
exempt.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And if it's not -- just that we need dry
wells and gutters.
TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments on this
application? I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application
on the impression that it's exempt from LWRP.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES
16. Land Use Ecological Services on behalf of LONG
ISLAND SOUND OYSTER, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to
reconstruct the existing decks attached to the dwelling,
construct a new entry and reconstruct the existing
roof. Located: 1240 Love Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#140-1-23.1
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this
application?
MR. HALL: Dan Hall, Land Use Ecological, LLC.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This one apparently is also exempt.
MS. TETRAULT: From the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KING: I looked at this. They're just fixing up the
bungalow, it's nothing major.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No work's being done on the home
building part?
TRUSTEE KING: Deck's going to be rebuilt, replacing the
roof, found a lot of mold. They were going to put another
story on it. Changed their plans, fixing it up. Any other
comments? I make a motion to close the hearing.
Board of Trustees 43 July 20, 2005
THE WITNESS: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the
application.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES
18. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of
NARROW RIVER MARINA requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance
dredge two shoaled areas of existing navigational channel to
minus 4.5 feet below mean Iow water. The resulting 350
cubic yards of sand to be transported to shore by barge and
trucked off site to an approved upland disposal site.
Located: 5020 Narrow River Road, Orient. SCTM#27-2-4
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak on behalf of the application?
MR. COSTELLO: George Costello, Senior, on behalf of the
applicants.
TRUSTEE KING: Appears that the LWRP is consistent with the
policy standards. We had this hearing last month, if I recall.
MR. COSTELLO: Right.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: CAC recommends approval.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh See the aerial, Ken?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm familiar with the area. I made a
recommendation that you do the operation on an outgoing tide
so all the silt and sediment goes outward rather than on top
of the scallops. So now you're doing this operation on an
outgoing tide and you fill your barge, where do you plan on
landing that barge after you fill it?
MR. COSTELLO: I've got to take it to the entrance of Gull
Pond. We've done that before, load it directly into a
truck, and it will probably go to the Sterling Cemetery in
Greenport, which is an approved site.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's good, you'd never make it up
Narrow Marina.
MR. COSTELLO: No way.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other Board comments?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is this a request for a 10 year
maintenance permit, and do you have DEC permit?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Did they issue a 10 year permit?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh So you would like that same from us?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: That makes sense.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Why in the LWRP does it have written the
Board of Trustees 44 July 20, 2005
proposed action involves the reconfiguring of the floating
dock from its present alignment to a straightened linear
configuration, extending out from an existing catwalk and
ramp and perpendicular to the shoreline and secured by three
new piles?
MR. COSTELLO: Beats the heck out of me. Someone's slightly
confused, picked up a wrong piece of paper.
TRUSTEE POLIWOD^: It has nothing to do with the dredging
application. If there's no further 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 Wetland
Permit to dredge in Narrow River Marina as further plans
submitted, and stipulate it occurs on an outgoing tide,
spoils will exit towards Gull Pond, off loaded at Gull Pond
and there will be a 10 year maintenance permit.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
19. Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of
SARAH REETZ requests a Wetland Permit to replace 112 linear
feet of existing bulkhead in-kind/in-place using C-LOC 4500
vinyl sheathing. Reinstall existing stairway to beach after
new bulkhead is in place. Located: 955 Cove Circle,
Greenport. SCTM~49-1-16 and 17.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here to speak to this
application?
MR. COSTELLO: George Costello, Senior on behalf of the
applicant. I actually have no comment. I think it was
raised at a public hearing last month that you guys were
concerned with the nonturf buffer area. And I think if you
look at this set of plans, the bank itself if you were to
scale it off is probably 18, 19, maybe 20 feet, which is
going to remain beach grass and Rosa Rugosa. And the
elevation basically is a 10 foot elevation so we've got
plenty of percolation prior to reaching sea level.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Unfortunately, Mark Terry didn't review
this. I see you filled out the application.
MS. TETRAULT: I thought he did that one.
MS. BENOWSKI: It's exempt.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's exempt.
MS. TETRAULT: Because it's a rebuild.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Because it's a rebuild.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There's roughly 20 foot nonturf?
MR. COSTELLO: Yeah, 18, 19, you'd have to scale it off. I
Board of Trustees 45 July 20, 2005
didn't bring my scale with me. If you look at that cross-section,
you'll see. Normally you guys go for a minimum of 15.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Just maintain at least 15 feet.
MR. COSTELLO: Fine.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Fine.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No other 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 Wetland
Permit on behalf of Sarah Reetz as described and according
to plans stipulating that a 15 foot nonturf buffer be
maintained above the bulkhead,
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES
20. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of JAMES &
MARINA MITCHELL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'
by 53' fixed timber catwalk and 4' by6' stairs.
Located: 470 Willis Creek Drive, Mattituck.
SCTM#115-17-17.11.
MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicants. It's pretty straightforward, it's a catwalk
that will go over the wetland area to the canal which
connects to Deep Hole Creek and will be consistent with a
number of other similar fixed access structures that are
also shown on the survey and plan that was submitted with
the application, If you have any questions?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Not consistent.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. It hasn't been deemed inconsistent
or consistent yet, we're waiting for the consistency
report.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's here, it's inconsistent.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I stand corrected. CAC comments, there
was no access to the proposed docking facility.
MR. HERMANN: Pardon?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: CAC tabled the application because there
was no access to the proposed docking facility.
MR. HERMANN: I don't know what that means, you get out of
the car, you go down the driveway and walk to the water.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know.
MR. HERMANN: I don't know what that means.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh And the project was not staked.
MR. HERMANN: It was staked, It was staked by Sea Level
Mapping.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We did access also.
Board of Trustees 46 July 20, 2005
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It was staked.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The LWRP, July 14, 2005 says it's
inconsistent. Pursuant to Chapter 95, the Board of Trustees
shall consider this recommendation in preparing its written
determination regarding the consistency of the proposed
action. This is a lengthy inconsistency.
It is recommended that the Board of Trustees require
the following outstanding items and issues to be submitted
and resolve to further the policies and intent of the Town
of Southold LWRP. Deep Hole Creek is a listed critical
environmental area by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, the Peconic Estuary Program
critical natural resource area, which entitles the area to a
heightened level of protection. One, by nature of the
location of the parcel the applicant currently enjoys access
to the water. The use and need of the dock have not been
identified. Please have the applicant identify the use and
establish the need.
Would you like to go through these one at a time or
do you want me to go through the whole --
MR. HERMANN: It depends. If this is going to affect your
decision, then you'd better give it to me in writing and
we'll have to act accordingly. If it will help you, I can
respond to each one.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Respond, please.
MR. HERMANN. And to that I would say this would be a
standard application to provide structural access over the
marsh to Deep Hole Creek. You could walk through the marsh,
you could drag kayaks and canoes, you could destroy the
marsh through trampling, or you could provide a structural
access, which is the same as required by many towns and
villages over wetlands and over dunes, for example, which is
why it's proposed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. For the record, this is a
proposal that the catwalk starts on the upland, crosses the
marsh and it ends at the high water mark.
MR. HERMANN: Low water mark.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry, it ends at the Iow water
mark.
Two, the proposed width of the dock should be
minimized to avoid impact to vegetation.
MR. HERMANN: The catwalk's proposed at four feet, which is
the standard width across of all regulatory agencies that
are involved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any consideration to make it
three?
Board of Trustees 47 July 20, 2005
MR. HERMANN: It's hard to answer this given that both
myself and a large number of other people are involved with
this Board's process of rewriting Chapter 97. So I'm trying
to temper my response, but I find it curious that the Town
would now adopt this program that appears to be usurping,
superceding your authority with a whole other entire set of
standards that the Department of State already regulates
with the exact same consistency items. So now we're doing
things not two times, but three times over for an
application. So if this Board is going to establish a new
standard for three foot catwalks across all applications and
write that into your code, yes, we will start submitting
plans that show three foot catwalks on docks and other
structures. But until that time, we're going to stick with
four feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's not the answer we're looking for.
We just want you to respond to not the general policy, just
respond to this.
MR. HERMANN: My response has to take in the more general
standards into account.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh, you weren't here in the beginning of
the meeting?
MR. HEP, MANN: No, I wasn't.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's when we expressed our
dissatisfaction with the LWRP as a Board because of the way
it's written and the fact that we're trying to work through
this, and not have it usurp any Board's power certainly or
disrupt the general actions of the Board. So, we're trying
to work through this.
MR. HERMANN: I would say with respect to the LWRP
specifically, whether this catwalk's constructed at three or
four feet, would have no definable difference in terms of
its impact on the wetlands. It's designed to be an elevated
walk so the wetlands continue to flourish underneath
it. Four feet is considered a standard construction design
for safety for pedestrian access, particularly with no
handrails.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. Number 3, the proposed
construction methods and materials have not been identified.
