HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-09/20/2000Albert J. Krupski, President
James King, Vice-President
Henry Smith
Axtie Foster
Ken Poliwoda
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-1366
PRESENT WERE;
BOARD OF TO~~EES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Wednesday, September 20, 2000
7:00 p.m.
Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President
James King, Vice-President
Artie Foster, Trustee
Henry Smith, Trustee
Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee
Charlotte Cunningham, Clerk
CALL MEET1NG TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION; Wednesday, October 18, 2000 at 8:00 a.m.
TRUSTEEFOSTER moved to APprove,
TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 at 7:00 p.m.
WORKSESSION; 6:00 p.m.
TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve. TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of August 23, 2000
TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve. TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES
MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustee monthly report for AuguSt 2000. A
check for $3,790.76 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General
Fund.
II.
PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's
BUlletin Board for review.
IH. AMENDMENTS/WAIVER CHANGES:
J. Kevin McLaughlin on behalf of ORIENT WHARF CO. request an
Amendment to Permit 474 to allow the existing 6'x8' shed which houses
necessary water filtration equipment to remain on the wharf as long as the
filtration system is required in order to obtain a potable water supply.
¸4.
Located: 2110 Village Lane, Orient. SCTM#24-2-28.1 POSTPONED
UNTIL OCTOBER PER AGENT'S REQUEST
Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of DONALD BRENNAN requests
an Amendment to Permit # 5152 to install a 5000 lb. boat lii2 on the
existing bulkhead piles. Located: 1661 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue 118-2-4.2
TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve the application. TRUSTEE
POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES
LARRY B. & JOAN M. KULICK requests a one year extension to
Permit #4951 to construct a 140" stone wall above ordinary high water
line, dredge approx. 10 cy from silted are of boat slip and add a 4'x18'
ramp at landward end of existing dock and clear vegetation within 50' of
high water mark. Located: 2200 Minnehaha Blvd. Southold SCTM#87-3-
6t TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve the application with the
condition that no stonewall attached to this permit. The dredging was
completed at the boat slip. And a 4'x18' ramp will be added to the
landward existing dock. Clear vegetation on the property leaving a 50'
undisturbed buffer on the waterside. TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL
AYES.
LEFKIOS ANTONIOU, CHARIKLIA VARELLAS AND
THEOROROS ANTONIOU requests a Transfer of Permit #4167 from
Susan E, Tasker ti Lefkios Antoniou, Chariklia Varellas and Theororos
Antoniou. Located: 58235 Middle Road (CR 48) Greenport. SCTM#44-2-
11 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve the application. TRUSTEE
POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES
ROBERT AND MARIANNE SOBIESIAK requests a Transfer of
Permit #2212 from Ralph and Shirley Crocker to Robert and Marianne
Sobiesiak. Located: 1225 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport, SCTM#35-4-9
TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve the application. TRUSTEE
FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES.
Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of TOM
FITZPATRICK requests a Transfer of Permit #5181 from Mark
McDonald to Tom Fitzpatrick proposed residence with pool and deck is
setback 79' from the landward edge of the tidal wetlands as compared to
Mr. McDonald's initial proposal of 77' in addition, please note that Mr.
Fitzpatrick's proposed contouring s 75'from the landward edge of tidal
wetlands as compared to Mr. McDonald's initial proposal of 73'.
Located:: 1030 Clearview Road, Southold. SCTM#89-3-11.3 TRUSTEE
SMITH moved to approve the application. TRUSTEE K1NG seconded.
ALL AYES
10.
11.
12.
TONY & JULIA M. GRAZINA (Contract Vendee) requests a Transfer
of Permit g4378 issued to Henry Braun/Leslie Windisch to Anthony
GrazianaJJulia M. Graziana. Located: 1375 Pine Neck Road, Southold
SCTM#70-5-39 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve the application..
TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES
JOItN EDLER requests a one year extension to Permit #4825 to expire
November 21, 2000 to construct 2-40' low profile groins that begin at the
highest vertical point which is at the whaler of the bulkhead and no pre-
filling. Located: 130 Cleaves Point Road, East Marion. SCTM#38-2-32
TRUSTEE KiNG moved to approve the application. TRUSTEE SMITH
seconded. ALL AYES
ANTHONY NAPOLITANO requests a one year extension to Permit
#4828 to expire November 21, 2000 to construct 2-40' low profile groins
that begin at the highest vertical point which is at the whaler of the
bulkhead and no pre-filling. Located: 200 Cleaves point Road, East
Marion SCTM#38-2-33 TRUSTEE KING moved to approve the
application. TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES
NORMAN TAYLOR requests a one year extension of Permit #4826 to
expire November 21, 2000 tO construct 1-40' low profile groin that begin
at the highest vertical point which is at the whaler of the bulkhead and no
pre-filling. Located: 300 Cleaves Point Road, East Marion SCTM#38-2-
35 TRUSTEE KING moved to approve the application. TRUSTEE
SMITH seconded. ALL AYES
CANDIDA HARPER & PAUL LIEBLICH 111 requests a one year
extension to Permit g4827 to expire November 21,2000 to construct 2-40'
low profile groins that begin at the highest vertical point which is at the
whaler of the bulkhead and no pre-filling. Located: 290 Cleaves Point
Road, East Marion SCTM#38-2-34 TRUSTEE KING moved to approve
the application. TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES
VICTORIA M. URY requests a Waiver to excavate that portion of the
basements which has not been excavated and create a new entrance to the
basement at the front of the house. Located: 3915 Stillwater Avenue,
Cutchogue. SCTM# 137-1-5.1 TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to approve
the application with the condition that hay bales be placed along creek side
during construction.. TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI Do I have a motion to go off the Regular Meeting and
onto the Public Hearings. TRUSTEE SMITH so moved. TRUSTEE
POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING
APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF
THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
FROM THE SUFFOLK TIMES PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE
REAAD PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.
PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF
FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS 1F POSSIBLE.
RICHARD SANSEVERE requests a Wetland Permit for additional cesspool
to be added to property, or to rebuild second cesspool near driveway.
Located: 7433 Soundview Avenue, Southold SCTM#59-6-5
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor
of the application?
RICHARD SANSEVERE; Good evening, Richard Sansevere, this is the
second time this has been in front of the Board. I thank you for hearing it
again. The original septic system is thirty years old and it is six foot in height.
They are not performing as good as when they were new-. So instead of
digging them up and causing a major destruction on the property. It is easier
to add another septic which will be a spill over. As the six footers fill up they
would then they would flow into the eight footer. The location that I choose
is probably the least offensive to all concerned in the position.. It is further
away from the wetland. It does not intrude on anyone's well. Because it is at
least 75 feet from my own well. My nearest neighbor's will not be affected.
So I felt it was a legitimate request to do this. The area was picked because
the depth is adequate, done by Morrison Cesspool. There is enough depth
before you hit water to put in a cesspool. So unless someone has an
objection? I would like to go ahead with it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any other comments in favor or against?
Does the Board have any comments? We did not go look at this month, hut
we went last month.. But we were unclear of what we were looking at?
There is still the unresolved dock issue.
RICHARD SANSEVERE: Right, the dock was on the agenda. Whatever
conditions you want me to meet. I will do the best I could on it. I did float
the top off. Or lifted the top off. Only the frame is left. The pilings that are
in there. If you move them would go under. (cannot understand)
TRUSTEE SMITH: You are going to have a backhoe when you do the
cesspool.. So then he can pul1 the pilings in.
RICHARD SANSEVERE: I do not know if the cesspool contractor would
want to get involved with the waterfront like that. It is part of the marine
contractor to do that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is kind of simple.
RICHARD SANSEVERE: Whatever conditions I am willing to look into it.
TRUSTEE SMITH: I have no problem with the cesspools. But I would like
to see that framework taken out, because it is dangerous.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is a Board feelings that it is dangerous. The dock
should be the standard size. We have no problem with the septic.
RICHARD SANSEVERE: I will come into the office tomorrow. You can
give me the conditions that you want I am willing to look into (cannot
understand)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The permit that was granted August of 1999. A year
ago, we gave you a permit for 4'x20' fixed dock. We gave you six months to
comply. So I think that was fair enough, six. months, it has been twelve
months. So we would like to see that permit that is in place complied with.
RICHARD SANSEVERE: You wanted a drawing, an addition to the drawing
(cannot understand).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No we want a 4'x20' to comply with the permit that
we issued a year ago.
RICHARD SANSEVERE: What I am stating is that the decking would be
4x20. In July you did not mention anything about super structure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The dock is enough.
RICHARD SANSEVERE: We submitted another drawing when it came and
hopefully it will be enough. Correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is the permit. We saw it last mo~nth. We saw it
in August. I think that was the consensus of the Board that it should be 4'x20'
as the permit was issued for. Is there any other comment?
TRUSTEE SMITH: I will make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So moved.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the
stipulation that the 4'x20' fixed dock comply with the permit issued for same.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
E.BROWNELL JOHNSTON & KAREN B. JOHNSTON request a
Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 68' catwalk, a 2-2 ½' X 12' ramp, and a
6'X 20' float. Located: 4001 Wells Rd., Peconic. SCTM#86-1-9.4
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of
the application?
E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Good evening, my wife and I are here. We
appreciate your visit that we had. last week. We just wanted to make sure
with the direct effect to the revisions that we all talked about there. Are there
any questions?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I do not think so. We might. Is there any one else
who would like to speak in favor or against the application?
MR. HOLMES: 1625 Indian Neck Lane. We live across the creek from the
proposed dock. I have one question I have never seen a plan for it. Here
where they talk about the catwalk. Is that from the waters edge out or is that
start on the marsh land. Because from the waters edge out .you are talking
about 80 some odd feet out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No actually most of the structure, I should not say
most. At least half the structure will be over the marsh. We were out on
field inspections last week. I am looking for the correct set of plans. If you
would like to take a look.
MR. HOLMES: I would like to take a look.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think the catwalk starts 43 feet back from the waters
edge.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This shows about 30 feet into the water. The float
sticking out about 50 feet into the water. Balance of it would be upland.
MR. HOLMES: So more than half of it would be upland.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
MR. HOLMES: I only have one other question? I had heard that if you
have a three foot walk it only has to be three feet up from the height of the
water I do not know if that is true or not. But if it is? Is there any possibility
of .you can get by with the three foot wide.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we always press that issue with the DEC.
Because we feel that the height of dock is inappropriate on small creeks. It is
doubtful that they would approve that. Which to us does not make any
sense. That is their policy.
MR. HOLMES: Can I get the name of the dock guy. The only reason that I
ask is I have an input from the environmental engineer. Who has come up
with. Which sounds like a great solution. That would meet all the
requirements of the deck and still allow very short ramps coming out from
the waters edge. The lktle trick is putting little stops on the pilings so that
the dock can not go any lower than.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So that it does not rest on the bottom.
MR. HOLMES; It will reach the requirements. He can do that very close to
shore. Short ramp you can not see much of.and it is a lot cheaper. So I was
going to try in touch with him. It does not affect us personally. But it might
help other people on the creek.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: we have approved some dock with that condition.
Put a stop on it. So that the float does not sit on bottom.
MR. HOLMES: Oh okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments?
MR. JOHNSTON: For the record we are going to try with the DEC to create
a solution.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay Thank you.
MR. GRANT: My name is Roland Grant, I am at 1775 Indian Neck Lane,
across the creek. I suppose you went dowel to the sight. When you
measured the channel that was there. How far does the dock itsetf extend
into the channel. Or does it extend into the channel.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken how far is it?
TRUSTEE POLlWODI: We measured it.
TRUSTEE SMITH: It does not go into the channel.
MR. GRANT: From the waters edge the dock extends how many feet into
the creek.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: A total of 56 feet from the edge of the marsh.
MR. GRANT: Where does the channel start from the marsh's edge?
The concern that we have and I am sure the Board would also have. The
problem is that the channel is small there. The blocking of the navigation
of the channel once that dock is put up. Might be a problem there.
I know from my side, which is a little more wider part of the creek that
where their dock is being put up. I know that at least 50 foot out where I
have my pilings put in the channel was not there. The channel actually
runs on the other side of the creek. It just runs offthe marshs edge of the
of the marsh edge on their side. The thing is that extends 34 feet into the
creek. Is that putting it into the inside of the channel?
TRUSTEE SMITH: I would say no.
MR. GRANT: Do we have soundings out to 50 feet.
TRUSTEE KRESS: Yes, I have soundings here. I do not know how
far that they go. The soundings on the survey extend 125 feet from the
shore ling. Now the originally proposal of the dock was 75 feet from the
shoreline. The amended proposal is about 50 feet or 56 feet from the
shore line. This other survey shows it extending it is not 56 feet beyond
the edge of the marsh. It is closer to 20 feet beyond the edge of the marsh.
Twenty six feet beyond the edge of the marsh. It is only 26 feet beyond
the edge of marsh.
MR. GRANT: That is the floaters, catwalk,
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That included the float. If you would tike to take
a look here. We have the soundings out to 125 feet. It is only going to be
26 feet out.
MR. GRANT: So they are only extending 26 feet in here. So that should
clear and have plenty of navigation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It will be out of everyone's way. Certainly.
MR. GRANT: That is really our own concern just to make sure it is
navigable.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure.
MR. GRANT: If that is the case it does not inhibit the channel we have
really do not have any problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can seeit has been shortened considerably
from the original proposal. I think we might want to include stops on that.
I think it might help with the DEC with stops on the float. So that the float
could not rest on the bottom. Any other comment on this application?
TRUSTEE SMITH: I make a motion to close the hearing on Johnston.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE SMITH: I make a motion to Approve the application of
Johnston with the addition of float stops to keep the float from resting on
the bottom.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
Let me just mark this one the one with the L shape.
Suffolk Environmental Consulting Inc. on behalf of ELLEN A. GROPPE
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single family dwelling, driveway and
septic system. The 24'x36' proposed dwelling is to be built on piles and
located 47 +/- from the wetlands. A 40' non-disturbance buffer is proposed
adjacent to the tidal wetlands line. Located: 985 Bay Shore Road, Southold.
SCTM#053-03-012
POSTPONED UNTIL OCTOBER AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST.
S.E..Long Permits on behalf of TIMOTHY & NANCY HILL requests a
Wetland Permit to install a 4'x45' catwalk. A 3'x12' ramp and a 6'x20' float
with 2 piles. Located: 360 Oak Avenue, Southold SCTM#77-2-2
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone who would like to speak in favor of the
application?
SUE LONG: I am Susan Long I am here tonight to conclude this tonight.
I know you were at the site last week. I was out there also. I will let you go
first if you have any questions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We did not see the end of the dock staked. We also
need soundings out past the dock. Because there is a concern that it is an in
shore channel and there is a flat beyond that and we do not want to put a dock
in the middle of the in shore channel.
SUE LONG. I can give you another copy. Way back when the application
was first submitted. You questioned whether the soundings were accurate.
You thought that they were much less than what was indicated. Since that
time the soundings had been taken four different days. They were taken again
last week at low tide. Each time the soundings were taken we get 42 to 43
inches of water at the float. The float is staked and was staked last Tuesday.
In fact we put additional stakes landward where we proposed to cap off the
start. In addition to the stake that was at the end of the float. Were we get
43" of water last week. The range is. I got 40 inches one time but everyone
else has been getting 42 or 43. at dead low. Last week as the result of a
telephone conversation I had with the New York State DEC. They only
found 2-1/2 feet of water. I am insisting that they go back again, because they
were recommending that we go back and extend the dock system out. An
additional 17 feet. I went back out there. I know that they are in total error
because the soundings have been taken out on different occasions. When we
went out last week we put a stake out there. I faxed a memo to the Board
hopefully you would have it when you went to the inspection last week.
