HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-08/25/1999Albert J. Krupski, President
James King, Vice-President
Henry Smith
Artie Foster
Ken Poliwoda
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Telephone (516) 765-1892
Fax (516) 765-1823
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MINUTES
Wednesday, August 25, 1999
PRESENT WERE:
Albert J. Krupski, President
James King, Vice-President
Artie Foster, Trustee
Henry Smith, Trustee
Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee
Lauren Standish, Clerk
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 at 12:00 PM
TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 at 7:00 PM
WORKSESSION: 6:00 PM
TRUSTEE SM1TH moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLlWODA seconded. ALL AYES
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of July 21, 1999 Regular Meeting
TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES
MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustee monthly report for July 1999. A check for
$2,715.37 was forwarded to the Supervisor' s Office for the General Fund.
II.
PUBLIC NOTICESPUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's
Bulletin Board for review.
III. AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES:
Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of CHARLES GROPPE requests a
one-year extension to Permit #4754 to construct a single-family dwelling, septic system,
and driveway. Located: 985 Bay Shore Rd., Greenport. SCTM#53-3-12
TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE POLIWODA
seconded. ALL AYES
Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of STEFANIE LINAKIS requests a Waiver to
install a private drinking water well. Located: 2304 Private Rd., off Camp Mineola Rd.,
Mattituck. SCTM#122-9-7.18
TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL
AYES
Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of MICHAEL MITCHELL requests a
Waiver for an addition to the existing residence, a new screened porch, and a deck
addkion. Located: 1750 Lupton Point Rd., Mattituck. SCTM#115-11-18.1
TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL
AYES
Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of MICHAEL & CORINNE SLADE request
a Waiver to construct a paxtial second floor with a new master bedroom, bath, and deck.
Located: 1435 West Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#110-7-26
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded.
ALL AYES
Connors Crawley Architects on behalf of PAUL & JUDITH FRFED request a Waiver to
renovate two existing bathrooms and kitchen, replace existing roof, renovate second floor
bedroom, replace North wall with new structural framing and glazing, and replace jack
columns in basement with structural pipe colunms. Located: 15155 North Rd., East
Marion. SCTM#23-1-4
TRUSTF. F. FOSTER moved to Approve the application with the condition that any
excavation will require haybales around the pond area. TRUSTEE SMITH seconded.
ALL AYES
Permits & Drafting Unlimited on behalf of DONALD & MARY DECARLO request a
Waiver for a split-rail fence between wetland boundary and high water mark for security
and privacy purposes. Located: 1425 Kimberly Lane, Southold. SCTM#70-13-20.9
TRUSTEE POL1WODA moved to Approve the application with the condition that the
fence be 8' landward of the high water mark. TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES
Mark K. Schwartz, AIA on behalf of THOMAS & SUSAN HUDGINS requests a
Waiver to construct a room over an existing 18.4'X 15' second floor deck. Located:
1755 Sigsbee Rd., Mattituck. SCTM#128-2-12
TRUSTF, F, KING moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL
AYES
CHARLES & BARBARA RODIN request an Amendment to Permit #5000 to extend
the length of the split rail fence already permitted to include the entire length of the
property from the sea wall to the end of the road. This includes reconstruction of approx.
30' split rail fence already existing at the west side of the property line. All new top soil
and planting along the fence line will be removed. Located: 70 Strohson Rd.,
Cutchogue. SCTM#103-10-16
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Table the application until the applicant removed the top
soil down to grade and three sections of the fence must also be removed. TRUSTEE
SMITH seconded. ALL AYES
JUDITH DI BLASI requests an Amendment to Permit f4818 to include the existing
bulkhead. Located: 360 Bayview Dr., East Marion. SCTM#37-4-1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Table the application until a survey showing all
structures with dimensions is received. TRUSTF. Fi SMITH seconded. ALL AYES
10.
PAUL & PATRICIA AHLERS request an Amendment to Permit #1437 to mm an
existing float 90 degrees and extend the existing float of 20' to a length of 30' to
accommodate two boats, and to Transfer the Permit from Harry G. Farrell to Paul &
Patricia Ahlers. Located: 1905 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM#35-4-15
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application to turn the float and add new
piles only. Applicant must submit new plans before receiving Permit. TRUSTEE
SMITH seconded. ALL AYES
11.
MARLENrE LANE CIVIC ASSOC. requests a Waiver to place a portable sunfish boat
rack on their privately owned beach. The racks will be removed at the end of each sailing
season. Located: 11012 Peconic Bay Blvd., Mattituck. SCTM#126-6-10
TRUSTEE KRL~SKI moved to Table the application until he speaks with the Town's
Attorney. TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE SMITH moved to go offthe Regular Meeting and onto the Public Hearings,
TRUSTEE FOSTER 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 READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE
PUBLIC.
PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF:
FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS, IF POSSIBLE
FRANCIS J. & ELIZABETH H. MURPHY request a Wetland Permit to construct a
single-family residence wkh septic system and well. Located: 400 Ole Jule Lane,
Mattituck. SCTM# 114-12-13.1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the apphcation7
FRANCIS MURPHY: I'm here..
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, we just had a few questions for you.
FRANCIS MURPHY: Sure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As far as the final grade, well first of all the way the house was
staked, we couldn't quite figure out the way it was on the site. It seems tobe more of a
catty comer.
FRANCIS MURPHY: Because of the 75' wetland setback, the curve of the pond, is
where you have to have the back of the house, or what we would consider the front of the
house. If we made it parallel to the street, the building envelope would be that much
smaller. And, what we're looking for is to be able to build a 2000 sq.fi, house without
damaging the wetlands and to be able to fit it onto the property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We didn't have a problem with it, we were just kind of unclear
about the way it was staked. It seemed to be staked parallel to the road, not at a catty
comer like this.
FRANCIS MURPHY: No, it should be, according to the survey, catty comer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, and also, you're going to be excavating then into the hill
to put the house straight in?
FRANCIS MURPHY: Probably half of the east side and the entire back of the house will
be at ground level. Similar to the house we built on Mattituck Inlet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But, our concern is the fill. What are you going to do with the
fill? I mean there's going to be all that material coming out.
FRANCIS MURPHY: I don't you're going to have that much and by the time we grade
to come in off the road, I don't think there's going to be any surplus fill at all. As I say,
we plan to have regular sized windows in the basement, just for light for the shop down
there, or whatever. Basically, what we are asking for, is can we build closer than 75' to a
small pond that kids have gone down to ice-skate for years. We still would do that, we
have no intention of disturbing any of that ground. We would certainly stop any mn-off
from the construction going down towards the pond and just from my experience, with
shrubbery and that. We would make it quite attractive without having a lawn or anything
back there. I'm too old to mow lawns.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that would be the only condkion we would put on this is
the 40' buffer between the pond, which would give you about 20' to work in the back of
the house.
FRANCIS IvlURPHY: No, I don't want a lawn.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other questions? Satisfied with that grading plan?
TRUSTEF, FOSTER: Yeah, it's pretty much what I figured it would be.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment in favor or against the application?
TRUSTEE SMITH: I~11 make a motion to close the heating.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE SM1TH: I'll make a motion to approve it.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: With a condition ora 40' buffer between the pond and put
haybales at the 40' mark during construction.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES
CATHERINE & RICHARD HART.request a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 88'
catwalk, a 32"X 20' ramp with a 5'X 5' "T" and a 6'X 40' float. Located: 1900
Westphalia Rd., off Sound Ave., Mattituck. SCTM#114-7-12.1
CATHERINE HART: Hi, we came back fi-om last month, lVIr. King had gone out and
did the soundings, and I think they came up to be like maybe 6' deep.
TRUSTEE KING: I was trying to drop the ball on this. I took a measurement fi-om the
edge of the marsh out to the stake and it was 35' but I don't have a measurement from
where the catwalk is going to start after that stake. We can probably figure it out.
There's 5' of water at that stake at low tide. I was surprised how much water there is that
close to shore there.
CATHERINE HART: So were we.
TRUSTEE KING: It drops off pretty quick too.
CATHERINE HART: We were told it had to be 88' from the beginning of the catwalk to
where the ramp would start.
TRUSTEE KING: Yeah, this is going to be a lot shorter~ I was supposed to meet with
Steve Pawlik and take a measurement so we know the length of this catwalk but we just
didn't get together.
CATHERINE HART: Someone left a float out there. There's a little float. It's on the
beach now but someone staked it in the water. It's like a 5'X 4' float.
TRUSTEE KING: It wasn't me. I just came up there the one day I saw you and took
some soundings. What did you say you had, a main-ship?
CATHERINE HART: Right.
TRUSTEE KING: So it draws about 3 ½' ...you've got more than enough water.
You've go enough water there for a 40' boat.
CATHERINE HART: If anyone is missing a float, it's there.
TRUSTEE KING: Unless Steve was there, I don't know.
RICHARD HART: There was someone in there sounding again on Saturday morning, or
Friday?
TRUSTF, F, KING: Oh, that was the day I took the measurement. There was another
boat. There was a young man. My boat draws too much water. I can't go right to the
beach. So, he took me up and I took my tape and measured from the stake to the edge of
the grass and it was 35'.
RICHARD HART: It has to be from the top of the bank.
TRUSTEE KING: Yeah, but I just took a measure from the top of the grass because that
really doesn't change much.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So could we approve it based on a new drawing?
TRUSTEE KING: Sure.
TRUSTF, F, KRUPSKI: Is that okay? Come out there and get a measurement from that
depth, 5' of water and...
TRUSTEE KING: We talked about the size of the floats and all, and we wanted them to
downsize them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Alright. we can go with a 6'X 20' float. You have a 21' boat?
RICHARD HART: No we have a 35' and a 21'.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Two boats. So you want to go straight out and put it ...
CATHERINE HART: If we went straight out, I'm to understand, straight out from the
catwalk, instead of turning the dock with a "T" coming that way.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You could put a boat on either side.
CATHERINE HART: We'll we would be doing exactly what you don't want us to do.
Right? Because you told us at the last meeting that...well one neighbor, the neighbor to
the north side has a dock that goes this way and the neighbor to the south has a dock that
goes this way, and you determined that our would be out as far as any of these docks.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: From what Jim said, you don't have to go out that far to get to 5'
of water. So you would get out to 5' of water and you'd have a boat on either side.
TRUSTEE KING: In other words, you want to tie both boats there.
