HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-01/26/1995 Albert J. Kmpsld, President
John Holzapfel, Vice President
William G. Albertson
Martin H. Garrell
Peter Wenczel
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Telephone (516) 765-1892
Pax (516) 765-1823
MINUTES
JANUARY 26, 1995
PRESENT WERE:
Albert J. Krupski,-Jr.;~P~e'~dent
John Holzapfel, Vice-President
Martin Garrell, Trustee
Peter Wenczel, Trustee
Diane J. Herbert, Clerk
ABSENT WAS: William G. Albertson, Tr~te~Ti? ',~ ',;.. ~: .... ~..c:~u~c.~
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Tuesday, February 28, 1995 at 7 p.m.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to approve, TRUSTEE"~W~CZEL'?s~co~ded.
ALL AYES /~L!. ~!~F~
WORKSESSION: 6:00 p.m.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to approve,
ALL AYES
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, Fe~?!:l:5~3~i99~5~&b;:i213n~n ~'" ..... '"~ ?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to approve, TR~TEE'~:WENC.EEE3secdnd~6.~ !-.i~~'~;'('
ALL AYES /~.~.i~ hT~;
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve minutes of
regular meeting.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to approve,
ALL AYES
I. MONTHLY REPORT: Trustees monthly r. ep r~!F?for-';Dec~er L'::v,~:i,c'~ :';':~:':':':;) :'i
1994: A check for $4,957.65 was forwarded t~ t~('S'upe~vf~of!~ i~5 ~ ~ '
Office for the General Fund. , ......... :~?~
TRUSTEE W~CZEL moved to approve, ~US~.~U~S~i~cd~. ~7.~ ~:~ ~.~ ,~
ALL AYES ::'~'~ ~" .......
II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices
Clerk's Bulte n Board for review.
III. AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES:
i. Proper-T Services on behalf of MICHAEL J. LEAHY requests
an Amendment to Permit ~4379 to construct a 3' X 40' instead of
a 3' X 20' fixed walkway, a 3' X 16' instead of a 3' X 10'
hinged ramp and a 6' X 20' floating dock. Located 2200 Hobart
Ave., Southold. SCTM 964-3-4
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to approve the modified Amendment,
TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES
2. BERYL Lo WILCOX requests a waiver for the relocation of
an existing cesspool on beach to road side yard of house within
driveway circle. Located 56305 North Road, LILCO pole ~491,
Southold. SCTM ~44-1-23
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to approve the Waiver, TRUSTEE WENCZEL
seconded. ALL AYES
V. ASSESSMENTS/ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS:
!. JOHN CROKOS requests a Coastal Erosion Permit for the
installation of a 140' cyclone fence. Located 2110 Grandview
Drive, Orient. SCTM #14-2-3.11
'TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to give a Negative Declaration, TRUSTEE
WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES
2. En-Consultants Inc., on behalf of MICHAEL KEELY requests
a Wetland Permit to construct 75+ 1.f. of timber retaining wall
with (2) 8' returns. Approx. 50 c.y. of screened clean sand
will be trucked in and used as backfill, and a 4' X 25' fixed
catwalkr a 4' X 12' ramp and a 6' X 16' float to be secured by
(2) 8' pilings. Located 580 Goose Creek Lane, Southold. SCTM
~ 79-1-3
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to give a Negative Declaration, but there
was no second so this application was tabled until next month.
TRUSTEE WENCZEL moved to off the Regular Meeting and go onto
the Public Hearing, TRUSTEE GARRELL seconded.
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 AND AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE LONG
ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHM~AN. 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
7:15 p.m. In the matter of En-Consultants Inc., on behalf of
AQUA FOOD PROPERTIES INC. PARTNERSHIP, requests a Wetland Permit
to replace (within 18") 1,505+/- 1.f. of existing timber
bulkhead. Maintenance dredge 228+,/-' (max.) X 245+/-'
(max.) basin and 50+/-' X 179+/-' of channel to a max. depth
of 10' below ALW. Approx. 3,800 c.y. of resultant spoil
will be used both for backfill and temporarily deposited in open
field to east of channel previously used as spoil site. Spoil
deposited in stated location Will be removed and deposited at
approved upland source. Basin and channel previously
maintenance dredged to -10' ALW pursuant to NYSDEC Permit
Nos. TW15278-0156SP and 1-4738-00728. Multi-year
mainten~hce permit requested. Located 2835 Shipyard Lane, East
Marion. SCTM $38-7-7.1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak
against this application?
ROBERT MUIR: My problem is not with the replacement with any
bulkhead, my problem is when we come to maintenance dredging,
especially the basin, to a depth of 10'. We have a very
tentative water supply in our area and we realize that the
renewed dredging permit that was issued in the '80~s is what's
on the table. But the defense is that anyone that I talked to
who's recollection, even if the permit was granted in the '80's,
I don't believe there was any dredging in the basin area for
sometime prior to that. We protested the dredging and the
placing of the spoil on the 'upland areas with a petition signed
by the property owners ten or twelve years ago with the
resulting decision to postpone that type of dredging. It should
also be remembered that 10 or 12 years ago there was not the
environmental awareness that there is today. We now have
stricter guidelines and many more studies. As to what the
potential damage from such dredging can cause, especially to a
depth of 10' Our problem is basically the 10' depth. It
should be noted that there are more year round homes as well as
summer homes being in the effected area. We suggest that
further investigation be made as to any potential change in the
water contour or any...or what potential problems to the
surrounding area before any significant dredging to the basin.
Our water supply is marginal at the moment and further
deterioration would be disastrous. As far as the bulkheading
is we have no problem. It seems as though 10' is a greater
depth than most dredging is delved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone else like to speak against the
application? Would anyone like to speak in favor of the
application?
ROB HERMANN: This is the third time we have discussed this
project, two months ago at the work session, and then at the
Assessment. I think that two major issues are a concern.
Basically revolved around salt water intrusion. I think the one
issue is the dredging to a certain depth causing salt water
intrusion or leaving the spoil which may contain certain
contaminants as well as salt further upland to then the ground
absorb those contaminants for salts. To deal with the second
issue first, as.we have discussed John Mulhall, one of the
partners for Aqua Foods had agreed to cart the spoil away as it
was dredged. And that was done in the '80's, as I believe Mr.
Muir and other neighbors had had the same concerns back then.
As far as the first issue or the one Mr. Muir has addressed
was the salt water intrusion caused by deep dredging. Ground
water, and I think this goes along with the letter I submitted
to the Board, and Marty, I don't think at the time, and A1 had
suggested that you review it. From my understanding ground
flows from the land into the surrounding waters of Long Island,
it does not flow, or I should say generally in that direction
and does not flow upward, so at a certain point once you go into
the harbor where the salt water infiltrates or where the ground
water leaks the marine salt water. If that table at that point
is one foot or ten foot it doesn't matter what the depth is.
Your still gonna be penetrating that point, the reason that
that does not affect well water on land is because the water
does not flow back up in that direction to the wells, it's
flowing out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Marty Garrell has a P.HoD. in physics and
he specializes in ground water movement so please tell us.
TRUSTEE GARRELL: The question is it's not clear which way the
hydrological gradient goes. That's a critical fact. How deep
are the wells in that area, where Mr. Muir is talking about?