MR. HERMANN: The only construction information that we
typically provide is under the notes and it indicates that
the timber is to be ACQ treated or other non CCA material,
and that is intended to try to be proactive in terms of its
consistency with the LWRP even though this Board has not
yet, I don't think, outlawed CCA above high water. But
they're willing to use a nontreated or non CCA material for
Board of Trustees 48 July 20, 2005
the catwalk. Otherwise the only thing I could think to
respond to that would be to have a dock builder prepare a
construction methodology, which I don't think this Board
ever asks for.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. But the decking wouldn't be CCA,
correct?
MR. HERMANN: None of the material would be CCA according to
note Number 3, it says all timber to be ACQ treated or other
non CCA material.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 4, this is the final item. The
application does not propose mitigation to areas impacted
due to the construction of the dock or construction best
management practices to minimize adverse impacts to the
greatest possible extent.
MR. HERMANN: Best management practices are usually enforced
through Army Corps permits, through their coordination at
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine
Fishery Service, and includes things like no staging of
construction materials in the wetlands, and I could go on
for another 15 minutes. And the applicant's willing to
abide by best management practices.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And willing to abide by the criteria set
forth in 97 for such construction.
MR. HERMANN: Of course.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that the applicant has addressed
the concerns of the LWRP.
TRUSTEE POLIVVODA: Me too.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Absolutely.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The Board agreed. Are there any other
comments? Do I have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the
application for James and Marina Mitchell.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Address all LVVRP comments to the Town
Board.
21. En-Consultants Inc. on behalf of ATHANASIA &
BILL KARTSONIS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'
by 41' fixed timber walk and stairway down the bluff to
beach. Located: 1790 Grandview Drive, Orient. SCTM#14-2-3.13.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here to comment on the
application?
Board of Trustees 49 July 20, 2005
MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicants. This is a fairly standard application for a
proposed stairway to provide access from the upland area of
the project site to the beach. If you have any questions,
I'm happy to answer them, if I can.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you. Any other comments from the
public on this application? As far as the Board comments, I
looked at this, looked very straightforward, set of stairs
down to the beach, and there's many in the area neighboring
properties. LWRP is exempt?
MS. TETRAULT: No.
MR. HERMANN: I don't believe it's exempt but we did file
the paperwork with the application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're looking into there's possibly a time
limit on these LWRP review periods that maybe after a
certain time limit the review is no longer adequate.
MR. JOHNSTON: Accepted.
MR. HERMANN: You're not going to be able to vote on this,
I'm guessing you're going to tell me until August 24th.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Motion to table the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
22. Eh-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of the ESTATE OF
EILEEN O. GOLDNER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
two-story, one-family dwelling located partially within 100
feet jurisdictional area; install drainage system of dry
wells and public water service; and establish a 50
non-disturbance/non-fertilization buffer adjacent to tidal
wetland boundary. Located: 435 Bay Home Road,
Southold. SCTM#56-5-22.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicants. As Artie read, about half of this house is
within your jurisdiction, it meets a minimum setback of 75
feet. It establishes a 50 foot non-disturbance
non-fertilization buffer adjacent to the wetlands boundary.
It provides a drainage system for the dwelling and a
driveway and sanitary system located entirely outside of
your jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I looked at this and I found it to be
exactly what you said it is. I don't see a problem with it.
Actually, the Board had been down there in years past to
look at that little area where they have access to Budd's
Pond.
Board of Trustees 50 July 20, 2005
MR. HERMANN: The Blanchard property next door.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't see a problem with it. Any Board
comments on it? It was all staked out. The house is only
partially within our jurisdiction. Most of it is more than
100 feet. 50 foot non-disturbance, non-fertilization, it's
on there. Hay bale line, silt fence 50 feet from the
wetland boundary, installation of the pervious driveway and
roof leaders, and four dry wells, and elevated septic system
and retaining wall. And all of that is on the
survey. Okay. Any other Board comments, any other public
comments? Can we move right along here?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to approve the
application on behalf of the Estate of Eileen O. Goldner as
requested and shown on the survey.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor?. ALL AYES
23. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of ALAN
CARDINALE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a communal
U-shaped timber dock consisting of a 4' by 37' fixed timber
catwalk, 3' by 17' hinged ramp, a 5' by 43' float, and three
3' by 20' finger floats, all to be supported by eight 8"
diameter pilings and install four 8" diameter tie-off
pilings. Located: 11950 Main Road, Mattituck,
SCTM#122-3-1.4
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And Mr. Hermann is going to explain to us
what he means by "communal."
MR. HERMANN: Yes. Rob Hermann of Eh-Consultants on behalf
of the applicant, Alan Cardinale, if the Board has any
questions. I know the Board is familiar with this, you've
looked at it, we've discussed it a couple times. We're
hoping the Board will think it's a pretty good application.
There is a five lot subdivision that is in the process
hopefully of being approved. It is in a review process with
the Planning Board that will create in addition to the one
existing parcel there four additional new parcels.
Each of these parcels, depending on how the
subdivision is created and mapped, could in theory each come
in to apply for a separate and individual dock. As part of
a number of mitigation measures that Mr. Cardinale has
discussed with the Planning Board and also with the New York
State DEC, who has issued an approval for this proposed
Board of Trustees 51 July 20, 2005
communal dock, the idea is that in lieu of each of these
parcels being able to apply or ever receive permission to
build an individual dock, there would be one communal dock
here that in effect provides for four slips, which
mathematically is one slip for each new parcel
created. There is a dock existing that services the
existing dwelling, that is one of the five lots that will
ultimately exist pending a subdivision approval, but it is
not one of the parcels that will be served by this dock.
The four new parcels would in effect be served by this
communal dock. The dock has been designed to meet in all
other ways with Chapter 97 restrictions. It occupies less
than one-third the width of the waterway. It has met
various DEC policies and considerations including meeting
resting at least two and a half feet of water in Iow tide
and otherwise we think it's a pretty good application. If
the Board has any questions or would like any further
clarification on the proposal, we would be happy to provide
it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll take all comments first. Any other
comment?
MS. MERCURIC: I'm Linda Mercuric from Mattituck, a James
Creek neighbor, and my son owns the property directly across
from the proposed dock, and we are against the proposed
dock. All the other docks in the creek in that area, which
isn't as wide of the diagram makes it appear, are parallel
to the shore, not finger, which would enable boats to pull
in perpendicular to the shore, and thus protrude out a lot
further than the one-third out they claim. My son owns a 38
foot boat and it has a 14 foot beam, which right now he has
docked right up against the bulkhead. He's going to be
applying - I wish he had already -- for a floater to run
parallel to the bulkhead so he's not protruding out further
than 15, 16 feet perhaps. Anyway, I'm for docks. I think
anybody that owns waterfront property should certainly be
entitled to have a dock, but I think a smaller parallel dock
should be more in line with the rest of the creek. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. FINORA: My name is Bob Finora. I live directly next to
the Mercurios, to the east, and I feel the same as Linda
does. This creek I believe is not, according to the diagram
I got from you people, plus/minus 123 feet wide. I took a
rough measurement of it, I'm a retired shop teacher, and I
come up with 100, 110 feet right to her bulkhead dead Iow
tide. And this thing is not going to take up a third of the
creek, I would say almost half, because if you look at this
Board of Trustees 52 July 20, 2005
diagram, this one here, it shows the ramp and the float
protruding 40 feet out from the mean iow water line. All
I'm asking is that you take a closer look at this
application because we have been hera a while, a long time,
my father owned the property before, and I hate to see
something like this, which is going to look very commercial,
destroy the environment. Not only that, who is going to say
the size of the boats they tie up on this dock? He says
four boats, there's pilings on the outside, which tell me
there can be maybe 20, 30, 40 footers, which is going to
protrude past this dock. So all I'm asking is you take a
closer look at this application. I'm not against him
putting in a dock, I think anybody who owns property on the
water has that right, I'm just saying why can't these docks
be parallel rather than perpendicular to the shoreline. I
think it would be an obstruction to navigation, not only
that but also clutter the whole area. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MS. QUINTIERI: My name is Paula Quintieri, 480 North Avenue
in Mattituck. My husband and I are directly across from the
fifth lot that's already built with the parallel dock that
they have currently. I'm in support with my opposing
neighbors of what their concerns are. I feel if they want
to put their docks there, a communal dock, why not if they
have four lots, do four parallel docks, consistent with
whatever else is in the creeks now. It is going to be an
obstruction, there are several large boats that come in and
out of Village Marine at the end of the creek, where it is
very narrow and these fingered docks ara going to protrude
much farther into the middle of the creek. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment?
MR. HERMANN: I'll just respond briefly to those
comments. There are a couple issues I hear from each of the
speakers, one really involves the specific substance of the
application. The question of whether or not this is an
accurate portrayal of the waterway at Iow tide or the width
of the waterway at all, I can only report that this is based
on a licensed survey prepared by Peconic Surveyors. So
that's what we rely on and base our plan on. There's
obviously ways that that information can be verified. Also,
from a spring Iow tide to a neap Iow tide, there's obviously
going to be some variation in the width of the waterway, so
there could be variation even if everybody's accounts are
completely correct.