CATHERINE HART: Right.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would that be a problem? You'll need another pole for a 35'
boat. You could put another pole in to tie off, bow or stern, whichever.
CATHERINE HART: Can we just come up there and you could show us what you're
talking about. Because I don't understand.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. The dock would come out like this, to the shoreline, the
ramp, and the float would come off it like that and it would be in enough water so you
could one boat on one side and the other on that side.
RICHARD HART: You don't want to do this because of the Town ramp that's there.
TRUSTEE KING: Even with this configuration, you're going to be inside of his dock.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He's out further here.
TRUSTEE KING: That stake, if you line that stake up with the neighbor to the north and
the one to the south, it's just about right at the end of his fixed dock, and I mean he's got
a ramp and a float outside that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And a boat. So you'll be inside of that. You'll be accommodate
both boats in 5' of water.
RICHARD HART: In other words, put the float this way, straight out~ This fellow here
has a floating dock, sticking out about 60' so then at low tide, the end of his dock is up on
the land. That water does drop off very fast.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You could put another stake here and tie your boat off.
CATHERINE HART: Another set of poles?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just one pole. Would that be alright, Henry?
TRUSTEE SMITH: I would put poles fore and aft.
TRUSTEE KING: They've got a pretty good reach across here. If you get a good
northeast wind, you're going to want a pole on the outboard side. That would work.
RICHARD HART: Another way' it could be entertained, I guess, if we could put the float
this way and back the two boats in stem to stem and put the poles out here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think this would be easier.
RICHARD HART: And with this we wouldn't have to build as long as ...
TRUSTEE KING: You could have a much shorter catwalk then this proposed one. This
is 35' and you're back in here someplace in 5' of water. And that way there, you run the
floats this way, you're not going to even come out...
RICHARD HART: Welt that far back out here you're going to be, at some point, in 2' of
water.
TRUSTEE KING: No, I'm talking about where I put that stake. I don't know what the
scale is but this is 88'. I'm looking at this by eye, and the stake is about there. And then
you're going to have a ramp and float and it's going to be like this.
RICHARD HART: That drop-off doesn't follow the shoreline either though. It drops off
more like here.
TRUSTEE KING: I went back and forth. I was right in there, inside of that stake with
no problem at all. Okay, I'll stop back and we'll need a new drawing. Do you know who
is doing the work?
CATHERINE HART: Steve Pawlik.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll see ifI can get a hold of him and see if we can work it out.
TRUSTEF~ KRUPSKI: Call him tonight and have him call Jim.
CATHERINE HART: Okay, akight.
RICHARD HART: The only reason why I was going in this direction was because of th
way that the neighbors are. I don't care for this straight out business myself When you
get a bad wind from the northeast I'm afraid...
TRUSTEE KING: With a northeast, I think you're further ahead with the configuration
we're going to give you, if the wind is going to be coming this way.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any comment on this application? Do I have a motion to
close the hearing?
TRUSTFF KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll approve the application based on a new drawing and Trustee
King's approval of that drawing. Do I have a second on that?
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf ofRICItARD SANSEVERE requests a Wetland
Permit for an as built fixed dock T in width. Located: 7433 Soundview Ave., Southold.
SCTM#59-6-5.1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak on behalf of the application?
PATRICIA MOORE: Good evening. We had a pre-submission inspection for the dock
as you recall from the last meeting, and the problem with the existing dock was that it
was invested with rats and as a result ...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were all out there.
PATRICIA MOORE: Right, and I guess he explained the situation so the dock was
there...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I was just out there last week. I spoke with Mr. Sansevere.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone else like to speak, in favor of or against?
PATRICIA MOORE.' Mr. Bernstein is the neighbor. I promised him I would say that he
was in favor of the application. He called me specifically.
TRUSTEE ?OLIWODA: I told him that it's built beyond what we normally would give
above a wetland. It's built 7' wide above the marsh. I said I wouldn't be so strict to
recommend that they have it ripped out because it maybe (can't understand) in the last
probably 2 years. However, to get a proper permit possibly narrowing down the walkway
to the end 0fthe platform to 3' more or less taking a circular saw and cutting 4' of it off
and put the poles on the side it.
PATRICIA MOORE: I was under the impression that the Board would accept, since the
dock has been built at this point, that at the time he would come back in the furore to
rebuild, that at that point, that it would have to be reduced down to that size, rather than
taking out ...
TRUSTEE ?OLIWODA: I don't know how you would work that though. Do you give a
Permit like that and then...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well you have to be, sort of on the honor system, when they have
to fix it.~ They would have to fix it to the proper size.
PATRICIA MOORE: Well they would have to come back probably to the Board at that
time and we would put a letter in the file that the recommendation at the time was to
reduce it down, that way he's on notice and anybody who in the future buys the property.
This property has been in the same family for at least two if not three generations and
there have been docks there all throughout the time of various sorts.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Well I have to problem with him having a dock. I just had a
problem with the way it was built.
PATRICIA MOORE: Yeah, I think he appreciated that. I don't think he had a problem
with the ultimate reduction and when the thing starts to fall apart and it needs to be
repaired.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well the survey here, that's not really accurate then is it?
PATRICIA MOORE: At the time that was the existing. When was that survey done? I
don't remember.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 1993.
PATRICIA MOORE: 1993.
TRUSTEF, KR~SKI: The CAC recommends disapproval.
TRUSTEE KING: Could we give them a Permit for the smaller structure?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yeah, we could give them a Permit for the smaller structure and
what' s on the survey and then when he has to maintenance on it that's what he has a
Permit for, that's all that he can do.
PATRICIA MOORE: As long as he doesn't get a notice of violation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh, he already has one. I'd like to see plans for this.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Al, I kind of have to agree with Kenny. I think we're going to open
up a can of worms if we let this dock stay the way it is. Because, you know, it's a shame
that somebody can do something and then come in for a Permit, and it's not good policy
for what we're doing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, so what's you're recommendation?
TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll recommend that he reduce it to the way it's supposed to be done.
4' width.
PATRICIA MOORE: What is the measurement?
TRUSTF, F, KRUPSKI: 4' wide.
PATRICIA MOORE: It's 4' wide now.
TRUSTEE SMITH: No, it's 7' wide now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The standard is 4' though.
PATRICIA MOORE: Why don't you give him a grandfather but with a window to have
it done within a certain amount of time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 30 days?
PATRICIA MOORE: Or 6 months or something. To get through the winter, and I'm
surprised only because he was before you talking, and he was the one who told me what
the agreement was.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Yes, we agreed but, it's just ....
PATRICIA MOORE: I mean I feel bad because I'm going to have to go back and ...
TRUSTEE SMITH: Well we felt sorpj for him but it's, ...it's not the right thing to do. I
mean why should we let him have it and we deny someone else.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, and then the next guy we say, no, you have to fix it.
Right~
TRUSTEE SMITH: But, we'll give him six months to do it.
PATRICIA MOORE: Okay, that gives him a window. The wood is already started to
crack and so on so I can understand that before next year,..
TRUSTF, F, SMITH: I feel bad about k but it's not the right thing to do.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think what we need also is... I ~d like to see .... he doesn't
actually have a drawing here, he has it on a survey but it doesn't have the dimensions.
We would like to see a drawing too with the size that it's going to be in six months.
PATRICIA MOORE: Are you going to write a Permit for the size that you're permitting
at this point?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well it's a standard 4' width, but I'm not so sure about the length
here though.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 20'.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 20', okay.
TRUSTEE SMITH: So write a Permit for 4'X 20'.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't want to have to have him come back here. Is there any
other comment? Do I have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE SM1TH: So moved.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion that we grant Mr. Sansevere a Permit for a fixed
dock 4'X 20' and that he has six months from today's date to remedy his 7' wide dock to
a 4' wide dock.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of ROBERT SOMERVII,LE requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a fixed open walkway 4'X 45', hinged ramp 4'X 16', and floating
dock 6'X 20'; install two 2-pile dolphins to secure floating dock, and to transfer Permit
//4867 from Robert D'Urso to Robert Somerville. Located: 485 Breezy Path, Southold.
SCTM#89-2-8
TRUSTEF, KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the
application?
JIM FITZGERALD: ~I'm here for Mr. Somerville to answer any questions if there are
any,
TRUSTF~ KRUPSKI: Kenny, we went over this at the worksession. Does anybody
want to take a look at this? Was the property posted?
JIM FITZGERALD: Posted? No TrespaSsing?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No with our standard little Trustee sign, welcoming the Trustees.
JIM FITZGERALD: Yes, it was out at the road. I mean where the dirt road makes a
bend and goes in front of the property next door.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Where is Breezy Path?
JIM FITZGERALD: Henry, it's an extension of Orchard Lane. It you go up to the
Assessors and say give me a tax map no. and official address of this property, that's the
answer. Orchard Lane is the road that runs down back through the General Wayne.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Right. Okay.
10
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We approved a house there two years ago, I think. Is the house
built?
JIM FITZGERALD: No, this is a Transfer from D'Urso to Somerville.
TRUSTF. F. FOSTER: Oh, this is the same property.
JIM FITZGERALD: Yes.
TRUSTF, F, KRUPSKI: This is the one on the little point here. We approved it a year and
a half ago. I don't see why that's not too far really...just past the edge of low water,
actually I think low water would be here, so it's actually the end of the low water and
then the ramp and the float.
TRUSTEE SMITH: No, [ have no problem with that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would like to see them keep it lower. Do you see how the
plans, they actually go up and then down again. We would rather have you keep the
catwalk fixed part lower.
JIM FITZGERALD: You can see that the scale, the vertical scale is exaggerated.
TRUSTEE KRLrPSKI: I don't have it in front of me at this point, no.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Jim, instead of having this do that here, it could be straight here.
JIM FITZGERALD: And then my friends in Stony Brook are going To say that you've
got to have...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Tell them we said it was okay.
TRUSTEE SMITH: You know these structures are getting to be ridiculous.
JIM FITZGERALD: I couldn't agree with you more but then you show them that way
and then the (can't understand) 3 ½' or 4' above the wetlands and there's a little bit of
Spartina Paten.
TRUSTEE SMITH: We'll do it both ways if they don't do it, if they don't approve it.
But if they do, we'd rather see it done this way.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we're going to approve this based on a straight catwalk. If the
DEC doesn't go for that, come back and we'll amend it at no cost to the applicant.
JIM FITZGERALD: A straight catwalk is better. It's more reasonable.