MR. HERMANN: Mr. Muir might have more information on that.
MR. MUIR: I think our~wells go down about 16 foot. I think
Mr. Riddler, because he is the resident here .... (can't hear him).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before you speak I just want .....
MR. HERMANN: I just want to finish addressing this. As far as
that water, that had been dredged to that depth back in the
'80's and Aqua Food had drafted that amount of water over the
last couple of decades until they ceased operating there. There
are depths according to John and people have been out to the
property there. There are areas there that are 7 or 8' deep.
Its mostly areas in the basin that have shoaled up close to
some of the bullheads there that have gotten shallower. The
channel was then dredged again just a number of years ago also
to that depth. So since that has historically been the water
depth inside that basin I would tend to doubt that there w~uld
any sudden physical phenomenon occurring that hasn't occurred in
the last 20 or 30 years.
TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Can you document that dredging and the
soundings after that dredging?
MR. HERMANN: I can document the dredging from your permit...
(changed tape)
MR. EDGAR: I own the property which is closer to the waters
edge even than Mr. Muir's property. It seems that his
argument, is because the permit was issued 10 years ago when the
passed was carried out. I recall living there and owning the
property in 1961 and know the full exercise of the permit in the
'80's was outside of the channel more into the Bay, that when
the channel was dredged was after the nor' easter. And that
was done by Shroeder to get sand filled to put on Gull Pond.
He carefully, with a scoop bucket, stayed only 4 or 5 feet down
from where it had shoaled up. And that's why the channel
stayed. I never recall any build-up or spoil saving on the
lot. Unless they can.verify by proof, it seems the fallacy of
the argument is that because there was a permit it was
exercised. It appears the Aqua Foods backed off once they heard
that 40 people were against it. My youth recalls such that it
has anything to do with this that salt water does not do go in,
then what was the upset about two wells in back of Brown's
Tavern when they went too far in on the east leg near the Gull
Pond dredging, by Lathams? The wells went across Route 25 and
were kicked out and suddenly discovered that salt in ......
...... (can't hear him). Is is also not true that salt water be
heavy and get under fresh water and push it out and fresh water
never replaced?
MR. GARRELL: Yes, it's true.
MR. EDGAR: It's nice to have a theory that nothings gonna
happen, but if the theory's wrong and it happens what the heck
happens to the people who want fresh water? That low water
would be already 10' below my ground level, and if I'm running
an 18' point that means only 6 feet above the point and a depth
of 10 they now have 4 feet below my point. It looks different
because (can't hear him)
TRUSTEE GARRELL: I have a couple of questions. What's the
history of salt water intrusion and water quality in those wells
now? What have you noticed in the years? How heavily are you
using the water for lawns or irrigation or anything else up
there. Is it just year round occupants drawing on water for
their own use?
MR. MUIR: It started at 26' which was 8' plus the 18 required
to have water above the point. That didn't work so at least 15
years ago we had ..... (could not hear him) When we made an
extension, we came up to 18 and it stayed at that level. Now
Thomasini was handling the job to the east they have points
that are even higher or not as low and they can't even drink the
water. And Thomasini is trying to consider going up the
road .....
MR. GARRELL: And that's salt not nitrates, salt.
MR. MUIR: Now because of of this concern I have as former
President of the property owners, I was always telling people to
take is easy on the water. I never used it on the lawn and not
let the root system come up and let nature go down to the
water. I have double points but I don't even use that. It's
just that it's nice to have someone come and say this stuff, but
once you have the problem they walk away. It's not a do or die
case ..... (can't hear him)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Marty, I have a question for you. I don't
think there's anl~way we can prove that it was dredged to 10'?
MR. HERMANN: Just to address the practical aspect, they were
using commercial shellfishing boats to draft that much water,
they couldn't have brought the boats in the basin, the water was
shallower ~han what the boat was drafting. It would have been
grounded. If you want to hold off. and speak to John Mulhull
personally I can find out from John if he has soundings that
were taken or some further way to document that it was done,
that it was done .... I mean we went through this entire process
in the '80's with the same concerns which is why the project was
modified. Originally it Was supposed to be dredged
hydrologically and it was changed to a clam shell bucket so as
not to pour all the salt water on the upland above the wells and
it was also the concern that the spoil was gonna fester and
make a putrescent odor there. So the reason that perhaps
there's no recollection of spoil being left there is because the
spoil has per the agencies request and agreement with the
neighbors concern was carted away as it was dredged. I just had
this discussion with John last week when it didn't go through
all that effort to obtain the permit to dredge it and then not
dredge it. If I could respond to one other issue the gentleman
raisedr is salt water intrusion can occur as a result of
dredging if a well is located near enough to the salt water
interface and you dredge away that land where the well is pumped
out and is located. What you do then is you effectively let the
salt water interface migrate land. In other words, you pull
away that land, allowing salt water to come in, and yes, the
salt water then definitely does invade the fresh ground water.
But this is an existing basin that has been in existence and has
been dredged to whatever depth, even if it had only been dredged
to five feet that would still be enough to allow salt water to
get into the ground water if it were going to move that way
hydrologically.
TRUSTEE GARRELL: Another thing it makes a tough call is the
rate at which salt water is gonna migrate depends on the draw
down of the wells that are inside and its kind of like a dynamic
problem. It's-not a status problem.
MR. HERMANN: Do you think, for argument sake, that it was
dredged to that depth in the '80's. If that was going to have
an adverse affect in salt water intrusion, do you think that it
would have occurred by now?
TRUSTEE GARRELL: The problem is that the affect of the
intrusion occurred over time. In other words, those salt water
areas, they move in time and if you took a look hydrologically
at what that water was in year one, year two, year three, year
four, that's where you'd see the movement. We usually don't do
that. What happens is that someone says..."I have chlorides in
my well." Well that was moving in over a period of years. It's
a very tough call. There are all kinds of things going through
my head when I look at this and hear voices on both sides. The
question is whether there's a way to dredge in a sensitive
fashion and selectively dredge parts and pieces of the basin
without doing so much. The question of whether there's a way to
dredge .... use a different kind of dredging that might be less
invasive. There's all kinds of things like that that I have to
ask.
MR. SAMUELS: What the gentleman is talking about is drag lining
where you cast a bucket out and pull it back to the crane in
favor with the DEC. To address the real issue here is I firmly
believe that the net outflow of the water from the center of
East Marion. I see the gentlemen here, Mr. Sinning, from
Paradise Point, Jack Fisher here from Nassau Point, and Freddie
Endemann from Kimogener Point, and I'm from Fishermen's
Beach. We all have seasonal salt water intrusion problems.
Because of the use. We're drawing down the fresh water. The
farmers are drawing down their water table. We're all doing
it. The solution for Gillette Drive,-and the solution for the
other places I mentioned, particularly Paradise Point, which has
a severe problem, is Public Water. And that's a solution to
these places. They've been built up over the years, there is
far more use than there was 35 years ago where I live and it is
a problem. My way a thinking is, that is the solution. The
other thing, and I'm not the contractor, that this is a
commercial enterprise which will provide jobs which we dearly
need. We should help them. We should also liken for public
water in areas that need it. I'm not saying the whole town, but
some places that need it, desperately. People drinking bottled
water in Southold when the opportunity to provide them with
water is a right. I do think it's a net out pour from that
spine and I'm sure the Suffolk County Water Authority has maps
that show that bubble under East Marion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The Trustees are claiming jurisdiction under
the Andros Patent of the water at this time.
TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Mr. Hermann, could you provide us with
which vessels they will use to draft 10'. 10' of draft if
rather a large draft even the "Nelson" which a large vessel.
MR. HERMANN: Most large boats are used for a 2' safety
draft. They may not have drafted a full t0' but needed that
water for safe mooring and close to that front dock.
TRUSTEE WENCZEL: They certainly did have some large vessels.
JOSEPH BISELL: If you recall, the last two months ago, I
mentioned to you that I sent off a letter to the Suffolk County
Water. I never heard a word. Just to let the gentleman that we
just are not sitting on our backsides, we're trying to do
something to protect ourselves. If this thing does go through,
I would say 52 homes are gonna~be affected, maybe 35, may 30.
But regardless, you have 30 homes there. They have problems
now. If this situation creates a worse problem, why should
those 35 people suffer now. I grant you this will bring people
to work, but your also gonna have 35 homes that will have to
go out and buy water. Why should they have to do that. Plus
the fact that we haven't heard an answer in our second letter,
and we still haven't heard. Now, we did say 30, we didn't say
52, even though there are 52 homes in there. But 30 of them are
concerned. They ha~e to come a long way to get to the 30. we
realize thatr but what with the situation right at the moment my
water is fine. But the gentlemen here do have problems with
their water and there's people who didn't come tonight that
really have problems with it. But now we have a worse problem,
what are they gonna look at. They're gonna sa¥..."Oh, from
the dredging."
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: May I ask you a question before you go
away? The letters that you were talking about, were they to the
Suffolk County Water to get water there, or to understand your
problem?
MR. BISELL: That we were concerned and possibly looking into
getting water from them.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'm just gonna ask Mr. Muir a question.
Did you contact Suffolk County Water Dept., by any chance?
MR. MUIR: I didn't.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I was concerned about this, and when I went
through the file in the beginning of the week I called them up
myself. But I called a technical analyst to find out what his
opinion was and he was out in the field two days straight and I
didn't get through and I wish I had° I was wondering if you had
talked to the surf. County Water people in a sense of What
their opinion would be if it was dredged out.
MR. MUIR: Are you talking about. .... I think one of the
problem with .... The Suff. County Water Authority is a private
corporation, that's not what you're talking about?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: No, I'm talking about water quality.
MR. MUIR: No, I didn't. I have that man's name that I should
called. They come down every month and test out of the well
right in front of Joe Busso's house and I talked to him.
There also was also, a number of years ago, I would say, five,
where they had test wells in East Marion. They had one or two
on Gillette Drive and they had others, the school board gave
the state permission to well points on the school's property and
East Marion tennis courts and they were testing those. I don't
know what ever happened to that State project. But that was
supposed to address precisely what we were talking about and
that is the encouragement of salt water into the fresh water.
MR. HERMANN: Do you want to table it and maybe John Mulhall
will be available to maybe address some of the more detailed
historical parts and maybe in that time we could get somebody
from Suff. County Water Authority to try to make some sort of
determination. If anybody is gonna do it I assume it would
have to be at least someone from there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, you could hire a reputable hydraulist to
give us a report or his opinion on what could happen.
MR. HERMAN-N: Well, certainly if they would be agreeable. As
an example to get somebody to do it.
TRUSTEE GARRELL: I really like that too, and that way we
could have a meeting with people concerned and go over the
issues. And although I'm inclined to what I know off
hydraulically and fronts and salt water intrusion, to go
with .... what Tom was saying, the principle driving force with
salt water intrusion, the draw down, this is a touchy enough
issue because it involves 52 homes. I'd like to be sure before
I cast a vote on it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We won't table it, we'll recess the hearing
then until we get that information. So we need from you .... what
department is gonna do that. That unbiased reporting? On a
possibility of salt water intrusion?
MR. HERMANN: The Suff~ County Water Authority. We have
the charts that they have put out for a general path of water
flow in a letter which supports what I and Tom Samuels am saying
about the direction of water flow going out. Thos~ charts are
in existence right here and I believe that I submitted it to the
Board. But if you want something that is site specific, and the
lest number of wells and the base at Aqua Food I assume you
would have to get somebody to go out and come up with something.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, I think we will need that to make an
intelligent decision and also any kind of historical references
to the size and draft boats that have used that basin. I'd like
to entertain a motion to recess this hearing.
TRUSTEE WENCZEL: So moved.
TRUSTEE GARRELL: Second. ALL AYES
7:55 p.m. - In the matter of EDWARD S. KONDAK requests a
Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permit to construqt wood stairs from
top of bluff on Sound to base of bluff. The purpose is to gain
access to beach. Construction will consist of a 32' X 3~
walkway with handrails on top of bluff connected with three
sections of railed stairs 3' in width and joined with two
intermediate level sections. Located 2090 The Strand, Pebble
Beach Farms, East Marion. SCTM ~30-2-54
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak
against this application? Anyone here who would like to speak
in favor of this application? Any other comment?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Motion to close.
TRUSTEE GARRELL; Second. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'll make a motion We approve the
application.
TRUSTEE GARRELL: Second.
TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I just have one co~L,t,ent, what's with this
large landing?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I looked at that and I said that's almost
not a landing, it's just an angle and it's almost a walkway, a
continuation of getting from one place to another.
TRUSTEE WENCZEL:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI:
TRUSTEE WENCZEL:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI:
TRUSTEE WENCZEL:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI:
is now gonna be 9' long.
ALL AYES
What's the point? I object to that.
We could reduce that.
Is there anybody here to represent this?
No. Reduce it by 4'
I would think so.
The condition of the permit is the 13' landing
All in favor?
8:00 p.m. In the matter of En-Consultants Inc. on behalf of
JOHANNA SMITH requests a Wetland Permit to resheath (on
landward side) 478+/- 1.f. of existing timber bulkhead. Remove
96+/- 1.f. of existing timber bulkhead and construct 30+/- 1.f.
of new timber bulkhead to expand existing irregularly shaped
boat basin. Maintenance dredge basin and 20' of its mouth to a
max. depth of -4' ALW. Approx. 100 c.y. of resultant
spoil will be deposited on owner's upland. Excavate upland area
adjacent to existing basin (approx. 27' X 40') to expand boat
basin. Approx. 150 c.y. of resultant soil and sand will be
used as backfill. Located Mason Drive, betw. Haywaters &
Broadwaters Drive., tel. pole ~8, Cutchogue. SCTM $!04-7-5
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak
against this application? Anyone here who would like to speak
in favor of this application?
ROB HERMANN: As we discussed last month it was just for
expanding the basin.
STEPHEN ANGELL: we recommended approval and we also wanted
the applicant to maintain a 20' buffer and also they're building
right along the edge of the bulkhead so there's runoff.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When we looked at that that was our suggestion
also, that the berm be placed at the turf area instead of at the
bulkhead. Any other Board co~L,ent?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Moved to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GARREHL: Second. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve with a condition
that there be a 20' non-turf buffer and that there be a berm of
elevation of 1' at the lawn buffer interface to prevent runoff
into the creek.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES
8:02 p.m. In the matter of En-Consultants Inc., on behalf of
~UNNEWETA POND ASSOC. requests a Wetland Permit to dredge
20' X 170"area in channel to a max. depth of 4' below ALW.