Letting you know that the most seaward stake out there was the 17 foot mark
that the DEC wanted. My son went out again. The next night Tuesday, He
went out at dead low. He got 43 inches. The night before on Tuesday, He
went out back again at dead low. He got 43 inches, he went out back again
on Wednesday. At dead low with a depth finder and he found 42 inches.
Seventeen feet seaward we are still getting 42 to 43 inches.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seventeen feet seaward is what? The floating
dock?
SUE LONG: The seaward end of the floating dock. Since the DEC when
they called me they told me that they found 2-1/2 feet of water in the middle
of the day. I spoke to my client and my client and my client had taken
soundings on two occasions. So I called the analyst and spoke to her and
then I sent a note to them. Asking them to go out again. I did speak this
morning to Chris Arfsten and Chris was out there and he did not saying
anything about that I was in error or anything. I do not know if he found the
soundings. When you spoke With him. Anyway, I can give you another copy
of the plan. Showing the water depth.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have that, but we need the water depth beyond it.
SUSAN LONG: I have that. It is on the second page. Id'you have the plans
of March 1st.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We do have that. The one that says that the water
depth varies from 36 to 40 inches out to 50 feet there. There after 50 feet is
over 6 feet deep.
SUS4AN LONG: Yes, we have been out from the end of float. We went out
50 feet at ten foot intervals and we were getting 36 to 40 inches ofwater.
From that point on there was a drop when we went out a couple of soundings.
TRUSTEE KRUJPSKI: This is typical of all of our dock applications. Not
with you. It is typical of all of our dock applications. That the soundings, you
took soundings, the DEC took soundings. It looks like we have to take
soundings. Because no one is happy with the soundings We have just
recently hired one of possibly two people who in the future taking soundings
for the Board on every dock application. Because this is ridiculous to keep
having such a problem with soundings. So the applicant is doing to pay for
the Board appointed person who takes soundings for us on every dock
application. To take low tide soundings. We go out on the site and we look at
it. Kenny says gee there is a flat fight past there. We cannot put the dock in
the middle of the channel and we have to go back and forth. We just spent
eight months on the last application and I was out there with a kayak and
Kenny was out there a couple of times with me.
SUSAN LONG: We were too.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not on this one. On different ones and it is a waste of
everyone time.
SUSAN LONG: Yes this one is six months old.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: well this one was held up for other reasons. This was
held up for title searches and whatever. Which I am not sure it that is total
resolved.
SUSAN LONG: Six times I have done the soundings. I came up with 40 to
43 inches and we went out beyond that and got to the point where the channel
and we have fifty feet beyond the end of the float out that still ranges in the
area of 36 to 40 inches. Beyond that point with the channel you are talking
10
over fift:y feet out. I am honestly upset if you are going to hold this approval
up.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The end of the float was not staked. We were there
on Wednesday. We were all there. We sat in the Adirondack chairs and there
were no stakes in the water. There was one stake on the land. Where it
started.
TRUSTEE KiNG: You said your son went out on Wednesday and did more
soundings. Was the stakes there then?
SUSAN LONG: Yes ! do not know what time he went out. He started early.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were there at high water. We were there in the
afternoon.
SUSAN LONG: Maybe they were covered up. They were only sticking out
of the water about 2-1/2 feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It was pretty high fide.
SUSAN LONG: Trust me. When you put those stakes in it was so dead low.
I measured the part seaward of the marsh and it was seven feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were aggravated because we have to go there.
There was nothing staked. There was six of us, what are we doing here.
SUSAN LONG: I am here trying to conclude this.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are not going to vote on this obviously, since we
did not see it. We were all there and it was in the afternoon. I wish we could
have someone inspect this. But I do not think it is fair to the applicant to have
them pay for soundings now.
TRUSTEE KiNG: No
TRUSTEE SMITH: No
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we are going to have to go out them somehow and
do our own soundings. Because if the DEC believes it is over a foot
difference from yours. That is a big difference. You are not fighting over
inches. This is a problem.
SUSAN LONG: There was no discrepancy actually this morning when I
spoke to Chris Arfsten about it. The only thing that Chris advised me that he
would recommend. The DEC was going to recommend that the catwalk be
extended to the sea wall. They wanted extend about 15 feet. So that the
growth underneath to continue. Also Chris said that there was slate on the
ground as a walkway and he wants them removed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is this a proposal for a seasonal dock like the adjacent
docks.
SUSAN LONG: No it is for a permanent dock, but we do not know what the
DEC going to do with it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not only that but because it is an area where seasonal
docks are for some reason the norm and that the property in question is not
the applicant's. So we will table this hearing. We have to deal with this
again next month. We have to go down them again.
SUSAN LONG: It is unfortunate because the stakes that we used, they were
ten feet tall and I did not give a thought how high the tide would rise. So okay
tell me what you want.
11
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To pull the stakes up a little bit.
TRUSTEE SMITH: So that we can see the stakes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to recess it?
TRUSTEE KING;: So moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI:: All in favor. ALL AYES
We will be there on the 18th in the morning, so if you could just make sure
that they are there on the 18th. Check them on the 17th.
Ed Goodwin on behalf of ASTRID GADDIS requests a Wetland Permit to
build two bulkhead landward of existing secondary bulkheads to terrace bluff
in levels return wall to be built on east and west side connecting new walls
north and south. So neighboring properties have no erosion problem. All
material will be 1.5 CCA lumber. A set of stairs will be placed in same
location. Sand area to be planted with beach grass. Montauk daisies, rosa
rugosa. Located 7020 Great Peconic Bay Blvd. Laurel SCTM#125-11-6
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor
of the application?
ED GOODWlN; With regard to the property. If you have any questions?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You looked at this Jim?
TRUSTEE K1NG: Yes, I would like all of us to take a look at it. There has
been a lot of work there. Frankly, I do not see a reason of doing any of this
work.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There is nothing on the neighbor's property.?
TRUSTEE KING: I just felt uncomfortable with it. The house is being
completely renovated. A lot of work going on there. It is a nicely vegetated
bluff. Beach grass all on it. It seems silly to tear it all up and change
everything around.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is the reason for the proposal?
ED GOODWIN: He is renovating the house and he wants to never have a
problem on the bluff.
TRUSTEE KING: Is that deck down there. With the little beach house and
the showers everything all on his property.
ED GOODW1N: No that is the neighbor.
TRUSTEE KING: The next door neighbor.
ED GOODWIN: The survey states.
TRUSTEE K1NG; It is a strange piece of property
ED GOODWlN: It is very narrow it is only 65 feet wide.
TRUSTEE KING: This is the area where all the work was done.
ED GOODWIN: I have to tear out anything between the bluff
TRUSTEE KING: There is a lot of work going to be done. I really do not
know why they are doing it.
TRUSTEE KR~SKI: Well this looked like a pretty straight forward
application. Apparently it was not.
TRUSTEE KiNG: It looks like they are going to tie right into the neighbor. I
would say.
ED GOODWlN: It would be separate. Each property owner.
12
TRUSTEE KING: That is why I would like to have more than one trustee
look at.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are going to have to table this and take a look at it
as a whole Board. Sorry about that.
ED GOODWlN: It will be another month.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because it is more complicated than it looked like in
the field.
TRUSTEE KING: I would like to see more details in the plan for the work
that is going to be done.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We need a plan with a cross section on it. Showing
how the work is going to be done.
ED GOODV~qN: Actually I have pictures of another job. Which is very
similar, comparison.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure, thank you.. Do you make a motion then.
TRUSTEE K1NG: I will make a motion to table this application until next
month.
TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
Give that one to Lauren too.
J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of PETER F. WERTZ requests
a Wetland Permit to reconstruct in kind in place +/- 208.5 of timber bulkhead
and a 24' return in kind in place and backfill structure with +/- 15 cy of clean
sand to be trucked in from an upland source. Located: 1080 West Lane,
Southold SCTM#88-6-15
Tape change
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I will make a motion to Approve the application of
PETER F. WERTZ to reconstruct in kind in place +/- 208.5' of timber
bulk~head and a 24' return in king in place and backfill structure with +/- 15 cy
of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source. Located 1080 West
Lane, Southoldi NY.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That the non-turf buffer be added.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: And that a 10' non-turf buffer be maintained.
TRUSTEE KRESS: All in favor. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We hired, maybe you heard. We hired someone to do
soundh~gs for the Board on any dock applications. It is going to cost the
applicant an additional fee. We hired a separate person todo soundings,
because every dock we go out on. There is always a problem with the water
depth. Somebody in the Board does not think so. Because they know the
area. There is a low spot here, slab and then we go out again and I have to go
with my kayak or Kenny has to go out with his waiters. Months go by and
everyone is unhappy and the DEC has completely different soundings. We
are unhappy with what we have been getting in and we want a standard
accounting. So that is what we are going to do.
13
TRUSTEE SMITH: Do you want to explain to them that on all the
applications if everything is not staked and not in place.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There will be an additional $50.00 for each'
inspection. If we go out there and it is not staked, not posted. We cannot find
it. It will be another $50.00
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Incorrect information.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We spend a lot of time driving around. We spend a
lot of time looking at things that we have to go back again the next month.
There is six of us out there. It makes for a long day when we have to go back
out the next month again.
ROB HERRMANN: I would like to make a comment. You may want to
change your policy on the postings. You notice the typical homeowner and
you take my client's I am doing it for them. But it says seven days prior to the
heating. Seven days is seven days. If the Board for some reason changes k
schedule. It goes out a day early or you are there early in the morning. The
homeowners posted it 12 o'clock in the afternoon. You are going to punish
them in spite that they are actually followSng the Boards regulations. You
may wish to make that notice change.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. We will make it eight days prior to.
Good point. We do not want to punish anyone Rob. It is true.
TRUSTEE KING: Bigger signs.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The ZBA has signs that are enormous. You cannot
miss it. The postings we have had that big of problem with, but occasionally
we have a problem. Things that are not staked.that becomes a problem.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: So what is the deadline for applications? Week prior to
field inspections.
CHARLOTTE CLrNNINGHAM; No it depends on the legal going into the
paper. So it could be two weeks.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So it could be two weeks before.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: So it could be up to two weeks before field inspection.
So when do they get the sign to post. The day of field inspection.
CHARLOTTE CUNN1NGHAM: No we send it usually the week before. We
mail it to them.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: So what is the problem? You have fourteen days.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our official policy says seven days. Rob is right.
Official it says seven days. That is not fair if someone puts it up in the
evening of that day.and we were there. We will have to make it eight days.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I know when I did mine. The minute I got it I put it up.
J.M.O~ Environmental Consulting on behalf of KATItRYN & FREDERICK
STUTZMAN requests a Wetland Permit to construct an additional to an
existing single family dwelling, construct porch, new driveway, retaining wall
and garage. All proposed work shall take place 51' landward of an existing
functional timber bulkhead. Located: 3066 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue
14
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on
behalf of the application? Against the application? I visited the site today
there is a big drain in the driveway. Which I took upon myself to see where it
entered out to and of course empty unto the beach. So as the condition of this
permit I do not have problem with the additions to the house. But as a
condition of the permit I would like to put on. Actually what does the CAC
say put in adequate dry wells. It is a fairly new pipe it is not an old pipe. It is
a black plastic pipe. It is not corrugated. What do you call that pipe Artie.
The black plastic pipe.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It is ADS it is black corrugated with a solid center N12.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is fairly recently put in. Any one else have any
other comment on this? Do I have a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to Approve the application with the
condition that the pipe be removed and sufficient dry wells be put in to
contain their driveway and roof run-off. So that it not be discharged directly
onto the beach. Is there a second on that?
TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES
J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of FISHER'S ISLAND
COUNTRY CLUB requests a Wetland Permit between the 1~t Fairway and
the 2nd Green to remove material that has eroded into an existing drainage
ditch, then to install soil erosion matting in the existing ditch to provide for
proper drainage. Between the 17t~ Tee and the 16th Tee, the applicant
proposed to remove existing collapsed drainage pipes and to remove any
material restricting the flow throughout the existing ditch. Collapsed pipe
shall be replaced with 18" P.V.C. piping. Between the 1a Tee and the 1a
Green, the applicant proposed to install approximately 250' of 18" P.V.C.
piping. All drainage in aforementioned areas has been impeded by collapsed
pipes. To install +/- 220' of vinyl sheathing along edge of existing ditch. At
the bottom of the 16th Green, the applicant proposes to re-grade a 60'x70' area
and then to re-vegetate area with Spartina Patens which shall be planted on 6'
center: Along the 14a~ and 16th Holes, the applicant proposes to install erosion
control blankets place staked hay bales on top of the blankets, and to raise the
elevation of the area to prevent flooding and therefore erosion into the existing
marsh~ Area shall then be replanted with grass. Located: East End Road,
Fisher's Island SCTM#1-1-3.13
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone would like to speak in favor of the
application?
TRUSTEE KING: We are going to have to table it. Went on Friday, and we
went to look at it. Part of area that they want to dig out was not really
staked.where they want to do the work. They are going to stake out the area.
All this business is the banks of erosion for this little ditch.. Part of it is
muskrat damage. The DEC concern is that they are going to open all this up.
15
They are going to drain all the fresh water down, They are going to remodify
all of the plans. I will make a motion to Table it until next month.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of DOUGLAS & CAROL RYAN requests
a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x200' fixed timber walkway, a 3.x14. ramp
and a 6'x20' float. Located: 3710 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue SCTM#103-9-2
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any one here who would like to speak in favor
of the application? Is there any one who would like to speak against the
application? We have a revised request for a Wetland Permit for a 169' fixed
timber walkway four feet above grade with a 3'x12' ramp and a 6'x20' float
will not exceed 56 feet from the water's edge. Is everyone familiar with this?
We were out there in August. It will match the length of the neighbor. I do
not think that you were here before Pat when another one in Richmond Creek
with less than four feet water depth. We require that they put stops on the
float, so that the float does not sit on the bottom. Which is also increase their
chances with the DEC. Because the DEC has a problem of the float hitting
the bottom, which is going to keep it off the bottom. Really low water.
PATRICIA MOORE:: What are the stops made of?.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Chain or metal tings.
PATRICIA MOORE: You mean it is.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is attached to the pilings.
PATRICIA MOORE: So then it cannot hit the bottom at extra low tide.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is right I do not know if you were here when we
told other applicants. We are hiring. Let us finish the public hearing. Any
other comment on this? Everyone happy with this.
TRUSTE POLlWODA: With regard to the fixed walk way make sure that the
pilings are no larger than 6 inches in diameter. Hand dug no machinery in the
wetlands.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We had a problem around the comer with that.
machinery in the wetlands and a dock application mid it pumped up a lot of
material onto the marsh. They made a big mess. When you go into a nice
healthy marsh like what Mr. Ryan has. We want to see that protected for his
own benefit. Smaller pilings in diameter which cannot pull out. They should
be hand dug into the marsh.
TRUSTEE SMITH: I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So moved.
TRUSTEE KRU~SKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
PATRICIA MOORE: Can I have the conditions?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we will go over them now. Ken will you make
a motion here.
TRUSTEE POLlWODA: I make a motion to Approve the application of
DOUGLAS & CAROL RYAN for a fixed timber dock 14~x169', 3'x12'
ramp, and a 6'x20' float: Located 3710 Beebe Drive with the condition that it
is not 56 feet beyond the marsh and the pilings for the fixed dock not to
16
exceed more than 6 inch timber. It will be hand dug. No machinery in the
marsh.
TRUSTEE KRESS: That the float will have stops on it. Preventing it
from hitting the bottom.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What we wanted to tell you before we start the next
application. We are hiring someone to do soundings for the Board. Because
we have such trouble not with you personally. But with almost every dock
application. The soundings we are never happy with.. The DEC is unhappy
with the soundings. There is always three versions of what is going on. We
are tired of making repeat inspections. It makes the process much lengthy by
going back and back. So it is a Board appointed .sounding person. The cost
will be past onto the applicant at the time of application. We are looking at
hiring two people. We have not formally hired both of them yet.