TRUSTEE KKUPSKI: Of course it is. That's up and over and then down.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I have a note that there be no more than 6" pilings and cut to
low profile with the spacing. 6" diameter pilings.
JIM FITZGERALD: Do you guarantee that that's adequate for that structural use.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's the normal policy.
JIM FITZGERALD: We have a guy that's going to build this thing and if we make it 6"
and sOmething goes amiss, who is going to ...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What's going to go amiss? If he cracks one because of
someone's weight? What could go amiss?
JIM FITZGERALD: It doesn't not survive the way a more substantially built structure
would survive.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll we would like to try to have the structure fit the area and
look at one on an individual basis. Maybe we could ask Mr. Costello here, since this is a
public hearing, if he thought, as an independent party, ifa 6' pile would be adequate for a
45' catwalk in Dryads Basin.
JOHN COSTELLO: Given the spot and different locations, and I'm not sure of this
location, but they do, and they can build a dock with 6" pilings. But, they have to be
protected waters. Otherwise they wouldn't survive the ice. They will survive on dry land
11
and where the water comes up. Because of the ice, they have the hydrologic lift. So the
catwalk can certainly be constructed with 6" pilings. The offshore pilings supporting a
float in some locations, will not. Ice has to move, and with 6" pilings, they'll have a
tendency to crack.
TRUSTEE KKUPSKI: (changed tape) Should we let him go with bigger piles on the
end.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: On the float, 8".
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 6" pilings for the catwalk, and on the end two pilings of the
catwalk you can go with a larger diameter. The end two pilings of the catwalk can be
larger. And then the pilings that support the float. Is there any other comment on this
application? Do I have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Kenny do you want to make a motion?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the Wetland and the Transfer
and to note the condition of no larger than 6" pilings on the fixed dock.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Except on the end poles. Is there a second on that?
TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES
Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of TttOM_AS & PATRICIA FRENZ request
a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling with attached porch, septic
system, and new two-car garage with driveway, and to construct a 4'X 225' catwalk with
a 6'X 20' floating dock. Located: 1260 Broadwaters Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#104-9-4.2
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone here like to speak in favor of the application?
TOM SAMUELS: I represent the Frenzes. First of all I would like to say that we're in a
sense detaching the dock portion of this from the house portion. When ! brought the
application in, the woman in the office suggested we should maybe COmbine them but we
didn't really have all the information on the dock Mx. Fitzgerald is basically
representing Frenz on that matter and it was discussed that we could come in together and
then delay or put. offthe dock permit a later time when the details are worked out and the
neighbors are properly noticed on that because they were only noticed on the house.
Secondly, to say that when we went down to flag the house, we put the flags in the wrong
place which you noticed immediately and informed us that the house was too close to the
wetlands which we acknowledged and, in fact, intend to re-locate out stakes in whatever
way necessary to satisfy you that the house in the proper position on the site, relative to
the neighboring houses and the wetlands. Our map shows 75' back from the wetlands
and that's where we thought he house was but our stakes were in the wrong place. So,
hopefully we can figure out how that needs to be addressed and to your satisfaction.
Finally, there is a concern of yours with regard to the turf zone which ~ think 50' was
mentioned. I'm not sure if that's a standard or not but I know that my clients have some
concerns about that and they would like to address the Board on that matter and maybe
find out what alternative there is to grass because they want to be able to use the yard not
as the access so if you could maybe address that now or I would have them address it
first.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well that's, I guess I'll start from the beginning, yes we can just
act on the house tonight, we don't have to act on the dock. That's not a problem. The
12
house we would like to see kept in line with the two neighbor's houses. We have no
problem with that. The 50' non-turf setback is a standard setback that we use on the
creeks and it protects, especially on a steep slope like this, it protects the creek from all
the upland activities. That's the reason for it. It's a buffer area between the creek
environment. You have a beautiful marsh out in front of your house and we want to
maintain that marsh. We don't want it disturbed by any upland activity.
TOM SAMUELS: Could you maybe just describe what type of, or what species are
appropriate in that area other than turf
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well no, it would be a non-disturbance. You'd be able to keep it,
the plants in that area are not protected under the wetland code. There's a flagged
wetlands here by En~Consultants, Inc. That looked like an accurate wetland line there.
All the vegetation from that area towards the creek is protected under the wetland code.
The purpose of the 50' buffer is to just protect basically the marsh from activity, and it's
a non-disturbance zone. You can trim for a view, and obviously you can have a path
through it to the water, but it's a non-disturbance zone.
TOM SAMUELS: There was some bacharras there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's protected. You can't touch that. And I don't know
why.., from that house elevation, it certainly doesn't block your view or anything.
THOMAS FRENZ: When you inspected the property and you know how it slopes down
onto the protected wetlands, which I appreciate it also, I do however have some concerns
with approximately 10 to 15 stumps, tree stumps, which were leR from the prior owner.
Those I would most likely want to remove for protection of the children playing in that
area. I don't know What else I could disturb. I won't disturb anything except for
removing those stumps. I can't take anything out and replant other species there?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well I don't know. You can come back if you want to replant
something. Come back with a planting plan. But the whole purpose of it is to provide a
non-disturbance buffer. So, if you really want to do something specific, I think we would
be happy to listen to it.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Yeah, no bulldozer. I wouldn't have a problem with you going
down there with a stump grinder or got someone with a stump grinder and ground those
stumps down. But not to go in there with a bulldozer and yuck them out. No way.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. Because you're on a steep slope. We really don't want to
see the soil disturbed in that area because it's going to lead to nutrients and sediments
flowing into the marsh.
THOMAS FRENZ: I have an arborvitae growing and I don't know where these things
came from. It certainly, I don't think, is a natural thing. Just as a homeowner I'd like to
clean it up and make it more appealing. But not to disturb anything or throw fertilizer on
the wetlands. But I just want to get a real clarification as to, before I go ahead and invest
financially into a house, I want to know if I can clean up that area to make it look
presentable. It's not like it's pristine woods, I mean it's brush.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well it was cleared recently. So, you're getting that second
growth now that's coming through it because someone destroyed that original tree
canopy. But, the purpose of the buffer zone, if you want to, in fact we can even put into
the condition of the permit that you can grind the stumps down and take out some,.., you
see, soil disturbance is the big concern here, without the use of heavy equipment. You
can have someone come with a chainsaw and cut the arborvitae down, it's not a problem.
THOMAS FRENZ: Well you could probably just yank it out of the ground. But, my
concern is that from the flagged wetlands, it's 75' from my house, you're proposing a 50'
non-disturbed zone, I basically don't have a backyard or anything. I've got 25'. That's
the reason why I would like to clean up at least in some areas so that I could have some
place for children to play and not have to worry about ticks and the other hazards that we
have.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well there's ticks everywhere. You're not going to hide from
them. You can clear all day and you're not going to hide from ticks. If you want, you
can come in with some sort ora landscaping plan within that 50' and we can review it.
We can't promise you anything because that 50' is a pretty standard number. I think
you're going to find that with ...well the State has jurisdiction to 10' elevation. So
you're going to need something from the State below the 10' elevation from the DEC.
THOMAS FRENZ: Well I'm just looking to expand more than 25' from the house with
landscaping and something to make it look nicer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you like, my suggestion would be to come in with something
like that with the dock application which I imagine you would be coming in with soon.
Put those two together then we can act on your house application tonight and get that
moving along instead of trying to tie this in with the landscaping plan and taking another
month here. Isthat alright?
THOMAS FRENZ: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRL~SKI: So, well give you the 50' setback of a 50' non-disturbance buffer
with the condition that you can grind the stumps down.
THOMAS FRENZ: Is there a possibility here, and I know them is a concern here with
mn-off into the wetlands, is there a possibility or have you ever entertained the thought of
creating a small burm down to the wetland line there so we don't have mn-off in there,
which would allow me to go ahead and landscape with your approval on the species and
not disturb the wetlands because I don't want to disturb the wetlands as well.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's a possibility. I think you would have to get someone from
soil conservation who would be happy to come down at no charge to take a look at that.
Because you have such a large area on such a steep slope, I don't know what size
structure you'd need to maintain that water on the site. That would be our concern. If
you could have someone come in, with an engineered plan that would show that burm
structure would retain your water and on Nassau Point, the water recharge is critical.
You don't want to lose your rainwater. So it's to your advantage to retain all your
rainwater that you can there. So if you come in with some sort of plan showing that,
we'd be happy to take a look at that.
THOMAS FRENZ: Okay. Thank you very much.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment?
NEIGHBOR: I'm the next door neighbor. I was just wondering. Where is the house
going to be?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, right in-between your house and the ..
NEIGHBOR: Well it' s not going to be any further.., and the house was going to be
moved back. I was just wondering where it was going to be.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: 22' back from where the stakes were.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So the three houses will be in line. Do Ihave a motion to close
the hearing?
14
TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved_
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application for the house which
would be in line with the neighbors house with a standard 50' non-disturbance buffer
between the flagged wetland with permission to grind the stumps within that 50' buffer
with no soil disturbance and no heavy equipment and with a staked row ofhaybales at the
50' buffer to be put in during construction.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf ofltAROLD & DOTTIE BAER request a
Wetland Permit to construct a single-family residence, ,driveway, decks, and sanitary
system. Located: 1425 Meadow Beach Lane, Mattituck SCTM#116-7-6
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone here like to speak in favor of the application?
TOM SAMUELS: Only if there are questions. I don't really have anything else to add.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is an old application. This is an old permit here. Wasn't
there a permit issued for this property before this? We thought so. Yes, 1997 we issued a
permit to Gloria McCoy here. And, this is basically the same scenario?
TOM SAMUELS: Right.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is actually a much larger than 50' buffer. Non-disturbed
buffer. Does the Board have any question? Any other comments? Do I have a motion to
close the hearing?
TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to approve the application?
TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. ALL AYES
Costello Marine Contracting, Inc. on behalf ofKATItERINE DEVORE requests a
Wetland Permit for an existing bulkhead, to repair the floating dock, and to plant beach
grass, and to Transfer the Permit #720 from James Hamilton to Kathleen DeVore.
Located: 635 Lighthouse Lane, Southold. SCTM#70-5-16
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of or against the
application?
JOHN COSTELLO: My name is John Costello. I'm the agent for the applicant. If you
have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE SMITH: I went down and looked at John. The dock is 5' wide 55' long,
fixed dock. The btflkhead, no problem with that. The only this is that we're going insist
on a probably a 6'X 20' float again.