Approx. 375 c.y. of resultant spoil will be spread evenly over
irregularly shaped area on adjacent property to southeast. A
letter from said property owner authorizing the Association to
do so is attached herewith. Materials Go be removed with
backhoe. Located Bridge Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM ~118-1-11
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak
against this application? Is there anyone here who would like
to speak in favor of this application?
ROB HERMANN: I don't believe there were any loose ends from
the assessment except perhaps continuing to address the spoil
site which I believe Mr. Chirachella was here from Wunneweta
Pond and submitted a letter to the Board with a follow-up to
last months inspection.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let me read CAC comments first. They
recommend approval provided the applicant replant the area
disturbed by heavy equipment and plant all spoil to beach grass
in line with existing vegetation. (changed tape, lost some
conversation) ..... and he said he had problems with the
consistency of the spoil placement, and I said we had also but
because of the nature of the work that you had good reason for
being inconsistent with the spoil placement. He asked us if we
could recess the hearing and he's not sure if he's against it or
not. He was fairly non-committal but that he wanted a week to
take another look at the spoil site placement~ For some reason
he's late on the ball here ....
MR. HERMANN: What I had explained to Mr. Mc Leod is that
the DEC does not allow spoil to be placed in an area where it
can easily re-enter a waterway. He didn't seem to understand
that. He also t01d me that he doesn't work for the DEC and
isn't familiar with their regulations. I found that a bit
surprising but .... both Roy and I had him on the phone for about
a half hour and Roy was the last one to speak with him and he
said that Mc Leod wasn't sure what was what but given all
the arguments put forth and maybe perhaps of one of the last
ones of Mr. Chella had it in the letter I don't think your
talking about that much spoil at this point that would after
using it to refill ..... DEC had that position originally and Lou
Chiarella had been involved and he had changed his mind and I
think we discussed it pretty thoroughly and given that both
agencies has issued...or at least listened or and seems to
understand where we're coming from, that I would only politely
request you not hold up anything on account of the State Dept.
who actually hasn't issued a permit for this project. The Corps
of Engineers have no problem with it.
TRUSTEE GARRELL: What's Mc Leod's status with the Dept.
of State?
MR. HERMANN: They have the division of Coastal Resources and
they are all called Coastal Resource Specialists. But what we
found is that in many cases they .... and I don't mean this in a
negative light .... but they seem to be unfamiliar with a lot of
bulkhead and procedures and dredging and plantings and all sorts
of things that go on on Long Island. You may have read a lot of
editorials and articles in.newspapers that many people feel that
they be left out of the process given that there's a governed
local agency, of federal agency and that the state's
jurisdiction was really intended to be left with the state's
DEC. And DOS was really intended more to deal with waterfront
revitalization programs than minor or even major environmental
programs such as this.
TRUSTEE GARRELL: Is he appended to the previous
administration or the latest administration?
MR. HERMANN: They have remained, Treadwell has .... (couldn't
hear, too many people talking at once) There has certainly been
some push even from the DEC to try to make a little bit more of
a narrow process.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In all fairness to the applicant we received
on December 6, a Lead Agency Coordination Request from Mr. Mc
Leod stating that the Dept. of State has no objection to us
assuming Lead Agency. Seeing that DEC has issued a permit the
CAC has reviewed it and our Board has reviewed it and the DOS
did have 7 weeks to have an actual thought on it. Maybe the
Board should pass this.
TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I'll make a motion to approve the...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we have to close the hearing first.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any other comments?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Second. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I'll make a motion to approve the
application, with the condition of the replanting beach grass,
the damaged area.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES
8-:10 p.m. - In the matter of En-Consultants Inc., on behalf of
RONALD MC GREEVY requests a Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permit
to construct 142+/- 1.f. of timber bulkhead to be tied into
adjacent bulkhead to east. Construct a 15+/-' angled return at
west end of bulkhead. Place 100-300 lb. stone armor in front of
return and westerly-most 20+/-' of bulkhead. Backfill with 250
c.y. of bank run sand to be trucked in from approved upland
source. Construct a 4' X 14' section of fixed walk to tied into
existing stairs down bluff and construct 4' wide steps to
beach. Located 250 LLoyds Lane, Mattituck. SCTM ~99-3-4.5
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak
against this application? Is there anyone here who would like
to speak in favor of this application?
MR. HERMANN: I think we did discuss a lot last month and Mr.
Mc Greevy is in dire need of the bulkhead and has lost a lot
of land behind it and I believe he is here. I have spoken to
the Board and the Board went out for another inspection and...
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Are you still interested in the Amendment
that you put through?
MR. HERMANN: Refresh me.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The Amendment asked to move the walt back.
To begin at the return .... the situation is very dynamic out
there and it's changing very quickly. It really has slumped
down a lot.
MR. MC GREEVY: It slumped way down, at one end 12 foot back
from the imaginary line to the other bulkhead and goes all the
way down.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Your Amendment had put it into moving it
back to the return of the other one, that's why I'm not sure
where you were at.
MR. HERMANN: That was from our Jan. 16th letter to move
landward. I'm not sure if Roy provided you with a new plan for
that. I don't think that was a resubmitted plan.
(The Board and Mr. Mc Greevy are discussing plan).
MR. SAMUELS: What I suggested to A1 is that prior to the
starting of construction if one of you gentleman can come down,
only for about 5 minutes, and we'll stake it, because it's
changing every day. We'll build the wall at the toe of the
bluff and we'll put the anchors in the bluff, which is difficult
to do, and that way we will have it, as well as we possibl~ can
without excavating the bluff in order to fill the bulkhead,
because the rest will come down on us while we're working on
it. That would be very acceptable to us. The ~Southampton
Trustees in almost every permit that they issue on bulkheads is
that that's the requirement. In this particular case it would
be worth while and would give us the best spot.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sounds fair.
TRUSTEE GARRELL: Is there anything that you guys can do up on
top of that bluff to save some of it too.
MR. SAMUELS: Other than spend huge amounts of money, there
really isn't. When Mr. Mc Greevy and I had spoken about
accelerating the process of that top lift caving and
artificially doing it like we did on Mr. Clements house, if
you remember. He's been there so long, as a matter of fact,
he's really an expert on this particular shoreline. He goes
back in his teens on that shoreline. He feels that it's gonna
slump, he knows it's gonna slump, he's moved that row of
hedges back 3 times. Incidentally this is the soft approach.
he's tried it over the years. So he knows its gonna slump,
and rather let nature take its course. And since we're building
it so far back to be close to the bluff, there's not gonna be
that much filling in the bluff. He appreciates what's gonna
happen and he'd rather not run a machine across the property,
across the lawns, and make a mess of it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It seems like for the re-vegetation, it would
be better to cut that back to the natural angle of repose and
then you could re-vegetate it and it would take as opposed to
leaving the top the way it is and then it would still be active.