PATRICIA MOORE: Do you have someone designated already?
TRUSTEE SMITH: One is Charles Harvey of Greenport.
TRUSTEE KING: The other one is Kenny Meskill. He used to work for the
DEC at one time.
PATRICIA MOORE: When we present our applications (cannot understand)
so we may not need it in our case.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No we need it in every case. Because anyone is free
to submit any information that they want. But we want the Board to have a
consistent soundings. Set of soundings for every dock application. Because it
is bad for the Board. It is bad for the applicant. Because it just drags on.
PATRICIA MOORE: When we are finished with our review. We can
discuss what it does not provide.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not on any specific one. I am talking.
PATRICIA MOORE: No generally, from now on and in the future. I
understand.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Every applicant. We are not singularly you out.
PATRICIA MOORE: You are just telling me personally.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have been telling everyone right along. Because
it has been a problem. We do not want to single anyone out.
TRUSTEE KING: We should make a format of the guidelines.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We had a discussion with Mr. Harvey. We need
someone whois familiar with the tides. That it blows two days out of the east.
It is a little higher today than normal. Or it is blown out of the northwest all
day so it is a little lower than normal. So we want a normal low fide.
Hopefully that will stream line the process.
PATRICIA MOORE: Well it will be your guy so you will not argue with us
over whether it is accurate.
TRISTEE KRUPSKI: You are free to contest it. But you might not. You
might be very happy that this was done for the applicant. When you look at it
17
you might say they should be thrilled with this, this is accurate, it will take a
burden off your job.
PATRICIA MOORE: I rely on Bob who I know does a very good
professional job and is a licensed surveyor. So I do not know the
qualifications of the people who are applying and I will not comment on it.
10.
Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of THOMAS & ROBY GLUCKMAN
Requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed dock, consisting of a 4'x98'
fixed catwalk, 3'x14' ramp, and 6'x20' float to be secured by two (2) 8"
diameter pilings. Located: 1350 West Cove Road, Cutchogue
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the
application?
PATRICIA MOORE: Before I begin I do want to express our appreciation
for allowing us to be on this evening. To apologize for the confusion that
occurred during the inspection. We relay our apologizes to the entire Board. I
assure you that if you wish to go back to the site. I will make sure that you
have refreshments. That I will personally be there. To make sure that the
gates are opened and available to use them. Tell me what time? I will be
there serving coffee or sof~ drinks.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No that is all right. It will be in the morning of the
18th of October.
PATRICIA MOORE: 18TM of October. We will find out the time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It will be hard to tell. Cutchogue is in the middle. So
we usually start to the east and work to the west. It depends on the schedule.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can ask Charlotte.
PATPdCIA MOORE: Yes, Charlotte was very helpful and it was not her
fault.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We went out to the site in August. We requested that
the project be staked. It was not. So we could not do the inspection. We
went out last month and the gate was locked. I even tried to see maybe we
could hook over the gate and it was not. That was sufficient to discourage us.
With the dog sign and it was locked.
PATRICIA MOORE: We appreciate your attempts. To begin this
presentation I have with me this evening Thomas and Roby Gluckman who
are the property owners. Also with me is Jim Walker from the Inter-Science
Research Associates, Inc. he is my expert and will be presenting some detail
information and testimony to the Board, as well as exhibits. To begin with
you are all familiar with the code. I know that some of your own records, and
there are several permits that have been granted and I have outlined in my
application. We have the Gluckman application that you are familiar with.
We have proposed 129'.of length of the dock. From the bulkhead to the
waters edge or to the water. There are several other docks that are in this
cove. Adjacent property owners, one is William Moller, which the application
was submitted in 1993. and approved in 1994. However, the construction was
late, when you compare Gluckman to the other properties that I discussed.
18
The Gluckman property is a 4 acre parcel with 300 feet of water frontage. So
when you look at this situation I want you to keep the size and length of
waterfront in mind. The Moller property is 1.9 acres with 170 feet of water
front. If you need approval from this Board for a length of 135 feet. So the
description I have and I will not extend the evening by going item by item.
Peter Izzo is a also within that toe. He made an application March 1998 and
was approved in December in 1998. The total length of his dock is 123 feet
and in fact is positioned in such away that it is in the area of the lagoon. Also
Blair and Izzo together with regard to maintenance dredging in 1998. It was
amended 1999 which gave them access by way of the road, crossing the marsh
for the equipment. Finally, Jim Riley is probably the most blatant example of
how permits have been issued in this cove. His application was made in
December of 1998.and approved February of 1999. This Riley dock is a total
length of 113 feet. There is also the dock of Collins which is a pre-existing
and O~Grady which I did not list here because the construction has not taken
place. I think O'Grady is being held up by the DEC and I believe his
application is still pending. What I did is identified each of the properties,
described them each of the permits that have been granted permit numbers and
also took photographs of the area. I took photographs of the Gluckman
property. The Riley dock which I highlighted for your benefit. Also
photographs and description of the Moller dock. The Riley dock. I again
identified the area where the Izzo dock will go. What you will notice right
away is this area has numerous docks. Approval for numerous dock in the
area. Again the Gluckman application which started to prior to some of these
docks being approved and I am going to submit that to you for your records
and again I know your evening is busy. So I will ask you to review them at
your leisure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
PATRICIA MOORE: Because Mr. & Mrs. Gluckman can not be here at the
next meeting. Should you choose to continue this hearing. I have asked Mrs.
Gluckman.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually we do not choose to continue it. It is the
applicant.
PATRICIA MOORE: You may have questions for the applicant. Mrs.
Gluckman has suffered from disabilities for some time. It is a degenerative
disease and I am going to ask her to come up and explain what her condition
is. I have the doctor's evaluation that was just confirmed as an up date since
yesterday. I am going to submit this for the record, but I am going to ask
Roby Gluckman to explain her physical conditions and the need for the dock
that has been proposed
TRUSTEE SMITH: It really does not have anything to do with this
PATRICIA MOORE: I will disagree. The ADA laws are making it more and
more clear that access by way of building permits, structures. The way of the
world is to give out for people with disabilities. Certainly, Mrs. Gluckman
qualifies for this disability and the need for the dock that we have proposed.
What the DEC has considered as the flimsy seasonal dock. Would not be
19
adequate for Mrs. Gluckman and I think it is very relevant to the fact that what
we proposed is not only reasonable but it is necessary to provide for Mrs.
Gluckman's needs. Also the desire to have access to her boat. I mn going to
ask that she place some information on the record and as far as the ADA
claims that is to be determined later on.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What claim? Could you please define that? ADA.
PATRICIA MOORE: America Disabilities Act and claims can be brought
against the Town for violation of that. I know that we have discussed with
Mr. Sansevere as a matter of fact. That the first time that we actually looked
into it. It was their literature on that issue. Mrs. Gluckman is an example and
I think it is something that I would like to have put on the record. Things get
worked out but I need a record that all the issues that are potentially issues.
Thank you
MRS. GLUCKMAN: I do not want to bore you with this. The medical terms
the words that I do not understand. All I know is that my knees are
deteriorating due to two broken legs. (Cannot understand) I have a letter here
.from my doctor which I received today. Because I cannot walk through the
rocks onto a row boat, rowing to the dock pulling myself up and I am in a
position that is deteriorating. Not only to myself but also to my family,
because I cannot be with them. My grandchildren and I want to enjoy my life.
This summer I tore my rotary cup which can be very painful. So I would
really appreciate you can help me out. At least resolve this. I just want a
dock. So that I can have a quality of life. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
PATRICIA MOORE: The letter speaks for itself with respect to the medical
condition and I appreciate the short and sweet. The bottom line is that she
cannot get access to her boat. By way of the alternatives that have been
presented to her. So I would like to submit this in the record, I have the
original, letter here from Dr. Stuart Katchis. He is in New York and I believe
when the application was first submitted there was a letter in the file that was
submitted to you. We just want to show that conditions have not improved.
They have deteriorated so that her medical conditions are relevant to the issue
of providing for a dock that is adequate.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thm]k you.
PATRICIA MOORE: Jim Walker is here tonight. The environmental issue is
something that you do not want me to testify to. Because I do not have the
expertise in the environmental issues. I would ask that Jim Walker now to
present to you his report.
IIM WALKER: From Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc. I have a
written report. There are six copies which I am submitting one for each
member of the Board of Trustees. I also present an additional copy which
you may want to forward to the Conservation Advisory Board. So what we
tried to do with this report. Is address permit issues regarding this dock. Try
to identify ways and solve the problems with dock and issue permits that
allow this project to be successfully be completed. The first important thing
to look at is the new survey. The new survey is important to the typographic
20
map. Basically what it does it references the County. It seems that the county
will provide it on the map and spot elevations and the natural contours. Most
important part of that is New York State DEC requires soundings that reach a
depth of 14 feet low mean high water, mean low water for a permanent dock.
What we did was. We revised the dock lay out to show the most efficient way
to reach the four feet contour. Which basically goes up to the dock that
Moeller he might put in. After insisting on reaching that four f
oot. We were able to come up with the solution which greatly reduces the
length of the dock. With terms to the second copy of the survey in
Greenport. The location ten foot off set the town property line.(cannot
understand) . Pat and I did a new proposed dock for somebody. That float
reaches at the some of land that is important because of New York State DEC
problem and to allow plenty of dock. It shortens up the length of the dock by
five feet.(cannot understand) The report that you have in front of you is a
designed meredith it includes the premise that I have applied for. It included
the discussions where we did the soundings. But also includes some
information from the title bench mark. These people that you used to know,
hired people that are going to do soundings for you. This particular type of
survey is a hygrographic survey. It is based on 19 VD and intertitle bench
warrant. It is used to determine the elevations of the title bench warrant and
the actual soundings. The most important part of that particular information is
that mean low water is different for every title bench. This particular instance
it is 0.1 for mean high water. What we are trying to tell you is that the
hydrographic survey you are getting information. Relative to 1929 survey of
series of high and low fides that are measured and pro-type issue. This will
give you the most reliable information will be accepted by the New York
State DEC. That being said you have soundings that are actual. They are
based on the most reliable information that you can get.
TRUSTEE KING: Can I ask you a question. Are you telling me that this is
more accurate than someone going out and actually measuring.
JIM WALKER: Yes, any given day.
TRUSTEE KING: Where were these sound'mgs taken?
JIM WALKER: The soundings where taken. It does not matter.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes it does matter. Bottoms change. I have been a
Fisherman for thirty years. I can show you bottoms that change in the matter
of weeks.
TRUSTEE POLlWODA: I would like to comment. In the past year and a
halfI have visited that site, myself. I have walked out there with a pair of
waiters and I did not find the soundings to be correct. I have walked out there
at times when it gradual decreased at the dipped and then in actual increased.
The flat came up where the dock is proposed. The soundings are wrong.
JIM WALKER: It is easy for you to say that. You can sit up there and be
clinical.
TRUSTEE KING: I am not being clinical, I am being realistic:
PATRICIA MOORE: I refer you to 97-21B which is your Wetland
application process and it refers you to the survey that was Galvin which party
21
is considered to be the method. That is why when we discussed the fact that
you wanted to have soundings done on an individual bases. I know you
personally disagreed. However, in the code as well as a recognized scientism
Method and recognized method for determining the measurements.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This does not seem to be based upon field conditions.
Was any measurements done physically in the field?
JIM WALKER: Yes, sir. The survey NGBD for the proposed soundings
(cannot understand) Listen I think we are getting away from the problem here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh we are away from the problem.
JIM WALKER: With all do respect to the Board and Mr. King. But what we
are given you here is four foot depth which will be recognized by DEC. The
Board of Trustee is really the problem here. The Board of Trustees is going to
dictate unreliable and usual dock requirements. What we did was shorten up
the dock to 124 feet period. What if that reaches four foot of water. I do not
think that is the problem. The problem is that the New York DEC wants to
pull the dock back to 105 feet Require six docks to be put in and taken out
every season. What that is going to due. It is going to make the bottom be
disrupted every single spring and fall. Tape cut off. You can say that the
survey is a little bit different that you normal see. But I have put in for the
records the particular information that you really need. What we did was to
locate the floating dock that is going to be there in four feet By doing that
the project sponsor hopes to secure approval through the Board of Trustee, go
back to the New York State DEC to get a permanent dock. If you do not have
a permanent dock in this location the Board of Trustees provides by the
Conservation Advisory Counsel to vote it back to 100 feet. Yes you are saving
24 feet of fixed catwalk out into an estuary that is why all those regulatory
agencies (muffled). By doing that you are going to encourage the project
sponsor to have to build something that is unreliable and that will have to
come in and go out every spring and every fall. It will disrupt shell fish in a
manner that is different and unusual and that I do not believe is the correct
way to go. All that information in there, we gave five copies.for the Board.
One for the Conservation Advisory Counsel. The project sponsor dispute
the idea of a shorter dock. The DEC review recommends a 105 feet for a
seasonal take out dock. It recommends 4 inch by 4 inch piles any dock
builder will tell you that is not going to give you a reliable dock. In my
opinion it would be much smarter of the Town to require to have the
Gluckman's build a permanent dock with regular round pilings and have that
structure stay in place which is a reliable residential dock. In stead of having
the dock go in and out I will answer any questions that you have
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I need a brief answer from you on one thing. I have a
few other questions? The second survey in the report. The darken one that
shows the ten feet off the property line. The end of the float reaches the four
foot contour. The float itself is not in four foot of water. Why would you
think that would satisfy the DEC?
JIM WALKER: Because if you went back and told the New York State DEC i
that we are trying to build the shortest dock possible. They would review the '
policy and they will issue.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The float is not in four feet of water?
JIM WALKER: It encourages it to try to push it out professionally. Five or ten
feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is incorrect. I amnot encouraging you to push it
out. I am asking you a question. Why do you think that the DEC would
approve a float in less than four feet of water.
JIM WALKER: The position that it is within is in four feet water.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The float itself is not.. The float itself is not in four
feet of water. I was just wondering why would the DEC.
JIM WALKER: That side of it will be in 3'7" of water. What is the
difference between I do not think it is sufficient enough for the DEC to
discourage the application. Could they allow a permanent dock in that
particular lay-out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This survey here. It does not show soundings? Along
the length of the structure it only shows scared spots soundings. Why is that?
JIM WALKER: Because the project sponsor commissioned a hypsographic
survey. Yesterday, I determined where they actually go. (cannot understand
muffled)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we are kind of getting off the subject also and I
think that what the applicant wishes is access to the water. We met with the
applicant two years ago on the site. I believed what was discussed then was
that it is the policy of this Board. To grant the shortest possible structure and
still provide access to the water. What was submitted two years ago. Which
is still in the file here. Showed a structure to 2 '11" x2'8" it is always the
policy of the Board to pull the structure back to shore as much as possible to
minimize the affect on the environment and to minimiZe the affect on
navigation. I think it was the feeling of the Board at that time that it was no
point in going out how many feet. To the old soundings. Which was prepared
for the applicant on 11/18/98, There was no point in going Out an additional
twenty or thirty feet. I think it is in the minutes that you provided us for
additional few increases of water. That has always been the policy of this
Board. That to put a structure out twenty or thirty feet more feet in order to
gain a few more increases ofwater depth is just not a good argument.
Because of the environmental issues. We are not looking at what the DEC
will or will not approve, what the Army Corp. will or will not approve. We
are looking at what is best for Southold Town and to provide access to the
water for the applicant.