In terms of the question of the size of the boat or
the pilings on the outside, the pilings are proposed on the
Board of Trustees 53 July 20, 2005
outside of either end of the dock to create two outside
slips, the width of the waterway is shown, it's 123 feet at
its narrowest point divided by three equals 41 feet. So you
could have a boat that would extend up to 41 feet only from
the Iow water line to remain within that one-third the width
of the waterway. That is the typical requirement of this
Board and that's how the dock was designed.
The other comments I'm hearing from the speakers
have really more to do with the spirit of the application
and the last speaker actually mentioned, well, why doesn't
each lot build its own dock that looks like the others in
the area. That is what we are specifically bringing to this
Board to avoid. We would think that this Board, based on
Chapter 97 and now, like it or not, the Local Waterfront
Revitalization Program, to have one communal dock as opposed
to four docks that would have to use catwalks to access not
only over the marsh, but over the bay bottom. There is a
very substantial diminishment of the structural area that
would occupy both the vegetated wetlands and the surface
waters of the town. So with due respect to the concepts
that the speakers are relaying to the Board, I would think
that this Board, pursuant to the Town code, would in fact
rather see fewer docks, less structural area over the
waterway, less structural area in disturbance to the marsh
so long as the seaward intrusion otherwise conforms with
your policies. Whether you had one dock here with an "L" or
a "T" float, like you have across the way, it's still going
to occupy the same seaward intrusion. So I think there's
really an aesthetic concern here that having this larger
dock is going to look like a commercial structure as opposed
to a small, little residential dock. So while I hear that,
the intent of it is to provide environmental mitigation,
which is what this Board regulates pursuant to Chapter 97.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. You submitted this photograph
for the file; is that your submission?
MR. HERMANN: I don't think so.
MS. TETRAULT: I think I put it in there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Obviously navigation's a concern there and
Rob mentioned the environmental factors. The only reason
we're considering this is instead of having numerous docks,
the opportunity for the Board to have one dock built is to
minimize the environmental impact there. This has been done
very infrequently in town because it's very rare that you
can get two people to share anything, let alone a dock. So
that's the reason we're entertaining this in its form
instead of having separate docks.
Board of Trustees 54 July 20, 2005
MS. QUINTIERI: What was the total footage the extent of the
size of the boat that you can put that would not go past?
MR. HERMANN: If you draw a pier line seaward of the Iow
water line, assuming the accuracy of the minimum width being
123 feet, then the farthest seaward intrusion of anything, a
dock or a boat, would be 41 feet from Iow water, whether
that's structure or boat.
MS. QUINTIERI: So what's to say when those four lots are
sold those four owners buy boats, where is it going to be
said they cannot buy a boat longer than 41 feet; is there
going to be a covenant?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is Town code you can't put a dock or
a boat more than one-third the way across.
MR. HERMANN' There would be something that would have to be
included in the subdivision covenants and restrictions. Now
legally you make a good point, the Town, I don't believe,
can legally restrict the type or size of a specific boat for
a specific owner but as long as the covenants and
restrictions identify the fact no combination of boat or
structure can exceed a certain point from a shoreline, which
I have seen even in covenants and restrictions from
subdivisions 30 years ago, then anybody who attempted to do
that would be in violation of the law, and somebody such as
yourself or the Town bay constables could trace back
something that's in the deed, it would be in the deed when
purchased, so nobody could say, Oh, well, I didn't know
about this restriction. The Town could legally enforce it,
as much as they can enforce anything else through the C and
Rs. And the applicant realizes that that would have to be
included. The C and Rs would have to address all of this
because you would also have to put in some sort of legal
language that prevents an owner from saying, heck, I don't
want to use a communal dock I want to build my own dock.
There would have to be something that if this Board were to
grant this that would prevent the person from doing this,
MS. QUINTIERI: That would also mean that they would be --
MR. HERMANN: They would have to use this communal dock.
They couldn't add another dock, that would also be
enforceable by the state. Because if someone went back to
the State DEC at this point and tried to build a dock on
that piece of property with this permit in place, they could
not do that.
MS. QUINTIERI: Thank you.
MR. FINORA: Looking at the size of the boats that are going
to be in this dock, the inside part of the dock, I would say
looks like, I'm a little confused, 20 foot?
Board of Trustees 55 July 20, 2005
MR. HERMANN: 17 feet between the fingers.
MR. FINORA: How long would the boat be able to stick out?
MR. HERMANN: Basically between each finger is 17 feet and
the distance from the seaward face of the landward float to
the outer edge of the floats is 20 feet. So you could put a
21 footer in there and be your required distance.
MR. FINORA'. To extend one foot?
MR. HERMANN: In effect, correct.
MR. FINORA: On the outside --
MR. HERMANN: On the outside you would have much more
flexibility on the outside because you could dock the boat
with the stern seaward and the bow to the wetlands, and you
could have a 40 foot boat there.
MR. FINORA: I still don't think this is going to be
one-third. I think another measurement would be likely
here.
MR. HERMANN: Obviously if the Board requests an additional
measurement, we have to do that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh When we went out last week and Jim picked
it up, the way this is situated here is across from the
Mercurio bulkhead, but it was staked further to the west,
and we would have gotten into a big argument tonight because
we would have said it wasn't staked. Because the surveyor
staked it, the water came up and covered the stakes and you
couldn't see the stakes. So if we didn't see the surveyor,
we would have said that wasn't staked.
MR. HERMANN: And the reason for that was, as I had
mentioned to the Trustees before but I have not mentioned it
tonight for the public record, is originally because,
whatever the width, I think everybody would agree that the
canal widens as you go out in this direction, the dock was
proposed closer to this property line, but in order to avoid
being directly across with this existing dock and
interfering with it, the DEC required as a condition of the
permit that the float be moved 20 feet to the east. So the
surveyors, for whatever reason, didn't use the updated plan,
they used their information from the past plan, and so it
was staked 20 feet too far to the west. So what Jim noticed
was correct. If the Board wants to see it as we discussed,
it can be staked again. But I think you were in the right
place once you went where Jim led you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I think we do want it staked, the two
ends.
MR. HERMANN: The purpose of this location as required by
the DEC was even though they were pushing us into a narrow
part of the waterway it was to avoid being directly across
Board of Trustees 56 July 20, 2005
from that L-shaped dock.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You need longer stakes. I'm under the
impression that there hasn't been any review under the LWRP
on this application. So we're going to unfortunately not
act on this because we have not had a review. This is the
first public hearing. That's got to be staked. The
neighbors will be able to see it. I don't know if you have
seen the stakes?
MS. MERCURIO: It's hard because they're under water at high
tide. At Iow tide you can see it, which is a navigational
disaster right now.
MR. HERMANN: It sounds clear to me that the staking should
be redone and done correctly so the seaward end points of
the U are on both clearly visible even at high tide.
MS. QUINTIERI: I can't understand if you have a 40 foot boat
coming in, they're not coming straight into the creek and
going parallel to the dock, that boat has to come in and
swing around to the opposite side of the creek where
Mercurio's boat is going to be and swing into that slip.
MR. HERMANN: We didn't represent that there are going to be
40 foot boats or how they will get in. I'm just
representing what under this Board's code you could
physically get if you wedged it right up to the Iow water
line.
MS. QUINTIERI: if you're going to have people buy those four
lots you can pretty much guarantee they're going to want a
40 foot boat.
MR. FINORA: It's the one dock that is missing here, the one
in front my house directly to the east of the bulkhead, I
don't know why it's not in the sketch. There is a sailboat
there. I believe they would be coming in kind of close to
that boat also, if it's swinging in. You did say it's moved
a little east.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have an aerial photograph in the file
here. It doesn't show the sailboat. But it shows
everything else.
MR. FINOR^: If you could take another look at it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We will. And we can't act on it because
of the LWRP. Is there any way to redesign this, instead of
having the ramp and the long fiat, to make those portions
fixed and you can pull it back towards the shore a little
bit?
MR. HERMANN: The reason for the specific location of the
float itself, however one gets there, is because of the
water depth. I don't know if you actually went into the
water, but the depth here drops pretty suddenly and pretty
Board of Trustees 57 July 20, 2005
quickly, and you're standing in nine inches of water, and
then less than 10 feet later you're standing in two and a
half feet of water. Obviously, it's to Alan Cardinale's
advantage as the subdivider and to anyone buying this, their
advantage to have the float as close to the marsh as
possible and as far to the west as possible. However, it's
not possible to get a permit from the DEC to pull the float
into any less than 30 inches of water.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, make the float fixed, and just have
the three fingers come off the fixed part.
MR. HERMANN: Then you would need ramps down to the floating
fingers, you'd end up in the same place. It's the seaward
intrusion you're concerned about.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Maybe you could pull that back another
five or six feet with the fixed portion. Instead of the
ramp where it is, make that fixed, bring that back a little
more.