JOHN COSTELLO: Why.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Because that's all we issue.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Public property. That's the bottom line.
JOHN COSTELLO: There was probably a permit issued for this thing. This structure ...
TRUSTEE SMITH: The dock has been there for 10 years anyway.
JOHN COSTELLO: Yes, I repaired it within'the 10 year period. But you know where
the pilings are located right?
TRUSTEE SMITH: Yes.
JOHN COSTELLO: 24 and 6 apart. That's what they are.
TRUSTEE SMITH: There are two new ones there and there are two that supposedly have
been replaced.
JOHN COSTELLO: Within the last 10 years.
TRUSTEE SMITH: So they could be ...there's also a permit for a 6'X 24'.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't have a problemwith that. They have an old permit for it
in this case.
JOHN COSTELLO: They're all set, they have a permit for it.
TRUSTF~F, SMITH: Yes, 6'X 24'. Okay, I have no problem with it.
JOHN COSTELLO: Good, because they don't want to go through the expense of
mov'mg the pilings in if it's unnecessary. One of the pilings has to be pulled out of the
water. We could add the ramp and it measured out 16'. (can't understand)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. No problem. Any other comment?
JOHN COSTELLO: The dock shows 0nthe survey that was submitted in 1971.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well the Permit was issued in 1972. Any other comment? Do I
have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to Approve the application?
TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of CltARLES LOCASTRO requests a Wetland Permit
to replace (within 18") approx. 124' of existing timber bulkhead and backfill with
approx. 25' c.y. of clean sand to be tracked in from an upland source. Remove and
replace (inkind/inplace) existing +/- 61' Iow-profile timber groin. Remove and replace
(inkind/inplace) existing wood deck over bulkhead and wood steps to beach. Remove
existing wood deck at top of bank; construct a 12' X 20' wood deck; and reconstruct
wood steps down bank. Located: 2400 Park Ave., Mattituek. SCTM#123-8-12
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of this
application?
ROB HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. This
was actually held over from last month. I believed we covered all of the ground at last
months hearing. Everything the Board members seem to feel that was more or less
approvable as proposed with the exception of the wood deck which overhangs the crest of
that embankment which we had expected could be removed. I believe it was Tabled
because ora possible consultation and co-inspection with the DEC.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Which never happened.
ROB HE1LRMANN: Well I would certainly hope that we could move to close this now
after two months.
TRUSTEE KING: We talked about leaving the groin alone and replace the bulkhead
within 18" with the same length.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well does the groin have a Permit? I was thinking that we should
give the groins Permits that way they would be locked in at those dimensions.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Well there's nothing wrong with those groins.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes but just like on a lot of places you say, put everything on
there. Put everything on the Permit. Everything shown is Permitted. And then that's
what you have and then in five years they can replace it with this or that. I think it would
be better to put it all on the Permit.
TRUSTEE KING: Put in what's there now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. That's what I mean. Put in what's there now. Shew it on
a survey and that's what's there, period.
ROB HERRMAN: As we had discussed last month, in trying to maintain the groin at it's
same elevation now, we did have a surveyor provide relative measurements, if you look
in the bottom right hand corner of the survey, the top of the bulkhead is built 3' above
beach grade and 2.1' above the groin. So, regardless of how the beach grade would
move, you know that the top, the elevation of the bulkhead is .9' above the top of the
groin. If that makes sense.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, it doesn't.
ROB HERRMANN: No, I'm sorry. The top of the bulkhead is 2.1' above the top of the
groin. The bulkhead, as we discussed, would be built at the same height. So if the
bulkhead is 2.1' abOve the groin, then when the groin would be reconstructed, (noise) and
2.1' below the top of the bulkhead, the same as what it is now. In other words, we've had
these conversations where we put marks and things on the bulkhead and in this case we
actually had the surveyor provide relative heights so there could not possibly be any
ambiguity as to the elevation of the groin. That's the only way to start doing things.
TRUSTEE KING: I've got a measurement of 27' from the top of the bulkhead to the top
of the groin.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'd rather have it on the survey here and then when they go to
replace it .... we weren't sure...that was our concern, none of it really needed replacing.
ROB IIERRMANN: None of what needed replacing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The structure. The groin or the bulkhead.
ROB HERRMANN: That it didn't need replacing?
TRUSTEE SMITI~: Well the bulkhead, Al, there were some spots in there, but the groin
did not, definitely did not need replacing.
TRUSTEE KRuZPsKI: But I'd rather see it here and it shown exactly. It's 25" here and
over here it's actually 42" below the top of the bulkhead. R's marked clearly here where
the groin starts, oh I'm sorry, the top of the groin, ...it doesn't matter above the beach, it
mat[ers, the top of the bulkhead here, there's 3 ½' above the groin.
ROB HERRMANN: No, where it says "top of bulkhead" there's two items under that.
The top of bulkhead is 3' above the beach, which is relevant in the long term but it's
pertinent now because Jim had mentioned he wanted the 15ulkhead at the same elevation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
ROB HERRMANN: The Top of bulkhead is also 2.1' above the top of the groin.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: _In that comer.
ROB HERRMANN: Correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But on the west side, it's 3 ½' above groin.
ROB HERRMANN: Yeah but that's above the neighbor's groin. It's not a groin that's
being replaced. In other words, when the field crew went out, they didn't know
how...we asked them just to get relative measurements from both spots. But the only
groin here that's being replaced is the one that's actually on LoCastro's property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But I'd rather see this than that.
17
ROB HERRMANN: R's the type of thing, it's always less expensive for somebody if
they have as much as a structure as they can when the contractor is there in one shot. So
that's the purpose of doing it. The other option is you wait until it deteriorates and then
you lose the beach. And then you come back and you have to fight.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure, what's the length of the groin?
ROB H~RRMANN: It's 61' now and would be 59' in length at the end of construction
because you're going to lose about a 1 ½ at the landward end. In other words, the end of
the groin would be in the same location seaward but physically 2' shorter. It's a lot of
number battling, Al, it's not meant as an insult.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I get it. Is there any other comment? Do ! have a motion to close
the hearing?
TRUSTEE SMITH: Just one minute. This bulkhead is going to be built inkind/inplace
or in front of?.
ROB HERRMANN: It's going to be within 18" or k will still be landward of the adjacent
bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The one adjacent bulkhead.
TRUSTEE SMITH: And it's going to be the same height as the existing bulkhead.
ROB HERRMANN: That's what was discussed at the last hearing, yes. We didn't put it
in the application one way or another but I believe Jim had raised that as a concern last
month. Basically I would just leave the wood deck out of the Permit period. I don't think
he's going to pursue that at all. I can give you a revised plan eliminating the deck.
TRUSTF~ K_RUPSKI: Well actually the survey is what we would stamp approved.
Which probably doesn't have a deck.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. Do I have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve the application as per stamped
survey.
ROB HERRMANN: I'd better give you a revised plan to incorporate with that Al,
because I don't think the survey describes any of the work that you're Permitting.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. I'm going to Approve this anyway so we can get the
drawing after.
TRUSTEE SMITH: The groin is going to be replaced inkind/inplace.
ROB HERRMANN: Correct. Same profile.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What do you think Artie, Kenny?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Well it's one of the better ones that I've seen..I'd give a
Permit for that one.
TRUSTEE KING: These groins are really going to become a problem. Mark my word.
We already had a problem with the Homan one that I looked at. It'S the same thing.
They never should have been rebuilt. As a matter of fact, I think there's a violation.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Do you have a DEC Permit?
ROB HERRMANN: No we don't have DEC Permit yet. We have found that when the
groins, the problems with the groins is that if the contractor doesn't built it according to
the specs that this Board and the DEC approves, that's the problem. So the groins that we
have, if the contractors builds it according to your specs, it creates a situation. What's
anticipated here is to now obviate the need to come back in ten years when this thing is
deteriorated and the homeowner is losing the beach and then it becomes a big
embroilment as to whether it was there and whether it was functioning. This way you do
it while the contractor is there and you keep the situation as it is now so you don~t change
the beach. That's why we're offering the data that we're offering. If the contractor
comes in and builds this thing a few feet higher, sure it's going to be a tremendous
problem. But that's the point of this process, I would think.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Just one question. Relative to the other groins. Is it longer?
ROB HERRMANN: Most of them right in that area are about the same length. Most of
them are pretty well buried too. There is not too much showing. Jim, I tmderstand your
prospective and I hear where you're coming from. If someone gets a Building Permit to
build a one-story house and they built a second-story, you can't issuing house Permits in
the community. We're trying to help this Board as much as possible in giving as much
detail in numbers and as we possible can and having it on the survey so there is no
ambiguity after the Permit is issued. That's the best I can do. If it's not built in
conformance you have to issue a violation and have it corrected.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved.
TRUSTEF, POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve the application as per survey and
condition of a new set of plans showing the work notes.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. AYES Foster, Smith, & Poliwoda, NEY- King.
En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of MATTITUCK ASSOCIATES requests a Wetland
Permit to replace (within 18" ) approx. 104' existing timber bulkhead with 104' C-Loc
vinyl bulkhead and backfill with approx. 50 c.y. of clean sand fill to be trucked in from
an upland source. Located: 7390 Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel. SCTM#126-11-11
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone here like to speak in favor of the application?
ROB HERR-MANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant,
Mattituck Associates, If the Board has any questions, it should be a fairly straight-
forward application to replace the bay-front bulkhead within 18" and replace (changed
tape) that's about it. I don't know if you read any of the property description.
TRUSTF, F, KRUPSKI: What about this little jog here on the east side of the property.
ROB HERRMANN: Actually, it's the neighbors.
TRUSTF~ tCRUPSKI: I know.
ROB HERRMANN: The jog is them now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No but it's going to make a little comer because you're going to
make an indentation.
TRUSTEE KING: I didn't have a problem with any of the bulkhead but I have a
question. You just did one where you replaced the groin but how come nothing is being
done with this groin and most of it isn't even functional?
ROB HERRMANN: Because the homeowner hasn't asked to do it.
TRUSTEE KRL~SKI: It's not functional?
TRUSTF, F, KING: It tipped up about 3' in the air and laying over on an angle.
ROB HERRMANN: And it's got a gap.
TRUSTEE KING: I would recommend removing the groin while there in there putting in
the new bulkhead, take that groin out, if it's not functional.