JIM WALKER: I understand what you are saying. Before I let Pat talk. I
want to deal with the thrust of what you just said. You said to shorten the
dock and reduce it. That is a good idea. That is a good solid thing that the
local town's should do. But you have to understand that when you are dealing
with a private sponsored ad you have to satisfy three other regulators. That
once you go back you are going to get a take out dock. If you have a take out
23
dock the Town of Southold you are going to disrupt the bottom. It is not
environmental wise thing to do. I am not trying to rub it in your face or say
that you should have to cow down to the New York State DEC. The situation
is and that is the way it is. Southampton, Bridgehampton. We deal with these
cases all the time. For seventeen years I have been doing this type of project
and I tell you what. The best solution that I can see is to satisfy four feet of
water or whatever is required to get a permanent dock in that particular
location. So that the Southold Town does not have allow a stick dock which
has to be hauled in and disrupts the bottom, disrupts shell fish and causes
adverse environmental consequences.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: YOU are talking about going to hearings for the DEC to
get this dock. He just said that.
PATRICIA MOORE: It is a possibility. We do not know how far we are
going to have to get. We believe that it is the proposal will give the DEC
what they want, as far as reaching four feet of MLW.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But you do not understand. My question to you two
is why should we treat this application any differently than we treat all the
other dock applications. That is the question?
PATRICIA MOORE: I understand and you should look at every signal dock
that we have addressed in this cove. It is in fact consistent with the dock that
she was granted. What we are talking about are docks that are consistent with
the Moeller dock, the Riley dock that was very resent which has just been
approved. You have the Izzo dock. All those docks are comparable to the
one that we proposed. So you are not treating us any differently. In fact to
treat us in any other way, which to treat us differently from the others. That is
why we are here this evening because the last time you addressed this issue.
We there after saw Riely and Izzo get,approved. So it is certainly puts the
applicant on notice that something wrong here. Why are they not being
approved and the Izzo and Riley docks are. Even more so the Riley dock
required actually clearing of a beach area. Where the wetland were. There is
photograph in your file when the application was first submitted. The entire
area was vegetated with beach grass. The current photograph of what the
conditions are today. There is actually a beach there, and there has been an
elimination of the beach grass. So in fact, things have deteriorated. What we
are suggesting is comparable. Secondly we presented to you evidence what
the DEC wOUld do to Mrs. Gluckman if a shorter dock was submitted to
them. If you give them a flimsy dock that is a seasonal dock. I was speaking
to a DEC officer what is the rational with regard to a seasonal dock. One of
the descriptions that were made well they are less sturdy. They come out
easily and people tend to put smaller boats on these docks. The rational
makes no sense and eventually I am hoping some One will take then to task.
However that has not happened yet. In the meantime all of us that are here
this evening is facing the conflict between the DEC and the Town Trustee.
With respect to your policy. We have litigated that issue.and the Freeman case
is fight on point in the same cove. The Supreme Court in New York advised
you that the policy is not legislation and it is not something that you can hang
24
your hat on. So it certainly can not be used as the basic for the denial of this
application. So we have presented to you, one environmental bases for this.
It is compatible with your environmental both. Two it is consistent with the
other docks in the area. Three, you are going to extensional eliminate the
possibilities of Mrs. Gluckman to be able to get access to the water and when
you say that we give you access. Well giving access to a dock that is 56 feet
but certainly Mrs. Gluckman in her condition will not satisfy her needs.
Again she has three hundred feet of water front. Three hundred compared to
every other dock that you gave in that area. The equity of the situation is
really questionable because, as far as the fight to water access. The cases are
clear that you have a right to get water access and the degree of water frontage
that they have. They should without any question be able to get the dock that
they are requesting. It is a reasonable request. We even came to you and
suggested an aiterative location with a slight reduction that we think that the
DEC will approve. Because it meets their criteria of four feet MLW. The fact
that the dock just reaches there. Probably splitting hairs but I think it is
something that they will ultimate approve, because the alterative there is we
certainly will end up in a municipal hearing there are that issue. Because the
rational just does not make sense. None the less the point is that it is
reasonable in this case. I have Mr. Walker here. I will ask that he submit his
personnel vitae and his resume for the Board to add to his report which I think
is quiet important. I also ask you to read through it. There is a report that is
referenced to me the Coastal Report.
JIM WALKER: I think the one you are talking is Environmental Impact, I
think that it is basically important to see in my pictures that a small boat a
residential dock. The ecology of small boat area has been documented by
Hugh Grant. (cannot understand) In most respect to marina areas of the marsh
cove area it appears to be but comparable. No different then the number of
shell fish below the residential dock to provoke the ecological consideration.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But what you said is all your opinion. I do not think.
You are saying that it is fact and very little of it is. What you just said.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I just have one question for Pat. Do you think that
I am qualified to measure the depth of the water and take the soundings.
PAT MOORE: No offence but I do not think that you are qualified. (Can not
understand).
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Who is qualified?
PAT MOORE: I am certainly not qualified to give a depth. That is why I rely
on surveys by Bob Buff, who certainly is qualified. The DEC relies on his
information and I would hope that you would too. As far as what yoU ask
your professionals to gather to confirm the information that is given to you. I
respectfully ask that you look at your Town Code and see whether or not that
it is an appropriate method. I suspect to confirm~what people are giving are.
However, as you know, when you are out there measuring if someone goes
out there at the next day. At the same there may be slightly different equation
25
So you will always have slightly different equation that is why the NBD is
used because it takes the standard. I have asked Tom Samuels to speak to the
Board.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just before he starts I think we have been through this
before a few years ago. I think the Board felt because of the lack of gain of
water depth over the length of the structure. That the structure should be
shortened to maximize the water gain and minimize the length of the structure
.I think that is the Board's policy on all dock applications and I do not think it
is fair to single out a few applications. I think you have to look at all the
applications we have granted in the past two years over the whole course of
the town to see that it has been standard policy of the Board. We have to visit
the site. Hopefully next month it will be staked. So we can actually look at it.
PATRICIA MOORE: Do you want both docks staked? I guess that is a
suggestion. We have the one that is 10 feet offthe end of the property line.
That does give you a shorter dock. It meets the requirements and will allow
the Gluckman's to get a dock from the DEC. So that is what we thought was
compromise position that we would allow you to meet your goals, and that
everyone gives in a little bit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We usually do. It is very rare that push comes to
shove on any of our applications.
PATRICIA MOORE: Well we can tell you that the most we can compromise
is that what we proposed. We suggested that as a matter ora way to try to
resolve this matter without ending up in Court.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You know, Pat, we are not worried about Court.
Because you are the only applicant that always threatens us with Court. You
are out of how many hearing we have every night. You are the only one that
threatens with Court. So we are not really worried about Court. This survey
that you have submitted with an alternative dock location shows no soundings
between MLW and four feet. None at all. It shows what is drawn in as a
contour line. But the accuracy ofthat is sort of vague. Because there are so
few soundings around it.
PATRICIA MOORE: As Mr. Walker stated that particular alternative was
provided after we had the map. Because we did not know what the depth of
water until this hydrographic map was prepared. So first comes the
hydrographic map. Then goes the possibility of alternative locations. So that
is what we did. We moved in such a way that it makes sense. To reach the
four foot MLW and locate the dock. We have flexibility in the location of the
dock. As long as you are reaching the depth of water. That ~411 meet other
regulator agencies.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It seems to be an awfully inconvenient area to put it a
long way from the steps. A letter was just submitted about the applicant's
medical condition. This is putting it further away from the stairs.
PATRICIA MOORE: Just to clarify we have to move the landing to provide
access to that dock. From a new landing site. Obviously the location of the
landing
That is presently will not provide the access that is need.
26
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It does not show that on the plan.
PATRICIA MOORE: We just want to know where you want to place the
dock and we will work around the location of the access to that. We want to
know where you want this dock to go. Then we will work around the
positioning the stairway for that purpose?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It has been the Board's policy that the dock, any dock
be located 15 feet offthe property.
PATRICIA MOORE: In fact I think that we were t~ying to avoid the wetland
spot that is shown there on the survey. We were trying to create an
appropriate distance from that.. The locations of that dock there is some
room. There is about 15 feet left of room. If you want it 15 feet from the
edge of the property we can certainly accommodate that.
MR. SAMUELS:: The particular applicant is a classic Catch 22. There are a
number of gentlemen herewith the same premise of people, Chuck Bowman,
Bob Hems, Jimmy Walker. It is a quandary it is a Catch 22. The Gluckmans
are placed in the same position as quite a few other people in the five east end
towns. In point of fact there is now a law suit in Shelter Island. But the
Shelter Island trustees are also members of Shelter Island Town Board had a
knock down drag out fight with the DEC over this issue. They too want to
limit the length of the dock. I have spoken to several of our trustees and I
have been told this is the Board's position. I understand the Board's position.
It is a valid position the Gluckman's do not need salty water in their dock But
they are in a box. Now the DEC regulations as I know them. Although a new
set which has been very recently issued. Do not get into this matter of water
depth at the end of dock. The Gluckman's would get by with what they want
to use the dock for. In probably in 2-1/2 feet ir 3 feet if water, But they are in
a box, This summer, one of our applicants accepted after great effort a stick
dock on Peconic Bay. The dock was installed the being of August. By the
middle of August. It have to be repaired. You cannot have a dock on the bay
on by 4x4 sticks, stick dock. There are some places where they exit in Mecox
Bay which is a very enclosed body of water so there is not a lot of wave
energy. This particular location is protected in most wind directs except
severe northwest or west winds. Southwest they are pretty good. I just
brought tonight a recent court decision were the State Appellate term roles in
favor of the Patton's again in Huntington Town. Where Huntington V'fllage
fought Huntington Town over jurisdiction of the bottom. I believe if the five
east end towns which ban together they would get their fights re-established.
They have been taken away from them since 1977. What this Board has to do
in my mind is to confront the situation. I do not know for what extent you
have had conversations with the DEC. I try do not, But we have seen
property rights in this particular area and their your property rights as well as
the Gluckman's. Because with your approval that we use your bottom in your
creeks and so on and so forth. Therefore, you should be able to determine
who and what you build. Or allow to be built. The situation here is that if you
get a DEC permit. According to their new guide lines as I understand them. I
do not believe that the State Legislator has changed the regulations about how
27
long docks should be. Or how deep the water should be at the end of them. It
would appear to be some sort of a political agenda to discourage construction
of docks. There are very few places in Southold Town where you can have
four feet of water. MLW and have a dock. The bay men in Southampton, the
bay men in East Hampton, the bay men in Shelter Island are all upset about
this ruling. Because it interferes with their activities. If the idea is to construct
stick docks that come out and that is ridiculous. The Gluckmans are not
interested in a long dock. I am not interested in building long docks. You are
not interested in seeing them. We live here. Ihe DEC in its judgment feels
that is a way of reducing I would say the number of docks. Because it is
patently alchemical position that they have taken. IfI own a canoe or a
whaler that draws 18 inches or two feet why do I need four feet. Why do I
need four feet? It interferes with navigation. Stick docks are environmental
nightmares. You are turning the bottom in the fall. They are expensive and
limited. They do not stand up. You loose them all in a bad storm if they are
on the bay. If they are on the creek you are going to loose to ice damage.
That is what it is all about I have had no fear in my admiration for the
trustee's right. I have no fear I fought for it. We took the State to Court forty
years ago. All five trustee's bodies of the five east end towns filed statements
in favor of the east end maintaining its own rule. As far as the use of the
water ways. We went to the State Supreme Court for the highest court in the
State. The case was lost because the Supreme Court says that the DEC has
fleet policy. But this goes well beyond fleet policy. This idea that you have
to build docks that are unattainable condition. Four feet of water. Cab you
find four feet of water at MLW in Depot Creek? Ken
TRUSTEE POLlWODA: Near the channel
MR. SAMUELS: Pretty hard. If you are in the channel Which is the other
rub. What has happened in the Quogue Canal and Tiana Bay and places like
that. The DEC is saying that you have to build your dock out to the edge of
the channel. It is madness. It is truly madness. What do I suggest if the
trustees would issue a permit for a dock of less length than what has been
applied for. The reason for doing so. Then there is going to be public hearing
by an ALG who works for DEC. That public heating can be requested to be
held in Southold Town Hall where it should be held. Not in Stony Brook, not
in Albany where people can reach. Each and everyone of you trustees should
be there. I guarantee you the first one that is held. You will have the trustees
from East Hampton, Southampton, Shelter Island and Riverhead. In
Riverhead the Town Board are also the trustees. When we allowed them to
split from us that is what they did. But that body of political power should
have some beating on this case. Because the DEC position is patently
ridiculous it does not make sense. Unless you are going to have a tremendous
explosion in marina expansion which the town does not want either. Because
of the problems intended with those. You are going to continue to have dock
applications. You have to give people something that they can use. Which is
all that I am asking the trustees for. Something that will meet the
28
requirements of the Gluckmans. They do not want to bring a 53 foot Hatteras
into this dock. They want a tender to get out to a sailboat. That is the point.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that we agreed with most of that. We would
like to grant them a dock. That they could put a small boat on and have
reasonable access to the water and I agree with. We should not roll over to
the DEC absolutely not. We should approve a structure that is consistent that
is approved in Southold Town for the benefit of Southold Town.
MR. SAMUELS: I find that condition tenable that is what has happened in
Southampton.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We meet with Ray Calander during the week-end and
we spoke to him about this. Needless to say it was not resolved.
MR. SAMUELS: It has been lip serviced for over two years now. He is not
the problem it is not Ray Calander.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The four foot rule does not really make sense.
Because you go around to our creeks. The outer edge of the dock is in four
feet of water. How many times to you see a boat on the top on the inside in 1-
1/2 feet of water. What is the purpose of having a four foot rule?
MR. SAMUELS: Makes no sense at all. It makes no sense at all. But
Calander is not willing. There has to be a test case at ALJ. It is unfortunate
we are always looking for people that will challenge irrational positions that
the DEC takes,
PATTRICIA MOORE: With all do respect to Tom Samuels. The Gluckmans
do not want to want to be the test case. They want the permit and allow you,
your administrative channels to challenge the DEC policies. They are
inconsistent with the Town Trustees.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely, but we should not roll over to the DEC.
That would be pathetic if we just roll over. So the DEC wants it 130 feet long
whatever. Okay we will do whatever they want.
PATRICIA MOORE: In this particular case. We have the room to move the
dock over to meet the Court needs: and the length of all the other docks in the
area. I appreciate you wanted to shorten it. However, it is consistent with the
other docks in the area. We meet your criteria both environmentally and
structural. The Gluckmans do not plan to be the test case because what
happens is. You approve a shorter dock procedurally you end up in court
because the applicant has to preserve their rights. The Gluckmans end up in
Court with you and an ALJ hearing with the DEC. That is procedurally what
happens with a permit which is left and what we have proposed. So it does
not create a very tenable position for the Gluckmans~ They do not want to be
in the middle of a cat fight between jurisdictional battles between the trustees
and the DEC.
TRUSTEE POLlWODA: Just for your personal knowledge. The early
comment that the soundings (cannot understand). I do believe that I do have
the qualifications for soundings. Out of college I had this job possibility
(cannot understand).
PATRICIA MOORE: They should hire you because what they are
suggesting.
29
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I just want to let you know that I believe my
depths when I do out and measure..
PATRICIA MOORE: Not to be insulting in any respect. With all do respect I
have to rely on data that is certified and I cannot challenge what you are
doing. Because I do not have the time of the day what it is to compare to. So
it is nothing personal.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Believe me it would be qualified ifI did take the
soundings.
TRUSTEE SMITH: This dock to the south, I think it is Moeller and the dock
you are showing with the shade in area is actually a little shorter than that
dock.
PATRICIA MOORE: Slightly, it is within inches of each other. Because of
the angle in the cove. The Moeller dock actually will be further out into the
navigational channel. Then the Gluckman dock. Remember this is a cove and
it is on an angle. So the Moeller dock is sticking from the edge of the land
further out.