MR. HERMANN: Al, you couldn't because the berthing area
would be the same. Believe me, we've played every game you
can with the stake. If you're creating a berthing area, the
berthing area has to be in 30 inches of water or the talks
are off.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Do you honestly believe they're all going
to have 20 feet boats there?
MR. HERMANN: It doesn't matter what I honestly believe.
What matters is whether we can bring a proposal to this
Board that conforms with your code. If somebody gets a
permit for something that conforms with your code, and they
break the law, it's the same as any other permit that you
issue. Maybe somebody on the last application that you
approved isn't really going to build the house that's shown
on the survey, maybe they will build Trump Tower, but I
can't represent that. I can only represent what we propose
and what the Board approves, and then it's up to the Town to
enforce that. I would say based on the turnout tonight
that if somebody brings in a boat that extends out into the
creek, that you're going to hear about it real quickly. And
your bay constable should be able to enforce it. You
have an eminent attorney there who can write it right into
the Wetland Permit or have a covenant that's filed with the
Wetland Permit.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Are the owners aware of those
restrictions?
MR. CARDINALE: Alan Cardinale, Junior. Obviously that's
the shortest point. Obviously as the creek widens, there's
going to be a longer boat allowed in the second and third
Board of Trustees 58 July 20, 2005
slip, then the outside slip will be the largest. So a 40
some-odd boat could fit in the end slips.
MR. FINORA: Talking about a 40 foot boat is going to
maneuver.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any 40 footers further to the
west?
MR. FINORA: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So somebody's getting in. I'm not going
to try to be an advocate for the applicant, but I'm looking
at the aerial survey, it's pretty tight when you get
to the marina, and that's got to be a 40 foot boat.
MR. FINORA: Excuse me, when was that picture taken because
the sailboat's not in there?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. Heather, do you have the date on this
photograph?
MS. TETRAULT: 2001.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're going to go out there next
month.
TRUSTEE KING: Rob, is this designed for four boats?
MR. HERMANN: For four slips, two inside and two outside.
TRUSTEE KING: Why do you need that center float?
MR. HERMANN: It's just a finger float that's providing access
to each side. You could replace that finger with piles.
This way it provides access to either side, it doesn't
really change the scope of the dock.
TRUSTEE KING: It's less structure in the water because you
tie a boat on either side of each float on the side.
MR. HERMANN: Yes. Basically the outer fingers are
providing access to the outside slips and the inner finger
is providing access to the slip on either side of it. What
is the date of the field inspection, so we can make sure
it's staked clearly and correctly.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The 17th. Can we get a CAC out there on
the 17th?
MR. CARDINALE: I have a motorized, sure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's fine. I'll make a motion to table
the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES
25. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on
behalf of DAVID MCELROY requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a bluff stairway within the northeastern section
of the subject property. Located: 1640 Grandview Drive,
Orient. SCTM#14-2-3.14.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment
Board of Trustees 59 July 20, 2005
on this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson of Suffolk Environmental
Consulting for the applicants.
As you know, what we°re planning is a standard
access stairway, it's a Iow impact situation, I don't think
there's any outstanding issues with this application, but
I'm here to answer any questions you may have.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I don't know if you heard before on the
Kartsonis property, which neighbors this one, LWRP was
not --
MR. ANDERSON: I heard.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So therefore, we tabled that, and are
likely to table this one as well.
MR. ANDERSON: Why don't we simply close the hearing and
we'll await it. If complications arise we'll deal with it
then.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Table it. Bruce, if you have any problems
with the LWRP contact the LWRP coordinator not our office.
MR. ANDERSON: Years ago we were all concerned that the LWRP
business would bootstrap the Trustees, and when I worked for
you, going back ten or 15 years ago, we were opposed to it
at that time. We felt that LWRP would dilute the power of
the Trustees. It was enacted by the Town Board either with
or without your support.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Without.
MR. ANDERSON: Now what's occurred is you find yourself with
a bureaucratic process that gets in the way of serving the
people. I'd rather close the hearing so I don't have to
come back and charge a client unnecessarily.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can't.
MR. ANDERSON: So I have to come back again?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can't close it because we need the
recommendations.
MR. ANDERSON: I will talk to Mark tomorrow.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Make a motion to table the hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
27. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of GAlL
RERISI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed open
walkway 4' by 110', hinged ramp, 4' by 12', and a floating
dock 6' by 20', and install two spiles to secure a floating
dock.
Located: 497 Private Road 22, Southold.
SCTM#76-1-15.3
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment
Board of Trustees 60 July 20, 2005
on this application?
MR. FITZGERALD: This is a schematic of the LWRP. Jim
Fitzgerald for the applicant. What I have just given you is
a copy of the existing survey with the changes that we are
proposing resulting from your inspection last week,
annotated in red.
Both of the Rerisi docks are on this one drawing, as
they were in the original application. The one that we're
looking at now is the one that's at the top of the page, and
it's the longer dock, and it's the one that you, Al, felt
was too long, or the three of you felt was too long. We
reduced the overall length to 100 feet, which is the
regulatory maximum in the Town and eliminated the ramp and
the float and put a set of steps at the end of the dock.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment on this
application? We don't have an LWRP. Do we have the CAC
comments?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes. Resolve to recommend to the
Southold Town Board of Trustees disapproval of the Wetland
Permit application of Gail Rerisi to construct a fixed open
walkway 4' by 100', hinged ramp 4' by 12' and the floating
dock 6' by 12' and install two spiles to secure floating
dock. The CAC recommends disapproval of the application
because the proposed deck was not staked. The CAC further
recommends an onshore/off-shore stake because of the well
water depth in the area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: LWRP says that it's inconsistent, and
I'll skip to the back -- the action as proposed -- and for
the record, this action has changed, the applicant has
submitted a new plan so what I'm reading from the LWRP is in
response to the original submission. The action as proposed
is inconsistent with the LWRP. Also known as the Local
Waterfront Revitalization Program, it is recommended that
the Board of Trustees consider the below information and
require the following outstanding items to better assess the
action, the policies and the intent of the LWRP. One, the
proposed scale of the dock is excessive and inconsistent
with the existing docks to the west and opposite the
property. You can feel free to address these as we go along
if you want, but I think what you have submitted here
addresses some of that, right?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: How does that work? He's going to
submit this, shouldn't our LWRP coordinator review for
consistency or do we become the coordinators and say now
it's consistent? Why doesn't everyone come in with something
big and then come in with a secondary drawing and say okay --
Board of Trustees 61 July 20, 2005
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They all do that.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA'. You know what I'm saying.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If we go back and he assesses this,
then --
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: How do we know this is consistent and not
this one?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He can't say 20 feet. Then he might as
well write the permit, You can still, Ken, amend this and
change this as a Board, but we can't let him do that then we
might as well go home.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I agree with you but if that is going to
be a common practice of putting the floating dock right
across the whole creek and coming in with the secondary plan and
saying, oh, okay, yes, that was inconsistent and here I
addressed it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can still change it though, it doesn't
matter. In this case pretend it doesn't exist.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You and I can make it consistent. We
know what's consistent.
MR. FITZGERALD: Let me make a bold and innovative
suggestion, you could apply common sense, someone else
fooling around with the process, you can say, I'm sorry,
forget about it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 2, Goose Creek is a listed Critical
Environmental area by the New York State DEC, which entitles
the area to a heightened level of protection. That's a
fact, I don't know how you can address that.
MR. FITZGERALD: I can explain it, and that most of the
creeks in Southold town, if not all of them, are listed as
I'm not sure the word "critical" is correct, but is listed
on that list, whatever it is. And the DEC has never
required special treatment for any permits on any of the
town's creeks and that includes providing a long
environmental assessment form, which we have talked about
last time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Three, the proposed use of the dock has
not been identified?
MR. FITZGERALD: What?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The proposed use of the dock has not been
identified.
MR. FITZGERALD: The dock will be used for accessing the
water.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Four, the proposed elevations
of the dock have not been identified.
MR. FITZGERALD: The elevation of the dock will be in
accordance with established procedures by the Town Trustees
Board of Trustees 62 July 20, 2005
and one of the statements in the LWRP indicates that all
applicable government regulations will be followed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Five, the proposed construction methods
and the materials have not been identified.
MR. FITZGERALD: The methods and the materials will be the
standard good management, good construction procedures which
are used throughout the industry and throughout the town and
have been used and approved by the Trustees for many years
in the past.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Six, the proposal does not propose
mitigation to the areas impacted due to the construction of
the dock or construction best management practices to
minimize adverse impacts.
MR. FITZGERALD: It does.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any other comments?
MR. JOHNSTON: Is there no diagram?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you submit a cross-section?
MR. FITZGERALD: No.
MR. JOHNSTON: A diagram?
MR. FITZGERALD: No.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does the Board have any questions?