19
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. I was going to ask about that.
ROB HERRMANN: Because neither I nor the contractor can force him to do that.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: What's the condition of the beach?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No beach.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: No beach? Get it out of there then.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: His apparent high-water mark is along the bulkhead. It's going
to come a day when all of these are going to have to be inkind/inplace too. We're kind of
moving towards that on the bay too. They keep bumping out and bumping out.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You'll be in Shinnecock before you know it.
ROB HERRMANN: Well according to the State regs and I believe the court too,
although I know the State, you can only go out once. And to go out, you're out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In whose lifetime though.
ROB HERRMANN: Well in the lifetime as long as there's a Permit. That hasn't taken
effect in the past because the DEC has only been regulating this since 1977. We have a
Permit now that will get through the DEC (can't understand) in 80 years from now and
ask to go out. There's going to be Permit on record with the DEC that says 18" and that's
it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well I just wondered because it is...you're getting onto public
property.
ROB HERRMANN: Well theoretically you could expand your property...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well you're getting into public property also.
ROB HERRMANN: That's why the DEC puts the revocation of one replacement on
there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment on this application?
ROB HERRMANN: I'll pass it on to him and I already discussed it with the contractor
but he said if the guy doesn't want to pay me to do it than I can't do it.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well then we won't give him the Permit unless he removes
the groin.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If it's becoming a hazard and it breaks offand causes a
navigational hazard, then it's a problem.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We've created Permits where you couldn't go, I think k was
part ora house, unless the guy removed the bOat.
ROB HF~RRMANN: Well if it's something that's a public hazard then you could legally
condition that. This groin is not functioning, but I don't think it's a hazard.
TRUSTEF, KRUPSKI: Well it could be if it breaks lose. Winter is coming. Is there any
other comment? I'll take a motion from someone to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTF. E FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Jim, could you make a motion here.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with a one time
expansion only and I would strongly recommend that the groin be removed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before it becomes a hazard.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Put a condition on the Permit.
TRUSTEE KING: Alright, we'll make it a condition of the Permit that it has to be
removed or if they want to do a low-profile to replace it.
ROB HERRMANN: I don't know how the Board could do that.
10.
TRUSTF, F. KRUPSKI: Why not? It's not on his property to start with. It's public
property. And, it's a derelict structure on public property so why can't we do that.
ROB HERRMANN: Well how do you deem that it's a derelict structure?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's not functional. I think we have you on tape saying that.
ROB HERRMANN: Well you're using the term derelict. I've granted you that's it not a
functional groin but does this Board go out and demand the removal of other groins in the
Town of Southold that's not functional?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we do in some cases. We tell people they have to remove
old pilings and things that are no longer used. We go to places where they're going to
build a new dock and we tell them, you know, you have to take that out, as a condition of
the Permit, a condition of a derelict boat sometimes.
ROB HERRMANN: Okay, wait a second, I may be mis-speaking. You're saying that as
a condition of the Permit that that structure is to be removed. You're not saying that it to
be reconstructed. It can if they want to incorporate it. I rescind my comment. I thought
that you were stating that he, in order to replace the bulkhead, he was compelled to build
a new groin.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, no, no. Okay, there's a motion. Isthere a second?
TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES
En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of ROLAND & KAREN GRANT requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a fixed timber dock, COnsisting ofa 4'X 74' fixed timber catwalk; 3'X
14' ramp; and a 6'X 20' float to be secured by (2) 8" diameter pilings. Located: 1175
Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM#86-5-9.1
TRUSTEF, KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the
application?
ROB HERRMANN: I'm here on behalf of the applicants, Roland & Karen Grant. Mr. &
Mrs. Grant are also here tonight if the Board has any questions. I understand the Board
was to the property and inspected it the same day, in fact, that some DEC staff inspected
it. As I anticipated it, we continue the dock circus, I have a proposal here which is
longer, I'm going to assume from what I've heard that the Trustees would like to see a
terribly shorter than what the DEC is going to like to see.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well mayb~ I'm getting ahead of myself. We were at the site
and we spoke with Mrs. Grant and we told her about our policy on docks and whatnot. Is
it... is this something the DEC is going to as a fixed dock, in a creek like this, a fixed
dock with a pipe and a pulley system, a pole and a pulley system.
ROB HERRMANN: I don't know.
TRUSTF~ KRUPSKI: Because we'd rather get this straightened out with them.
ROB HERRMANN: Well we've been trying to straighten that out with them for the
better part of the year and without trying to be humorous or anything else, that policy
changes every month and there are other agents in the audience who can attest to that.
For example, this Board recently issued very similar permits to very similar docks to
Kenneth Seiferth over in Nassau Point and also to Ronald Quinn over on Lupton Point
Rd. We got two denials back from the State. One denial said that we could have a
catwalk out to the end of the marsh and then a mooring. The other denial said that we
can't have anything but we could have a piling and pulley system. So, even the denials
that we're getting back from the DEC have absolutely no consistency between them.
21
They are about as arbitrary as they could be. At the same time, I've seen a couple of
permits that have been approved recently by the DEC including one where have of the
float was shown sitting on the bottom in one fool of water. There is a dock hearing going
on at the DEC right now and I think ail of us are desperately awaiting some sort of
consistency and rational coming from that agency which we have not yet found. In fact I
had spoken with A1 and asked if you could coordinate with the DEC. I had appreciated
the letter you sent on Seiferth which I think was ignored and I don't know if you sent any
correspondence on Quinn. Lauren had indicated she thought you would either verbally or
in writing. In that situation, strangely after getting the partial denial, the DEC staff
reappeared on the property a second time possibly with a second alternative plan
seemingly unaware of the first denial and said that they Would be in touch either with me
or with this Board because Mr. Quinn advised them that the application had been
approved by this Board consistent with the neighbors. So this remains an exasperated
struggle for a lot of us. In this case, our original proposal is a compromise between the
two agencies which is not going to happen. So, what I would like to do is just speak from
what I believe the Board suggested as an aiternative and make a compromise of that
compromise. Unlike some of our clients who have just gotten to the point of quitting, I
believe (can't understand) as long as they can in terms 0f getting a dock permit from the
DEC. It's the reason they bought this property, that they moved here and made ,his
investment and they think is a struggle for ail waterfront owners and look around and see
docks going up all around them and they get these permits that say you can have a
mooring, and a pulley and a dinghy and whatever the flavor of the week is. This Board, I
believe, during the on-site inspection, right now we had proposed a dock whose overall
length would extend 46' seaward at the edge of the marsh. Under this Boards suggested
alternative, it would be shortened by 22'. The fixed catwaik would extend 6' beyond the
edge of the marsh which would leave the overall structure 24' seaward of the marsh if
you include 6' of the catwaik and then the ramp and the float. Technically I think this
Board asked for a 4'X 50' catwalk and then with the ramp and the float as proposed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And what do you propose?
ROB HERRMANN: What I would like to propose that would be between that and our
original proposal and this is not in the spirit ofa traditionai give and take ~until you get in
the middle, we're proposing now that the dock reach 2'2 ir~ of water. You're proposal it
would reach 1'7" of water. We will never see any kind of dock permit from the DEC in
that water depth. What I would like to do, I would almost get the Board cooperation is to
give back 10' of the 22' that you would like to take away, because over that 10', the
water depth increases from 1'7" to 2'. You pick almost a half a foot of water over 113'
whereas the last 12' or 14' you only pick up another 2" so I would absolutely agree with
you but I would lock that off without a thought. But if the Grants are going to get.their
Permits from the Town and from the Corp. and end up with a denial from the DEC, and I
have to reason to expect anything but that here, to go to an administrative bar hearing
with the DEC, it nearly presents a much more reasonable case to have a dock in two feet
of water then a foot and a half. I know that is not the Board's concern if, how can we
strengthen the applicant's case for a dock if it's your concern to protect the bottom. But
what I'm saying is in this case, you're taking about 10' to pick-up almost a halfa foot of
water, which I think is pretty significant. If we can get this dock in 2' of water, I think
it's a reasonable dock application.
22
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, you're saying, cut it back from the original submission by
12'.
ROB HERRMANN: By 12' as opposed to 22'. Because, over that last 12' you only
pick-up 2" of water. It doesn't mean very much. But over the next 10' you'll pick-Up
almost a halfa foot which I think is very significant. We're well beyond the 1/3.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I was against this project to begin with because of all of the
natural activity in that area. There are a lot of people that use that area for crabs at night
and there is a lot of concern that there isn't any structures nearly as large as that one
proposed. I was more in favor of for a dock that would get me just over the marsh with a
pulley system.
ROB HERRMANN: How does, well you see this is the same question that we keep
asking the DEC. The DEC said that they don't want the dock because they don't want a
boat prop-dredging But, if you put a pulley out the same distance you would put a dock
and you still have the same use of the boat, that doesn't eliminate prop-dredging That's
what the Town of Shelter Island has argued ineffectively to the DEC. So here, I mean I
understand, or I'm not surprised by your position but I still don't see how, if you maintain
the use there, it you maintain the use ora boat with a pulley or whatever, you're still
occupying that small area with the use of a boat. I don't see how whether we have a 4'
wide catwalk over the 20' or a mooring or pulley but that really eliminates the public's
ability to utilize that creek. There is a similar, [ think larger dock around to the south,
just as you go around at the marsh. Obviously the neighbor's dock is much, much
smaller and resting against the marsh. By the same token, I would not be surprised if that
neighbor gets a violation from the DEC for having the float against the marsh.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Kenny, you have to go around the boat anyway. What about the
landward length. We had a discussion with Mrs. Grant about the landward length, you
know. there was a stake where it going to start. [ mean, it's up to you. If you want to
start it there, bu~ it's not necessary because you can start if further.
ROB HERRMANN: We showed it there so there would be a flat walk out so that you
would not have to be creating incline in order to achieve a regulated elevation over the
marsh. Under the scenario that I'm proposing, the only difference in the plan in this plan
that it would be a 4~X 60' fixed catwalk as opposed to 4'X 74'
TRUSTEE KRUSPKI: What do you think Artie?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't have a problem with it.
TRUSTF, F, SMITH: No problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let us know as far as what the DEC says. We're trying to
contact them now and try to work something out.
ROB HERRMANN: I can only plead with this Board every time I come in. Neither the
State Law nor the Tidal Wetlands Regulations have changed but the policies have
changed so disproportionately that they haven't really changed the one set of guidelines.