MR. SAMUELS: Within two years it will be on the angle of
repose. You can plant below that easily enough, understanding
that he is gonna loose some plants, but ....
MR. MC GREEVY: I brought that back three times before and I
could bring the whole bluff back again with re-vegetation. A
lot of it is still there. I have one privit line and one
bayberry line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments? Board? Motion to close
the hearing?
TRUSTEE GARRELL: Move to close.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE ANGELL: CAC recommended approval provided the
applicant follow the Trustees policy of bulkheads on the
sound. By placing the bulkhead at the toe of the bluff and then
variant and maintaining it and replenish the beach. Council
also suggests the Trustees require the applicantto address the
runoff at the top of the bluff considering sloping the top away
from the bluff.
TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I have a comment concerning that. I think
most of you know we have gone through a process of looking at
ways to make bulkhead a little more friendly on the Sound. I
personally am opposed to these kinds of structures in the
majority of cases. But in this particular case, what's
happening here is probably the result of Mattituck jetties.
Would you agree with that, Mr. Mc Greevy?
MR. MC GREEVY: One hundred per cent.
TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Unfortunately I think this bulkhead is
probably the only solution in this particular case, outside of
allowing this to erode continually. I think in addressing the
CAC comments, it's fairly obvious, after looking at that
structure there that your not gonna have a beach there
anymore. And trying to keep this buried in this particular
case, would be next to impossible. I'm not even so sure this
bulkhead is gonna stay there. If you look at some of the
bulkheads to the west after that last storm, you can see that
it's all dug out in front of the bulkhead, the armoring is
toppled.
MR. ANGELL: Your just transferring the problem further down
the shoreline. Unfortunately, the applicants property is fine
sand now. As soon as that bulkhead goes up, your gonna
deprive that beach of nourishing sand.
TRUSTEE WENCZEL: That's true, and in asking him to bury this
bulkhead, he's gonna be the only one whose gonna be
supplying it. In any other case, I think I would argue the
other way. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In light of the jetty there ..... I
agree.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: When we talked about it when we looked at
it, it's a different situation. Again, just to add that that
slope is still very active. Once it starts going it's gonna
start covering and it wilt get washed away too.
TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I would also assume that after this bulkhead
is constructed providing it ends up in the right placer that
when it does slump, it's gonna be buried for awhile.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone want to make a motion?
TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I'll make a motion that we approve.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'd like to add a condition that it be
re-vegetated as soon as possible.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES
8:25 p.m. - In the matter of STRONG"S MARINE INC., requests a
Wetland Permit to construct 190' long X 12' deep X 20' high boat
storage racks, construct a clubhouse building, a slate patio, a
small floating dock, a small gazebo, a stockade fence (hides
boat storage blocks), a stockade fence (separates parking area),
a stockade fenced area for dumpster, 3 storage sheds, a
plastic work shed, a proposed future shop that would eliminate
plastic shed and 2 storage sheds, existing boat storage racks
(north & south) recently filled dirt areas to berms, in
addition% the grade on this area will be raised approx. 1' in
the future. This fill will come from dredging on the south side
for new bulkhead that Trustees have already approved, and a gas
house with pump-out station. It should be noted that Strong's
Marine Inc., understands that the Trustees do not want any
additional pavement where the proposed new racks are, or where
the newly fill areas for parking and storage are. It is also
understood that grading this with gravel is an acceptable and
permitted use in the future. Located Camp Mineola Road,
Mattituck. SCTM %122-4-44.2
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak
against this application?
DONALD KERR: I have a business in Greenport and a house on the
north shore and I rent a small property with a dock in the
middle of Strong's Marine. I have concerns since the three
years I've been there of the size and growth of this marina. In
finding out whether or not I was on my own in this situation, I
probably called on on 20 or 30 residents in the area around this
marina. 'Of all the people I have spoken to two didn't wanted to
talk. Half signed a petition that I have and the other half, if
they were interested and they would try to attend the meeting.
An awful lot of the residents were not in residence. This is
probably the wrong time of year to really canvass opinion in the
area. A little bit on the location, it was originally approved
for, I understand, for 100 boats. I can find no record in the
Town anywhere of how many boats are now approved. At the time
that the marina was put forward, there was a long level of
support as a small little facility. And it was appropriate as
that size. Now however, more than 500 violations later, and
since 1988, we've come to 220 boats and it is gross
overcrowded. I don't want to take too much time, I want to be
brief. First, I'm not sure where the Trustees are supposed
handle this, as opposed to Town Law. But the initial permit
that leaves this application, claims that the zoning is Marina
2. And that is false. This area is largely residential, and
the bulk is non-controlling use. They are intruded are in this
area. I do have a map handy here. This line here (indicating
on map) divides the southern M-1 marina from the northern R-40
residential area. The permits are asking for permission for
that rack, that rack, (indicating racks on map) and these racks
are large. That's the plastic shed, and a very unsightly
storage, temporary storage item. This is the non-conforming
club house which should be only allowed for an'M-2 and which is
in fact and R-40. And the slate patio, which is also in the
R-40 area. Does this Board deal with zoning in this context?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, we don't rule on it, we just deal with
it. We could only approve something with ..... We don't do the
Zoning Board's work, the ZBA's work or the Planning Board's
work, and they don't do the Town Trustee's work. In a case like
this we usually coordinate with the Planning Board or the Zoning
Board. Whoever else or whatever agency is appropriate to handle
this. So, we make our...
MR. KERR: Could it be something that is already known as
non-conforming? Can you in fact pezmit them?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's the zoning decision, that wouldn't be
our decision.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: You said the slate patio is non-confozming.
I don't understand that.
MR. KERR: In a residential area, it abuts the property I rent.
Actually, right on the property line.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But, why would a slate patio be
non-conforming to a residential or co~m,ercial property?
MR. KERR: Because the effect of it is to bring all the
customers of Strong's who want to get onto the patio or into
the area, trespassing straight across the property I rent.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where is the property then, could you clarify
that, that you rent? (Mr. Kerr comes to the podium to indicate
on the map where he rents).
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: You own this, but you don't own the slate
patio.
MR. KERR: Absolutely, that's Strong's, that's residential.
TRUSTEE RRUPSKI: You live there?
MR. KERR: I don't live there, I rent for the space of my boat.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And that's zoned Marine 2.
5fR. KERR: I don't know what it's zoned, i just rent from
somebody else.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's a commercial use of the property,
though.
MR. KERR: Well perhaps so. I don't live there, I live on the
North Fork.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm just trying to get everything straight, so
we could can understand what's going on.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But I still don't understand the slate
patio. How are you saying that's non-conforming?
MR. KERR: There's no gap between that and the property I rent.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: There's no gap?
MR. KERR: There's no fence, nothing. We're making a mountain
our of a molehill here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, we're just trying to find out what's going
on here.
MR. KERR: I'm saying that the patio is non-conforming
because ....
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Non-conforming because it's within the
sideline?
MR. KERR: Right up against the sidelines of this property.
Within the zoning, I do have a concern with the building that is
going on. Over the years without permits being applied for
until this whole matter became public somehow or another ......
