Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-12/16/1998Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Henry Smith Artie Fester 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 December 16, 1998 CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PRESENT WERE; Albert J. Krupski, President James~ing, Vice-Presidem Artie Foster, Trustee Ken Poliwada, Trustee Lauren Standish, Clerk NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Tuesday, January 12, 1999 at 12 noon. TRUSTEE KING moved to approve, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Friday, January 22, 1999 at 7 p.m. WORKSESSION: 6:00 p.m. TRUSTEE KING moved to approve. TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of November 18, 1998 Regular Meeting. TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to approve. TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for November 1998: A check for $4,056.79 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES: Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of PETER IZZO request an Amendment to Permit #4225 to change the location of the dock. Located: 805 Meadow Beach Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#111-10-1A TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve according to new plans submitted at meeting. TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES Samuels & Steelman on behalf of JOHN & LINDA SCOPAZ request a Waiver to construct a master bath and dormer on second floor and new roof on existing house. Located: 6300 Indian Neck Rd., Peconic. SCTM#86-7-2.1 TRUSTEE KRLrPSKI moved to approve. TRUSTEE POLIWADA seconded. ALL AYES J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of THEODORE ANGELL requests a Transfer of Permit #4814 from Thomas Coffin to Theodore Angell. Property located: 305 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM#35-4-28.25 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve. TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES Robert S. Hughes, Esq. on behalf of ROBERT BRUCE requests a Waiver to remove an existing garage and replace it with a storage shed with a smaller footprint. Located: 1155 Main St., Greenport. SCTM#34-1-9 TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to approve. TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES THOMAS E. UHL requests a Waiver to ~construct a second floor dormer and new bay window in living room. Located: 1730 West Creek Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#110-01-7.3 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve. TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES Charles E. Raffe, Esq. on behalf of KENNETH SWANSON requests a Transfer of Permit #3734 from Waker L. Fink to Kenneth Swanson. Property located: 1390 Willow Terrace Lane, Orient. SCTM#26-2-25 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve. TRUSTEE POLIWADA seconded. ALL AYES MARY KAREN LAND requests a Transfer of Permit #4721 from Dennis & Diane Harkoff to Mary Karen Land. Property located: Meadow Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM#116-2-26 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve. TRUSTEE POLIWADA seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH moved to go offthe Regular Meeting. 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 TRAVELER-WATCHMAN. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIF, F: FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS, IF POSSIBLE J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of THOMAS MC CARTHY request a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 15' elevated catwalk, a 3'X 8' ramp and 3 6'X 25' floats. Located: 1605 Goose Neck Lane, Southold. SCTM#77-3-17.1 TRUSTEE KRESS: Would anyone here like to speak in favor of the application? THOMAS MC CARTHY: I'm the property owner. I'd like to submit a revised sketch of the suggestions from the previous meeting. I believe the sketch addresses the issues that the Trustees were looking for. We have a float reduced down to a 6' X 20' and maintaining clearance and only going out a third of the way. So we were going to accomplish that with the fixed dock as shown and a ramp down to a 6'X20' float. I think this is in conformance to the discussion we had on site. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes it is. Any questions? Do you have a copy of this? I'd just like to see this, we could act on this, but we would like to see this put on a survey. Any other comment? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE POLIWADA moved to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve the application with the condition that the new rough sketch be put on the survey. TRUSTEE POLIWADA seconded. ALL AYES Eh-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of ANDREAS KARACOSTAS request a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to place on filter cloth within 4' of existing timber retaining wall 40' of 1-3 ton toe armor stone. Located: 21275 Sound View Ave., Southold. SCTM#135-1-2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? ROB HERRMANN: This is a straight forward application. I don't know if the entire Board has been to the ske but the eastern portion of the bulkhead is bowed a bit. Mr Karacostas' long-ranged plan is ultimately to work with his neighbor to the east to have that entire bulkhead section replaced on both properties. However, the neighbor to the east has been overseas for a number of months and will continue to be there and so for this season we are proposing simply to put toe armor stone in front of the eastern portion of the bulkhead which starts approx, in the location of the framed shed behind the bulkhead and then running east to the other property owners. What I just submitted to Lauren is simply a revised plan that requests a change in the notes. There was an error in the notes where the present stone was inconsistent with what was in the description in the plan. So this is just to keep the record straight. TRUSTEE KRESS: We'll take all the comments first. Are there any other comments? We have a letter in the file from the neighbor to the east, the one you said was out of the Country. Actually we met with him. His concerns actually are similar to our concerns in that ..... well let's see the CAC comments first. CAC recommends Disapproval based on the following concerns about the environmental impact of putting stones below the Mean High Water mark. Is this the best solution to the problem? The CAC believes fixing the bulkhead and bluff management may be a more appropriate solution. Concerns with existing framed sheds on bulkhead. Concerns about the storage of outboard gasoline in shed. CAC was very thorough in their inspection. Our concerns also is putting stone in this area. This isn't a simple case armoring the bulkhead against the stone revetment. ROB HERRMANN: The fact that that will be in the tidal zone is not unusual. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now it is. Not that we ever disapproved one. But we've never acted on one. ROB HERRMANN: I obviously can't speak for that. I'm not sure about the sheds. [ know the sheds have been existing because they came up in my conversations with him and as far as what the shed ..... As far as the discussion with the neighbor to the east, the information I was supplied with was a long-term goal of these two neighbors doing this job in conjunction in time. I was informed by Mr. Karacostas that they were unable to reach the neighbor to the east. So if that neighbor has returned I don't know if they've had any discussion with Mr. Karacostas because I haven't been updated wkh the status of that. As far as the fact of the stone being in front of the ...... effectively it's going to be ..... in any case of the toe and the purpose of that is to dissipate wave energy coming in on that bulkhead that might further scour the front of the wall because as you know it's not a situation where its wildlife habitat would be affected or anything like that. If the Board has a sweeping objection to the presence of the stone being in the tidal zone in that area, then I was not aware of that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It wasn't an objection, it was a matter of concern. We want to make sure that because it's something that is new to us we want to make sure that this is ..... or we want the nature of this. ROB HERRMANN: As a final comment, I think the most general comment that was made in response is, is this the best long term solution? Again the strategy, when Mr. Karacostas approached us was to have a temporary solution for this and then have all that bulkheading done in one shot. If that is now- available or if that neighbor is unwilling to that, that is something that will have to be addressed from this point on. This was in fact being proposed as a temporary solution. That's not to say (TAPE BROKE) ROB HERRMANN: A private homeowner can't utilize the natural stone that's current throughout the shoreline. It would have to be trucked in. But my point is saying that this is not inconsistent with what is occurring along the shoreline naturally. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think the concern of the neighbor is also our concern to something that could be done one propemy that would have a negative, immediate, tangible negative effect of the neighbor's property. ROB HERRMANN: Well that would be inconceivable to me here because both properties are bulkheaded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we looked at the bulkhead and it comes out at least 4' from the top to the bottom it's gullied out. Putting stone on the front, wouldn't that make it very difficult to fix that, to repair the bulkhead in the future. ROB HERRMANN: We'll no because the machinery would just be able to move the stone from the bulkhead resulting in replacing it and then it would be moved back. In fact it was the original suggestion of Mr. Karacostas who wouldn't be familiar with the policies of the agencies and said, is there any way to get a permit to collect some of the stone that's out there and place that temporarily against the bulkhead and I said no that it was unlikely to get a permit from the DEC to do that. They typically will not allow you to rearrange the natural conditions. So even though it might seem contrary to common sense to have to truck in additional stone, that is in fact what they would require. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, how far have you gotten though the DEC with this? ROB HERRMANN: Actually the letter that you were just copied on that was to Claire Warner in the regulatory division, that was a correction for her to send to marine habitat protection for review. If the Board has a concern and would want to Table this over or have some kind of contact with them I wouldn't put a lot of money on receiving DEC before next meeting. At the same time, time is a concern because the purpose of this is to have it done this winter. I would not anticipate receiving the DEC permit for the 16t~ or whenever your next meeting is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that would be wisest for us to do is be consulted by the DEC on this where it's a matter of ..... because if this were an upland beach I don't think we would have any great concern over it. Except for the fact that the bulkhead is deteriorating could become a problem if it does break loose. ROB HERRMAN: Yes, that was my assessment the first time that I looked at it, was that the bulkhead has to be replaced. But that is obviously only the owner's control to either proceed with that or not. And again, the conversation was, well I'd like to do this in conjunction with my neighbor to the east who is in Greece, but if that's not the case, than that's not the case. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No because actually the neighbors, here I'll read the neighbor's letter to you. (Reading letter in file from Nicholas & Sophia Chiotelis.) ROB HERRMANN: Well I would conclude from that, that there's parts of that letter that certainly I would agree with. The letter certainly doesn't reflect the initial conversations I had with Mr. Karacostas that there was this plan to share the cost 50/50 to replace the bulkhead. What has happened there, I don't want to get into and I know the Board has no interest in getting into, but although I would take some exception to some of the comments about the effect the toe stone would have certainly a better long-term solution would be replacement of the bulkhead. It seems like I should at least re-contact him and, I'm sort of befuddled here because I was informed that this neighbor was not contactable, or reachable, so this plan to do the 50/50 deal would seem to have had to wait until Spring, so let's try this temporary solution. So I don't think we will accomplish much more tonight. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Alright, another concern. I just want to voice it into the record If you put that stone there it would block off passage on the beach between the inter-tidal area and basically people use the beach, it would effectively block off a good portion of the tide for that use. And that's important too. We don't want to see that blocked off. ROB HERRMANN: Okay, I don't disagree with your comments. It again, it seemed like a temporary solution as opposed to doing nothing throughout the storm season. But if the neighbor is here and wrote that letter then perhaps the two of them need to get back together and proceed a more permanent solution because the bulkhead absolutely needs to be replaced. Thanks. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? Do I have a motion to recess the hearing? TRUSTF, F, SMITH: Motioned to recess the hearing until further notice fi-om En- Consultants. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of THOMAS & ROBY GLUCKMAN request a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed timber dock, consisting of a 4'X 98' fixed catwalk; 3'X 14' ramp; and 6'X 20' float to be secured by two (2) 8" diameter pilings. Located: 1350 West Cove Rd., Cutcho~oue. SCTM#111-5-2 TRUSTEE ICRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? ROB HERRMANN: This is actually the first dock before this Board that I have represented since the apparent revolution in the way of doing things with the DEC regarding docks. So as you can see a good amount of planning was put into this. Soundings were taken at low tide at 9:45 in the morning on Sept. 10 and you have a soundings chart on the plan prepared by us dated Nov. 18. As I had alerted the Board a few months, several months ago, contrary to the local policies typically of both the Southampton and Southold Trustees who, as you know, wish to keep docks reasonably short and safe and usable but typically shallow water depths. The DEC has been requiring that docks go out longer and reach deeper depths. So I was forced to reach a proposal that would satisfy the concerns of both agencies. You'll notice from the soundings taken, the water depths increased from about 2'11 in. that were 3' out from about 3'4 in. moving only about 10' farther out. I can anticipate a letter coming back from the DEC asking us to extend the dock father out. However, as the Trustees would know from a sight inspection or even as depicted in the photos submitted with the application, once you start to get out 10',15',20' farther you start coming awfially close to some of the moorings that are out there. Some of these boats have been moved at this point but at the time like you see in the photograph, they were there. So what I attempted to do was design a dock that would be consistent with the neighboring dock, actually to the south, and that dock extending from the bulkhead is approx. 135' long. This dock is going to be 129' or 130' long but the bulkhead is also tucked back in to the south a little bit so when your actually out at the distance where this dock is proposed at the terminal end of the float it's approx, even to the existing dock to the south which is in about 3' of water at low tide from the middle to the outer end of the float. This is satisfactory to the Gluckmans. I'm hoping this will be satisfactory to the Board as it is consistent with the existing dock out there and shouldn't impede navigation. I'm also keeping my fingers crossed about what response we get from the DEC. Depending on what this Board wishes to do with the application, you may want to contact Chuck Hamikon in that regard there. Again for the Board's information, there is some background with regard to this type of situation. Homeowners in the Town of Southampton have received a flurry of denials recently from the DEC for docks which were permitted by the Southampton Trustees that have reached 2 ½' of water at low tide which most people in agencies I've spoken with deem acceptable. They have all been denied by the DEC. Despite the fact that it places homeowners in a situation that have asked for a small dock to have no dockage. So if the Board has any other questions, the only other thing that I would like to mention, is the purpose of the proposed 4'X 29' wood walk landward of the bulkhead again from the site inspection revealed, there are a few patches of inner-tidal marsh grass along he shoreline and what we have done is try to extend the walk along the bulkhead to the south of the sea grass directly seaward of the landing so as to avoid any disturbance to that patch of grass whatsoever. We are nmning it over a sandy gravel area that's to avoid the grass and so rather than going directly out from the landing, as the homeowners initially desired, I did get them to consider the idea of running the walk behind the bulkhead to get the dock out of the way of that patch of grass. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment. What you said is disturbing because this Board just acted on a dock application I think two or three doors to the north of this. I think the approval was around for an 80' dock or something like that. Looking at this, if this structure was cut back 50' I think it would be around 80' and also it would accommodate 2 ½' of water at low water. ROB HERRMANN: Yes, you've got about 90' from the bulkhead which is about 2 ½'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, which is about a 50' reduction. I think the Board looked at that as comfortable. What you said is disturbing because of what the DEC's policies have been. I don't think we're in a position to try and accommodate the DEC, but try and do what is best in Southold Town. I don't know if there is any way out of this. Doe the Board have any comment? TRUSTEE KING: What you are gaining in water depth isn't worth it for that amount. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You're only talking 4 in. TRUSTEE KIING: Yeah, that's it. ROB HERRMANN: Which is the exact same argument that we've seen recently in Southampton Town. We had a dock that was twice as long to gain 6 in. of water. It went from 50' to 100' or something like that, let's just say hypothetically. The longer version, despite the fact that it was twice as long as the neighboring docks, was approved by the DEC. The Southampton Trustees said no way. 2 ½' is enough to be consistent with the other docks in this area. So based on that statement, we reapplied to the DEC to get an amendment for a shorter dock and it was denied. Despke the fact that their staff came out and said it was agreeable to them, they were told that it might be signed-off on. It wasn't and it was denied. It's a terrible predicament for a lot of people and it has not....we've seen it now with two applications in Shelter Island, same skuation, same arguments. It is going against the policies of all the local Boards and as per usual the recourse tight now is that we're starting to see one om of three of these people filing law suks. A lot of people are suing the towns first because they don't have to go through administrative law hearings. So it's cheaper to sue the towns. As I said, I don't know what the state will say on this application, it seems to me that this Board has a little better communication with the State than the aforementioned Town. I don't know where it's going to go. Again, the dock to the south is about the same length as this structure. Now I don't know how long, do any of you know how long the dock has been in? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No one here voted on that dock. I was on the Board and I abstained for personal reasons. So it's probably five years. Four or five years at least. Any other comments? TRUSTEE POLIWADA: Normally on inspections, we look north and south at all the docks to give us an indication to what point the dock should be. In that certain spot I look around and I see three docks, and maybe 15-20 moorings. So if this applicant was denied a dock, I guess the most reasonable alternative would be a mooting. Get a dinghy, just like the other 20 people in that area. ROB HERRMANN: Yeah, that is certainly an alternative that always comes up. There are some agencies that discuss the fact that actually no waterfront owners should have docks, that everybody should have moorings. That's a little beyond this scope. I mean you have different case laws that describe the rights and waterfront homeowners often buy property and they will insist that this is property that they spend more money and pay higher taxes and they have the right to a dock and sometimes they argue that everyone around them has a dock. Times change and policies change but we're looking for some sort of consistency and predictability which I don't think is too much to ask. Sure, if this Board could adopt a policy that every certain number of applicants can't have a dock, they can only have a mooring, then that would be a policy change of this Board. TRUSTEE SMITH: What if we had a meeting with the DEC, East Hampton, Southampton, Shelter Island and ourselves and, because this is not going to fly. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we should vote this out the way we see it should be voted out which is being consistent with the way we've been voting docks out, looking at each site and judging it on it's merits. We should vote it out. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We'll we've pretty much made our decision on the field inspection. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we could make a meeting with the East End Trustees on this. ROB HERRMANN: This is one of the easier ones because dealing with the creeks, I mean I had to go out for someone in Jockey Creek and ifI wasn't sinking up to my waist, I would have been in the middle of the creek before I got into 2' of water. All of the floats around there are on mud flats at low tide and every single one of them, in theory, is in violation of the DEC regulations. None of them would be permitted today. So it is .... , I'm not taking what you say lightly, I mean each Board is now at this cusp of saying, well, either the DEC and the local Towns are going to have to come in agreement and compromise or that's the end of dock construction as we know it, which is going to mean an awful lot of law suits. So, it seems like there might be a better way to try to reach a compromise. It seems like a lot of these Boards have put a lot of effort into their criteria and policies to keep small docks and the State is taking that the other way. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well I think that's what I'd like to do. We'll be consistent on this. We'll vote the application on it's merits and we'll take it from there. Is there a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: Moved to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let me just read the CAC comments before I close it. CAC recommends approval with stipulations. That's the CAC comments. I have a motion and a second. All favor. ALL AYES Would anyone like to make a motion on this? TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion that we disapprove the application at it's present length. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Or approve it at a reduced length? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Last month we approved one near about 80' but if we cut this back about 50' we could give them a dock with 2 ½' of water. TRUSTEE SMITH: Okay I'll make a motion to approve the dock at 50'. ROB HERRMANN: Welt you have to be careful what number you choose because the soundings here are clear. If you cut k back 50' you are going to cut it back to about just over 2' of water. What I had said about 40' to cut it back to the overall length of being 90' would put you about 2 ½' or even 95' which still would be consistent wkh what ...... I can guarantee you at that length that will absolutely will be denied by the DEC. They won't even approve anything less than 2 ½'. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to approve the dock for a total of 85' in length. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: With fixed ramp and float. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Inclusive? ROB HERRMANN: I apologize. I want to make sure this is done carefully for the record. The float is 20', the overall length is 85', then the short end of the float is going to be 65'. It's going to be a foot and a half, it's going to be on the bottom at low tide. I mean if you are talking the terminal end of the float is 85' out then you have to go to 65' to see what the rest of the float going to be. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where is it at 2'? You could turn the float. We're trying to give him 2 ½' of water. ROB HERRMANN: If the overall length were 90' and the float were a T, then the entire float would be in about 2 ½' of water. That is the terminal end of the T-float would be 90' from the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll I don't think k's a good idea to go further than what we approved a month or so ago on O'Grady. TRUSTEE POLIWADA: The southwest wind will kill you. ROBHERRMANN: Well that was the purpose of proposing it this way. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What did we approve on O'Grady? I think we should be consistent. There pretty protected back there. I just rather not approve anything longer than what we approved a few doors down. ROB HERRMANN: Do you want to check it and Table it? Because he's got mooring pilings proposed with the float too. So I don't know, let's say the dock, the float ends at 80' and then you put the mooting piles out, I mean, do you consider that as part of the dock length or not. TRUSTEE FOSTER: No because that's not really covering the bottom. ROB HERRMANN: Okay, so that would have to be rearranged as well. I mean this isn't going in before January, so is there any possibility the Board contacting DEC to discuss this? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. We'll have to discuss your other application too. I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE SMITH: Moved TRUSTE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES Costello Marine on behalf of PAT ROMANELLI requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct 3 jetties (45', 50'& 48') using C-Loc vinyl sheathing. Located: 3204 Great Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel. SCTM#128-6-9.1&9.2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application. JOHN COSTELLO: I'm the agent representing Costello Marine Contracting. I'd like to provide the Board with any information they need. TRUSTEE SMITH: John, is this application the same way we talked about with DEC that day? JOHN COSTELLO: Yes. The application before this Board is the original application requesting 45',50'& 48' which is the exact length of the existing jetties that were there. They are non-functional, buried below the sand, and we have amended the drawing at the request of the DEC increasing their lengths as Chuck Hamilton of the DEC recommended. Again, I disagree with Mr. Hamilton's assessment of the action of the sand in that area. I didn't want to get into an argument with him. I didn't want to embarrass him or anybody else that was at the meeting. The place to bring that up is right here. I believe some comments made was to do what's best for Southold. The sand in that area, somebody wants to guess which way the wind would drift in that area? It goes either west or east depending upon the weather conditions at a certain period of time. I have photographs showing it. They are all filled to the maximum length and buried. One piece of information I'd like to show you is some of the effects of bad weather, and last year, as you all know the problems we had northeast of us. Here's a recent picture two years ago of Mr. Romanelli's property. That's for the record. The jetties from the middle ........ is minimal along that whole structure laying down there but has interrupted the sand and the dredge spoil. Again, it's off-shore, and there are sandbars there offshore there now, you can walk out to them. I have aerial photos that will show exactly that. There's a large supply of sand. All you have to do is try to stabilize the beach, and maintain it. Those existing jetties, I would estimate, that those jetties have been there well over 50 years. TRUSTEE SMITH: No, I'm not disputing that John. But, when we were out there with the DEC, I was under the impression that you were in agreement with their recommendation. Because the way we spoke that day, that's the way it was going to be. JOHN COSTELLO: Wait a second. The DEC is not making up your mind ! hope. TRUSTEE SMITH: No, but I'm just saying that we were all in agreement, that you were in agreement. JOHN COSTELLO: I was in agreement with the DEC, I volunteered to lower the elevation to make them low profile, I agreed to that. I expressed with much concern to Mr. Hamilton and anybody else that was listening that the length was a big part of this project that makes the effect of the jetties and the amount of erosion going off-shore and stabilizes the beach. Mr. Hamilton didn't agree. So be it. To criticize Mr. Hamilton in front of you or any body else, I wouldn't do. Now, if this Board allows me to go for a 100' jetty, Mr. Hamilton allows me and the DEC allows me 27', guess which one I'm going to go with. I'm not going to expose the customer or myself to litigation. That's not the purpose. I have a lot of respect for this Board and I know this Board takes every project by itself, based on it's own merits, and makes a decision. That's the consistency of this Board. TRUSTEE SMITH: I though we were all in agreement, now it's a whole different thing again. JOHN COSTELLO: I'm just asking the Board to act on it's own. TRUSTEE KING: That's why we had a joint inspection on this. That's what we're trying to accomplish here .... JOHN COSTELLO: I just want to say one thing. Mr. Hamilton is not the ultimate authority. Mr. Hamilton has been around, and I respect Mr. Hamilton. I respect him for being a decision maker, and let me tell you, the DEC is probably only going to give him 27'. Again, I ask for an even number. Mr. Smith mentioned the same thing. It would be nice to have 30'. I think the Board, this Board and the DEC and myself, and Mr. Romanelli would like to see a stabilized beach. It gives public access. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So what was ...you explain what happened. So what are you asking for tonight then, that was different from what was discussed on field inspection? JOHN COSTELLO: I would like to see this Board act in favor of the original application which requested what was originally built. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This Board, in making no reference to the DEC, this Board, historically, and consistently, approves groin reconstruction at their functional length. So what would the functional length of these three groins be? JOHN COSTELLO: That's very questionable. The westerly one, the end is functional, inter is not. The center one is basically, non-functional. The east one, only a very short portion of its that functional the rest isn't, as you can see on the pictures submitted with the application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well that's been our policy. Under that policy we would approve almost nothing there. Where this is going to establish groin field, I don't see where we would have an objection to rebuild part of it. Now you tell me what was discussed in the field. The 27' was discussed in the field? TRUSTEE SMITH: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. TRUSTEE SMITH: The height of it was measured down from the top of the bulkhead and we decide any future ...... TRUSTEE KING: The center groin is going to be centered on the property. This was result of that meeting. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well I have a problem...that's actually more favorable to the applicant than what we normally would have approved because usually we go by the functionality of the structure whether it's a dock or a groin or a bulkhead or anything else. But because it's in a groin field, I think the Board would look at that differently in approving what would almost he new groins. JOHN COSTELLO: I would think you would. I think every member on this Board would look and see public access along that beach and the people protected by a stabilized beach. If you count the groins, there are 50-60 along that whole stretch, and that is stabilizing that beach. That is what you want, I hope. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? Does the Board have any other comment? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: Moved to close. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion based on the joint inspection of this to approve the application to follow the description of the landward ends of the groins to be no less than 6'5 in. below the top of the bulkhead, the center groin is to be centered on the property, and the groins are not to exceed over average low water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there a second on that? TRUSTEE POLIWADA: Seconded. ALL AYES Costello Marine on behalf of NANCY L. WALZOG requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a 4'X 20' ramp from top of bulkhead continuing with a level 80' dock, 32"X 16' aluminum ramp, 6'X 20' floating dock secured by three 2-pile dolphins. Located: 12832 Main Rd., East Marion. SCTM#31-14-15 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? JOHN COSTELLO: I represent the applicant. I'm here to answer any questions the Board may have. I recently buoyed out the entire structure. That was done on the 7th of this month. I walked approx. 10' past the end and placed the concrete block, with a stake, so it wouldn't move, and at that time I was in 3.2' of water. I had waders on. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, it was well marked. There was an application a few months ago in East Marion on the sound side. It typically states in the Coastal Erosion Chap.37 Sec. 14 in the Town Code. "All development is prohibked in the nearshore areas unless specifically provided for by this chapter." I don't remember any chapter providing for any structure in the nearshore area. Based on that Code, the other applicant withdrew the application. JOHN COSTELLO: When was that Code passed. TRUSTF, F, KRUPSKI: That's the original Coastal Erosion. JOHN COSTELLO: But there's another dock in the area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well this was passed in 1991, so anything built then would be previous to that. The dock wasn't approved by this Board. The NEARSHORE AREA those lands under water beginning at the near low-water line and extending waterward in a direction perpendicular to the shoreline to a point where mean low-water depth is fifteen (15) feet or to a horizontal distance of one thousand (1,000) feet from the mean low-water line, whichever is greater. I think that would put this structure in that nearshore area. JOHN COSTELLO: Would I go to the ZBA? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't' know what your next move would be on this. TRUSTEE SMITH: Coastal Erosion is Federal on this? TRUSTEF, KRUPSKI: No State. The appeal process is outlined in here. The Southold Town Board is hereby designated as the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review and has the authority to: A. Hear, approve, approve with modification or deny request for variances or other forms of relief from the requirements of this chapter. B. Hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by the Administrator in the enforcement of this chapter, including any order requiring an alleged violator to stop, cease and desist. And then it outlines how you can appeal Chapter 37, 35, you can appeal to the Board of Appeals and then Chapter 37, 36 you can appeal to the Supreme Court. And then it goes on about Chapter 37,39 is reserved, and I don't understand what that means. So I think you could take it from there. If you want to appeal that, the Coastal Erosion Law as written, either the definition of the nearshore area or Chapter 37-14 C. All development is prohibited unless specifically provided in this chapter. That's the way it's written. JOHN COSTELLO: Well, I'm not an attorney, and I'm not going to pretend to be. The way I read it was that this Board has, is, the appeals on this application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well it's clear that the Town Board is the Board of Review for appeal on this. Vepy clear. This came up once when we first took this on, Henry you were on the Board then, there was a deck in East Marion and it, I can't remember exactly w-hat happened, but the Town Board acted as the appeal, the..I'm sorry, the Board of Review on this. It's spelled out that they are. It's black and white. It's very clear. So, I don't know how you want to handle this. Do you want to withdraw this? Would you like to have us Table this? JOHN COSTELLO: Well I probably would like to Withdraw without Prejudice. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay Costello Marine on behalf of BUD HOLMAN requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct three low-profile jetties; one-65' and two-50'. Located: 350 Park Ave., Mattituck. SCTM#123-7-8 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? JOHN COSTELLO: I'm the agent for the applicant. These jetties are functional jetties. We want to rebuild them while they are functional. If anyone desires, I have some photographs showing the actual area. It is onshore with little drift of sand. It does not scour out to the neighboring properties but does allow public access along the beach as long as the beach is stabilized. TRUSTEE KING: John, when did you take these pictures? JOHN COSTELLO: I think they're dated, aren't they? September? I usually do it with a camera that's dated. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It looks yellow against the sand. I can't make it out. Well Jim, are they functional? They look functional. TRUSTEE KING: My comment is that this bulkhead here, isn't there anymore. There's a brand new one in it's place and it's about this long. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But that's the neighbors. TRUSTEE KING: Right. But that's why I'm questioning these pictures. JOHN COSTELLO: Okay, question these pictures. These are considerably longer and it shows you what the beach looks like when it is stabilized. There is Holman's property. And there is his neighbor. TRUSTEE SMITH: What was the date of that photograph John? JOHN COSTELLO: 1976 The DEC requested to see if they were functional. And to see if they were built prior to 1977. So I got that photograph. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Again, I think being consistent would request a low profile structure. (talking among the Trustees) JOHN COSTELLO: As the photographs might indicate, I don't know who the owner is, but the adjoining property to the west, the end of that jetty extends doW~a to the others. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well Jim said that it has been repaired. We probably approved it to it's functional len~h. Any other comments? CAC recommends approval. TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to shorten them up a little? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, if they're there, they're working then you're just going to fix them. You're not going to have any impact. TRUSTF, E SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments? Is there a second? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SM1TH: Are you going to make a motion? TRUSTEE KING: I'd like to shorten it up a little. Do you want me to make a motion? 14 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'd still rather stay consistent and say leave them. TRUSTEE KING: That's been a problem with this old one here, shortened up. I'd like to keep these things more in line with each other. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI; Well I know but it just shows that that one was not functional. Do you remember going out there on that one. We approved quite a few in there. Ken, what do you think? TRUSTEE POLIWADA: No comment. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Artie? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well, I didn't look at it. I wasn't there. TRUSTEE KING: Motioned to Table the application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Seconded. ALL AYES JOSEPH GERGYES requests a Wetland Permit to take down existing house and rebuild 2300 sq.ft, colonial in same place. Located: 1575 Pine Neck Rd., Southold. SCTM#70- 5-41 TRUSTEE KRI~SKI: ls there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? PATRICIA GERGYES: As you can see by the application, we want to demolish the house that is there and build another house in the same spot. Two-sto~y house with a basement. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our only concerns, when we were out on our field inspection, well we had a couple of concerns. One, was making sure the bank didn't become destabilized and fall down into the creek. The other one, in a case like that, we would like to bring all the houses in line. PATRICIA GERGYES: The other two on the other sides are in the same line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, so your house wouldn't be able to extend out any further to the North I would think, seaward, than the neighbor's house. PATRICIA GERGYES: That's what we would do. Keep it in the same spot. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think the furthest point to the North was going to extend no further than the house, not the porch. Didn't we pull it back a few feet? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, but it would be the new house would not extend further North than the line drawn between the neighbor's houses. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes, which actually meant it was going to have to come back a few feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, but it's going to be demolished. TRUSTEE FOSTER: So the furthest point of the house should, would really probably be no further North. Which meant you were going to probably have to come back 4' or 5' from where the porch extends now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right now, if you go between the two houses, well it's more like 2' or 3' I think. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well whatever it is, once the house is down, you can pull a string across there and see where you're at. CAC MEMBER: Are you taking out the foundation, the house, as well? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's our concern. I don't know if you have ..... CAC MEMBER: We Tabled this because we had no house plans to work with. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you visit the site? CAC MEMBER: Yes, I did. I don't have a problem with that. But the one stipulation you made with minimizing the disturbance to the bluff is defmitely a concern of ours. TRUSTEE FOSTER: From the top of the bluff, I think you'll probably need a row of haybales. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well he needs a pretty good engineer in there too to keep .... well it's in your best interest. You don't want to lose your whole bluff. CAC MEMBER: One other comment is we'd like to see that the wetland vegetation line kind of re-establish itself back landward towards the home. There's a lawn that's established adjacent to the wetland and it looks like, although not a beneficial wetland plan, the phragmities have been cut within the last year or so. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you think we should see a .... what we have here from the land surveyor is, I would imagine, is existing. This says well area on here. Is that, with a circle, what does that describe? TRUSTEE SMITH: Is there Town water there now? PATRICIA GERGYES: No. Yes, that's the well. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Another concern is the septic system and the well. What well need though is, and of course you'll need it for the Building Dept., is you'll need to give us a survey showing the new house on there. So I think we can approve based on you giving us that survey. You'll need it for the Building Dept. and the Health Dept. JOSEPH GERGYES: Okay, he'll have to put it on the survey exactly where the new house will be. I can't be like this? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well no because it will have to be moved back a couple of feet and it will be a different house. PATRICIA GERGYES: So it has to be in line with the other two houses. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It will show this house here, just like he shows this one, that's fine. And then he's got to do it for the Building Dept. So get us a copy first. I think we'll approve it tonight and then as soon as you bring us that survey in, you'll get our Permit. PATRICIA GERGYES: Now we want to put a porch on the creek side. So we have to start it at the same line? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's right. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That has to be the furthest northern point. The porch. The house will have to go behind that. PATRICIA GERGYES: Right so it has to be even with the other two houses. JOSEPH GERGYES: And the well and the cesspool can stay where they are? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. Do you think we need more assurances about stabilizing the bluff. Or don't you think that's going to be a problem. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think you'd better put some haybales in there so they work behind them because when you excavate, normally, you're going to push in all directions. You can't push over the bluff. So all the excavation has to take place behind the haybale line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The whole property isn't draining into the creek there. It's kind of coming up to that house. TRUSTEE FOSTER: At that point. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So what I'm saying is that you're not going to have a huge amount of water being pushed down, pushing that material out. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well that really depends on how they regrade the area. And you probably want to get a grading plan and make sure that the roof water isn't...because I don't know if you noticed or not but the roof gutters go right down the bluff. Did you see that when you were there? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Well any new house would require that all of your roof mn-off would be contained in drywells. The gutters would go down to the drywells. Which is easily accomplished with new construction. Another thing we would like to see accomplished here is that, it seems like the property slopes up to the house and then back down to the creek. We would like to see that grade maintained in that area so that the property doesn't drain into the creek. Right now the house is up on a little bit of a grade, as you come to it from the driveway, and then it drops off down steeply. We want tO maintain that so the whole property doesn't drain down into the creek. The grade should stay the same. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the heating? TRUSTEE POLIWADA: Moved to close. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion that we approve the application and that the Permit will be issued when we get a survey showing the new construction. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The house shall extend no further North than the line drawn between the neighbors, a row of haybales will be placed at the edge of the construction area, the lot should not be regraded and that the natural flow of water should not flow from the lot down to the creek and the lot should be leg in it's natural elevation after construction. Drywells and gutters will be installed to contain the roof mn-off. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: Motioned to go back to the Regular Meeting. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES RESOLUTIONS: En-Consukants, Inc. on behalf of DOUGALL FRASER requests a Grandfather Permit to remove and replace, inkind/inplace 63' of existing timber groin. New groin to be constructed with low profile design. Located: 7955 Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM# 118-4-7 TRUSTEE KING motioned to approve 60 feet, iow-profile and landward end of the groin no less than 3'6 in. below the top of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE POLIWADA seconded. ALL AYES En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of VICTOR & MARY ZUPA request a Grandfather Permit to remove and replace + 117' of existing timber bulkhead with C-Loc vinyl sheathing and backfill with approx. 10 c.y. of clean sand. Remove and replace 4' X 4' fixed timber platform cantilevered to bulkhead. Remove and replace existing concrete walk as necessary. Maintain existing dock consisting of 4'X 4' fixed platform; 3'X 15' ramp; 8'X 10' float; and 4'X 20' float: Located: 365 BasinRd., Southold: SCTM#81-1- 13.1 ROB HERRMANN presented new description as follows: Remove and replace 5'X5' fixed timber platform cantilevered to bulkhead. Remove and replace existing concrete walk as necessary. Maintain existing dock consisting of 5'X 5' fixed platform; 3'X 12' ramp; 5'X 20' float and 10'X 16' float. TRUSTEE POLIWADA approved new description with 10ft. non-tuff buffer. TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES JOSEPH KANE requests a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a set of stairs from the top of the bluff to the beach. Located: 3100 Sound Dr., Crreenport. SCTM#33-1-8 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think we can approve that because Coastal Erosion exempts stairs from a residential property. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I went out and looked at this. I thought it was only structures, not stairs. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well the way I read the Code, stairs are exempt. No, stairs are exempt from the Permit. They can put stairs in without a Coastal Erosion Permit. They are exempt from the Permit process. I'm sorry. TRUSTEE FOSTER: When I went out there and looked at that today, that was one of the questions I was going to ask tonight, was why they needed a Coastal Erosion Permit because it wasn't a platform or a gazebo or whateVer, just a set of stairs. I didn't see a problem with it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Was it within our... TRUSTEE FOSTER: The beach, yes. TRUSTEE KRL~SKI: Within 75' of the high water? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Absolutely. I don't know if the stairs in their entirety are within 75' but the bottom of them certainly is. I didn't roll down the bluff to take a measurement. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So you would think it's jurisdictional based on ... TRUSTEE FOSTER: From mean high water to the stairs? Absolutely. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, that's what he needs then. A Wetland Permk. CAC MEMBER: We recommended approval. We thought it was a Wetland application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Was the paperwork done for a Wetland application? LAUREN STANDISH: The neighbors were notified and it was published. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, so we can vote on it and he can just pay us the difference. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Motioned to approve to include stairs only, no platform, gazebo, or any hard structure other than the stairs. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES GREG YAKABOSKI requests two Duck Blinds. Located: Pipes Cove, Greenport. Access: Public TRUSTEE SMITH approved one duck blind for Greg Yakaboski and one duck blind for other applicant provided that the other applicant is a Southold Town resident and the duck blinds are 500' apart from one another. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, abstained. TRUSTEE SMITH motioned to adjourn the meefmg at 9:15 PM. TRUSTEE POLIWADA seconded. ALL AYES 18 Respectfully submitted by, Lauren M. Standish, Clerk Board of Trustees .~r~,~ gND FILED BY T~E SOUIHOLD TOWN DATE t HOUR /tg.'~tC/t] Town Clerk, Town o~