They vary so much from case to case that we have no idea what we're going to get. We
have idea what to anticipate.
TRUSTF~F, KRUPSKI: Do you have the new drawing?
ROB HERRMANN: No but I can certainly get one to you, which I assume you would
need before you could release the Permit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. Any other comment? Do I have a motion to dose the
hearing?
Il.
TRUSTF~ SMITH: So moved.
TRUSTF~ FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I~11 make a motion to ApProve the application for a structure
showing 12' less extension into the water than what was originally submitted on the
August 6th plan. So when he brings it in and it says 46' into the water it would only be
34'. 12' less. Okay, 12' less than what was originally submitted. That's the condition.
Do I have a second.
TRUSTF~F, SMITH: Seconded. Trustee King aye, Trustee Foster aye, Trustee Poliwoda
nay.
En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of WILLIAM WALSIt requests a Wetland Permit to
remove 5'X8' section of existing stairs to grade. Construct a fixed timber dock
consisting ofa 4'X 50' fixed catwalk; a 3'X 12' ramp; and a 6'X 20' timber float
supported by (2) 8" diameter dolphin piles. Located: 1555 Fleetwood Rd., Cutchogue.
SCTM#137-4-34
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the
application?
ROB HERRMANN: I'm here on behalf of William Walsh. I hope this is an easy dock.
It's in 5 ½' of water which will make the DEC happy, which is shorter than the
neighbors' which I hope will make this Board happy.
TRUSTEF, KRUPSKI: I was at the site last night I talked to the Walshes. Right next to
them is Mr. Scavone's dock. So I was able to walk out on there, and it's slightly shorter
than Mr. Scavone's dock and a little bit longer than the neighbors. So it's right in-
between the two. And, it's in-between the two docks. It's longer than what we would
normally Permit but because it's between the two docks, and not further out, it didn't
seem to be a big problem. I explained that to them also.
ROB HERRMANN: I explained that to them as well. When I walked it, I got to, I guess
the name thatlyou just mentioned, to the south, was about the middle of this.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now Mr. Scavone has a very nice low-profile dock there, judging
from the pictures,
ROB HERRMANN: You could condition to bring this down only after we get over the
inter-tidal marsh which is not too long.
TRUSTEEKRUPSKI: Is them anyone else who would like to comment? I'll make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with a condition
that.it beno pjtings above the catwalk. We should'ye done that with the Grant's also.
ROB HERRMANN: When you said a short height, how about 24".
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sum.
ROB HERRMANN: Southampton uses 34".
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 24" is fine. I think that is consistent with the neighbors.
ROB HERRMANN: Yes, k would be there.
TRUSTREE KRUPSKI: Okay, the uprights shouldn't be more than 24" above the
catwalk decking. Do I have a second on that?
TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES
24
12.
En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of BRIAN & MARTINA FAERBER requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a two-story, one-family dwelling and attached garage; two-story deck;
and sanitary system to be retained by concrete retaining walls; install drywells, place
approx. 350 c.y. of sand fill to achieve required base flood elevation of 8'; connect public
water service; all as depicted on the site plan prepared by Joseph Ingegno, last revised 3
August 1999. Located: 545 Williamsburg Rd., Southold. SCTM#78-5-16
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the
application?
ROB HERRMANN: I'm here on behalf of the applicant's Brian & Martina Faerber. I
could give the Board a very long presentation but, in the favor of time, I'll just ask what
questions or concerns the Board might have and I'll try to explain those specific
questions.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Well, I'd like to see a lot more information on this as far as ...
ROB HERRMANN: As far as what?
TRUSTEE SMITH: As far as the Board of Health.
ROB HERRMANN: In terms of the other Permits?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: CAC recommends Disapproval. It's too close to the creek, they
have concerns about the septic system and the entire structure would have a negative
impact on Corey Creek. We looked at the site, It seemed inaccurate The stakes showed
that the house comer, to me, showed about 8' from the marsh. Here it shows 20'. What
was staked on the site is staked here. The staking seemed inaccurate. Actually it seemed
closer on the site.
ROB HERRMANN: That I don't know how to explain. The setback at it's nearest point,
I th'ink, as much as I want to save time, I have to get some things out on the table, the
setback at it's closest point is 20' which would be the proposed deck. It would be 30' to
the house. But, it you're looking at something like 8' on a house deck, that doesn't sound
right. This is the property the Board looked at years ago. On the application of the
current owner, Jim Grathwohl, I actually have a letter from you, Al, from April of 1991
where you brought out the same concern that Henry just did. You were interested in
some feedback from the Health Dept. Half of that has been defeated by the fact that at
the time, and I don't know if you remember it, but there was some tremendous
conversation about where the well was going to go and the well was going to go at the
right of way and there were variances and covenants, and, of course now, there would be
a conneCtion to public water. So, that side of it would be resolved.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: When is there going to be a connection of public water.
ROB HERRMANN: Well that we have to find out.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Five years?
ROB HERRMANN: No. The water authority is down on Main Bayview already.
We've had at least one person that the water authOrity said they could connect as soon as
they paid.- Now, that's not the case here yet. We have to get an answer from the water
authority. But, well actually no, you're leading me down a defensive path. Both
neighbors already have public water. The proposed water service is real. It's not for
future. In fact I though! was looking at another plan that's going to be in fi~ont of you
next month.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well, they have a moratorium on new construction. They'll hook-
up anybody that's existing. But, they won't hook-up any new construction.
ROB HERRMANN: Well that we will have to resolve with them. In terms of sanitary
system, it's the only place it can go on this lot that would maximize the setbacks. The
placement of the septic tank and the cesspools limits how far we can really take the house
on a clockwise access to get or eliminate some of that setback. One of the things I found
out just before is when we had worked with Joe Ingegno, we were working on the
assumption that there's a 10' setback requirement between the foundation and the tank as
there is on the pool. But, I believe that it maybe 5'.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's a crawl space or a slab, as long as it's not a full basement.
ROB HERRMANN: They were working on the same basis of the cesspool setback. So
it looks like, at least, like that the southwest corner, and you will be able to rotate this
house in a clockwise direction, so even as it's presently proposed, increase that setback.
One of the other things we could do to some degree, is eliminate some of the deck at that
corner to improve the setback there. The problems is, you're looking at a lot that's four
tenth's ofan acre. 27% of that is tidal wetlands because of both shorelines. It's a pre-
existing, non-conforming, legal lot, it was created in 1952. So that's the first thing the
DEC is going to look at. The problem is, because of the constraint of the wetlands on
both shorelines, the current house setback is 30', just to increase that 5', we'd have to
reduce the length the house by 17'. In other words, the wetlands are so uniformly spread
along both shorelines, that there's very little you can do in terms 0fthe proposed to
actually minimize the setbacks any better than what you have now without being left with
a shack. Now interestingly, the application that was before this Board almost nine years
ago, actually a larger house was proposed. This house is 1800 sq:ft, footprint. You had a
1900 sq.ft, footprint before you in 1991. The Board was less concerned about the
setbacks at that time because there was more upland. This lot has to some degree been
grown up with wetlands With just over the past eight years. If that isn't the case, then you
just have a more accurate depiction of the wetland line than you did eight years ago. At
that times the Board's primary concern was the Health Dept. issue. Same thing Henry
just asked in terms of the septic and the well. We will certainly get comments back from
the State in terms of the wetland setbacks. But, in terms of minimizing, there's not much
else you can do. The applicant obviously wants to maximize the size of the dwelling
because that's the only use that's going to ever be allowed on the property. There is just
physically no room, almost ~regardless of setbacks, to put any kind of accessory structure
or other use. The garage is contained within the footprint of the house you're looking at.
So, it's an attached-garage with no extension of the garage. In terms of mitigation, we're
also doing about what we can. We've had dtywells proposed, we have a post-
construction 20' non-fertilization, non-disturbance buffer proposed in the plan which in
the southeast goes up to the deck.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well vou've got fill in the area so it's not non-disturbance.
ROB HERRMANN: Well that's why I said post-construction. The problem is, in order
to meet FEMA, we've got to put the fill down. Now that fill can be vegetated with native
species and then left. In other words, that can never have a lawn or anything else. But, in
terms of meeting the required base flood elevations we're in an AE zone with elevation
requirement 8. So, in order to achieve, as you can see the cross-view of the foundation of
the house with the proposed septic system detail, you're looking at the best we can do
again on that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Unless you want a flat-out No, I don't think you'll get an answer
from us tonight.
ROB HERRMANN: No, I know that we can't. But, I thought that if we might be able to
focus on what your concerns are, I expect that they're going to be "what we can do to
alleviate",...
TRUSTEE SMI~I-I: The lot's too small, the house is too big.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And, the septic system is too close.
TRUSTEE SMITH: It's basically an un-buildable lot
ROB HERRMANN: Well if this Board takes on the responsibility to condemn the lot,
then that's a responsibility..
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're not condemning k. We're just saying that you can't mn
the septic systeminto the creek. That's different from condemning it.
ROB HERRMANN: Well, Henry it's not as simple as that though. It's a single and
separate, legally, pre-existing, non-conforming lot as far as your Building Permit is
concerned. If you're not going to issue a Permit, you have to condemn the lot.
TRUSTEE SMI~I-I: Well you have to go by our setbacks, 75' then.
ROB HERRMANN: You cannot have a Trustee or a current building code conforming
envelope on this lot.
TRUSTEE SMF~H: Then it's unbuildable.
ROB HERRMAb~: I've drawn you the conforming building envelope.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I feel very strongly that this proposed house will severely
degrade the environmental areas around it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean there are a lot of problems, Rob. The septic system is the
biggest one. The septic system is 55' from the wetlands. That's something that we don't,
on most houses consider, because most of the new houses come in with septic systems
well out of our jurisdiction, usually a 150' which is twice of our jurisdiction, so we don't
even consider (tape changed) Well the fill is a problem, completely changing the grade of
the lot on that tiny lot. The size of the house is a problem. You know, if you came in
with something that was the minimum size house, and I don't know what is the minimum
square footage, but something that would fit the lot.
ROB HERRMANN: Well that's what I'm trying to hash out because you could come in
with a 40 sq, ft. house that's one-story and it will still not conform to your setbacks. This
Board does issue Permits for structures that don't meet your setbacks.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's right. But we don't issue Permits for structures that
impact the creek like this. I think we're going to have to, if you want to pursue this, I
think we're going to have to go to the Health Dept. first.
ROB HERRMANN: That was your determination in 1991. This Board effectively
Tabled it's decision making process until we had a determination from the Board of
Health. We can get that so far.because the Board of Health will not issue their Permit
ultimately without a copy of your Permit. So, if you want to conduct some sort of
coordinated review, that certainly makes sense. But, as I said, I mean you're looking at
an area where this is the only undeveloped lot. There is a lot also on the water right next
to this that was just given a Permit by this Board, I think'within the couple of years,
because it just went up. So, this is the only lot in this area that is undeveloped. And
again, it is a lawfully, pre-existing, non-conforming, under-sized lot. So, if this Board
assumes the position that you will not grant a Permit for any house here, then we need to
know that and I would like that answer tonight because then you have in effect
condemned this lot as an unbuildable lot as far as this Board is concerned. If you are
willing to hear an application for a (unclear) that's what I'm here for. But I need to be
given some sort of direction in this process as to what minimum setback could you live
with. What size house are you looking for here.?
TRUSTEE SMITH: Al, suppose you run this by our Attorney?
TRUSTl~ KRUPSKI: Yeah we could, but I think that, actually I did kind of mention it
to him the other day, but I think that for something like this, the septic system is a major
concern. I've seen septic systems be denied this close, by the Health Dept.
ROB HERRMANN: I knew that would be a concern.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're looking at a house the minimum square footage in
Southold Town, with no decks or anything, you're looking at no turf, and you're looking
at no fill to minimize the impact.
ROB HERRMAN: Well the no-fill, I don't know that that can be achieved.
TRUSTF~ KRUPSKI: Why not?
ROB HERRMANN: We have to meet the FEMA requirements.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can't put it up on piles?
ROB HERRMANN: We could do a piling foundation as an alternative.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And then you're really, you're minimizing the impact, a
minimum size' house on pilings. Then, we're wrestling with the septic system flushing
into the wetlands. If you want, you can give me a letter requesting that we pursue this
with the ,septic system as placed on the survey and I'll contact by in writing, the Health
Dept. asking them to coordinate their review with us.
ROB HERRMANN: What I could do probably, let me just check that, we've had an
application with them for a couple of weeks, so let me wait until we get an application
number and a name of whatever analyst is going to take over the project and I'll give you
that information.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Alright, so you want me to Table this?
ROB HERRMANN: Weql have to and again, I would just reiterate the position that I
didn't expect to walk in and have this Board grant this. Nor, did I expect the reaction that
you can't build here. I mean, that's a pretty extreme position for the Board to take on a
lawfully~ pre-existing, non-conforming lot. So, this is what I was trying to get at is what
you would be looking for in terms of modifications. There is a house, and in some cases,
recently permitted bythis Board on every other property around here, and it is a dredged
canal. This is a canal that was dredged offofCorey Creek.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But you have never come in with a house with a septic system
55' away from the wetlands.
ROB HERRMANN: Well in my experience with this Town, this is the first time I've had
a property that was four tenths of an acre that was more than 25% wetlands. I don't think
this is an ideal situation for anyone, the homeowner most in particular.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It must be ideal for the applicant because they're pursuing it.
ROB HERRMANN: Well it' s not ideal but they're looking for the same thing every
other waterfront resident in the Town is looking for.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So I'll make a motion to Table the application.
28
13.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When Rob has the information for us, let me know and I'll
contact the Health Dept.
Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of HELEN PAPAGIONAKIS request
a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 78' stairway including a 4'X 11' landing, three (3)
4'X 4' landings, a 6'X 10' shed (8' tall) with a 4'Xx 14' landing. Located: 1050 Sound
Dr., CJreenport. SCTM#33-4-2
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of the
application?
BRUCE ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson of Suffolk Environmental Consulting, here on
behalf of the applicant, Helen Papagionakis. You've got the survey in front of you, it's a
fairly simple stairway. It starts on the center of the property and goes down to the toe of
the bluff. We also have a 6'X 10' shed. The purpose of this shed is to provide a storage,
locker area for beach chairs and things of that nature, and that is something that is
common is the area. I don't know if you've been there as a full Board or not, but these
pictures represent the stairways and sheds on either side of the property. What's
proposed here is virtually identical to the established development patterns in this area.
The width of.the stairs, the landing .and so forth are all standard. There is (can't
understand) a decline or slope from the top to the bottom and so the stairs, landing, shed,
so forth fit very nicely.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think there was some concern about the shed. With Coastal
Erosion, I'm trying to find out exactly what it says about it. It's in the Coastal Erosion
Zone. The stairs are really not a problem, it's just simply access to the beach, but the
landing and the shed, you know, there's a lot of concern, Coastal Erosion was written,
well, to prex~ent erosion and I think the CAC voiced it here, that there be no shed and the
landing be reduced. I think that the concern is that the shed would kill the vegetation and
the large landing would kill the vegetation and you'd get a problem with erosion
underneath that because of no vegetation and then you're bluffwould start to fail because
of that in that area.
BRUCE ANDERSON: In response to that I would say that you'd note that the shed is
located towards the bottom of the bluff. It would not endanger the bluff conceivably at
all except for the toe. Also, if you look at the cross-section also submitted with that,
you'll see that the seaward face of that shed and it's bluff is substantially elevated above
the grade being that the light will pass underneath it and maintain growth. Finally, and
most the(can't hear) sheds which have not caused such effects. If you look at the
properties on either side of and judge what the risk is for erosion, the landings and the
shed, and I think anyone who does that, would conclude that what's proposed here is not
unreasonable.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I understand what you're saying about what's built in the area but
this Board has never approved a shed. We usually just approve the stairs going down to
the beach. That's standard. Coastal Erosion does say,that construction of non-moveable
structures or placement of major non-moveable additions is prohibited.
BRUCE ANDERSON: That would be the benefit of a Coastal Erosion Hazard Permit.
I'd also point out that the houses on either side have been there...I think the house on the
one side appears to be fairly new, now we're not in the position to access those Permits
29
14.
because of our (can't understand) maintained. But, I'm sure that the houses on either side
are all dually permitted and dually C.O.
TRUSTEE SMITH: They may not be permitted.
TRUSTF. F. KRUPSKI: This is how the Code reads. The following activities are
prohibited on bluffs. All development unless specifically allowed in 37-17B. So you go
to 37-17B and it talks about basically access. Stairways and whatnot. I think the Code's
pretty clear in not allowing structures, like sheds, to be built in the Coastal Erosion Area
on bluffs.
BRUCE ANDERSON: Well if that is your position, I think that we should adjourn it so
that I can do some more research on the adjacent properties.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think it's going to have anything to do with the adjacent
properties. We didn't have Coastal Erosion until 1991. I'm assuming those structures
were built before 1991 and therefore never permitted because they were built when there
were no Permits required.
BRUCE ANDERSON: As to the impact of this, again, I don't think it changed my
argument to see what the impact is given the adjacent structures around them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well it's a matter of Chapter 97 vs. Chapter 37. There are two
separate codes that are required here to be complied with. In the Chapter 37, Coastal
Erosion, it looks like, and I'll be happy to Table this and take a closer look at it, but it
looks like just looking at it quickly, all development, unless specifically allowed, is
prohibited. Except for the basic stairway down and the 4'X 4' landings which are
standard.
TRUSTEE SMITH: The building does not require a building permit for a shed less than
100 sq.ft.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's got nothing to do with the building. It's just specific to this
Chapter, Coastal Erosion. So I'll be happy to adjourn it and if they want to pursue that.
So, if they want stairs now, you could separate it off and they can get their stairs tonight,
if you wanted, but it's up to you.
BRUCE ANDERSON: I don't think it's going to matter to them.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: There' s no house there, just an empty lot.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI! Okay, I'll make a motion that we Table the application.
TRUSTF. F, SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES
Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of WILLIAM & TItERESA
LESTER requests a Wetland Permk to construct a 3'X 97' stairway leading to the beach,
which would include a 3'X 6' platform, and two (2) 3'X 8' platforms. In addition, a
proposal to trim the top of the existing bluff to arrive at a natural angle of repose and to
replant the bluff face to provide the needed stability and erosion protection. Located:
1300 Hyatt Rd., Southold. SCTM#50-1-20
TRUSTEE'KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the
application?
BRUCE ANDERSON: The Lester's left. They thought this would happen earlier and
they're sorry they left but I understand that you did meet them out in the field when you
were out there, so I hope you have an idea of what their concerns are. What happened
was, about a year ago last Spring, a portion of this bluff collapsed. The bluffs in this area
have become very unstable and literally about 20' .of this bluff from the top of it
collapsed down the bluff so when you walk out there... (can't hear). When this happened,
they were told to go to the soil conservation services.
TRUSTEE KRESS: We recommended that they go to them. We were there right
after it happened. Maybe it was December in 1998 we were there. We suggested that
they get professional help, soil conservation services could design some sort of plan to
regrade the bluff and replant it, and to stabilize it, which they have.
BRUCE ANDERSON: They did, and the plans in front of you are consistent with your
recommendation. Basically, if you take offa portion of the top there, the back portion
will simply slide down to where it's gouged out before the bluff flattens and what you
arrive at is a natural angle of repose which if possible, replanted, and that is also a part of
this proposal, to develop any stable bluff. The stairs that are proposed are merely a
replacement of what was there prior to the top of the bluffs slumping off so it returns the
Lesters back to essentially a status quo type of situation although they would have less
lawn. The bluff will be cut back approx. 12' to accomplish this natural angle of repose.
The plantings proposed are all native. They consist of bayberry and beach plum and also
hydro-seeded mixtures of veracious growth. We think that will serve them quite nicely.
Fortunately, the house is sufficiently set back that even with the bluffcut back, we don't
foresee any danger to the house as far as moving the bluff landward. Also, I'd like to
point out that the slope on the bluff does slope away from the bluff face so there's
nothing you have to establish that will direct storm-water over the bluff.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Which would damage their property further. This is what we
basically suggested when we went out there early last year. Any other comment. Do you
want to close this hearing?
TRUSTEE SM/TH: I'll make a motion to close this hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before we vote on that, do we want to put a time constraint on
that? If they t~y to hydro-seed it next July or something, it's going to be a failure.
BRUCE ANDERSON: One of the problems we had was that it was going to be a very
expensive project. They are gathering contracts together now. The only time they are
going to be able to do this would be in the Fall, from a planting standpoint, or the Spring.
We are hopeful to do k this fall. Obviously we are not going to plant during the Winter.
It may go over to the Spring due to lack of funding.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you need DEC approval for this?
BRUCE ANDERSON: We need DEC approval. We hope that it will be resolved
shortly. There's not a lot that's moving through that agency (can't understand).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Alright. All in favor to dose the hearing. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve the plan as submitted.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
15.
Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of VIRGINIA RUMPLER requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 8' platform with steps; a 4'X 12' ramp and a 6'X16'
float secured by four 8" piles. Located: 470 Goose Creek Lane, Southold. SCTM#79-1-
5
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of the
applicant?
16¸
BRUCE ANDERSON: You have in front of you a survey prepared by Joseph Ingegno
and a cross-section that shows how it will be buik. The first thing, the point I want to
make is that this is an effort to meet the deepest amount of water over the shortest
distance and also make use out of the existing landing that is there. The channel towards
the eastern portion of the property, ends towards the shoreline, and this is a channel that I
measured and that I'm persOnally familiar with. Under those plans, the seaward face of
the channel will be at approx. 40" at low tide. The landward end of the channel, I mean
the landward side of the float is substantially less than that so it spits right on the back of
the channel. We did that for a reason, a couple of reasons. Number one, we may very
well find ourselves in this debacle with DEC like everyone else seems to be in which is
unfortunate and quite honestly, outrageous, and also two, we not interested in blocking
any channels. So, we should achieve DEC polices and also satisfy your concerns as to
not blocking channels with docks. That's why it has been placed where it has been
placed. You'll note that there is a dock to the west which is longer and it should be
longer because the channel is (can't hear) on that side. I didn't notice a dock on the east
but my recollection was that there was one. I remember seeing a dock there years ago.
So I think it's a very small dock and I hope I addressed everyone's concerns, and you'll
look at it as a reasonable application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? What's the distance across the channel?
BRUCE ANDERSON: Across the channel? To the other side? Approx. 50'.
TRUSTEF, KRUPSKI: Kenny, you looked at this?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yeah. I thought it was a good plan.
TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the Permit for Virginia
Rumpler as submitted.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES
Land Use Ecologocial, Inc. on behalf of SAMUEL DELUCA requests a Wetland Permit
to remove all dimensional timber and yard debris and dispose of same at an approved
upland disposal site prior to construction/planting. Existing 72' +/- of timber bulkhead
adjacent to ramp proposed to be cut to grade. 26' +/- of existing deteriorated bulkhead
debris to be removed at the Southwest corner of property, and 41' of existing timber
bulkhead to be removed at the existing float location. The existing pile of sand is
proposed to be moved off site. The proposed planting will consist of the following: 550
sq.ft. +/- to be planted with native high-marsh species (Spartina patens, 2" peat pots
plants on 18" centers). 430 sq. f. +/- to be planted with native inter-tidal species
(Spartina alterniflora, 2" peat pots planted on 18" centers). Located: 1350 Glen Rd.,
Southold. SCTM#78-2-31
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anvone here who would like to speak on behalf of this
project?
LAND USE: I think we're all pretty much familiar with this wetland violation. The plan
you have before you has already been approved by the DEC but in order for us to go
ahead with the restoration, we need your blessing on it. The DeLuca's are here, the
owners. Mr. DeLuca was not aware that they needed a Permit to do the work that he was
17.
18.
32
undertaking. That work would not have been approved anyway because it would have
been impacting the inter-tidal high marsh landward of that structure he put in.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other questions or comments?
TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to Approve the application.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
ARIF ItUSSAIN requests a Wetland Permit to remove a deck and above-ground pool
and install a new in-ground pool and dry wells. Located: 420 Lakeview Terrace, East
Marion. SCTM#31-9-11
TRUSTF, F, KRUPSKI: Does anybody want to see this? We looked at it in the office
Does anybody have a problem with this?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No, I don't have a problem with this.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to dose the hearing?
TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve as submitted.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES
ARTHUR R. TORELL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling
with attached garage, pervious driveway, associated septic system and drywell. Located:
365 Westwood Lane, Greenport. SCTM#33-2-11
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We all looked at this. CAC recommends Disapproval.
TRUSTF. F. FOSTER: They had a Permit before and something happened. It's the sump
in the subdivision.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where's the old Permit. I just want to make sure that ...The old
Board, John Bredemeyer, Bill Albertson and Henry Smith, 1993 Henry. The CAC
recommended Disapproval before, also. I just want to make sure we put all our proper
conditions on here. Do they have a DEC Permit for this? The thing is, this is very
similar to that other one that Rob's got. They are very close to the wetlands, but this is a
sump.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well is it on the wetlands map even?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, maybe the DEC backed-off of this one because it's a sump.
I can't find any conditions here. I know we put a few conditions on here. We have to put
some conditions on this. Do I have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: So moved.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'I1 make a motion to Approve the application based on the old
survey with the condition that there be no turf on the site, and that there be no clearing
except for the driveway below the 8' contour. A staked row of haybales before
construction to left in place at the 8' contour. Anything else?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES
19.
JAMES BLACKLEY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 5'X 30' dock. a 5'X 6'
catwalk, and a 5'X 10' float, and to construct a 10'X 32' deck onto the front of the house.
Located: 1455 Grathwohl Rd., New Suffolk. SCTM#117-1-13 & 117-4-5
JAMES BLACKLEY: I gave you the wrong dimensions (can't hear).
TRUSTF. F. KRUPSKI: Give us that again. Do you have it drawn in hem. Is it accurate
here?
JAMES BLACKLEY: Everything but the sizes. That's what it looks like.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So what are the actual dimensions.
JAMES BLACKLEY: The catwalk is 30' long by 3' wide. The ramp is actually by 10'X
2½'.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there any water them?
JAMES BLACKLEY: Not a heck ora lot.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is this the place where it's all constructed. On Grathwohi Rd.
JAMES BLACKLEY: Yes, I'm in violation. No question about it.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: In that area I've seen times where there is 0 water.
JAMES BLACKLEY: Well actually, only the comer. I mean I've been down there the
lowest of low tides. At one the point there's enough to keep it above water but that's
clearly what you guys aren't looking for. I didn't realize that when I put in the float. It
wasn't my intent. I want to talk about it and I'm willing to change it however I need to
change it. It was a Grandfather Permit and all I want to be able to do is launch a kayak or
canoe. That's all I want to do (changed tape)
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What is the Permit for?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 5'X 15'
TRUSTEE POLlWODA: That's it right?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think we'd have a problem with a 3'X 30'.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Well my question is, how much do you gain by going an extra
15' out in that spot. You're gaining three, maybe two inches. Do you see what I'm
saying. So why extend it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know if it's, it started by the road, but I don't think it
extends 30'.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Oh right, it has to reach the end of the marsh
TRUSTEE KR~SKI: Right. It's not really stuck-out into the water.
JAMES BLACKLEY: (can't hear) it kind of curves in the middle an&..
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The marsh is delineated here. Where is the marsh as opposed
to the creek.
JAMES BLACKLEY: Actually, the marsh goes in like that. So this piece actually is in
water and isn't sitting in any kind of marsh grass or anything and in terms of growth and
things like that, it's all grown-up through the middle of it. My question was, with this
idea of trying to launch a kayak or whatever, clearly the dock is...I would have to jump
down into the water, so is there some sort of middle ground?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think we'd be included to approve a float there because of
the mud and I don't the DEC would _..
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There's a public ramp there.
JAMES BLACKLEY: Yeah, I live across the street them. You're right. I could walk
down. If that what it comes down to,
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing?
JAMES BLACKLEY: Oh, we have the deck on there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The deck is no problem.
JAMES BLACKLEY: The thing was a shack when I bought. I want to swap the
windows, there's an existing structure in the back, it's a mess.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think the house is non-jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yeah I think you're out of the jurisdiction, area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think you have to talk to us to fix the house. You don't
need our Board to fix the house.
JAMES BLACKLEY: Okay. So it's pretty much just the dock. If you do, and I'm sure
the floats going, is there any way for me to put just a little bit of a landing or something.
I like to sit out there where the kids and watch the sun go down.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Like a bench on the end?
JAMES BLACKLEY: Yeah. It's only 3' wide so can I make it 5' wide or 8' wide or
something like that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. If you want to put like a ladder down there you can. (can't
hear) Did we close the hearing? Do I have a motion to dose the hearing?
TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRL~SKI: I'll make a motion to Approve the catwalk but I don't think I
want to mention the deck on the house. The catwalk is 3'X 30' as-built.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: With the condkion that, because he doesn't have a Permit for it,
removes what's existing.
JAMES BLACKLEY: Is the reason that it's out of your jurisdiction is because it's more
than 75' back?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, and because it's across the road, also.
20.
BROOKSIDE ENVIRONMENTAL requests a Wetland Permit to remove a derelict
barge from site. Floating boom and silt screen to be installed around barge and anchored
to shore during removal as a sediment and erosion control device. Located: 25 Naugles
Dr., Mattituck. SCTM#99-4-13.1
WITHDRAWN AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST
Have applicant call Jim King.
TRUSTEE SMITH made a motion to go off the Public Hearing and go back to the Regular
Meeting. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES
RESOLUTIONS:
Board to set scallop season.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA motioned to set the recreational season/'or October 4th and the
commercial season for October t 8th. TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES
VI. MOORINGS:
WILLIAM BUItLER requests an onshore/offshore stake in Goose Creek for an 8'
dinghy, Goose Bay Estates. ACCESS: Private
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Table the application until further notice from the Town
Attorney. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES
GARY RIEHL (COAl)Y) requests an onshore/offshore stake in Goose Creek for a 10'
paddle boat, Goose Bay Estates. ACCESS: Private
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Table the application until further notice from the Town
Attomey. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES
CHARLES KIRSCH requests an onshore/offshore stake in Corey Creek for a 14'
outboard. Access: Private
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES
DONALD STEWART requests a mooring permit for a 16' boat with a 100 lb.
Mushroom in Broadwaters Cove ACCESS: Private
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE SMITH moved to adjourn the meeting. TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES
Meeting adjourned at: 10:45 PM
Respectfully submitted,
Lauren M. Standish, Clerk
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED AND FILED BY
THE SOUTHOr.B TOWN CLERK
(
Town Clerk, Town of Southold