Of the permits applied for all except one of the structures are
already in place and some over the years, and the last two years
a number have been in place. And it's illegal. It also calls
for a willful disregard of the Town's intentions. My third
concern is, my that all of these structures should be made to
conform. What this would mean would be the two structures that
would have to be moved to vote on2 The boats that are parked in
very dense formation across the R-40 property. I didn't count
them, but I"m guessing .... (changed tape, lost some conversation).
JEFF STRONG: ..... I find invalid as that amount of people
brought to my attention that he was there. Certainly we want to
keep people informed and we have several neighbors here who have
had good rapport in the past and who did have questions and it's
good that they have questions. Some of the questions that they
have brought to my attention and would like to make public
record as far as the Trustees information. A couple of people
had concerns in the patio area that came up under question. We
do typically during the year have approx. 5 events during the
course of the Spring, Summer and Fall for our customers and
neighbors and neighbors and I'm told that sometimes we have
music for fun for families. It was told today actually that
sometimes that is extended past 10 p.m. and into 11 p.m. That
was a source of I guess aggravation and concern to them. We
have absolutely no intention to do that and we want it part of
the record that those events in the future as far as the music
is involved, would be ceased at 10 p.m. Another concern that
was brought relatively to the traffic, entering and exiting the
marina, last year several neighbors brought to our attention
that the directional signs coming into the marina would be a big
help aid for our customers coming in and finding the place and
as a direct result being not knocking on our neighborhood doors
finding where the heck their going. We got that one solved.
What I do not realize is that they can't find their way out. So
as a result of that we'll go through the necessary permit
process, but we'll be more than happy to assume one or whatever
will be allowed, exit signs installed. Relative to the cl~h
house, I would just like to co~,,lent on the fact in the
paragraph, when the paragraph was typed relative to the Negative
Declaration that we received in the mail, from the Town
Trustees, and is a part of these minutes or agenda of this
evening which says to construct the clubhouse building, etc,
etc. I'd just like it to be known to all of our neighbors as
well as the public that we took it upon ourselves, my wife and
I, to approach the Trustee, approach the Planning Board,
approach the Zoning Board when we purchased the facility back in
April 4, 1992. It took us a year to reasonably get back on our
feet. We took it upon ourselves to address the different Boards
and say, "listen, we've been around the facility for over 25
years. There have been things that some we may have done, some
we may not have done, some we're not sure we did". But there
are these concerns that a lot of people have ourselves included,
how is it best to go about addressing these concerns with these
question marks. Through numerous different meetings it was
suggested that we have one survey drawn that was totally
current, totally accurate, that reflected every bit of every
thing that was on the parcel as of that date of request. We
agreed and concurred with that, hired someone to undertake that
permit. It did take time and money to do that but we felt it
was the right thing and it felt that we had good direction from
the Town. Part of this meeting is as a result of us actually
culminating that survey that does document everything. So from
where it says construct a cl~,b house building, I'm not sure what
they'wording should be, but everything from that word forward is
on the property and the effort here is to document everything
that is one the property and bring it out in the open which is
what we are doing here, and glad to be able to have the
opportunity to do that, and listen to any public comments or
concerns and then hopefully address that and move forward.
Relative to the concern of the club house, there were several
neighborhood concerns brought to my attention as a result of
this is "what the heck is a clubhouse building"? At first
off, we are an M-2 zone, portion of that marina is M-2, not
M-1. M-2 is the lighter zoning of the zoning requirement that
specifically prohibits any bar restaurant or anything such as
the sort. We have no intention of every requesting anything to
go from M-2 to M-1. We have no desire to every have a bar or
restaurant or anything such as the sort. What the clubhouse is,
and has been there for a numerous amount of years, basically
is a portable trailer much like trailers used at construction
sites with nice panelling on it and carpet inside. It is air
conditioned. Many of our customers who come down who might be
in there 30's or 40's and have parents or friends who come down,
and might be in their 60's or 70's and say, "It's August, it's
90 degrees, do you have some place where I can go to sit.
That's all there is, it has comfortable rattan furniture in it,
it has a T.V. and VCR. It has no water, and we have no desire
to put water in there. It does have electric. So that is what
a clubhouse building is and what our intentions are. Relative
to Mr. Kerr's commenting over 500 violations. I have such
knowledge or anything such as that. I'm sure therehave been
some violations. It is an active business and any of those
violations in the past we' have always worked diligently in
trying to address and we will always continue to do so. I
believe that is all that I have to 'say, and I do have a numerous
amoun~ of people, some employees, some customers, some of which
are neighbors who do live very much neat by who could express
their thoughts if the Board so desires, relative to their..
feeling.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just want to make one thing clear. A lot of
this doesn't concern our Board. It will concern other Boards.
Our Board is basically an environmental review Board. So our
concerns are based on environmental concerns that this project
will have. As far as the activities in the other zones, the
other Boards will act on those. They will be able to tell Mr.
Strong wether in fact, he is allowed to have a patio or a
clubhouse or storage rack in that area. Our determination is
wether and if it is whether it is going to affect the
environment. Would anyone else like to speak in favor or
against this application?
TRUSTEE GARRELL: I'd just like to say as an official of the
Town we always find ourselves' in the middle on these things as
well and we can't entirely beg these issues. The issues of
neighbors and noise and traffic and what-not. The only thing I
see here is some cause for .... sounds like talking to neighbors
and engaging in a dialog ..... I understand what goes on at
Strong's in my own experience with neighborhoods in marina's
and boat houses and it seems your in a particular dicey
situation because it's a very desirable marina, it serves a very
valuable function and yet in order to get to you there's no
straight shot as I understand it coming off New Suffolk Ave. If
you only had that shot going straight down from Reeves. I see
Ole Jule Lane, they have to go down through the neighborhood
and I'm sure that part of the distress in there is the concerns
of the people who signed the partition. People who simply see
the traffic. That's not of your own making, that's there and
it's a problem. Do you every have plans to someway open up that
right of way so that it becomes direct?
MR. STRONG: Just to comment, I did n'ot invite them to come here
tonight. There are at least 4 neighbors who live right on those
roads that are of concern. They specifically said, "we
appreciate your letters and we do try to encourage people to
drive slowly coming in". It's not to say we're not sensitive to
it, we're very sensitive to it. But we try to be so sensitive,
that I think people are driving in slowly. SO if you ask them
in a nice way, usually they will respond. What used to be the
old Camp Mineola Road, I honestly believe that that had been a
Town Road at one point, coming, not the whole way down, but down
to the intersection. At some stage of the game it became not a
Town Road. I don't know the mechanics of the 'why' or
'whatever' .....
TRUSTEE GARRELL: You might want to investigate that with the
Town because when I came out here in 19~5 or 1976 I had friends
that I would hunt with and got to know well down there and I
used to drive straight through.