MR. SAMUELS; Moeller's dock is 135.
PATRICIA MOORE: We are proposing 124 we are shorter and visually
shorter:
TRUSTEE SMITH: Pat, I think once you get this staked in its new location. I
think this will be resolved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would also like to see soundings along the dock.
This is insufficient information. Accurate water soundings. Physically taken
not taken from the 1929 survey. But physically taken in the field at low tide.
PATRICIA MOORE: I understand that but we still have to rely on the data.
TRUSTEE FOSTER; It is unreliable.
TRUSTEE KRLrPSKI: It has not proven reliable yet. There is no soundings,
no water dePth where the dock is proposed.
PATRICIA MOORE: We will try to met your request.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If we can have access to the property and have it
staked. If you request different access to the beach.
PATRICIA MOORE: Different access to the beach through their property.
MR. SAMUELS: It depends where it is located?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: that would make sense. If they want to put a stairs
where the dock is located. I do not think that is a big deal to move the stairs.
To make it easy access for structure. That is not unreasonable.
PATRICIA MOORE: I am sorry I misunderstood you mean access for
construction or access for.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No.
PATRICIA MOORE: I apologize.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Access for the Gluckmans to access the dock.
Because where it is proposed it is a long ways off from
PATRICIA MOORE: We did not change the access. We only gave you an
alternative ske for the dock as a possibility because you can reach the level:
The access we can move it once we know where you would prefer to see that
dock placed.
30
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In August it was not staked. In September it was not
available. We do not want to go out in October and then have to come back in
November again.
TRUSTEE SMITH: It is getting colder all the time.
PATRICIA MOORE: Yes it is I was out there in the water so it was beautiful
when I was out there.
TRUSTEE SMITH: If you show that dock 15 feet off?the property line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: that is the policy but 10 feet maybe better if it was
closer the neighbors. I do not have a problem with this.
TRUSTEE SMITH: I would like to see it go 15 feet, because that is our
policy. Five feet on 300 feet is not going to make a big deal. Physical
soundings if someone takes with a stick measuring every ten feet at low fide.
Your plan for the access to the dock from the top of the bluff I think this
would be resolved.
PATRICIA MOORE: We will provide all that material for you on the 18~.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We will be there in the morning.
PATRICIA MOORE: I am just talking with Jim Walker to see if he can
provide you with the diagrams.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is the property going to be opened?
PATRICIA MOORE: I do not know. Mr. Poliwoda wants to go out the day
before the 18th.
TRUSTEE POLlWODA: I do not have to go on their property. I will go by
boat.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are going to take a brief recess. (Tape change)
11.
Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of MICHAEL McALLISTER
request a Wetland Permit to install a timber stairs beach access and stone
armoring along the existing blufftoe. The stairway is proposed to be 100'+/-
long, and 4' +/- wide with a proposed 4'x8' timber platform as a resting area.
The proposed stairway is proposed to be supported by 4"x4" CCA timber
posts. Existing deteriorated timber remains of retaining wail and stairway
proposed tobe cut at grade as necessary and removed to an approved upland
location: Applicant also proposals to install 150 linear feet of stone armoring
at the existing toe of bluff 170 linear feet total including the proposed returns.
A proposed 100 +/- cubic yards of"Natural" stone (1-2 ton) is proposed to be
placed on filter fabric on grade along 1,280 s.f. of existing bluff scarp.
Proposed stone installation to be approximately 8" wide at 170 linear feet
total. Located: 17665 Soundview Drive, Southold SCTM#51-1-3
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The only thing that I can think of is that I looked at
this in the office about two weeks ago. For some reason I looked at something
about only looking at the pool. Maybe it was a different one. It was someone
who wanted to move a pool back.
GENTLEMEN: I have no problem with you looking at it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I am sorry I apologize because it was submitted in
timely fashion and I know that we did not look at it.
31
12.
13.
GENTLEMEN: Just keep this mind. Initially the owner had put in a request
for the bulkhead. We have a rock armored on it. The DEC has turned that
down. I just wanted to say softer soil erosion are controlling. (cannot
understand)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you again and I apologize. Is there anyone else
here to comment on this application
NEIGHBOR: Yes I would like to. Jim Boyle I have lived there for 67 years,
The thing that I do not understand is just how far out on beach is the dock
going to go? I know that the high tide comes right up to the phragamites.
The high water comes up to the bank and then that beach there. So if you put
in eight feet of rock
GENTLEMEN: Eight feet is on the float.
JIM BOYLE; Oh so it is coming down the bank to the beach. I looked at the
diagram and I could not figure it out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We require this to be staked in the field.
JIM BOYLE: It would be nice to have it staked showing the extension.
TRUSTEE KRESS: We will be out there again. We are going to reset the
hearing because it was our fault. For whatever reason no body saw it. There
were six of us there on the field inspection last week and no one saw it. So we
will be out there next month.
TRUSTEE SMITH: We had time to see it to.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we will reset the public hearing. We will not
conclude it. Any other comments?
TRUSTEE SMITH: I will make a motion to recess the hearing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
En Consultants, Inc on behalf of LISA El)SON requests a Wetland Permit
to construct on pilings a one-family, two story dwelling, deck and swimming
pool, install a precious driveway and sanitary system, place approx. 850 cy of
sand fill, establish a 30' non-disturbance buffer adjacent to tidal wetland
boundary and connect to public water and other utilities. Located: 9326 Main
Bayview Rd. Southold SCTM#87-5-25
POSTPONED UNTIL OCTOBER AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST.
En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of NORMA HINSCH requests a Wetland
Permit to construct (within 18" of existing) approximately 98 linear feet of
timber bulkheading and backfill with approximately 45 cubic yards of clean
sand to be trucked in fi~om an upland source. Located 77290 Peconic Bay
Blvd. Laurel SCTM# 126-11-10
ROB HERRMANN: Of Eh-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of the applicant.
Norma Hinsch it is a very straight forward application. It is adjacent to the
identical project approved by the Board. The past year, for Mattituck
Associates. It is a one time replacement within 18 inches that will line up
with the Mattituck Associates wall and replacement of the existing bulkhead.
32
14.
TRUSTEE KING: I just had one question on the groin. Why do they want to
see that with a hole in it.
ROB HERRMAN: I am sorry Jim.
TRUSTEE KING: Why do they want to leave that groin with a hole in it? It
really is not doing much. Could they replace it with a low profile. Clean it up
a little. While they are going the construction.
ROB HERRMANN: The applicant is not interested in undertaking a groin re-
construction now. That is all I can tell you.
TRUSTEE KING: It seem foolish.
ROB HERRMANN: I can pass that along.
TRUSTEE KING: You are going to have someone doing the bulkhead. It is
ridiculous not to clean that little groin up and straighten it out.
ROB HERRMANN: Your comments are well taken.
TRUSTEE KING: Other than that like you say it is just a straight forward
bump out.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Why don't we make it part of the permit.
That they have to take care of it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How long is the groin?
TRUSTEE KING: It is short, only maybe 15 or 20 feet. It has a section
missing at the bulkhead and it really is not doing anything. Right in here it
has hole right here.
ROB HERRMANN: The groins are not in great shape. If she changes her
mind. We can come back to modify but I cannot compel her to.do it.
TRUSTEE KING: It just makes sense while you are there with equipment.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The state's land there obviously the state is not going
to compel to remove it or replace it.
ROB HERRMANN: I never have had an occasion where the State wanted us
to do anything with a groin. I am usually fighting to get it replaced. As I said
I can pass the comment along.
TRUSTF, F, KRUPSKI: If it were not functional we would not approve it.
TRUSTEE KING: I would suggest it. Can't force her to do it.
ROB HERRMANN: I will pass it on. She can discuss it with the contractor.
See if they want to do that? If so, I will come back and amend the permit if
not there is not much I can do about it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments?
Do I have a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved.
TRUSTF, F, POLIWODA: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KING: I will make a motion to Approve the application to replace
the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of STRONG'S MARINE INC. request a
Wetland Permit to remove and replace (in-place) +/- 268 linear ft. of existing
33
timber bulkhead with vinyl sheathing. Dredge by clamshell bucket crane up
to 20' of bulkhead to a maximum depth of 4'6" ALW. Approx. 200 cy of
clean sand will be trucked in from and upland source and used as backfill.
Located Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck SCYM#122-9.-6.2 & 122-4-44.2
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any one here who would like to speak in favor
of the applicant?
ROB HERRMANN: I am Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
STRONG'S MARINE 1NC. this hearing was opened last month. It is a fairly
straight forward application. Again for marina maintenance because the
Board had asked for two machines to be used. One was for the proposed spoil
site on the property to be staked which it was and I hope the Board was able to
observe that during field inspection. The other issue you had asked me to take
a look. You had been discussing at the last hearing with Jeff Strong about
widening the parking area. When I went out there that is exactly what I had
found. They had asked me to flag the tidal wetlands boundaries for the
purpose of future applications. When I went out there as you described it
looked like the parking area had been plowed inclusive of the phragmites to
about a foot behind my tidal wetland boundary~ So there were phragmites
taken out. There were no wetlands cleared but it was cleared right to the
wetland boundary. I do not know how the Board wants to handle that. If you
are handling it as a separate issue or violation, as a fine or what ever. They
had in response to your comments last time and went out and sort of sand
burned along there. As I explained to Jeffthe phragmites will not have a
problem growing back. But it was pretty clear what they were doing. They
widened parking areas for storage at that location.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right
TRUSTEE SMITH: They put gravel on to.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They added gravel. What we are going to need from
this applicant. Is what we want to see a 20 foot buffer between the wetland
fringe and his parking area.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well we said 30.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is 20 reasonable or 30.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: No that is what we talked about was thirty. But you do
what ever you want to do. If you want to reduce it to twenty?.
TRUSTEE SMITH: I thought it was twenty.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Okay.
ROB HERRMANN: I do not know what the footage is but it would make
sense to me to basically have the buffer what was there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We do not know what was there?
ROB HERRMANN: What is that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is all covered. There is a substantial amount of fill.
ROB HERRMANN: I would have to check but I think that I may have a
survey that shows the wetland boundary verses what was the existing
phragmites line. Because as I said we had done this for a future presentation.
I do not know for sure that showed, if Joe Gagen office showed the
phragmites line. I can tell you exactly what was cut. But in lieu of that or
34
lacking that a twenty foot buffer is probably about wider than was in some
places and probably a few feet narrow was in other places. Some places there
was not much expansion the wetlands are right there. In other places it looks
like it went down about twenty feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It really is obvious.
ROB HERRMANN: Oh yes that is why I did not know What you are talking
about. What you were saying last month. It did not look plowed to me, but I
do know what you are talking about.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: After he is done we are going to need a stake row of
hay bales to be placed there permanently. The area should be pitched and it
should have not mn off into the wetlands it should provide drainage on site
for the parking area. We want a survey certainly showing elevations because
the survey does not show any elevations. We are not sure about Mr. DeFino
site as a spoil site? That might not be appropriate for a spoil site there. It
might increase the elevation and cause further mn-off and sedimentation into
the creek. So that might not work as far as a spoil site. He might have to track
off his materials to an upland source.
ROB HERRMANN: The question was, you say a lot of things. The first is
the spoil site I would have to take another look at it. It is obviously basically
an area of a vacant lot. That invites the phragmites all over it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Pretty wet down in there to, Rob.
ROB HERRMANN: Depending how the spoil was laid out it might be
possible to increase. We would have to confer with Mr. DeFino..
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But if you really want to pursue that as a spoil sight.
We will have to see a survey with one foot contours on there. So that we have
a really good idea what is going to be done.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It is wet in there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It goes down we walked in there where it was staked
and it gets wetter as you go down. You might have to do a couple of boring
there. To show what the soil conditions are like. We might not approve it any
way because I said it might increase the mn-off'and sedimentation into the
creek and it might be a bad idea.
ROB HERRMANN: We are awaiting comment back from the State anyway.
So they may have additional comments on the site. So that may need to
involve. We have to discuss this with Jeff whether this is something of how
they struck the agreement to use it as a spoil site. As far as the parking area.
You are asking for elevations also in the sewage area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is right.
ROB HERRMANN: That is to serve what purpose?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It would serve as a bench mark for future activities
there. Which is a big plus.
ROB HERRMANN: In terms of elevations.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Also to provide a reference point that he is actually
controlling his mn-off and not like now he is running sediment material into
the creek. So that improve that also.
35
ROB HERRMANN: I can certainly relay this information but I do not know
if it would be provided by next month.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I do not know if the Board would want to proceed
with violations here or what? There has so far a lot of the work has been
done there.
TRUSTEE SMITH: I think we should proceed with the violations.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make sure that this all moves along. We are not going
to act on the rest of the permit Until this is resolved.
ROB HERRMANN: That is why, I asked the Board if it does see fit to take
an action against the marina and that should come through later so that can be
rectified.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That gives them an idea what has to be done to take
care of what he should take care of. I will make a motion to recess the
hearing.
TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
15.
En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of JAMES & LILIAN MlltALIOS requests a
Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit to construct +/- 93" timber retaining
wall with (2) 12" angled returns and truck in from an upland source approx.
150 cy of clean sand to be used to backfill and planted with Cape American
beach grass (1" on center) Located: 640 Lloyd's Lane, Mattituck SCTM#99-3-
4.1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I will open the hearing for your comments. But I
would just to like to ask a question. This is a bulkhead that is proposed in
between two other bulkheads.
ROB HERRMANN: No this, this was going to be my first comment because
this project description is now updated This is a proposed retaining wall that
is proposed that is proposed between two proposed retaining wall as indicated
on the plan. It shows the proposed retaining wall and then it shows the
proposed Peck retaining wall to the west and the proposed Reis retaining wall
to the east. If you are asking me that question based on how the project
description was read I do not know why it would be written exactly that way.
There is no structure to the west or to the east.
TRUS~ KRUPSKI: That is what I was wondering about? The returns.
ROB HERRMANN: The returns have both been eliminated. Pursuant to the
most recent plans drafted August 28t~
TRUSTEE KRI~SKI: I am sorry.
ROB HERRMANN: The returns have both been eliminated.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Now you can make any other comments.
ROB HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann from En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant. JAMES & LILIANA MIHALIOS. As we did last month the
hearing subsequent to this will have to handle procedurally however this is
part of what is now a four-parcel project. So my comments would relate to all
36
of them. Specifically at the last hearing we discussed the Mihalios and the
Peck applications. At that time there was proposed a retaining wall only with
some beach grass planted and back fill behind it. There was going to be an
easterly return on Mihalios side. And there will be openly a westerly return
on the Judge Peck's property to the west. The new applications before the
Board tonight.are for the two properties to the east.ofMihalios owned singly
and separately by George & Rochelle Reis .and solely by Rochelle Reis
farther to the east. So the easterly most return now will actually be on
Rochelle Reis property. The other return would be on Peck's property. The
Board had specific to this application asked for. I think your primary concern
about this particular application had to do with the drainage point. For the
sake of time and that the record is already covered we will not rehash the
discussion. Except to say that at the Board's prompting the Mihalios did have
prepared by E.S. Kalogerso, P.E. a drainage plan that was submitted, reviewed
and approved by Town Engineer James Richter and subsequently installed.
There was a letter submitted to you office this afternoon from Mr. Kalogerso
stating that the drain system has been substantially constructed and completed.
As to the soil on my shoes will show you that I went out myself tonight to
confirm that those things certainly do appear to be substantially replaced. So
the drainage situation was addressed subsequent to our last hearing and the
design approved and installed. Although I do not know the latest word I
understand from the Mihalios that Mr. Richter has already been invited to go
out and inspect the property. I do not know if it is practice to do so. But he
has been invited to do as it is completed. The Board had asked to see more
comprehensive bluff?restoration plan. In addition to the retaining wall a
certain degree of terracing to be done on the bluff?as well as the regarding of
the crest of the bluffin order to improve the vertical (cannot understand) So
in a plan revised and dated August 28th. We do show in great detail the plan
in the Board possessions a revised prospect and that would show terracing
plan. I do not know if he will in fact be the contractor but he did provided us
the plan by ".PLANTINGS BY THE SEA" and it would be a plan similar to
that approved by the Board and was taken by Louis and Linda Corstacks.
The entire project would become similar to that. In that we would have a
retaining wall with terrace walls up the face of the bluff?to be planted. Ideally
it would be planted with the deep grass it would be very good and Virginia
Creek Grass it would be typical vegetation provided to me by Mr. Strone.
What would perhaps separate it from the Corso application which the Board
brought to my attention specifically and I would believe in response to some
concerns would to undertake some sort of plan that would might other wise be
reflected and basically we would have 50 percent up and 50 percent down.
Against the face of the wall and perhaps even the toe in front of the retaining
wall and so the Board is requesting or would request a placement of toe on it.
As also in place on the bulkhead to the west.. The Cutler property. I believe
the applicants would be willing to do that and I believe it is something that
makes sense. I probably should stop my comments there. As I expect there
maybe some comments again from the Cutlers or their representatives and I
37
will particular be response to those. So that I can shorten the amount of time
that I speak as much as possible. If the Board has any other questions or
concerns. We would be happy to answer but certainly I believe we have done
our indulgence in responding to all of the Boards concerns stated at the last
hearing. Subsequent to there too.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else who would like to comment?
CHARLES BOWMAN: Good evening, I am representing the Cutlers which
are the residence to the west of the Peck. Just to address the very general
comments. Certainly this project is one of those situations which has gotten
out of control. The way is certainly the wall which has created some
tremendous damage to the bluff The first thing that the Board should be
looking at is establishing the former toe where that bluff is. Right now there
is probably a foot to three, four, five feet of fill that has come, come down
onto the beach. I did not see a provision for restoring the drainage of the
beach and restoring where the bluff toe is? It also along the whole bluff. The
natural toe which is in a certain area along the whole length of k. Not only
on Cutlers but also on Peck and right down to the new project which you
have now. It is very important to keep that toe in the same place
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: May I interrupt you or are you almost finished.
Actually we went out as a board on field inspection on Wednesday. We
noticed exactly that I think the theory of the Board is to leave that material
alone on the beach. That is not the toe. The toe is where the toe was. Rob
Herrmann was out there and we had to move the stakes from where we
thought the toe was? Not where the fill has been washed. Rather if you look
at the big bluff you can see where the toe is. We moved it considerable up
against the toe.
CHARLES BOWMAN: In fact if you look on either side of the line. You are
going to see a toe on one side and a toe on the other side. That has to be
recovered and taken off the beach or pushed back up into the bluff or utilized
in the restoration of the bluff itself. There is a difference in and of itselfi
There are all sort of wood, debris all sorts of things. But part of the
restoration is to be cleaned up. Not left on the beach. That is it. The drainage
plan, which is paramount to get the drainage corrected. How do you restore
the state like the bluff Our clients are greatly concerned and absolutely they
should be. They have a heavily vegetated bluff.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Beautiful.
CHARLES BOWMAN: They take care of it. Bluffs are like lawns you have
to take of them. By drainage, by planting and by actual pruning you have to
take care of them That is one of the things that people do not realize and they
should be concerned. The Pecks are certainly in a very difficult situation
because there bluff, there vegetated bluff it is an adversely situation.
Certainly you cannot go back in history. But I think the Board should look at
the bulkhead which is being put in on the west side. That does have rock
armament that has a prevent scouring in that area. But if you walk up and
down. We also would have negative effect. They reflect wave energy and the
scouring of the beach. Or by the adjacent properties. The problem with this
38
whole scenario here is that it has grown and growing, and growing. What
you are going to end up with is a stretch of beach that is going to be overly
bulkheaded and hardened.. Because what is exactly happening here you start
with one owner and I can guarantee another owner will come in for
bulkheading, and another one come in for bulkheading and it will go right
down the line. You are going to adversely affect the beach. There are many
other ways to go. The bluff has to be restored and not only the DEC. but
certainly the Conservation Service recommends that you look at bluff
alternatives. Stone, there are lots of stone protection on bluffs they work fine.
They take the same elevations as a bulkhead. The bluff can get restored.
They use wide tract bulldozers. Low ground pressure bulldozers that cn
actually work right up and down the bluff regarding. Get the natural angles
out. There are all sorts of type X erosion. There are blankets now that are
available some made of fiber some others that lined with tiger skinning all
sorts of special stickers that hold the whole thing together. We have
tremendous success in re-vegetating these bluffs without a tremendous
additional expense. They are all quite shnilar and at very least. You should
be looking towards what is happening to the west. To the bluffs that are stable
there and if you can fringe into that. My own opinion is the whole bluff
should be done this way. Now that I found out that it is growing. It makes it
more so to do something to preserve the beaches. It is a beautify beach there.
I would think that the owners would want that beach preserved. Rock
armoring in front of the bulkhead produces that. That reflection of wave
energy does not eliminate it. If you have more of a slope structure that wave
energy is going to be dissipated it even further. I do not think any one in this
room is going to say that nothing should be done. You should leave the bluff
that is not the point at all. The bluff should be stabilized. It should be
restored. I think the property that caused this problem is the reasonability to
do of restoring the bluff and restoring the neighbors bluff. That should be
done properly so it does not suffer from additional damage. I would suggest
the Board to consider it an alternative. That we have stone use so that no one
has to come back to you during the four years from now and they have to
repair the bulkhead. That got blow out. You are done. The bluff is then
taken care of. It is stable it is planted and you are done. I! is not going to
continue this bulkhead, after bulkhead, after bulkhead scenario that is so
common and especially on the north shore of Long Island. I think you would
set a presentment to reduce the wave energy keeping the beach in beautiful
condition and planting, terracing certainly does work. My last comment there
are a lot of easy ways to do it. Terracing is a lot of hard work. There are
easier ways to do it that is not a tremendously high bluff to work on. You
have to recover the bottom material any way. So a LTV bulldozer can take
some of that material and push it right up take the debris out of it and it does
not have to be trucked away can be used on the process. Then there would be
additional fill to be brought in. Usually it is a combination of topsoil and then
the grading process. It all has been at time right time of the year. It all has to
be done in spring. To do it now, you are dead. That is from personal
39
experience. The spring of the year they can get it all in place. You have to
have temporary irrigation, because mulch is falling down and you watch it and
get everything to grow right for the first time. So that you are not going to
have a problem. But I think this plan needs some alternative and to make it
simpler more friendly for the beach. Certainly more friendly to Cutler's bluff.
Thank you.
ROB HERRMAN: Rob Herrmann of Eh-Consultants again I will try to be
brief. Do what I said I wanted to do to make some comments that are
responsive to those that have just been heard. Some of Mr. Bowman's
comments were very general. I will respond to those more appropriate. Most
specifically, I want to respond to his comments regarding the reason that he is
here. Which is not a general interest, but in the interest of protecting his
clients. Which is a well found interest. I would certainly suggest that the
Board would be different position as far as the Curler's concerns. If the
proposed structures were up drift and or adjacent to the Cutler property. But
in fact it is not. There are three basic types of potential impact the beaches
from hard structures. One of them is passive beach loose which you see by
Atlantic Ocean. Fire Island for example is transgressing land ward. It would
not matter what type of structure you put. Whether it would be rock, timber
concrete whatever, So in that regard as far as an alternative concern. If Long
Island Sound began to transgress at a rapid rate. It would not matter what was
there. The second is beach loose. The retaining wall actually well beach
loose if you would take a hard put it out and let us say in the middle of the
beach. I think Chuck was getting at that. Well let us define what the real toe
of the bluff is. We cannot take out where the delta is because then you are
actually taking away beach that was there. Which I think was certainly the
productive element of redefining with the Board in the field. What the toe of
the bluff. I think that can clearly be seen by looking at the westerly end of
Peck property or whether was built to the east because that was where the toe
was at the time the Board approved that bulkhead. Or where Goldsmith that is
adjacent to Cutler, so I would certainly agree with those comments when we
review them. The only qualification that I would say that using one to three
ton stone, rock inventment. Would replace more of the beach. Than using a
pertaining wall with tin armor renew. I think that is legible but it is just an
interesting point. I think most controversional is how the hard structure like
this can actively negatively impact the beach. There is two theories that are
most commonly accepted. Certainly most easy to witnesses. One would be
what is called down drift scouring. And we disguised this at the last hearing
where if you take a harden shore line that is located up drift of a unarmored
shoreline and if you have a general direction of literal drift and wave energy
coming in towards that property. Wave energy is reflected and refracted
around the return that is the whole idea instead of having 90 degree returns
having angle returns and switching armored angle retains these are all the
things that the agencies have done to mitigate that type of problem but you get
these erosive down drif~ reentrance formed on that property. The problem
with of throwing that theory out on this project is that the Cutlers are not
40
down drift. They are down drift of Goldsmiths retaining wall, which has been
there for thirty years. So if the Goldsmiths entire bluff and beach front were
going to be destroyed by a retaining wall in placement. We would have seen
more evidence of that coming from the Goldsmiths retaining wall. I do not
really have any observations or comments on that other than that bluff looks
pretty good, but that is not pertinent here. The Peck retaining wall was
specifically designed not even to run all the way to the Cutler's property. It
was not to cause what even as preserved impact. These properties are down
drift of the Cutler's and as Chuck describes the project is growing. It is
growing farther down drift to an existing retaining wall one property. (Tape
change). The other comment of how you can go about restoring the bluffface
I think is six of one and half dozen of the other. There are ways to do by
terracing and by erosion control and that. I guess it depends on which
contractor wants the job Either way the goal is to revegetate the bluff and the
final note when we are talking about to look for alternatives I would say
certainly that the Sinsalot heating which unfortunately could not be at. The
project has certainly been involved and been tailored to these very types of
concerns. But I think certa'mly the point the alternative I would always say
that when you are looking for alternatives that you would want to look for
near-by projects and where have with respect to failure or success in the past.
If the goal is to restore the beach, and restore the bluff, Certainly I do not
know if the Board recalls. A1 you might have been the one on the Board. I
think Hemy this was during your hiatus. But when Ronald McGreevey was in
the same association. In fact the last property which came before the Board.
The McGreeveys had undertaken I think something like 12 to 15 years of
measurements of their bluff toe. How it eroded and had done all these other
things and we went through the same routine with the association giving
permission and the McGreeveys went from a bluffthat was completely devoid
of vegetation and being badly scoured every year. To having a retaining wall
and having a toe armor and then having that bluff completely lushly
vegetated. I agree with Chuck it is an unfortunate situation that has developed
in some of areas that were vegetated before but I think if we looking to correct
this measure. We can look not to theory or text books or some of the things
that I am talking about but just look at the identical projects that were
approved by this Board. Which were undertaken to the east and to the west. I
think that they have been very successful. I referred to the Corso project
before because it was a larger project. But it was the same idea with the same
result. So I think with the drainage addressed with the plan that is in front of
the Board. The terracing through the plantings through the toe armor for the
lip re-grading I think that we have addressed these concerns the only one that
was not brought up as Chuck said perhaps was the beach clean-up I intend to
agree wkh the Board when we discussed it about leaving the material on the
beach front, because it will become a natural re-nourishment project. For the
owners that located down drift. Unfortunately, it will not swim up to the
Cutler property. But if the Board feels that it would he necessary or
appropriate to remove that material. I think that Tom Samuels indicated that
41
would not be problematic and I think the applicants do that as well. I would
leave that to the Board since it ultimately is your beach front. It is owned by
the association who had given it blessing to the Mihalios and the two Reis
projects as it is their beach front but naturally resource belongs to the Town. I
would defer to your decision. That would be the extent of my comments and
would allow the record rest as far as our presentation is concerned
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
ROB HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SMITH: I think a lot of this stuff is top soil that is down there,
Rob. That does not really belong on the beach.
ROB HERRMANN: It is a mix. Them is a mix of it which is why I said for
areas that are clearly with top soil
and any debris I do not think that there would be any problem having that
removed for simplicity sake of having ail removed and relevell to what the
adjacent existing beach grades are. Tom is that a problem?
TIOM SAMUELS: No we did one last winter and k was trucked very close
to the line in Old Field. It was well supervised.by Chuck Bowman.
CHUCK BOWMAN: Am I to understand that this whole project is going to
have toe on it. The whole length.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We required that in the field.
TRUSTE FOSTER: Armour stone.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Including the returns. Especially the returns...
CHUCK BOWMAN: ! think one of the problems here. Is that the Cutlers
here are going to have a very small unprotected area between structures. It
will aroid. Unless there a very significant transit'mg from the Peck bulkhead
with rock toe on it. There may be further over then slope down into the
beaches at the same time. Otherwise we are going to have some problems
with the Cutler bluff. I would suggest perhaps Rob look at the plans again.
See if more stone can be placed on that return and continue further towards
the Cutlers so that we transient into that vegetated bluff and transient down
into the beach.
ROB HERRMANN: It sound like you are asking for a hard structure to
extend closer to the Cutler property.
CHUCK BOWMAN: But transient down, Rob. Transient down with more
stone .I do not see how you are going to keep between all of this structure in
such a narrow area. You are going to keep the Cutlers bluff from having
input. There are holes, there are holes between structures.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is the scale on this plan here? We want to see.
How- about Dr. Samuels could you shed a little light on this discussion of
about 100 feet between the Cutlers property line and the bulkhead. Could you
shed a little light on that return theory with the armoring. And what not.
TOM SAMUELS: After the 92 storm we extended the return on Goldsmiths
east return. The Cutlers property had been scoured out considerably and the
entire bluff from Cutlers up to Dr. Morales east end of that little association.
The Honeysuckle Association was consumed up to that land and Mr.
Goldsmith who was aiive at that time wanted to protect himself from being
42
blank from another northeast storm. Which would have gotten behind his
bulkhead, so he applied for a permit and the Cutlers did not want the return to
go under their property so we angled it back in. To the Goldsmith property
that was armored and it has been successful. You have got to remember that it
has been eight years since the last serious northeast storm. So there is great
deal of compliancy around that we are not going to have anymore. Natural
laws says that is something that has happened before is going to happen again.
It is going to happen again. The armor does mitigate to a large extent the
reflected wave energy; specifically on the return we carry the stone right up to
the top of the structure. Right up to the top. They are particularly effective
that is why we build the returns at the oblique angle also to reflect waves and
keep them away from the structure. It can be done the soft approach that
Chuck described we have done a number of projects. Primarily in East
Hampton because it is very popular out there. The problem with soft
approach is. If the soft approach would work you would not need a bulkhead.
You would not need any toe protection but there is not anybody in this room
that honestly believes I think that the first step in bluff protection is toe the
bluff..
CHUCK BOWMAN: I agree with you 100%.
TOM SAMUELS: This goes back to Georgiana Reis
CHUCK BOWMAN: I think the point that I am trying to get at is more of a
slope transient.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Twenty foot going down.
TOM SAMUELS: Relatively simple thing and if that in any way be helpful
for the Curlers. Then I am absolutely certain. In matter of fact if we are the
contractor and I think we will be. There will be no additional cost to the
applicant because it is just another truckload of stone.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It cannot hurt the applicant.
ROB HERRMANN: I think structurally it is a good idea. I was confused
because I did not understand what you were saying. At first, because of how
close any hard armoring would be from Cutler.
TOM SAMUELS: We were working on the Peck property?
CHUCK BOWMAN: How far is that going to extend?
TOM SAMUELS: Twenty feet. The return is going to be armored anyway.
What this is made of is large stone.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It is one to three ton?
TOM SAMUELS: One to three ton .is what the statement reads.
It is going to blend it in to where the vegetation takes.
ROB HERRMANN: It will help to maintain the location.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Protect it more than any thing.
CHUCK BOWMAN: What you are giving the ability of further deflecting
any waves that will be reflected off of that structure {cannot understand)
MR. CUTLER: I am asking these questions (cannot understand).
ROB HERRMANN: It is on your property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have one more question?
43
I do not know who to direct it to. We noticed in the field that there were birds
nesting in the bluff.
ROB HERRMANN: That was the other issue. This has to do with another
hearing. I just spoke with Pat Moore who is the attorney for Rochelle Reis.
PATRICIA MOORE: I know that they are very environmental conscious.
ROB HERRMANN: I tried to reach Glenn Just who I know who has bird
certification. So do you Chuck have some bird certification? On the Rochelle
Reis there are small nests and I was trying to get somebody I know that does
the local bird identification. The rest of it was that the Board was interested in
having that area preserved and I did not expect that Rambo would be filling
that high.
TOM SAMUELS: They are cliff swallows is what we call them. They are
frequently found in where there is a clay landing at the top that they can
borrow out and they will be migrating soon back to Capistrano.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They are on Robins Island..
TOM SAMUELS: Yes..
ROB HERRMANN: That would be acceptable to one side.
GAll, WICKHAM: I will be very brief, Gall Wickham on behalf of the
Cutlers. We have been listening through the battle of the experts I just want to
emphasize that while Mr. Bowman did suggest that toe armoring done certain
way would help familiars some of Cutler concerns. Their main concern is the
concept of formally putting bulk heading on that property, The Trustees are
changing the effect of each year with regard to the environment and if there is
a less attractive alternative to a strong structure like that. Mr. Bowman seems
to be in a soft position would occur. That is what they would like to see and
that is what we would like to explain without that wooden retaining wall.
Sticking up while they are up drift there is concern about the repairing their
bluff and there is also the concern about the beach in general looks like and
that is a liable concern. I think any property owner would ask. What the
beach area look like. I just wanted to emphasize that. I also would like to ask
that there be some schedule when this work would be conducted particularly
the portion of the bluff area and the upland area. Those conditions that occur
be all tied into (cannot understand).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is a good point. Thank you. Any one else?
Getting back to the bird thing. I think we will need a different set of plans
here. Showing armoring on the Peck property.
ROB HERRMANN: I know but you said getting back to the birds for
Rochelle Reis. We can eliminate the vertical lift is not on the Reis property.
As they are other wise for reasons discussed. That can be eliminated from
those plans. I do not know if it is necessary that it be done. If it where done it
would eliminate those nests.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well if you are going to do the bluffre-grading that I
can not fmd now. Because I have so much in front of me. If you are going to
do the bluff re-grading. You will eliminate that nesting site.
ROB HERRMANN: On the cross section of that plan there is an area
identified as a vertical lift to be re-graded. If that part of the plan is
44
eliminated it would eliminate the disturbance to that area. We must leave it in
the Mihalios and Peck applications. I think that the birds with lesser.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think it is too active. There might have been? So
you want to eliminate that re-grading on the whole Reis property that last
property. Just at the top.
ROB HERRMANN: The last one.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about time schedule as far as planting.
TOM SAMUELS: The first order of business, of course, is to construct the
bulkhead~ Second armor it. It is quite a job. We would be working at the end
of Bailee Beach Road and depending on the winter tides. Some weeks you
can work only every other week. As everyone familiar with the site knows
the problem is the Mattituck Inlet jetties. It seems to been aster bated since
the west jetty was repaired and probably not allowing any by pass at all. But
that is an entity that exists and will continue to exist. There is a possibility that
the Army Corp of Engineer's will get the necessary appropriation to re-dredge
the shoal that Jimmy is familiar with off end of the jetty. Because it is getting
shallower and shallower. Any sand that would be dredge there would be
pumped up the beach from the jetty along the beach in front of Dr. Clements
and Goldsmiths. There is an association that has been formed to push for that
eventuality Mike Forbes was starting work on that I think he has been
occupied lately. But we will see how the new house member from wherever.
That is definitely in the Corps plan and has been since we completed the west
jetty at Mattituck. That is a by-pass solutions of some kind will in time
eventually perhaps not in my life time. Although I feel good today. Get done.
Like the Goldsmith jetty problem will ultimately something will happen.
Shinnecock jetties are the same thing. Chuck and the rest of us are all
available on this on going thing. So the area east of the Mattituck jetties. Has
a down drift problem because the by-passing the jetty. And is showing up at
the mouth of the inlet and when it gets pass that it is off-shore. The schedule
will start, this job will start late Fall, early Winter and continue on as it goes.
I would like to give all the applicants involved the benefits of economy and
scale It is better for the highway department where there access to Bailee
Beach Road instead of continuing opening up the guard rail. So on and so
forth. It should be done in late Fall because some people are still using the
beaches for surf fishing or whatever.
ROB HERRMANN: Why we just have Rambo contact the Board and let the
interested parties of the scheduling can contact the Trustees office.
TOM SAMUELS: November, December and January just the best time to be
on the sound beach. The soil of the delta that was formed can be bucket up as
high as we can bucket it. And re-cleaned in that way. There will be a
considerable amount of soil. There is a lot still there. Since we have had a
storm since the up land rain wash-outs. So that stuff will be removed and re-
used.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Thank you. Sit down.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved.
45
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
I think what we need is to think about what we are approving here.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think so.
TRUSTEE KRESS: I guess you have to do one at a time. Because they all
have different needs.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Mr. Cutler, are you satisfied with this?.
MR. CUTLER: Am I. No. I am terrified and I am not an expert on these
matters but I know that whether we down drift or up drift. We have a
northeast storm it is coming right at us. I know that our end is going to erode
seriously. I know that I have seen it. I know that most of the beaches to the
east of us, which have bulkheads, have no beach at high tide. It cannot pass at
high tide. Unless you want to walk up to the east. To get to the next point. If
there were no bulkheads there. There still be beach there and would still be
passive. My purpose is that there would be nothing buy rocks, terracing and
the planting of native plants, rose rugs and what have you. And let nature take
it course after that. It worked for us thus far. We have a nice frontage and I
work on it manually, frequently and it looks nice and we enjoy it a great deal.
I would reiterate the point that this is 443 feet of bulkhead and it is going to
extend from the Bailee Beach parking lot all the way up at least a mile. I
believe it is the Krupski property where the bulk heading starts. It opens
again and there is erosion on that property you can still pass because it is fed
by the bluff it self. In addition to that [ think that any thing that you do
approve. I would hope that you would mandate that certain conditions be met.
Before anything be done and not just a statement that a plan is in place or it
has been accepted by somebody. Certain things should be in place like the
terracing, like the planting. I agree with Chuck that the planting should really
be done in the spring. I do not see the point of doing it in the fall. That is
about all that I can think of. It is an important matter to me, I am glad to hear
that the Reis are environmental conscience as are the Pecks. But we love the
beach and we like the natural state of it and would like it to remain that way.
With the damage that has been caused had not been caused we would not be
where we are today.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. We are concerned of course for your
property to. We are making efforts so that your property will not be affected.
If you go back to soft plantings about ten or twelve years ago on the sound.
Before we had a series of serious coastal storms the nor-Easters. We advised
someone in East Marion or Orient we denied their bulkhead application and
asked them to re-planting and they did a beautiful job and the first big nor-
Easter just gone. It was well established. It was a shame you had it actively
eroding bank. They did vegetate and it just disappeared. Henry you were on
the Board then, I do not know if you remember that one. After that we were
kind of discouraged. To see that happen them was no rock involved it was
just the plantings and it was an exposed place that had been actively eroding.
You sort of place that you and Pecks are kind of tucked in there some how.
46
16.
You are protected somewhat. This was an active place. The rock will deflect
the energy and it will act.
G^II, WlCKHAM: But not the bulkhead have you done Peck yet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We will just open and close them. I think the
comments are all general for the whole project. We tried to look it as one
project. There are certain things like on the Peck property that needs to be
addressed the extra rock. On the Rochelle Reis property it needs to be
addressed with the bird colony - swallows. Whatever they are we will save
them. We were the ones that saw them. Number 15 En-Consultants, Inc on
behalf of JAhdES & L1LIANA MIHALIOS requests a Wetland Permit &
Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a 77' timber retaining wall with (2) 12 '
angles this is the wrong description. It would simple be a 77' timber-retaining
wall.
ROB HERRMANN: No it would be along with the spec tics on the revised
plan Which is simple 93' of timber retaining wail with the terracing and the
grading and it would be tied into proposed retaining wall to the west and to
the east. It is on the most recent plan but that is not reflected in the agenda.
TRUSTEE KR~SKI: Okay - 93 foot of retaining wall to be tied into the
west of Peck and tied into the east of Reis and to be armored with stone and
be terraced as per plan. The plantings shall be done no later than June lst.is
that reasonable. The plantings on the terrace otherwise it gets dry and they
also fail. Anything else. The terracing is going to occur any time after
construction of the bulkhead and I think the planting that is the key, it has to
plant at the right time. If you plant too late it will get dry. It will not make it.
That the material that is washed down the bank should be recovered and used
on the bank as fill. That the structure be held to the toe of the bank. Is there a
seconded.'?
TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of LESTER PECK requests a Wetland Permit
and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a +/- 145' timber retalmng wall with a
16' westerly returns and truck in approx. 100 c.y. Of dean sand to be used as
backfill and planted with Cape American beach grass easterly terminus of
retaining wall to be tied into face of proposed retaining wall to east approved
for James & Liliana Mihalos in addition slope, the top of the bluff will re-
graded the slope of the bluffwill be terraced and planted no later than June Ia.
That the westerly return, the whole bulkhead will be armored and the westerly
return will be armored up to the top of the bulkhead. Tapered offto the west a
distance of 20 feet to the grade of the beach. Any material that has been
washed offthe bluffthere will have been recovered offthe beach.
CHUCK BOV~WiAN: Can I ask a question?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
CHUCK BOWMAN: I have every expedition that we the Pecks and Mihalios
will go along with this project. And ! have every expedition that Reis will go
along with this project. (Cannot understand).
47
17.
18.
19.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why would they change their mind? They have a very
active bluff
CHUCK BOWMAN: I have no idea. It takes time. To get these things going.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is not unreasonable certainly they would have to
bring it back to the right angle and have to armor it also. Do I have a Motion.
Is there a second.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
Eh-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of GEORGE & ROCHELLE REIS request
a Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a 126' timber all to
be constructed in conjunction with and tied into proposed Mihalios and Reis
retaining wall to west and east respectively. In order to re-establish stable
angle of repose and restore and stabilize the bluff approximately 250- cubic
yards of clean sand fill will be trucked in from upland source and used to fill
bluff face, which will also be terraced and planted with Rosa rugosa, Myrica
Pennsylvanica, Ammophilia bre~51igulata, and ParthenocisSUs quinquefolia.
The bluff crest will be re-graded as necessary to remove vertical lip and
restore more gradual slope. The entire project will be undertaken with
identical Reis project to east that is not completely true. But this project will 1
to 3 tons stone toe armor and it will be terraced as per the plan and it will be
planted no later than June 1~t. Is there a second on that?
TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of ROCHELLE REIS request a Wetland
Permit &Coastal Erosion Permit to construct 95' timber retaining wall to be
constructed: in conjunction with and tied into proposed Reis retaining wall to
west. In order to establish stable angle of repose and restore and stabilize
bluff, approximately 250 cubic yards of clean sand fill will be trucked in from
an upland sOurCe and used to fill the bluff face, which will also be planted
according to plan and terraced aCcording to plan. Bluff crest will not be re-
graded in this case in order to preserve the colony of nesting swallows under
the area of the bluff crest. The entire project will be armored one to three tons
of stone and the return will be armored with one to three ton stone up to the
very top ofthe retUrn. The return has to be armored right up to the top of the
return on the easterly side. Is there a second on that?
TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES
STEVEN FABB requests a Wetland Permit for 2 floats 6'x16'5" connected at
middle to make overall 6'X32' 10" ramp 21' 10"x3' fixed dock 67'8"x4' with 2
steps at beginning, floating dock has 4 piles, fixed dock has 14 Pilings.
Located 1925 Naugles Drive, Mattituck SCTM# 99,3-5
TRUSTEE KR~SKI: Is there any one who would like to speak in favor of
the application?
48
STEVEN FABB: I would like to request a postponement to the next meeting.
In October, I need to find out more information on certain details.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Have you settled the violations? What does the Board
think here (Tape change)
NEIGHBOR: I am Steve Tuttle, I am the property owner to the north.. I have
been waiting ail night to talk about this matter. The dock was built not built to
Town Code. There was a stop work order issued. I believe on that dock and
they continued to build. I would like to bring up it is over sized dock, it is
within six inches of my property. I went and got my permits spent the eight
months did everything to the code. I did not go out there and throw a float on
there, ramp on there. Then come in an get a permit. The fifteen feet that I was
told which people brought up tonight, it is 6 feet from my property line where
that float is going. The pilings that were used were ripped out and previous
they were having a 48 foot commercial boat. They were re'mstalled in the
wrong location. Which pushed them more towards my property line. The float
was never put back on. There has been a history here that this was not an
existing dock. It was just something that was thrown together and went out
there without permits.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just for your information on Field Inspection last month
we informed Mr. Fabb that the dock is non-conforming to our policy and that
the most that we would permit him wOUld be one float 6x20 would be the
maximum size of the float. As far as the location to the proximity to your dock
and the proximity of the marina it seems like a pretty good location and if you
move the six foot float away it will be away from your property.
STEVE TUTTLE; The 32 foot extension, you are saying that you are going to
take 12-1/2 feet off?the float. That is 12-1/2 feet from my property line so that
issue would no longer be in effect.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
STEVE TUTTLE: As I talked to you outside about that because now I have
my 16 feet. His 12 feet that inlet runs about five or six, seven knots. You
come into the front of that dock and you have that tide running against you do
not have a lot of room to work with.
TRUSTEE KRUPSK: Sure. This is the way it is going to be with this dock. I
do not know ifMrl Fabb would accomplish by postponing for another month.
STEVEN FABB: Well this dock was in existence along time ago and I have
been trying to find old paper work.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It could have been there when the flood came. There is
no permit for it. We told you that it is only going to be permitted for a 6x20'
float.
STEVEN FABB: Well there is a Grandfather clause to rebuild the dock to the
original size which I would like to do the same I have to find proof of that: for
these docks for the original size. My understanding is that several years ago
also he rebuilt that to the original size which I would like to do the same. I
have to find proof of that. That is why I need more time. The dock was
originally a lot bigger and I had to cut down quite considerable at the time.
That is the reason I have not changed any thing as far as the pole being too
49
dose to his property. I was not the one that put it in. So I will look into
moving the pole. Away from the property line back..
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I do not know if you can do that?
STEVEN FABB: Who does that type of work to remove a pole. It is just
brought to my attention now. I never thought there was that much of a
problem. I think six inches is a little close. It is actually quite a bit more than
that.
STEVE TUTTLE: Here is a copy of the property line. There is a concrete
marker on the property line. There is also a survey concrete marker is right on
the monument.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It shows on the survey that he submitted.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: How old would you say that dock is?
STEVEN FABB: The original one was there before my father bought the
property in 1981. So it has been there for quite a long time. Thanks to
Hun/cane Gloria and other storms it finally came apart. We had to have it
taken out and rebuilt and through certain circumstances. We could not rebuild
it in time. Seeing that it was out of the water and when we put it back in. A
few years later. I got violations in the mail. I am going through this.
NEIGHBOR: I am the neighbor two houses up. I have been there fifteen years
and when I moved in the dock was not visible. There was a boat at the dock,
which was loose and actually swung into my pilings. I had to call the Coast
Guard, because there was no one available to remove it. I had no number to
call for the owner of the boat and there was no number for Mrl Fabb. Often
times there have been several violations to my property and to me. There has
been a motor stolen by one of his tenants. There is nowhere to go when there is
a problem with his property. Except to the police or to some other authority.
Basically I feel that is the problem. Having a dock so close. Or even having an
oversized dock. Because what happens is that when there is a problem. He is
going to rent out the spaces on the dock that is a conclusion that he does not
live there himself. There will be problems with this. That I have to address
and Mr. Tuttle has to address. Really we do not want to, if we can avoid that.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Where do you live?
NEIGHBOR: To the north, two properties away.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Okay around the other side.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we spoke to Mr. Fabb the way it would operate
with a 6x20 foot float. The only thing that your father showed when he was in
two months ago. An old survey from 1970 showing a 30 foot long catwalk.
Which did not have any permits.
STEVEN FABB: I would like to postpone as long as possible to find further
evidence.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The Town Attorney said you have to go back.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: If you can find a survey prior to 1959 showing that dock
in place. That is the only thing that will save you at this pointl
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In the meantime he has got use of dock so what do you
think. Until the next meeting. After the next meeting the dock will have to be
conformed. I will make a motion to recess the hearing.
50
20.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES. You will be back here next
month.
STEVEN FABB: Yes
GILBERT PINK[tAM requests Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x 20'
floating dock in front of bulkhead. Float to be secured in place by two sets of
pilings. Access to shore via a 4' wide ramp. Located: 155 Lake Avenue,
Southold SCTM#80-3-14
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any one who would like to speak in favor of
the application?
GILBERT PINKHAM: I am the owner, Gilbert Pinkham, representing myselfi.
All the boats in that harbor there are only two that are not floating docks. I am
one of them and another one. We have been there since 1937 going up and
down the ladder getting to our boats all of those years. Getting a little older it
is getting tough to get in our boat these days. So we are finally going to join
the rest of the crowd. Put in a floating dock that is our motivation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Henry you looked at this?
TRUSTEE SMITH: No.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Artie you look at this? Henry I think you were to look
at this.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It was not mine.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Where is this?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Lake Avenue, where is Lake Avenue.
GILBERT PINKHAM: It is in Raven Shores.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Okay.
TRUSTEE SMITH: It is in that little basin there. It is private bottom. You
will be ten foot offyour neighbor's dock to the west.
GILBERT PINKHAM: To the west. It is more like thirty feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Rob do you have a comment?
ROB HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann ofEn-Consultants I am here representing
Frederick Rapp who is the owner adjacent to Mr, Pinkham to the east. I wanted
to draw the Boards attention just to a couple issues that where concerns for Mr.
Raft. What I have noticed from a review ora plan that was forwarded by Eagle
Level Mapping. The project description, which the Board just read, is for a
four foot by twenty-foot float. Access by a four foot wide by an unidentified.
On the plan that was submitted to the Board. On the plan view there shows a
4x12 ramp to a 6x20 float and on the cross-section it showed a 4x16 foot ramp
with a 6x20 float. So if you go from the project description submitted in page
one to page two of the plan. The dock seems to grow and grow. Until it is
actually intersecting into Mr. Rapp area. Although we had discussions wSth
this Board as far as obtaining authorization from adjacent owners. Whether
this Board would require or not if Mr. Pinkham is not aware of it. It will be
required of every other judicial agency. As the dock is presently proposed Mr:
Rapp will not consent to it. The dock is angled off this section of the bulkhead.
Which would compel Mr. Pinkham to place his boat either in front of Mr. Rapp
51
property. Or to the property to the west. Where if the float were extended
directly out of this bulkhead. You could actually moor the boat in front of your
own property. It would not be infringing upon Mr. Rapp..
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Who is Mr. Rapp?
ROB HERRMANN: Frederick Rapp is the owner to the east.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about the other guy on the other side.
ROB HERRMANN: What about the other guy on the other side.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I do not know his name?
ROB HERRMANN: Dr. Pace. If you take this float and I can rip this out you
can change it. If you stick it this way, this boat would actually be in front of
Mr. Pickham property. As the float is now, the boat is either going to be in
front ofMr. Rapp property or in front of Dr. Paces property. In any event the
float as it is presently proposed although it described in three different ways.
Would interfere with any float that Mr. Rapp could put here. What happens is
as it is proposed now. Even if Mr. Rapp extended the float all the way east
side. It would only leave 24 feet. A boat larger here would be in front of his
property. It would then compel Mr. Rapp to get permission from what are the
Forechilles on this side. As I can attest I have represented the Forechilles. If
we put the float this dose to the Forechilles property line. The DEC and every
other agency would require Mr. Forechille to consent.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where did you get that because that is different than
ours.
ROB HERRMANN: This is the plan that was forwarded to Mr. Rapp
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Look at what we have. We do not have Mr. Rapp's
float on there.
MR. PINKHAM: There is not any float on there, on Mr. Rapp property.
ROB H~RRMANN: Excuse me sir, this is something that I have drawn in for
the Board's reference to make a point. IfMr. Rapp proposed a float he Would
have to put it to stay away from this dock adjacent to the Forechilles property
line and as I can attest to Mr. Raft has been attempting to improve this parcel
with a one family dwell'rog.which we are getting an approval for it. We have
gotten accurate resistance from the Foreshilles in that attempt so the point here.
Although unfortunately get Mr. Pinkham involved is that Mr: Raft does not
want to be compelled to need authorization from the Forechilles because of Mr.
Pinkham float and I hate being in the middle ofthese things.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No we are in the middle of it.
ROB HERRMANN: If you look at the drawings. Mr. Rapp would consent if
he took the float here which would actually put the ramp portion closer to his
property but at least it would leave the berth space in front of Mr. Pinkhams
own property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ron go over that again..
TRUSTEE POLIWODA; Rob, how about a pole and pulley? .
ROB HERRMANN: This dock as it is proposed here: Extends out on an angle.
First, so if you put the boat here. It would be in front of the Pace property. If
you put the boat here it is as is the float in front of Raft property and since Mr.
Raft has forty feet of waterfront here. Why should he be compelled to go over
52
all the way over to hostile neighbor? Beg for their permission when another
neighbor has infringed upon his area. He would be fine if the dock was simply
reposition this way. What this plan shows is that the float would be 10 feet off
of the bulkhead. Although the project description doesn't specify any length of
the ramp. This shows a 16 foot ramp. Since I am certainly raked over the coals
by this Board as affect ional as you all do. Mr. Rapp would just like to see that
this be approved with some specific specifications. Because whether the ramp
is ten feet, twelve feet or twenty feet. It is really relevant. It is how close the
float is and I am sure that Kenny can attest to how close the float is to the
bulkhead. If it is only ten feet, we do not much care how long the ramp is. But
the longer you make the ramp. The more the float is going to extend into the
water and the farther it is going to get off shore into this area. Since you have
three different descriptions of this project. We just like to have that clarified.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Rob you should not take it personally. Raked over the
coals!
ROB HERRMANN: When it comes to these dock issues. I am a little fascia of
course. But it is true ifI propose to you a dock application it showed three
different projects descriptions. You would ask me to clarify it and you would
ask for it to be specified. So what I am saying is not really the length of the
ramp that is relative it is how far the float is off the bulkhead. If you want two
feet on the ramp or twenty feet whatever. I just want that specified in the
permit because the farther that it goes out
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So you do not care where the float is?
MR. PINKHAM: No the intent is to put a float Basically identical to the one
off of Mr. Pace dock space.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So where ever it goes is all right.
ROB HERRMANN: If that is specified to be ten feet offthat would be
acceptable and make sense. The only other thing that we are asking you to
consider would be extending the float perpendicular to this bulkhead rather
than to this one.
TRUSTEE KRLrPSKI: Draw it out, can you draw it out.
ROB HERRMANN: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does it matter to you?
MR. P1NKHAM: Not a great deal.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: How do you guys get along at the COA meetings?
MR. PINKHAM: I do not think that we in Raven Shores have seen Mr. Rapp
once in thirty years. Does not matter. In response to his question of how we
get along.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I was just kidding. It is late
ROB HERRMAN: No I do not have my scale with me. Do you have a scale.
MR_ P1NKHAM: May I explain the proposal. Notice that it would require
that I cross the area in front of Dr. Pace's float. There is also another float up
here. So it will require that my access to this come in from way up over here
and come in this way. This boat he has a small boat there a seventeen foot
boat. You could get a somewhat larger boat. So it creates a very difficult
access situation.
53
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You mean on the return trip. You mean coming back
MR. PINKHAM: Whether you are going in or out you still have a tight ,
situation. Over the years we have had boats as large as 26 and 27 feet. The
owner of this Rapp property prior to Mr. Rapp ownership had a boat moorei
on a mooring with a pulley. That is out here. We had no problem getting in a]
out. Either way I go I have to cross the extensions of property lines.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In this case I do not see where it should be a problem
ROB HERRMANN: What I am saying is that physically if this dock were
constructed Mr. Rapp would have to get the permission of the Fortchilles
Which I guarantee you would never come. They have threatened him in all
sorts ways, take him to Court, and the letters that I have gotten from Mr.
Fortchilles.
MR. P1NKHAM: I have only received one letter.
ROB HERRMANN: Mr. Rapp does not want to get squeezed out here by t,~
hostile neighbors.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can Mr. Fortchille honestly keep him from putting a
float in.
ROB HERRMANN: Yes he can. If he does not give consent we cannot get
consistency certification.
TRUSTEE SMITH: What can he say?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This dock is not built. There is nothing there. What
Rob is saying if he puts this in and this guy cannot put a float in. Which I do
not understand.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Why can't he put a float in.
ROB HERRMANN: IfPinkham dock is constructed it would compel draft az
secondary applicant. To put his dock to get out of Mr. Pinkham way adjacenl
to the Fortchille property line. Not from your Board but from the Departmen
of State and the DEC would require a written letter of authorization from the
mutual property line share. Allowing him to encroach within that area.
TRUSTEE SMITH: He has forty feet here between the two docks.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No why should we penalize Mr. Pinkham because he
wants a dock. Maybe Mr. Rapp doesn't want a dock.
ROB HIERRMANN: We cannot induce this Board to do anything. It is an
informative thing. We are telling Mr. Pinkham that eventually the other
agencies are going to come back and tell you to get Mr. Rapp permission for
this dock. I am telling you that if you put it here he will consent to it and if y(
put it there he will not. So I am just bringing up to the Board's attention and
getting the specs of the dock accurate. Because if this does go in. We just
want to make sure that the float is as close to the bulkhead as possible.
MR. P1NKHAM: As close to the bulkhead as possible.
ROB HERRMANN: Ten feet away is the way it is constructed for a dock.
MR. P1NKHAM: That is my attention makes my dock a mirror image of Dr.
Pace's dock.
ROB H]~RRMANN: Dr. Pace's dock according to this survey. The float is 6
feet oft'the bulkhead. If Mr. Pinkham would be willing to come back to that
would be acceptable. The problem is that this plan shows a ten feet.
id
54
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Unfortunately we are going to have to table this. We
have no problem we do not care. Because environmental it is not going to
make a bit of difference. So if you do not mind we will hold it offfor another
month go and look at it. We will find the right spot for it.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Do you presently have a boat or a dock now?
MR. P1NKHAM: There has been a dock there since my father bought the
property in 1937.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Do you have access to it.
MR. PINKHAM: I have a ladder I made myselfa ladder.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Can you live with another month.
ROB HERRMANN: Mr. Rapp does not object to the dock. He just does not
want to have his own rights compromised by being a nice guy to Mr. Pinkham.
When he knows that the next guy over is a problem. As I have been
representing Mr. Rapp. I have gotten writing proof that has been happening.
MR. PINKHAM: My problem is that my legal residence is in South Carolina.
Never the less, I will not be here next month. I had no warning about this
objection.
TRUSTEE SMITH: All right.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why can't you put it in the middle at an angle. You
still have room to get by. You are in the comer there.
ROB HERRMANN: If you could do that configuration and to keep it to 6,7
or 8 feet offthe bulkhead.
MR. PINKHAM: I would have to discuss this with Dr Pace. I would have to
get it to a point where I still use this side.
TRUSTEE KRLrPSKI: You should be able to.
MR. P1NKHAM: Put my boat on this side.
TRUSTEE KR~SKI: So that gives us 6 feet on that side.
ROB HERRMANN: The point is that it would provide no opportunity to dock
the boat anywhere except in front and Mr. Rapp does not want to be with
someone else. Because he knows he is not get any cooperation. So if you
could compromise and go towards the middle and shorten the ramp. Not the
ramp shorten the distance to the float.
MR. P1NKHAM: I can probably do that. But I would have to go over it with
Dr. Pace When I saw him this past week-end and he wanted to go over this and
showed him. He said he was going to be out this week-end.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Tell him the whole scenario and tell him that we want
to accommodate you To us it does not matter.
MR. P1NKHAM: If we agree to the way it is drawn. No circumstance that I
can moor my boat on this side of the dock .I do not know if Dr. Pace is going to
accept that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You may have to go for a smaller float. You might
have to go with 5x16' or something. Tighten it up a little.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: How big is your boat?
MR. P1NKHAM: Twenty foot wide.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It seems that a 16-foot float you can keep your boat at.
MR. P1NKHAM: I would accept a 16-foot float.
55
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You down size the float a little bit. It would make life a
little easier.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: A 16-foot float would be.
ROB HERRMANN: Any way if he reduces the specs. We are going to make
it easier. But we do not want compel him to change the size. If you move the
float two feet closer the to bulkhead and made it 16 feet to the edge of the float.
MR. PINKHAM: I have no problem.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: If you are willing to reduce the size of the float.
MR. PICKHAM: I have no problem with that as long as it ii stable.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Henry has a 48 foot boat tied onto 20 foot float. That
twenty feet should go 16 pretty good.
MR. P1NKHAM: I can make that 16 and how far off.
ROB HERRMANN: The float would be 8 foot offthe bulkhead with a 6x16
float going out so if you had a 12 foot ramp would be 8 foot over the water and
a four foot opening.
MR. PINKHAM: That is fine.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: We will approve that for you tonight. Providing that you
bring in an updated plan showing exactly that into the office in the next couple
of days.
MR. P1NKHAM: I will do that.
TRUSTEE KRL~SKI: All you have to do is white out. You can do yourself
(tape change).
TRUSTEE FOSTER: ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I am going to stamp this, 6x16.
Isn't this awful something as simple as this.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: With that last one, Fabb I just did not like to drag this on
anymore but:I do not think that should be allowed to use that. You told him
that he could use the float until next month. You get a Dee-Wee they do not
tell you to keep driving if you keep postponing the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right I agree with you.
RESOLUTIONS:
:NANCY & KENNETH STEIN requests a Grandfather Permit for a
10'x25' dock, 4'x15' ramp, 100' bulkhead, Located: 2535 Cedar Lane,
East Marion SCTM#37-04-10
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Table k until next month. Needs more
information. Also advise the Town Attorney exactly what is required for a
Grandfather Permit
TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES
SYLAN KAPULER requests a Grandfather Permit for existing 6'x20'
float with timber piles and 3'x15' ramp. Located: 26655 Cedar Lane East
Marion SCTM#37-4-12.1
56
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Table it until next month. Need more
information. Also advise the Town Attorney of what would be required for
a Grandfather Permit.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES:
VI. MOORINGS;
1. RUDOLPH BRUER requests a mooring in Jockey Creek for a sailboat..
ACCESS; Private
TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve the application; TRUSTEE
POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES
.2. PETER TREXLER request a Duck Blind in West Creek. ACCESS:
Public
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: moved to Table it until next mOnth. TRUSTEE
SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT: 11:35 pm
Respectfully submitted by,