MR. JOHNSTON: How can you inspect it if you don't have the
document?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We inspected the location.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is it required by the permit, that you
need a cross-section?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The application?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what I thought you were looking
at.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: While they're looking that up, we have a
letter from a neighbor Margaret E. Bushing, in reference to
the two applications protesting as it will destroy the
natural wetlands that harbor wild fowl and deer.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You have to read the last line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, I still use a typewriter as you can
see.
MR. JOHNSTON: Peggy, to answer your question, number two in
the requirements is a schedule of the proposed activities
with the completion date; three, the purpose of the proposed
operation, which was why he asked to do what he asked; four,
the amount of the material proposed and/or the type, size,
location of the any proposed structure.
MR. FITZGERALD: What are you reading from?
MR. JOHNSTON: 97-2'1 application, what should be in an
application, which is in response to Peggy's question of
what are we requesting. And among other things, description
Board of Trustees 63 July 20, 2005
of the area. I don't know whether you would deem that to be
the type, size, location of any proposed structure. I would
think that somehow you would have to have a diagram of it,
but that's up to the five of you.
MR. FITZGERALD: What?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On most docks we require a cross-section
showing the structure.
MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. This being a walkway, which has a
fairly well-defined and well-understood cross-section, it
starts here and it goes there, and it ends, and it's
supported by piles, I didn't feel that it was necessary.
I'd be more than happy to provide you with a cross-section
before the close of business tomorrow.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Peggy, what are your concerns?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have a major concern about the
critical environmental areas because the marsh area is so
pristine, and also it's very shallow, that was the
Conservation Advisory Council's concern.
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, as Rob mentioned before and I would
like to repeat is the alternative is having people walk
through the marsh area not necessarily in the same area, and
dragging their boats through it to get it from here to
there, and I think in the long run, we're better off with a
walkway as Rob indicated.
MS. TETRAULT: What's the square footage?
MR. JOHNSTON: 4' by 82'.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you finished?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken, do you have any concerns?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No, if we're allowed to act, that's fine
by me.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any concerns about the dock size?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Shorten up.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When we acted on that Mitchell one that
was deemed inconsistent, the dock went to Iow water.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Still no good.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's still too long.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What would you suggest?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I suggest from the starting point roughly
60 feet.
MR. FITZGERALD: To what point?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I would recommend see where the Iow water
is. The ramp and float, you'll end up right there again,
four feet past that Iow water. It's not environmentally
sound to go 30 feet further.
Board of Trustees 64 July 20, 2005
MR. RERISh My name is Victor Rerisi, Greenport. Basically
I just wanted to hear what was going on because I was
missing it. I really don't have much to say other than we
met with the Board twice. We're trying to work with the
Board. The Board made some suggestions which we took. We
reduced the length of the dock, they requested steps. They
wanted open grating, which I'm more than willing to do,
changed the location, and we're trying to work with the
Board. I'm not trying to be a pig about this. I'm trying
to be very fair. What I'm really looking for is to make
safe access to the water. There's a lot of mud there. We
want to get over the mud and be able to enjoy water. Not
any more and not any less, and again, this was at your
recommendation.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I understood we had an understanding.
MR. RERISI: We had met and we went over this. We had it
re-staked, then they wanted it brought back, which we did,
and I thought we complied with everything the Board had
asked us to do.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can see with this LWRP it's not a
smooth process here.
MR. RERISI: I understand. I think what Jim had mentioned
before was I think every area of Southold, all these creeks,
are critical, I appreciate that. It's a concern but
certainly let's not use that as an excuse not to give
access to the water, which I think every landowner who has
waterfront property is entitled to. I'm not looking to put
big docks here, your recommendations were accepted and I
appreciate them. So, whatever you can do, I'm trying to be
fair about this.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can we end the hearing?
MR. FITZGERALD: Al, one more point, please. With regard to
the special exception, the statement was made with the DEC
requirements, there exists in this immediate area six other
docks. Now, in the Department of State discussion of the
various policies with regard to consistency, they take into
account previous development, and I think that ought to be
taken into account here. The grass is a pristine area
because there have been no houses on our side of the creek,
but the creek certainly is not pristine.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think I've been there twice. I think
one of the things that's brought up over and over again is
that although people on the other side have their docks and
we should have our docks, and those people that have
property should have access, and, yes, they should but the
resources are the resources of the Town. And I think one of
Board of Trustees 65 July 20, 2005
the things that I was most disturbed at, even though I look
at the docks and I looked at the modifications and the
alterations, it is still an extremely sensitive area. And
the point being that in our area we are losing and losing
and losing this very, very special ecosystem and you have to
start somewhere. One of the things that I think Heather
could give us more information on is the amount of wetland
loss that these docks, which there's a catwalk down to
the water, that you're losing. Could I have Heather
elaborate on that?
MR. RERISI: I want to elaborate on what you just said. It
is a critical area we're not denying that. One of the
conservations we had when the Board was there about what's
better, having a catwalk or dragging, as Jim had said, kayaks
or boats through there or walking through there, more damage
will be done. We're not trying to create a problem here,
we're trying to resolve an issue. People will buy those
homes and they will be going down to the water. We can
control this now, we can't control it later. It's going to
be a little more difficult.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Heather, would you just elaborate on
that comment about the amount of square footage?
MS. TETRAULT: The new proposal's 95 feet for Gail Rerisi,
so that's a loss of 380 square feet of wetland, and it's the
incremental loss of our wetland habitat that is causing all
the problems in our estuary that's from the Peconic Estuary
Program's numerous other studies. So that's documented and
these vegetated wetlands are resources of the Town of
Southold. They're not owned by anybody, they're for
everybody. So by placing a permanent structure over them,
you're taking them away from the people of the Town.
Mr. Fitzgerald mentioned six other docks, the more
development there is the more impact there is, that's even
more reason why there's going to be more impact. And
especially in that creek, there have been so many docks
permitted in that creek in the past 10 years, there's been a
lot of loss of wetland.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: From my perspective we have the
Conservation ^dvisory Council, we have Mark Terry, the
environmental planner representing the Local Waterfront
Revitalization Plan and also the Peconic Estuary Program all
recommending that this not be done here.
MR. FITZGERALD: Mark Terry recommended that; is that
correct?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: He was saying it was inconsistent with
the LWRP.
Board of Trustees 66 July 20, 2005
MR. FITZGERALD: We discussed the points that led to Mark --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I still agree to it being a critical
environmental area by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation.
MR. RERISI: Application 23 was also deemed to be critical.
We're not saying that the wetlands aren't critical. I
just don't understand, and I'm trying to be very fair. I
don't understand how you can deny this application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I am one of five.
MR. RERISh Again, I met with you and I listened to what
you had to say, and I understand, believe me, about the
environment, and again, I don't want to repeat myself, but
we've got to balance the environment with --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And we have to balance homeowners with
the public.
MR. RERISh I understand that. I've been here since 7:15,
7:30 tonight, there's been 26 applications prior to this
one; this is a very, basic, simple catwalk. Every
application's in a critical area.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm one of five, that's my opinion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Jim?
TRUSTEE KING: I say shorten up just to beyond the Iow water
mark.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Ken?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If I make a motion for 65 feet of fixed
catwalk, is that consistent?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I think you have to make a motion as a
Trustee and --
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If I make that motion why would we
need consistency review?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKi: Let me read this again. The action as
proposed is inconsistent with the LWRP. Here's the key
word, it is recommended that the Board consider the below
information and require the following outstanding items to
better assess the action to the policies and intent of the
LWRP, but you're considering something that wasn't
proposed. So I think if you want to make a motion, you have
to do so as a Trustee and you have to go back -- if we give
this back to Mark Terry, he's making the decision, he puts a
number on it. We can't let that happen.
TRUSTEE POLiWODA: How about 109.5 feet, he said 110 feet is
not consistent.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh You can't quantify that, we have to make a
decision like we normally would.
TRUSTEE POLIWOD^: I would say 65 is consistent with what we
would normally give out.
Board of Trustees 67 July 20, 2005
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Artie?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Couple of things, is 65 feet going to solve
the problem if he only needed 65 and not 95 he wouldn't
apply for 95. Is 65 feet going to get you where you want to
go?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Kenny said for the extra 30 feet you're
gaining five inches of water -- two inches of water.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: is it critical, could it be shortened up?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Of course it could be shortened.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: And the other thing I kind of thought that
we all made an agreement and here we are at the 11th hour
and we are all here in disagreement.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm giving my opinion.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't have a problem with that. This is
one of the applications this evening that I thought we all
had agreed upon in the field when we were there, and now all
of a sudden we're in disagreement, and I don't understand
why.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What is discussed in the field isn't
always written in stone. We've come in before and altered.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: When other cimumstances lead into
it. Generally when we meet with the applicant, do this,
submit this, submit that, we'll go along with this, and
we'll go along with that, we did that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We didn't have the LWRP in front of
US,
TRUSTEE KRUPSKi: Kenny wasn't there either.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Ken wasn't there that's true. i'd just
kind of like to know what direction I'm going in. We
hashed this out and talked about it and now we're in
disagreement. I don't have a problem with that if we have a
valid reason for it. But a statement was made earlier we
shouldn't be using this LWRP as one more reason to deny an
application. I agree with that, this is not what this is
intended to be.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm going to go back two months before the
LWRP, if you're sitting here two months ago, Ken's going to
say it should be shortened to the edge of the marsh with
stairs because you're going to go out another 30 feet to
gain two inches of water.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: We did shorten it in the field and we moved
it to the left so we could shorten it, and now we're going
to shorten it again. If that five inches of water isn't
critical and you can shorten it another 30 feet, well, I'm
for that. If it is critical with another agency he isn't
Board of Trustees 68 July 20, 2005
going to get his permit, we aren't doing anybody any favors
here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's no float involved here anyway.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: If it works fine. I think we all need to
be on the same page long before we sit up here.
MR. FITZGERALD: The line at the edge of the marsh is not
shown, and I would suggest that without knowing where that
line is that you should not pick a number without being able
to see where the edge of the marsh is because 65 feet may be
in the marsh.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 65 feet might be too far.
MR. FITZGERALD: It might be too far but it might be too
short.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Low water would normally be beyond the
marsh. You're going to show should mud.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Mr. Fitzgerald, do you have a number of
pilings?
MR. FITZGERALD: No.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Estimate, about?
MR. FITZGERALD: I would say two. I think the comments that
Mrs. Tetrault made about the amount or the number of square
feet that are taken up by a particular project, whether it's
this one or the all the others which you approved tonight
which didn't get into the number of the square feet that
were being lost, it's a generalization, and I don't think
it's the kind of thing that ought to be applied to
individual applications.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why not?
MR. FITZGERALD: Because everything that came before you
tonight, that statement could have been made with minor
modifications and given as a reason not to approve it,
everything.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Jim, just on the last Cardinale project,
that's just what Jim said. If you eliminate the middle
finger and Peggy said, yeah, because you eliminate the
bottom coverage over that area.
MR. FITZGERALD: If I may, and this is something that has
concerned me for a long period of time --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It comes up all the time.
MR. FITZGERALD: I'm not aware of any valid studies that
show what it is that we're trying to prevent from happening.
We have the magic phrase, "adverse impact," what does that
mean?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Peggy and I and Artie and Jim and Kenny
can answer that.
MR. FITZGERALD: What does that mean, it kills snails? I
Board of Trustees 69 July 20, 2005
would appreciate knowing where the studies are; I would
appreciate knowing where the studies are about the effect of
the shading on wetland vegetation or any vegetation.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We have been working with the Nature
Conservancy over the last three years and there is a
committee called the Peconic Bay National Shoreline Committee.
We had spent one of our workshops completely discussing the
ecological impacts of docks in the estuarian system.
MR. FITZGERALD: Could I have some of those statements?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would be happy to give you, I'm not
going to read them now.
MR. FITZGERALD: Put them in the records because there's a
statement made in one of those that says they're not quite
sure that the shading from docks and so forth is
significantly detrimental to wetland vegetation.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Heather could give you a few sources of
information.
MS. TETRAULT: There's a Peconic Estuary Program
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The Nature Conservancy.
MS. TETRAULT: Save the Bay and Rhode island has some
studies. What all the scientists say is that all the
Peconics are dying, and we have a lot of life. We're very
lucky where we live it's beautiful, and the work that the
Trustees are doing to preserve the resources is critical to
keeping the life in the bay that's there. There are bays
all around the world that are dead and that's what we'll
have if we continue to lose our wetland. Those studies are
documented. Go online. I can look for stuff for you to
read, if you like.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I make a motion to close the public
hearing.
MR. RERISI: I don't want to close the public hearing.
MR. FITZGERALD: It is unclear to me why other applications
for exactly the same sort of applicant were approved by the
Board tonight and this one we're having this big brouhaha
about.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what I'm thinking also. First of
all, every application is looked at on its own merits. We
try to be consistent but every creek is different. There's
different conditions in upland vegetation, wetland
vegetation and water depth. The one that comes to mind,
though, if you want to make a comparison tonight is the
Mitchell one, where the application was for a 4' by 53'
fixed timber catwalk. We had a discussion about narrowing
Board of Trustees 70 July 20, 2005
it to a three foot catwalk; we had that discussion, then we
approved it with 4' by 6' set of stairs at the end of it at
the edge of the vegetated marsh. That's the one that comes
to mind tonight.
MR. FITZGERALD: That's the one that I was talking about.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: That was not the one you wanted to make
narrow, it was a different one.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I thought it was that one.
MR. RERISI: Are they going to negotiate before they close
the hearing?
(Discussion)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I agree.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You agree you can't approve five and then
pick on one.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There's not five.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 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 approve on behalf of
Gail Rerisi a 4' by 65' fixed catwalk, with a five foot set
of stairs down to grade water's edge.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you mention the plans, cross-section
plans?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: As well as I'll stipulate we need a
cross-section plan.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Four by four construction?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All four by four construction, and
pilings,
MR. JOHNSTON: How high above?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Two and a half feet above.
MR. FITZGERALD: Above what?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Grade.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Above the marsh grade, marsh edge.
Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No, I deny because of the amount of
square foot of the wetland area.
MR. JOHNSTON: Al, because there seems to be a question here
can you do a roll call vote?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Peggy?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Jim?
TRUSTEE KING: Aye.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Al?
Board of Trustees 71 July 20, 2005
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Aye.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Artie?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Aye.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Motion carries four to one.
28. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of VICTOR
RERISI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed open
walkway dock 4' by 82'. Located: 850 Private Road, 22,
Southold.
SCTM#76-1-15.6
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to speak
on behalf of this application.
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. Jim Fitzgerald on behalf of the
applicant. Everything that was said in the last half hour,
45 minutes applies equally to this project. It's the same
creek.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 60 plus the five foot set of stairs, very
similar. How about for LWRP?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Same comment. They still want to know
what the dock is for, the same six comments were made for
this application as were for the previous application.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Do you have any other comments?
MR. FITZGERALD: With regard to the LWRP, the answers that I
gave before individually apply equally to the present
application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE POLIWOD^: Thank you. I'll make a motion to close
the public hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland
Permit on behalf of Victor Rerisi to construct a fixed open
walkway dock 4' by 60' with a five foot set of stairs
leading down to the edge of the water located 850 Private
Road.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: As well as put a cross-section
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And four by four construction.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: And four by four construction.
MR. JOHNSTON: Height?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Two and a half feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? Peggy?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Jim?
TRUSTEE KING: Aye.
Board of Trustees 72 July 20, 2005
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Al?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Aye.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Artie?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Aye.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Motion carries four to one.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I also would like to mention besides the
Iow water also the narrow channel in that area.
MR. RERISI: I just want to thank the Board, I appreciate
it.
29. Proper-T Permit Service on behalf of JAMES
ECKERT requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed open
walkway 4' by 100', hinged ramp 4' by 12', and a floating
dock 6' by 20' and install two two-pile dolphins to secure a
floating dock. Located: 1635 Meadow Beach Lane,
Mattituck. SCTM#116-7-8
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment
Board of Trustees 73 July 20, 2005
on this application?
MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald for Mr. Eckert. As with the
two previous applications, you have before you a revised
addition of this. Again, based upon the comments the
Trustees made during the last inspection in which you
indicated that the dock should be shortened to the edge of
the marsh. On this map, we have a line indicating the edge
of the marsh and it extends slightly beyond that in order to
accommodate the stairs, and as you approved for the other two
permits.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you. Anyone else like to comment?
Once again, I don't see any comments from
our LWRP coordinator in the file.
MR. FITZGERALD: I don't understand, what in the file?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think there's any physically
present here.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: On this one, there is none. That means
he did not review it.
MR. FITZGERALD: They were all submitted at the same time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're not accusing you of deficiency of
your duties of expediter. This is a problem, a Town
problem.
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I know. Talk to the Town Board. So
you're saying you did not get it back in the file?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I found it in the file.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I think you're fairly accurate on this
one with the distance off the marsh with the stairs, 43. As
far as the Board comments, I measured 43 feet from the
beginning point to the end of the catwalk. We'll end up at
five feet beyond the edge, then add a five foot set of
stairs down to the water level and that should be
consistent.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You want it to be --
TRUSTEE POLIWOD^: Consistent with what we have been
approving for the last six, eight years.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's good.
TRUSTEE POLIWOD^: I make a motion to close the public
hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE POLIWOD^: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland
Permit on behalf of James Eckert to construct a 4' by 43'
fixed dock with a five foot set of stairs going down to
water level using 4" by 4" posts and two and a half feet
above grade.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
Board of Trustees 74 July 20, 2005
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?, ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want a cross-section on that?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes.
30. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of HAROLD
BAER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed open
walkway 4' by 130', hinged ramp 4' by 12', and floating
dock, 6' by 20', and install two spiles to secure floating
dock. Located: 1425 Meadow Beach Lane,
Mattituck. SCTM#116-7-6
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment
on this application?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, Jim Fitzgerald for Mr. Baer. This one
is a little different from the others and that is that I
took the liberty of straightening the lines on the edge of
the marsh. Your concern at inspection was that all the
other docks on this creek were at the edge of the marsh, and
we didn't want anything to stick out further than that.
This particular dock is located in a little cove-like
depression in the edge of the marsh, so the dotted line
indicates my perception of where it would extend to, if it
followed a reasonably smooth course, and I used that as the
quote, edge of the marsh, close quote. And the objection of
not having anything sticking out further than all the other
docks in the area is met by using that imaginary line.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you. This one has LWRP attached to
it, so it has been reviewed by Mr. Terry, and the proposed
action is inconsistent, with the denoted following policy
standards, therefore is inconsistent with the LWRP. It is
recommended that the Board deny the application as proposed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Good news is we have the report saying
that.
MR. FITZGERALD: Can I get a copy of these various things?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure.
MR. FITZGERALD: So I know what to do next time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Right. But see he didn't review what you
gave us. So his review is inconsistent.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So would I be inconsistent if I didn't
deny it?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can do whatever we want. They're
recommendations, and maybe he thought the last project as
proposed was inconsistent, but this is a different
project.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other Board comments? If not, I'll
make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
Board of Trustees 75 July 20, 2005
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland
Permit on behalf of Harold Baer to construct a 4' by 94'
fixed open walkway, with a five foot set of stairs down to
the water's edge, construction made of 4" by 4" pilings, and
two and a half feet above grade.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. 'ALL AYES
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: As well as a cross-section.
31. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of SUSAN
SOUDER requests a Wetland Permit to demolish 7.5' by 14.7'
existing extension on northeast side of existing house;
remove 7.5' by 7.5' slate patio on northeast side; construct
the 8.8' by 12.1' addition to northeast corner of the house,
and add a second floor to house, Located: 3470 Peconic Bay
Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM#128-6-8
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this
application?
MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald for Mrs. Souder. I think at
the last meeting you were okay with the project and we were
just missing the LWRP.
MR. JOHNSTON: Do you have the LWRP?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It's in the file.
TRUSTEE KING: Proposed action's been reviewed and proposed
action is generally consistent with the policy standards and
is therefore consistent with the LWRP. CAC tabled the
application because the maps were inaccurate, no postings
were found and therefore they were unable to locate the
property. Are there any other comments on this application?
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application.
FOSTER: Second.
KING: All in favor? ALL AYES
KRUPSKI: And dry wells for the roof runoff'.
32. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of JOHN &
JOANNE GOUVEIA requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion
Permit to construct a 162 square foot addition to the
existing single-family dwelling over the existing deck and a
plus/minus 90 square foot deck extension. Located: 55404
Route 48, Southold. SCTM#44-1-11
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of
this application?
MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the
Board of Trustees 76 July 20, 2005
application, and I'll give you the affidavit when I'm
done. I think the application speaks for itself. At our
inspection you expressed concerns about the coastal erosion
hazard line. I believe Mr. Metzgar delivered you the
surveys that were indicated, and you
had questions regarding since it's in a coastal erosion
hazard area, the percentage of expansion to the existing
dwelling, the expansion to the existing dwelling is 11
percent and the net change in the deck area is a negative 62
square feet. So, I guess suffice it to say that it is less
than 25 percent. And does the Board have any questions?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't. If there's no other comments I'll make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to approve the
application considering it's consistent with I_WRP and that
CAC recommended approval.
TRUSTEE FOSTER:. Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All if in favor?. ALL AYES
33. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of MARY ZUPA
requests a Wetland Permit to install a 4' by 30' fiberglass
grid walk at 2.5' above grade, 3' by 6' ramp and 6' by 20'
float and two 8" piles. Located: 580 Basin Road, Southold.
SCTM#81-1-16.7
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of
this application?
MS. MESlANO: That would be me, Catherine Mesiano on behalf
of the applicant. We are requesting the Board's
consideration for approval of the installation of a dock
facility at the property located at 580 Basin Road in
Paradise Point. Of course, I think we all recognize the
fact that waterfront property owners have riparian rights
and have rights to the navigable waters, and so we've come
before you with this application. The structure that we
propose conforms with the Chapter 97. We've attempted to
make a Iow profile structure, as has been your wishes in the
past. I know the Board has numerous questions, so I'll let
you ask questions of me, and I'll respond to you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there any other comment
before I open it up to the Board? This project has not been
reviewed under the LWRP. CAC did not make an inspection,
and I don't know if the Board has any comments. It's for a
30 foot fiberglass walk, and a ramp and float in the basin.
I don't know if the Board has any other comments or do you
Board of Trustees 77 July 20, 2005
want to wait for the LWRP recommendations?
MR. JOHNSTON: Did we see a fiberglass grid?
MS. MESIANO: I've submitted samples of the fiberglass
material up to the Board.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Have any of them been built yet?
MS. MESIANO: I don't know if any of them have been built in
Southold town. I know that there have been others very
similar to those that you have approved on my applications,
but I don't think -- yes, excuse me, the Sweeney application
that you approved on Minnehaha Boulevard I think lan
Crowley's finishing it up this week.
MR. JOHNSTON: Can we look at that next month?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Let's get a photo of that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any comments, Ken, or do you want to wait
for the recommendations?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Wait for the recommendations, but I do
have a comment.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: In the cross-section you have proposed
timber walkway and up here you have proposed fiberglass,
it's going to be fiberglass?
MS. MESIANO: Yes.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The 30 feet of fiberglass, I'm looking at
your cross-section, what's the dimensions on a sheet of
fiberglass?
MS. MESIANO: 4' by 12' sheets and they are two inches
thick, the structural, the strength of the material comes
from the steel reinforcement that is integral in the outer
portions of the framework, but the entire material that's
exposed is a fiberglass.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm looking at your cross grid, so I
imagine that's a 6 foot ramp up and a 24 feet fixed or six
foot fixed ramp up, 24 more additional, so it works out, you
have 12 and 12 it's 24.
MS. MESIANO: Okay, we have 30.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You're proposing 30?
MS. MESIANO: Yes. We'd have 12 and 12 then they would have
to cut a six foot piece.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I have no comments until the LWRP comes
through.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion, if there's no other
comments, to table the hearing because we have to put the
LWRP comments into the record. Is that your comment?
MR. PASCA: As long as you're keeping the hearing open.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I was going to make a motion to keep the
hearing open until next month.
MR. PASCA: That's fine.
Board of Trustees 78 July 20, 2005
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I would like to see the seaward end of
this project staked for the 17th.
MS. MESlANO: We did stake it already, when you didn't want
to come out when I met you last week. That's why I said to
you last week shall I meet you, it's been staked.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I didn't hear this was staked, I'm sorry.
MS. MESlANO: We'll try and make sure the stakes are there
again. You said August 17th?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: August 17th.
MS. MESIANO: And I assume the hearing is the 24th?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MR. SCALIN: May I speak, I did want to put something
on the record because I did see the stakes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to reopen the hearing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES.
MR. SCALIN: Robert Scalin. We have observed the stakes that
were put in and they're impossibly close to our dock, and
Mrs. Mesiano's drawing does not show any boats at our
existing dock, although she shows them on all the other
docks. We have a dock there already so I don't see how a
dock could possibly be built there.
MS. MESlANO: I'm sorry, Al, I have to respond to the
comment otherwise it's lost. I think that the Board has to
consider whether or not the dock Mr. Scalin refers to,
whether or not that dock is entitled to exist. That dock
was built in approximately 1993 --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I have to ask you to confine your comments to
the project for Mary Zupa's dock.
MS. MESlANO: Then I will say this, I would request that the
Board look at the surrounding circumstances and consider
whether or not they're entitled to deny an application
because of an illegally existing structure. So that
would be my comment.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. I'll make a motion to table
the application.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES.
34. Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc. on
behalf of PARADISE POINT ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland
Permit to allow the repair and/or replacement of the
existing docking facility. Located: Basin Road, Southold.
Board of Trustees 79 July 20, 2005
SCTM#81-1-16.10
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone from Inter-Science who
would like to address the Board?
MR. JOHNSTON: We have received four?.
MR. WALKER: Four sets. Because it's late, I'm going to
make it quick.
MR. JOHNSTON: For the record, please identify yourself?
MR. WALKER: Jim Walker from Inter-Science. The first
diagram that's in your package, and it's referred to in the
transmittal as Alternate 1 calls for the in-kind/in-place
repair and replacement of the existing dock facilities. In
the spirit of trying to move forward with the application,
we drew up an Alternate 2, the second set of plans will
return the outer pier, which is the 40 foot section, this
dock would stay in place
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's Number 2?
MR. WALKER: 2A, we also have 2B. The main difference
between 2A and 2B, in 2A this existing dock would remain; in
2B this existing dock would be removed and that 6' by 20'
float added to the outside of the main dock would be turned
into an L. The reason why is we have an intention to try to
comply with the one-third rule to the greatest extent
possible and to limit the number of docks to one. And I
believe after the work session today, we are going to pursue
Alternate 3. So unless the Board has questions on the first
two alternates, this is the layout that I would like to talk
about.
Alternate $, the L dock would be picked up, it's the
same essential layout as the first two alternatives. The L
dock would be picked up and placed at the middle dock that
the association owns and the catwalk would be repaired with
a ramp down to, there's going to be finger piers on both
sides of the dock, and it would allow for roughly the same
amount of boat slips that currently exists, and I discussed
this layout with the association and the adjacent property
owner at some length, and we would agree that this dock
doesn't need to be quite that long, and we would like to
pursue this particular alternative with the Board of
Trustees, and refine it and hopefully close the hearing and
get approval for a permit to have this dock replace the
three docks that are currently in place.
We did do soundings on the existing pier last time I
was out there. We would have to do some additional
soundings for this peculiar alternate and I would like to
work on this layout in the hopes to satisfy all parties.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Alternate 1 is that large dock, does that
Board of Trustees 80 July 20, 2005
reflect more or less what's existing there now?
MR. WALKER: Precisely.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When you go to Alternate 3, you left
that fixed pier catwalk. I don't know if you left that, it
shows a fixed pier catwalk with a 12 foot ramp down. It's
like an artifact, why was that left?
MR. WALKER: That's a "holiday," we call it in the trade, it
will be removed. It's like when a painter forgets part of
the -- that dock would be removed, that dock would be
removed. This dock would be roughly that layout. Although
we would like to work with the Board to make sure all the
regulatory concerns were addressed, that's roughly the
layout the association would be willing to provide.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you show us there's another dock here
on the Dempsey property, can you show us that?
MS. MESIANO: The Dempsey property is presently the Hermants
property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you show us that dock?
MR. WALKER: We do have it on the survey that Young and
Young did, and it will be shown. There doesn't appear to be
any conflict with navigation, so we will show that as a
formal submission with the refinements including that
dock.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Also Ed Boyd has a valid permit to move
his dock out perpendicular to the shoreline?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: He may lose it. It may have expired.
MR. WALKER: For all intents and purposes that dock approval
that was issued also does not really cause any conflict
whatsoever with this layout.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're just trying to be consistent. I
have one more comment. Can we see Option 3 staked?
MR. WALKER: We could try to stake it. It's seven foot of
water there. You mean the outer part of the pier?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Correct, the proposed pier.
MR. WALKER: I think we could.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is the depth? It's not that deep.
They were staking it in 10 feet of water in James
Creek. Just the outer perimeter.
MR. WALKER: We would stake it here at the end of the
float. The middle pier is still there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does the Board have any other questions?
MR. WALKER: We could stake it again and have it ready for
the --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 17th. Right, see the Option 2, shows both
stern in.
MR. WALKER: Stern two dockage is only needed for Alternate
Board of Trustees 81 July 20, 2005
2B because this dock would be removed. We don't call out
for mooring piles otherwise, there would be two boats on the
outside and tied alongside.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What I was saying if you stake this
perimeter, you could have boats on either side. So it's not
actually showing you the length.
MR. WALKER: There's going to be a 10 or 12 foot wide boat
tied up on the outside.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If the Board has no other comment, I'll
see if anyone else would like to comment.
MR. BRESSLER: You're going to table this?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MR. BRESSLER: Until the 24th?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. There's three new plans submitted so
the Board can have the option that the applicant finds most
desirable staked so we can inspect it on the 17th.
MR. BRESSLER: What's going to be staked?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Option 3, the seaward limit of the --
MR. BRESSLER: The dock or where the boat will be?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The dock because we don't know what the
beam of the boat will be.
MS. MESlANO: We do know what the beam will be.
MR. BRESSLER: He just told us.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just saying it would give you a more
realistic view.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Stake that.
MR. WALKER: Tell you what, we'll stake the dock and --
MR. BRESSLER: I will reserve comment.
MS. MESlANO: The depiction is not accurate because it was
moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The depiction was moved or the dock was
moved?
MS. MESlANO: The dock was moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you answer that?
MR. WALKER: I was opening that.
MS. MESlANO: My question is while the Board is requesting
additions, alterations to Plan 3, could the Board also
request that Mrs. Kolyer's dock be accurately depicted on
the map since Mrs. Kolyer's dock appears to have been moved
from its original location. And it does have bearing on the
navigability too because it is in the close proximity to the
association dock and the Zupa dock.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All docks should be marked accurately on
the plan.
MS. MESlANO: That's all I ask.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
Board of Trustees 82 July 20, 2005
MS. KOLYER: Andrea Kolyer, K-O-L-Y-E-R. I'm here on behalf
of my husband and I to put this on the record. And I'd like
it to be considered strongly when thinking about these
plans. When we came here last year to apply for our dock,
and I think everyone knows which one is ours, we were told
that every inch was critical between our dock and the
association's structure for navigability. The DEC wanted
our dock out into the water much further than it is
here. We had to go reapply because we came here and you
said no, it has to go for navigability, that every inch was
critical. We had a one foot fight between here and the DEC.
It was a lot of work. But anyway, the point is, this
application seemed to compromise on the impact on the
environment according to the DEC and it compromised on the
impact to the Kolyers. It's very close to the shore, and I
would like to request on behalf of my husband and our family
that because of what we were told last year about that
distance between our dock and the association structures
that anything proposed, doesn't come one inch closer to our
structures than it is currently now and possibly give us
room to move our dock out to a proper, safe and equitable
place because we're actually riparian rights owners and we'd
like a little more space there so we are not marginalized on
our rights as we felt that we were. And I would also like
to refute the comments just made by Mrs. Mesiano that our
dock was moved or that it is not in compliance with its
permit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How far out ideally would you want to move
your dock?
MS. KOLYER: I believe we're entitled to have two slips?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No.
MS. KOLYER: I don't know, I would have to consult with my
husband on that. I can't answer that right now. Can you
give me time to answer that next time?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. That's what this hearing is getting
at, that's why I was curious. And as far as riparian rights
are defined as the ability to access the water. You can't
define it as far as what size boat you can have, or what
water depth --
MS. KOLYER: I know that. Yes, but you're accessing it from
the boat you're putting on it. It's part of access, okay.
The other thing that I just noticed here and I
haven't been able to study the plans, I just have a comment
about the measurement of this. I just want to point this
out because this original dock, if it's in its first slot is
100 feet, and when you get over here and you move it this
Board of Trustees 83 July 20, 2005
way, it's still 100 feet. Wouldn't it still be coming in
here more? But it seems to end up visually at the same
place, but that's not true. What I'm understanding is this
one-third rule is so that everybody can get to the center
and have a right to get out to the water without all this
jimmying around. Right now when we're down on our dock with
our two little kids, the activity, boats are coming this far
from us, backing up and revving up, I do not want this
activity in this area as this turn-around for people who are
having a hard time driving their boats. This is not safe
right now for us. We need to do something about this.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MS. KOLYER: Thank you.
MR. ZUPA: I'm Victor Zupa reluctantly come up to comment.
Since Mrs. Kolyer has commented on the dock, I feel
compelled to comment as well. I agree with her that her
dock and my dock are too close into the bulkhead. My dock
bottoms on the bottom, it's against DEC regulations and your
regulations. The prop of my boat hits the bottom, that's
against your regulations and DEC regulations. When I back
out from my dock, I have to come precariously close to her
boat to make the turn-around. In backing up further I wind
up in shallow waters and my props either on my 26 foot boat
or my larger Tiara hits bottom. It's not navigable. It's
not fair to the people, the Kolyers, where her dock is
placed, and it's not fair to me. The point Cathy Mesiano is
making is that her dock is basically out as far as my
dock, maybe it's out a little further, but that depicts it
in closer, they're both out the same way. She can't
possibly put her dock in any further otherwise the dock
would be sitting on the basin. I've seen her ice-eater
bottom out completely during the winter; my ice-eater
bottoms out completely during the winter. I have to put two
by fours eight feet out in order to get water to keep it
from freezing. The imposition that's been placed on two
riparian owners to have their docks three feet from a
bulkhead and their floats sitting on the basin is
unconscionable. I do not have navigability at my dock. The
erosion from the shore, which the Board is well aware of,
has filled in around my dock. The prop hits bottom, the
bottom comes up. My intake from my saltwater cooling system
sucks that mud into my system. I don't want to run into her
boat, and I don't want run into a black sailboat or a Sea
Ray across from me. The area is not navigable. I had three
experts come up and they came to the same conclusions, you
can't possibly navigate in that small area without bottoming
Board of Trustees 84 July 20, 2005
out. I'm glad to see that there's somebody else in here
who's a riparian owner endorsing what should be obvious to
the Board.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I will make a motion to table
the application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES
(Time ended: 12:28 a.m.)