LYNN ROMAINE-DE MARTINO: My husband and I have a boat at
Strong's Marina and we are very happy with the updating that
is going on ri~t now. We have a handicapped child and we're
very concerned about her safety at the marina, that's why we
choice Strong's. We very much concerned with the new docks
that are going in for here safety as well as other people. It's
really a family oriented place. It's really a great place to be
and the people are really personable. I hope that (cannot hear
her)
RAY NINE: I'm a contractor in Mattituck. I'm a neighbor of
Jeff Strong and a friend of his family for many years. I just
want to state that I have worked at Strong's Marina since Jeff
has taken it back and he's made a tremendous amount of
improvements as I'm sure the whole Board can see once they go
down there. He's tried to bring improvements, he,s tried to
update things, bring things into code. The docks have been
replaced now, the buildings have been made safer that are
there. He's trying to get adequate parking for the people. I
think it's been a big improvement and it's wonderful that a
business that was going down the tubes, has been put back into
circulation and it does get several local people a job. And
plus the fact that most of us who have boats know that it is
very difficult to find a place today. A lot of people have sail
on their boats because there isn't a place. I certainly
appreciate the efforts that Jeff has put into time to clean up
the place.
AUDREY WATSON: I am a client of Jeff's and Jeff is a client of
mine and I represent a number of organizations around the area
including environmental. That's why I think Jeff-had me come
down and do some of his closet consultation sometimes before he
sticks his neck out starts asking questions. He always seems to
be environmentally concerned and I can attest that he always
thinks thoroughly about the affects of his business on the
environmental. And I think he's shown that with the Chamber of
Commerce and his involvement with the artificial reef project
and other things. We have asked his recommendation as a member
of the AMI and large marina owner. So I would just like to say
that he is very environmentally concerned.
JAMES HENCH: I live in Mattituck, and I'm also a customer of
Strong's Marina, as well as my father is a customer. I also
support the application and can reiterate what some of the
people have said and can speak of one of the concerns of Mr.
Kerr. I happened to be at the marina this s~uer which would be
at the height of the season and when there was an emergency. It
'was a very rapid response from the rescue squad from Mattituck.
there was no difficulty for the ambulance to get to the
facility. I knew that because I followed it in. I don't see
the traffic as being a problem and I don't think~that should be
a concern of the community.
ROBERT DI MARTINO: I live in Cutchogue, and am a boat owner
and client of Jeff Strong. I have living in Cutchogue several
places where I can place my boat. One being Broadwater Cove
Marina another being over near New Suffolk. I chose Strong's
Marine because of the way the facility is being run. Again, I
do have a handicapped child. I've noticed the way Jeff Strong
and the family has run the business. It's very safe. I have
three daughters. One a high school student, a two year old and
three year old. By being at Strong's Marine what I found also
is that having a little place where there is a swing for my
little ones. Having that little trailer club house for my Dad
who has a heart condition and has been at the marina a couple of
times. Sitting in there has been beneficial for him. Also for
my Mom who is also handicapped. I've had other places of
marina's to go to and it is out of my way, but here I've chosen
to go to Strong's because of the way the marina is. I hope
that has a bearing on certain things here. Being a resident of
the Town, and being educated for 23 years, safety is really the
most important concern. Another thing to mention, I was a
person who injured myself on my own boat. Through my
negligence. I had the ambulance come down to the marina.
Immediately they came down. There was no problem at all and the
whole situation was taken care of. So that's another thing when
you talk about the traffic and the congestion. It's a fallacy.
It's also a very pretty little road to drive down.
BRIAN: I am a mechanic down at the marina. I have a four and
eight year old child. I find Strong's a real nice place to
work and the kids can play in the playground. There are a lot
of kids in the neighborhood and it is open to everybody. The
clubhouse is open to everybody. Your welcome to use the
facilities. As far as environmentally, we installed a pump-out
station. As far as I know, it is the closest one. Nobody else
is thinking about that at this point. It's too expensive. ~-We
don't want to see it pumped out into the Bay. All our
shorelines, we are making sure we meet the codes and doing
everything we can as far as for any kind of plant life and
growth. We just basically want to do what we and the Town feel
is best. I don't think it is really a problem with a lot of
people.
BILL LEIBLINE: I am a competitor of Jeff Strong. I didn't
think there was a hearing for him and I just came here because I
am working on that will be addressed later. But I've sort of
stood to the side and haven't looked at the scope of the
project. I just know what all of us in the marina business have
done. And especially in the last few years. With'the economy
turning around the way it is. I~m aware of the problems that
Jeff has encountered and is working on all the time. And while
we're competitors, I'd say we're friendly competitors which I
think most of us in the Town are. And most of us who have
marina's in the Town want to see the environment improved just
as you see the pump-out station. We have one. In order for us
to continue in the struggle to improve our facility we have to
make them financially profitable and functional. I gather this
is the sort of thing Jeff is trying to do here and so in the
realm of whatever you are allowed to do I would encourage you to
find with him in receipt.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does the Board have any co,~ent?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Jeff I just want to ask have you
simultaneously applied to the DEC for the same applications?
JEFF:~ I have not yet. We want to first get with the Trustees
as we are doing to make sure that everything is correct there.
We have met with the Planning Board and do have several
different things, not total action date but correctional stage
of the game. Once we have a clear direction from the Town, we
want to get comfortable, and ...... all aspects of the Town be
comfortable and then we can go on.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Also the gas dock.
JEFF: The gas dock is all fully permitted, that's not a new
item. A new fuel tank ..... I don't have the dates yet, but we
put in approx. 1987 or 88, it's not the old stuff, we've gone
along extensively. In answer to your DEC question, Lou
Chiarella came down for other projects. We recently got
approval on the bulkheading project that the Trustees also
approved. We want to get comfortable with the Town first and
then we'll tackle the DEC.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: My concerns here are the ..... anything we
approve here tonight is all gonna be on condition of approval
from other Town Agencies. We can approve for an airport but it
doesn't mean you can build it. If your looking at the map the
area 13 you don't intend to change that grade at all.
JEFF: 13 is the filled in area by the west side of the property?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'd call that north.
JEFF: The northwest side. We do not intend to change the grade.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The only area you intend to change the grade
is 14A.
JEFF: Correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI:. ~'d like to ask you if you go through the
Planning Board and ZBA and they don't grant you approval to
expand your c~,~lercial operation into 14A will you still want to
raise the grade and improve the area?
JEFF: We would want to raise the grade for two reasons: One,
because we do already have an approved project on the south side
of the marina where that bulkheading is that we spoke about,
which is gonna be done in the month of February, is already
been approved with the Town and the DEC and the location that
was subject to that approval before that spoil was in that
area. The second is it is the only area that we're not raising
the grade higher than the rest of the marina, we're only
bringing it up to the rest of the grade. It is the only area
left on the facility that's not consistent with the grade of
like area 13. Regardless of what happens down the road we still
want to ....
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What would be the purpose of that?
JEFF: The purpose is so that it doesn't become a water
collection, a swamp basically.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You don't have any concrete plans with that.
I think it would be better if we would let you have the option
of if you did get permission from the other Boards, to use that
commercially, that you would come in at that time and with
specific plans for that area.
JEFF: I already have it. It's already permitted from the Town
and permitted from the DEC.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, but I don't believe there's enough fill
that would raise that area one foot.
JEFF: I believe there is.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How much fill did we permit out.
JEFF: 1,475 c.y. Let me put it to you this way. If 1,475 c.y.
doesn't raise it one foot then I have no problem of not bring in
water from that. Until future plans are more bermed up. All
I~m wanting to do is consistent with what that permit was. But
if you want to change it from one foot to greater than one foot
and to incorporate holding that .... we don't feel that will come
out of that project then. If at some later date it need be
changed than I will reapply.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On that north edge of that I4A section, is
that all bermed up between your property and the creek?
JEFF: It is all fully bermed. That berm comes up .... even if
it comes up to the one foot level higher the be~m at that new
rebuilt height is still at least 5 feet higher than that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But what about that little cut?
JEFF: That be~m as well. From all the way around from the
north end it follows the contour of that and runs all the way
around.
TRUSTEE GARRELL: Move to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: In the sense of what A1 you said before,
that what we're OK'ing is dependant upon all other approval of
other.Boards.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our concerns are environmental concerns, not
how high the racks are, what's a clubhouse, etc. They're
gonna define cl~bhouse, we're not going to. To us it's just a
building that doesn't have any sanitary facilities in it. We're
concerned with the environment and the runoff into the creek.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Itll make a motion that we approve the
application with the proviso that itts depended upon receiving
the appropriate permits from the Planning Board, Zoning Board
and DEC if necessary.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And if necessary if they don't approve of
everything you can come back to us and amend out what they
didn't approve.
TRUSTEE GARRELL: When you make that motion John, do you
include what A1 is talking about the consideration of the fill
and one foot level.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's already been put down.
TRUSTEE GARRELL: Second. ALL AYES
9:12 p.m. - In the matter of FREDERICK ENDEMANN requests a
Wetland Permit to remove and dispose of 2' of silt around ten
slips for maintenance of Marina, remove 5 pilings on the north
side of property, bulkheading and replace with 4 pilings,
construct return at end of existing bulkheading. Plantings to
prevent erosion of slope and behind bulkheading as per
proposal from Soil Conservation Service letter from Allan
Connell, dated Aug. 23, 1994. Located 840 Old Harbor Road,
New Suffolk. SCTM ~t17-5-23
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anybody who would like to speak
against this motion? Is there anybody who would like to speak
for this motion?
FRED ENDEMANN: I live in Patchogue and this property is in
New Suffolk. I own it along with my family and it's sort of a
family operation. I have a few pictures here and I'm here to
answer any questions. (Changed tape at this time and
inadvertently forgot to press start button. Therefore this
portion was not recorded)
TRUSTEE GARRELL:
TRUSTEE WENCZEL:
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL:
TRUSTEE GARRELL:
Moved to close the hearing.
Second. ALL AYES
Moved to approve the application.
Seconded. ALL AYES
9:16 p.m. - In the matter of ~RNNETH MORRELLY requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a 6' X 45' dock, a 3' X 10' ramp and
2 floats: 5' X 18' and 4' X 5' Located 1735 Long Creek Drive,
Southold. SCTM ~55-7-4
TRUSTEE GARRELL: Moved to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Felt there was no need for two floats and
therefore tabled the application until contacting Mr. Morrelly.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Seconded. ALL AYES
V. ASSESSMENTS/ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS:
1. JOHI~ CROKOS requests a Coastal Erosion Permit for the
installation of a 140' cyclone fence. Located 2110 Grandview
Drive, Orient. SCTM ~14-2-3.11
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to give a Negative Declaration, TRUSTEE
WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES
2. En-Consultants Inc., on behalf of MICHAEL KEELY requests a
Wetland Permit to construct 75+ 1.f. of timber retaining wall
witk (2) 8' returns. Approx. 50 c.y. of screened clean sand
will be trucked in and used as backfill, and a 4' X 25' fixed
catwalk, a 4' X 12' ramp and a 6' X 16' float to be secured by
(2) 8' pilings. Located 580 Goose Creek Lane, Southold. SCTM
979-1-3
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to give a Negative Declaration, No Trustee
seconded therefore it was tabled and a re-inspection was
recommended. ALL AYES
3. Peconic Associates on behalf of PARADISE POINT ASSOCIATION
requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge to original
depth of 4' approx. 250 c.y. of entrance to basin. It is
proposed to replace the approx. 250 c.y. washed out of the
inside ofthe entrance jetty from the material removed from the
entrance channel now totally closed. It is proposed to place
the approx. 230 c.y. from area ~2 as beach replacement just
east of material at an upland site. NOTE: Applicant amended
application to maintenance dredge to original depth of 4'
approx. 300 c.y. at entrance to basin and approx. 230 c.y.
at three locations in the basin. 300 c.y. of spoil is to be
placed in the bullhead jetties and the remainder as beach
replenishment. Method of maintenance dredging to be by clam
shell bucket and enclosed containers on barge. (Option: Removal
to an upland site - Latham Sand & Gravel Yard). Located boat
basin at entrance to Southold Town Harbor, land access: Robinson
& Basin Road to end. SCTM ~81-1-16.1
TRUSTEE GARRELL moved to give a Negative Declaration, BASRD ON
SITE INSPECTION AND DEC approval, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded.
ALL AYES
4. Young & Young on behalf of NANCY L. FOOTE requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a single family dwelling, swimming
pool, deck, driveway, sanitary system, water service, walkway,
4' X 60 catwalk, and a 5' X 20' float as per survey dated
6/10/94. Located Willis Creek Drive, 964' south of Meadow Beach
Lane, Mattituck. SCTM ~t15-17-17.13
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to give a Negative Declaration, TRUSTEE
WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES
5. Garret Strang on behalf of PORT OF EGYPT requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a new accessory sw~,~ing pool,
terrace and decks. Alteration of existing building for cabana
use. Installation of sub-surface sanitary system for cabana and
drywells for swimming pool filter water water. Construction of
access sidewalks. Located south side of Main Road, 1,483' east
of Bay Home Road. SCTM 956-6-4 & 6.1
TRUSTEE WENCZEL moved to give a Negative Declaration, TRUSTEE
HOLZAPFEL seconded. ALL AYES
VII. RESOLUTIONS:
1. Board to-'se~ p~blic hearings for the February 28, i995
regular meeting for those applications that have received a
Negative Declaration.
2. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of WILLIAM PYMM requests a
Grandfather Permit to reconstruct (2) timber groins
inkind/inplace. The eastern one being 150' and western one
being 50' in length. Located ROW off Reeve Road, Mattituck.
SCTM %122-9-7.9
TRUSTEE GARRELL: Moved to deny the Grandfather request and a
full application needed, tabled and reinspect, TRUSTEE WENCZEL
seconded. ALL AYES
3. Peconic Associates on behalf of PARADISE POINT ASSOCIATION
INC., requests a Grandfather Permit to repair east wooden
bulkhead jetty by the placement of 10' to 12' long 2" tongue and
groove creosoted sheathing behind the existing line. Length of
repair section approx. 400 1.f. Located boat basin at
entrance to Southold Town Harbor, land access: Robinson & Basin
Roads to end. SCTM %81-1-16.1
TRUSTEE WENCZEL moved to approve Grandfather request, TRUSTEE
HOLZAPFEL seconded. ALL AYES
4. David Kapell on behalf of ANDREE KYRIAZIS requests a
Grandfather Permit for an existing stairway to beach as
follows: 4- 6' X 10' platforms, 4- 4' X 24' stairs, and the
construction of a beach shed at base of stairs. Located
Soundview Drive, at intersection of Tasker Lane, Greenport.
SCTM ~33-4-32
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to deny the Grandfather application,
TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES