HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-11/17/1994 Albert J. Kmpski, President
John Holzapfel, Vice President
William G. Albertson
Martin H. Gan'ell
Peter Wenczel
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hail
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Telephone (516) 765-1892
Fax (516) 765-1823
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 17, 1994
PRESENT WERE:
Albert J. Krupski, President
John Holzapfel, Vice-President
William G. Albertson, Trustee
Martin H. Garrell, Trustee
Peter Wenczel, Trustee
Laurel L. Macomber, Clerk
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CALLED MEETING TO ORDER
NEXT TRUSTEE BOARD MEETING: Thursday, December 22, 1994
p.m.
WORKSESSION: 6:00 p.m.
TRUSTEE ALBERTSON moved to approve, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL
seconded. ALL AYES
at 7:00
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, Dec. 14, 1994 at 12
TRUSTEE WENCZEL moved to approve, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON
seconded. ALL AYES
noon.
APPROVE MINUTES: October 27, 1994 Regular Meeting
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to approve, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON
seconded. ALL AYES
I. MONTHLY REPORT: Trustees monthly report for October 1994:
A check for $3,623.08 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office
for the General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town
Clerk's bulletin Board for review.
III. AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES:
1. William D. Moore on behalf of SANFORD FRIEMANN requests an
amendment to Permit ~4318 to extend the existing dock and
catwalk approx. 100 feet as shown on the attached drawing.
Located 1165 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk. SCTM 9117-3-8.4
Board of Trustees 2 November 17, 1994
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to table this application until the
Board has time to review all the data given by Mr. Moore.
TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI abstained.
2. Land Use Co. on behalf of JOSEPH DUGGAN requests a Waiver
to construct a t0' X 62' deck to attach to an existing single
family dwelling° Said deck will be located a minimum of 19~3''
on the north end and 51 1/2' on the south end from the existing
bulkhead. Application also includes a 15' wid~ buffer planting
area seward of the proposed deck as required by NYSDEC.
Located 330 w/s Snug Harbor Road, approx. 203' south of Maple
Lane, Greenport. SCT~I~35-5-31
TRUSTEE ALBERTSON moved to approve the Waiver, TRUSTEE
HOLZAPFEL seconded. ALL AYES
3. JOHN & NANCY WISSMANN requests a Waiver to construct a
second story addition over present studio, 26' X 16' and storage
space. Located Private Road, (Clearview Rd.) Southold.
SCTM $90-4-11.I
TRUSTEE W~CZEL moved to approve the Waiver, TRUSTEE
ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES
5. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of SERGE ROSENBAUM requests an
Amendment to Permit $4260 to reconstruct a dock from 2.5' X 76'
at 3' over grade to: 3.5' X 76' at 3.5' over grade. Located
1295 Lake Drive, Southotd. SCTM ~59-5-12
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve for a 3' wide X 76' long at
3:.5' over grade as per our policy. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded.
ALL AYES
6. En-Consultants on behalf of MATTITUCK FISHING STATION
requests a 1-year extension to Permit ~4098 to remove and
replace inkind-inplace 3.60 1.f. of timber bulkhead, dredge 10'
to depth of 4~, a 6' X 20' fixed walkway removed, a t6' X 20'
ramp resurfaced with concrete, (2) 2.5' X 16' & (3)~ 2.5' X 16'
fingers, dry wells. Located Mattituck Creek. SCT~ ~99-4-23.
Permit to expire 12/11/95.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to approve the 1-year extension, TRUSTEE
ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES
7. Arthur Melosh, President of MATTITUCK SALTAIRE, INC.,
requests an Amendment ko Permit $4374 to realign approx. 40'
of steps as per sketch, and only the necessary holes will be dug
ko suit the stairs support. Located: 200' west of Saltaire
Way, LILCO pole ~35 on So~ndview Ave., Mattituck. SCTM
~94-1-5
TRUSTEE GARRELL moved, to approve the Amendment, TRUSTEE
ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES
4. IRWIN & AGNES FRICK requests a Waiver to construct a I4' X
14'6~' addition and a 5' X 10' storage shed onto an existing
dwelling. Located 1935 Westview Drive, Mattituck. SCT~'
9107-7=5
Board of Trustees 3 November 17, 1994
TRUSTEE GARRELL moved to approve the Waiver, TRUSTEE
ALBERTSON second. ALL AYES
Motion to go off the regular meeting onto the Public Hearing was
made by TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL, seconded by TRUSTEE' ALBERTSON. 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 T~E
SUFFOLK TIMES AND AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE LONG
ISLAND TRAVELER-WAT~. PERTINE~T 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 NEIL MC GOLDRtCK requests a
Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge channel within Hall's Creek
and approach channel, frOm Great Peconic Bay. A total of
1,040+/-' of channel will be dredged. The width of the channel
will vary. The outer channel will be 50' wide (plus side
slopes) and dug to a depth of 5' below mean low water, plus 1'
overcut. The inner channel will vary from a minimum of 20' to
a maximum of 30' (both plus side slopes) and dug to a depth of
2~, + 1' overcut. Approx. 5,000 c.y. will b~hydraulically
removed and placed on owner's beach west of the creek both above
and below the lines of mean high and mean low water for use as
beach nourishment. Project was previously done by Suffolk
County Dept. of P~Iic Worksl Multi-year maintenance permit
is requested. Existing bulkhead section nearest res'idenoe (14'
~eturn, 75') will be replaced within i8". At the inlet to the
creek, the 70' groin on the west side of the inlet, Will be
re-piled and repaired and extended 50'. the 160' section of
bulkhead immediately to the north of the groin will be removed
and replaced inkind and inplace. The final northerly
section of bulkhead will be left in place and a new 40' section,
plus i0' return will be constructed landward of the marsh that.
has grown behind the existing bulkhead. An existing 80' groin
west of the inlet Will be re-piled and repaired. NOTE:
Applicant wishes to amend the location of the spoil so that it
will be placed between the southerly edge of the beach grass and
the line of mean high water on the property of applicant.
Location: Private Road off New Suffolk Ave., Mattituck. SCT~
~116-4-16.4
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak
in favor of this application? Anyone here who would like to
speak against this application?
ROBERT HERO, ANN: I don't have the actual permit that went
Withthis but this was a permit from 1951 application for
dredging, the private dredging, all the way up into the creek.
Board of Trustees 4 November 17, 1994
And I know that had been discussed the previous two times that
you did the Assessment.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because there is no public comment, I~lt take
a look at this letter.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Rob, the outer part of the channel is
gonna be 6'? Are there two different depths?
ROB: I think it was 5'° And 2' inside.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: CAC comments. CAC resolved to recommend
to the Southold Town Board the Trustees approval of the Wetland
Application of Neil Mc Goldrick to maintenance dredge the
channel within Hall's Creek ..... and with that same description,
whiCh I won't repeat. I'm looking for conditions, which I'm
told were on here.
BRUCE LOUCKA: No there aren't.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well I'd just like to say to the applicant, or
his agents, that the public Hearing will be held in closed
tonight to public comment. The issues that we addressed at our
previous meetings, which is water quality, and title to th~
property have not yet been resolved. So we won't vote on this
tonight, because we want to work out conditions for a permit
that will fit our requirements'.
DOUGLAS SOFFEY: With respect to water shed at the request of
the Board I've asked my title company to conduct a search, even
though we've provided the Board with a certificate of ownership
concerning the title to the property underneath the water at and
including the island. They've certified that there is ownership
in the land or the applicant but you were interested in knowing
when the property and when it was transferred ~rc~ the Town to
private ownership. They've searChed the deed back to at least
1951 at which point the property was owned by Alvin Smith, and
it was transferred from Alvin Smith to Alvin Smith and his
wife. Prior to that the next transfer was sometime in late
1800's. There was no grantee of Alvin Smith, so I: was informed
that Mr. Smith either acquired it through a will, through a
death of friend, or title foreclosure or he could have acquired
it Some other ways. They, without knowing specifically how the
property got into his name is difficult for them to find out
exactly when it was transferred from the Town. What they
proposed to do that I've requested is that they search transfers
from the Town of Southold to private owners going back to 185~
hence. It's a difflicult task but at least of ~the 1951 to the
present time there is the same recitation in the deed in 1951
with respect to ownership of the bottom of the creek as well as
the island as the same recitation as there is in the present
deed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our concern however, is we did proceed with as
we promised for the environmental review, we didn't hold that
off because of the question over the title. However, that will
be of course one of the conditions of the permit unless it comes
out before we can actually write it. If we so vote it, but the
question of title is important because if...and a lot of these
titles were ..... I don't know how to explain it but they weren't
transferred. Somehow ownership or somehow assumed on a lot of
these areas. And like you say, where no record exists before
Board of Trustees 5 November 17, 1994
1951 that's where we want to see clear cut conveyance by the
Board of Trustees who own ~hese titles or the owners or the
.parties of these lands under the Andros Patent of 1676. In
some cases in Town, it's been proven to us that in fact,
previous Boardst of Trustees have made grants or sale of
underwater lands that they own, or conveyances otherwise.
Before We could let someone remove material from the Town
bottom,, we have to have proof of ownership either way.
~IR. SOUFFEY: Can we not vote on the merits of the application
regardless of ownership. Cannot we add that cabiot on the
condition that wether ownership is in Town or in the applicant.
I .think it's just a question of cost.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's exactly our public trust is in this
case, in this area, a matter of wether it's Town spoil at 41~ a
yard or wether it's Mr. Mc Goldrick's spoil. That's the
q~estion. I don't think we would hold that up on it's
envirQnmental merits for that. It's still a substantial
q~est~°n. That still has to be resolved and after our attorney
has looked at it she thought that it was not yet resolved
satisfactorily. We need proof positive that had been conveyed.
The property has been conveyed.
~R. SOFFE¥: Your more difficult to convince than the title
company. You certified that he owns it, but I will endeavor,
it's not an easy task. Records have to be checked.
TRL~STEE KRUPSKI: It's a large project, but it's important.
T~USTEE GARRELL: If it's just a matter of the spoils,
apparently, is it something beyond that because you can proceed
from an assumption on the spoil, that the spoils are Town spoils.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can assume that they are. And we can vote
a. permit out that they are and then M~r. Mc Goldrick would
have to prove otherwise anyway, which he has to anyway° This
isn't the only thing we ' re discussing.
TRUSTEE GARRELL: But you could get around that. I think if
you come to an agreement on compensation and where the spoils go
that could be worked out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I imagine. I 'm not sure where your ......
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: What Mary is saying is "move it forward'~.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just wanted the applicant know that this
isn't resolved. Because he's provided us with additional
information and I just wanted to respond to that.
TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I had a question regarding the maintenance
dredging in this creek. I'm not sure who to address this to,
but I see that we have a .... you submitted a maintenance permit
from the ..... or a dredging permit from the Army Corps. from 1951.
MR. HERRMANN: That's net a permit, that was a copy of an
application as public notice.
TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Is there a permit?
MR. HERRMANN: We're gonna try to find one if there is.
TRUSTEE WENCZEL: What is the last documented dredging that
you have?
FLR. SAMUELS: I think that Judge Sutter was kind enough to
come tonight. He may be able to resolve a lot of these
questions because he was a partner with A1 Smith as you know.
Board of Trustees 6 November 17, 1994
TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Well we're very interested in hearing ~hout
that.
~R. SASIUELS: Marty do you remember the last time the creek
was dredged? I know it was DeFriest that dredged it privately
the last private dredging.
JUDGE SUTTER: It was, and I can testify that it was dredged
in 195I because I built a dock there and I parked a boat there.
So from personal knowledge I can testify it was dredged and in
accordance with .... I also have a contract for the dredging that
was done at that time.
TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Was the dredge to the specifications to this
applicationS? Maybe you can come up and have a look at it.
JUDGE SUTTER: I have it here.
TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Ok it was all the way up the creek then?
JUDGE SUTTER: No not all the way up the creek. Only up to
the property that H.L. Smith owned at the time. It stops where
I and Mr. Smith owned the property together.
TRUSTEE WENCZEL: OK. So it was dredged all the way up to
that point? As is illustrated on this diagram.
JUDGE SUTTER~: We dredged, not the Town.
TRUSTEE WENCZEL: B~t it was dredged to that point?
JLq)GE SUTTER: It was dredged to that point. Now the property
was purchased from the Colby Estate. I don't know what the
history of the Colby deed was. But I know they could not get
title to the island tP~t was out into the creek. The title
company wo~ld not grant title to the island because that was
~ues~ionabte weather that they will guarantee it. The title
company doesn't grant title. They insure title and I don't know
any title company today that's gonna insure title to property
under water. They just won't do it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Some private owners do have clear title to
marsh islands.
TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Some marshes conveyed by the Trustees have
at various times since ......
5IR. SOFFEY: There is a clear chain of title. Title companies
don'~t want to take that chance. I don't any of them that will.
Even though you own title, they won't guarantee title. They
won't insure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKi: But I think our point is there's been a record
o~ conveyances of lands from the Trustees in the last 35~ years
in Town. And i~ you have a record of conveyance then we'll look
it over. there's no question about and as I said it has come up
before and'We've seen it in Town and on two occasions I can
'think of off the top of my head. So it's not like we're sayin~
~it Could never have happened"o We just have to haVe~ where
it's held as a public trust, we ~ave to have proof that it
happened. ~etting past the title question, there's a question
of water quality%
~Ro HERRMANN: I just wanted to respond to that and to see
where you were based on the letter on Oct. 25, that we submitted
to you along with the review of water quality dating Great
Peconic Bay from sheltfisheries and DEC. That was some of the
preliminary research I did. I spoke to biologists and
shellfisheries to forward and they made this report and the
Board of Trustees 7 November 17, 1994
letter that went along with it. So I'm wondering what is still
left void there if anything or if you have not reviewed it yet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What we would like to see in a permit
condition, and again, we haven't written up anything specific,
we would like to see in a permit condition, is of course we
would like to see ..... the benefit here is gonna be improved
water quality, but we would like to see how much improved water
q~ality. Especially in relation to harvesting shellfish. We
would like to see a test or some sort of testing program for a
year or so.
~R.. HERRMANN: And periodically after the d~edging. That is
actually one of the things that the shellfisheries biologist
suggested with it. They would be curious to see because they
haven't seen a trend in improvement and his feeling was that
although anytime you do a project like this you can't guarantee
results, but he would assume that it would improve water quality
and he's like to see that if it's documented to see if there
were tests done also. Because that affects how DEC classifies
the shellfish area.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That was my feeling also when we were
talking about this earlier. Just informally my feeling was it
would be a very positive informational bank for the Trustees to
have for future dredging so that when someone comes in and says
they want to take 3 more feet out that we could say yes it did
have a benefit to this creek, so it would be a positive thing.
We want to stick that in there as ......
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It might be a better benefit to the Town if we
had the DEC work with you on those testing schedules. Because
they're the ones who certify the water.
MR. ~fERRMANN: They have to do that every certain period of
time.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: They're testing can be every two years.
That's the part where we were a little concerned that you could
involve the DEC in the sampling.
TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Also they don't test in enclosed waters.
They wouldn~t be doing any testing during the part of the year
when this is closed. This is closed seasonally is that correct?
MR. HERRMANN: Correct.
TRUSTEE. W~CZEL: So that although they may make water_samples
during winter months when it is open and they expect it to be
c~rtifiedo They will not run any samples during the summer when
it is closed, and that is what he Board of prevailing on Mr.
Mc Goldrick to arrange, so that testing will be done to see
if there is a difference in the summer time when it's presently
uncertified.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And we will want to set something that is
workable for ~r. ~c Goldrick and workable but is going to be
valuable to the Town and the DEC. Not only for Hall's Creek but
in regard to every creek as far as maintenance dredging and
opening it up to flushing action.
MR. SASU3ELS: The greatest part of the dredging is opening the
mouth of the inlet to the Bay and that part of it could be
broken out. That obviously is not the kind of dredging for
which there is no charge. And I think we can break out the
Board of Trustees 8 November 17, 1994
yardage from that where the bulkhead ends, you know, where the
inlet ends to the boat basin. And give you those two figures.
that way this burden of proving ownership which may or may not
be eas¥, I have a feeling it's not gonna be that easy. You
were right in saying that some things happened years ago that
People find hard to define today. But I don't think the burden
of opening the inlet will be $i0 a yard for $50,000 yards
because most of the yardages is ...... If I were Him Hunter and I
came in here from Suffolk County and said I wanted to open
Hall's Creek to the Bay that's the principal part of the
~redgingo And that's where the greatest environmental benefit
will come from. Interesting, if Mr. Mc Goldrick is gonna
research all the quit claim deeds and grants and so on and so
forth, back through the years, we might learn quite a bit.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I must say that would be a very valuable
piece of information for the Town if it's done.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And he could hang it on his wall afterwards.
But what you said certainly has merit as far a the fate of the
spoil. Because I'm sure the Town could use that spoil and if
you Could separate that out from what is could be perceived as
the channel and was could be perceived as land under question.
MR. SAMUELS: Let me get into diking and considerable
environmental impact. The Town could certainly take it off the
beach with payloaders, there's no problem with that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there access to the beach there?
MR. SAMUELS: Through Mr. Mc Goldrick's property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then that would kind of delegate the question
of the title then woutdn~t it. if you had two figures broken
down, one of spoil coming out of the area that we perceived as
being under question, and the other coming out of the channel
area.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That was always my contention anlr~ay. We're
only talking about a small part of the project. I just don't
want to see the Town giving up its rights to a land that might
be theirs.
MRo SAMUELS: No one guards your rights or jealously than I do,
believe me, as you know. I think when you look at the maps and
you realize we're only dredging to two feet with a foot
avercut at the intersection, it's very narrow, and it's the
easiest.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well there is that large flat area coming in.
MR~ SAMUELS: ~es, there's some of that.
TRUSTEE OARRELL: I'm curious with Judge S~tter here, what
the memory was of the creek in 1951 maybe even before or after
dredging, was there a problem with that creek plugging then?
What did the water look like in that creek? Did you notice a
change of water quality when that creek opened up, or wasn't it
a problem as it is today?
JUDOE SUTTER: It wasn't as bad as it is right now, but after
we dredged it out I was able to catch snappers at the end of the
dock and blue claw crabs off the spiles. We were able to get
mussels off the island, and get clams that you could eat safely
at the time which we wouldn't dare do today°
Board of Trustees 9 November 17, 1994
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just one more thing which I don't think I
b~ought up before. We'd need something ~hout the lis_bility to
the neighbors structures to the east when you dredge to the
channel, that you would be responsible for any damage that
occurred there. I didn't inspect those as to what condition
they are'but i don't know if they're new or falling down I can't
recall. The bulkhead on the other side of the channel on the
east side of the channel. That would have to be included in
that.
MR. SAMUELS: That's why we carry $2 billion i in liability
insurance. We'll send you a copy of our insurance certificate.
But.whether the dredger stays 4 feet away from abulkhead under
all circumstances.
TRUSTEE WENCZEL: That's your compar~ies liability. I think
we're also concerned what might~happen in the future after your
work is done to those structures. And I don~t k~ow if anything
would happen ,or not. I guess our concern was when they were
constructed were they set down far enough.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're not trying to make work for you, we're
just concerned that ......
MR. SAMUELS: Suffolk Colmty dredged it on a number of occasions
and their rule of thumb was stay 4 feet away from any structures
that you get an angle of repose of dredge spoil which is
approx, a I on 3. It's probably 14 foot and will probably
stand 6 foot .of depth right to the bulkhead but I wouldn't take
chance as a contractor.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just one thing that I hadn't mentioned before &
I just want to mention we put in there. Does anyone else have a
comment?
TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Before we close the hearing. I~m still
troubled by the dredging that extends beyond the Present~ar.
The last i0~ or something feet that extends from the sand bar to
Mr. Mc Goldrick"s dock. For the record I'm opposed to that
dredging. I have no problem with opening the Creek and removing
the sand bar and increasing the flushing but I think that
additional dredging is over above what is needed there and
obviously Judge Sutter has told us that it was once dredged
but I think in the ~our yeas hence it's probably reverted more
or less natural bottom in that area. And I thi~k your
disturbing some'thing that doesn't need to be disturbed.
F~R. HERRMA~: WhiCh is?
TRUSTEE WENCZEL: T~e natural bottom and the co--unity which
exists in it. Wether or not it's commercially important
shellfish area there is a corm~unity of animals and plants that
exists there and I think that should be left alone.
JUDGE SUTTER: The way it is now, your killing all the animals
there by not dredging and it's been dredged quite a number of
times since 1951 and they dredged it right up there so their not
disturbing any bottom, and the bottom that's in there is just
muck. Nothing can you live in it because the mouth of-the
dredge is not open. Nobody has touched the mouth of the dredge
for 6 years and now you have a good creek here and the creek is
dying. I would say it's dead. I'd like to see it opened up so
the creek can come back°
Board of Trustees 10 November 17, 1994
TRUSTEE WENCZEL: i have no problem with opening up. Please
don't misunderstand. I just feel that the last section .... if
you come into the entrance, it's all shoaled over, and you
come around the turn from the jetties, it's all sand bar and
then you get to the end of the sand bar inside the creek, and it
drops right off and it's fairly deep there. I have no problem
coming right up to end where all that sand is and where it drops
off. I think it will do the place some good to open it up
obviously. But once you go beyond that, you're not dredging
sand you're dredging creek bottom. And I think dredging beyond
that is an effort to make the creek fit the boat and not the
boat to fit the creek. In any creeks in the Town I feel very
strongly that we have to be very careful that not to do that.
That we begin to play with nature and our resources beyond
what's called for by attempting to make the creek fit the boat.
MR. SAMUELS: I'd like to answer for just a minute. We~ve heard
this before and it comes up on every dredging project. But I
would strongly suggest, and I'd be happy to provide you all the
data from the Corps of Engineers research section in
Vicksburg. It's been proved again, and again, and again, the
recovery of all the organisms including bentic organisms and
everything else, and maybe Mr. GarreI1 can speak to this. But
it's been proven again and again that shellfishing improves when
you get a natural waterflow. Now to ask Mr. Mc Goldrick
to remove 50,000 of sand and not be able to get a reasonable
boat in two feet of water ....
TRUSTEE WENCZEL: We're not asking him, he's asking us to
r_emove it.
MR. SAMUELS: But it's to the public benefit that the creek...
TRUSTEE WEN~CZEL: It's 5,000 yards.
MR. SA/~UELS: Excuse me 5,000 yards. The shellfish will
improve. The shellfis~ing in the whole creek will improve
including that in the area that is being dredged, because you'll
still ha~e shellfish if it's good bottom in the channel itself.
As a matter of fact, I would suggest that if your gorma go in
there and Clam, that ~ou clam the shoulders of the dredged area
two years after it dr~dged because that's where you'll find all
of your nets. We just have to put to sleep this idea that all
dredging is bad and that natural bottom is nec'essarilygood.
Natural bottom may be good and may be bad. You have upland
erosion, you have siltation, you have mud and whatsoever. It's
dust not true that all natural bottom is good shellfish habitat.
TRUSTEE WENCZEL: That's true, but I'm no~ talking exclusively
shellfish, I~m just talking about the community in general.
MR. SAMUELS: I'm talking about the entire community. Maybe
except for anorobic activity. It gets down to some very basic
things unless we're gonna maintain our waterways and we have
to maintain our waterways.
TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I have no problem with it.
MR. SAMUELS: A Boston Whaler is not an unusual boat and that's
not dredging the channel to fit the boat to the creek.
TRUSTEE WENCZEL: But in reviewing the soundings~ it appears
to me that that size boat could very easily be brought to that
dock with the existing depth beyond the sand bar there.
Board of Trustees i1 November 17, 1994
TRUSTEE Ki{UPSKI: But if that's the case, then there won't be
any dredging, the dredge would go through there and not dredge
anything. I would imagine if there's a high spot, you take it
out and if it's deep water your just gonna keep sinking it
down.
~R. SA~IUELS: You have to provide "as built" surveys to the DEC
after the projects complete~ and We're not gonna over dredge.
That's a $10,000 violation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If it's two feet of water you're gonna keep
going, I would think.
~R. SAMUELS: That,s way there's a foot over cut allowed. It's
very hard to keep exactly at two.
TRUSTEE GARRELL: I think it's almost .... a dredging project
like this that to "quin pro quo" for opening up the creek
becomes completing the project. I think the thing most
interesting is to take a look before dredging as-much as you can
and as much time as you can doing it and going there and taking
a look at that bottom now before the project and after the
project is done in a period of time and maybe a few months and
then a couple of years afterwards and see about organisms. I
suspect and my gut feeling is, a lot of that community is
gonna benefitfrom increased dissolved oxygen and if anything
your gonna see an uptake that's reflected in the entirety of
the area. Shoulders and everything included. The only way te
tell is to take a look at it. I think that would be fascinating
if you can find somebody to do ito
MR. SAMUELS: I'll try to get Southampton College to look at
this.
TRUSTEE GARRELL: I get the feeling that this isn'tgoing to
be the last one like this.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'd like to make a final coalescent. It seems
that the public testimony is about the positive benefits of this
for the most part. It is a large project and previous Boards
have never acted on it, maybe because it was never properly put
in front of us. I think the question of title has been quieted
without anyone or to everyones satisfaction and I think there
are benefits to be gained here and one of the better benefits is
we'll know what the benefits are after it's done, if in fact it
is done through a testing programr so we could see the numbers
of water q~ality and how much they do approve and without any
further comment, I'd like to ask for a motion to close the
publ. ic hearing.
TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: So moved.
TRUSTEE C=ARRELL: Second ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We will work out a series of findings and
resolution and vote on this at the next monthly meeting.
7:16 p.m. - In the matter of STEVE PAPAGIANAKIS requests a
Coastal Erosion Permit to cut back weeds and scrubs and cover
with top soil near the bluff for reinforcing. Located Sound
Drive, opposite'Mc Cann Lane, Greenpor~. SCTM ~33-4-2
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in behalf of this
application? Would anyone like to speak against this
application? I~lt speak in reference to it. This is the one
Board of Trustees 12 November 17~ 1994
where the cutting was done with a bulldozer and cleared right to
the bluff. Unfortunately it was just before a heavy rain in
August but fortunatelyhe cut the material towards the bluff and
he bermed it up so all that heavy rain on his property is mush
but none of it ran over the bluff otherwise it would have just
taken out 20 feet of the bluff and apparently he re-vegetated
and he provided us with a survey contour lines and everything we
asked for. Does anyone have any co~m~ents?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The buffer is built into the ......
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes~ he bermed it up so that the water cannot
go over the side.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: What we want to make sure is that that
vegetated buffer stays there in the permit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh sure, we can put that in there otherwise
it's a violation.
TRUSTEE GARRELL: And the contour map is 2 foot contours.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well there was only one contour line on it but
it seemed to be accurate on the survey. Do I have a motion to
close the hearing?
TRUSTEE ~AP/{ELL: So moved.
TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve this application
with the condition that there be no activity of any sort of
mechanical kind within 50' of the edge of the bluff.
TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES
8:15 p.m. In the matter Land Use Company on behalf of ROBERT
ALCUS requests a Wetland Permit to construct asingte family
dwellin~ a minimum of.75~ from the landward iimits of tidal
wetlands, install a sanitary system greater than 100' from the
tidal wetlands boundary and install a pervious driveway all in
accordance with the attached surveys dated 5/14/91 which were
previously approved by the Trustees under Permit ~3884.
Furthermore, applicant will conform to the conditions set forth
within the permit previously issued. Located Cedar Point Drive,
East, Southold. SCTM ~92-1-2.t
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As a matter of point, the application simply
expired.
MR. C~UCK BO~: The reason it expired is we were still in
front of the Suff. County Health Dept. planning the location
for the well north to the neighbors sanitary systems.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And do you have that?
MR. BOWMAN: Yes, we have approval. The DEC Permit has been
extended to 1996 so there's no problem there. We had to come
back before you now to get a re-approval.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of tbs
application? Would anyone like to speak against the application?
MR. HARMON: I'm an attorney and a resident of Southotd and I
also represent Jean Harmon who's the owner of the property. I'd
like to talk to you about something that is within your
j~risdiction. I'd like to talk to you about a creek that is
very much live and well and a creek that we would like to keep
live and well, and that is Cedar Creek. Some of you may have
seen the property and some of you may not have seen it. But I'd
Board of Trustees 13 November 17, 1994
like to hand you a picture maybe for everybody to see which is
the Cedar Creek area. This is the piece of property that we are
concerned with. The peninsula that sticks out into Cedar
Creek. If you can see it on the particular map you can see it's
a photograph. You can see it's covered with cattails
essentially. It's a peninsular that's surrounded on three sides
by water. This particular piece of property has been looked at
in any number of ways by the law and this is how it has been
categorized. As you can see it is critical environmental area.
It's a significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat~ It is
wetlands and water standards set by law are classified as SA
which I will explain in a couple of minutes. ~The map you see in
front of you is the outline from the State of New York defining
this areas as a significant h~hitat. The piece of property
itself is a significant wildlife and fish habitat by state law.
· t doesn't border it, it's in it. So we're talking essentially
about building a house in an area that has been set aside for
environmental purposes. Many different types Of purposes. This
is the map of the State of New York which outlines the various
wetlands in the area of Cedar Creek. This is essentially the
same area that you see in the photograph. It's also the same
area that's covered by the significant habitat map. As you can
see and this will become very important later. The wetland
boundary doesn't form the border of the piece of property. It
comes somewhat inland on the Alcus piece of of property. This
is significant because it's a 75' setback from the wetlands. A
question that we'll raise to you is whether or not the survey
that has been presented to you is accurate. And~ whether or not
what this gentleman said to you is accurate~ ~our entitled~to
be informed, your entitled to be fulty~informed~ your entitled
to be told the truth when y~u make your judgements. You have a
very tough job to do and you have not been told the truth ~bout
some very significant things when it comes to this piece of
property. So that's essentially what we're dealing with. ~
very sensitive piece of property. The State of New York uses a
kind of rating system along with a narrative system to explain
what a wildlife habitat is. This is how they rated this
particular piece of property on which Mr. Alcus' wishes to
build a house about 30 feet and about 61 feet long and. 24 feet
wide. I can be precise about that. About 30 feet high, 34 feet
wide and 61 feet long. There is no other information provided
to you as to exactly what is being proposed to be constructed on
this piece of property or what it's going ta look like or how
it's going to physically impact upon the land. As you can see,
I really don't stand up here just for Jean Harmon for the
people on Cedar Creek or the people who live in Southold. This
area is much more important. It's much more important to people
beyond the limits of Southold. This~ people have taken a look
at and this is what the State of New York has said about this
particular piece of property. As we all know, Cornell has a
very important resources center. It's located along cedar
Creek. This is an excerp from the State of New Yorks
designation of this areas as a significant wildlife and fish
habitat. I took the trouble to do what the Land Use Co. has not
Board of Trustees 14 November 17, 1994
done. I went over to the Corneli and asked them exactly just
what they do in the creek. Among other things, they do applied
research actually using the waters for the purposes of
reestablishing scallops in Peconic Bay° There's nothing said
about that in the application. With all do respect to anybody
who went to see the property, no matter how ma~y times you went
'to see the property, there is no way that could know
whether or not building on this piece of is going to
have any adverse impact on what it is Cornell is trying to do,
not only for people who live in the area, but for the Baymen,
the people who earn their living, and the people who want to see
Pec0nic Bay come alive.. Now I have personally have seen, in
tha~ area, osprey, which are categorized as species
under law. t have personally seen diamond back
turkles. I don't know is any of you have seen those. They're
about this big (indicating size), and there are 3 or 4. of them
that live, at lease during the warm periods of the year, in that
particular creek. There is nothing said about that~ there's no
information as to how building a of
property in an i~ of this habitat, every
which way by law, could be possibly be affected~by this. All of
this is important because the water quality in this area has
been designated this . This is the standard to which this
water should be held and maintained. This water should
be maintained for ~g, for market purposes. The water
shall be Suitable f fish propagation and for survival. There
is nothing in any information that was provided that has
said this number I and that has explained whether. ~nis
particular project built in this extremely is
going to impact on s~mething much more .important than the
~ediate entrance that live in the area. From a
purely legal point particular piece of property,
because it is. a critical environmental area, any action must be
treated as a ~ I .on under law. It means that there is a
presumption done to that is likely to
have a significant effect on the that's layers
talk. ~tl that means is that when there's presumption, that
means that the scales are this way (indicating). That means
that the applicant comes in with the scales weigh like this
(indicating). My argument to you is that the information
provided to you cannot possibly satisfy that Par~iCUlar burden.
As I said, you are entitled to know the truth, this is a Plow-up
of the statement that has been repeated to you tonight. It's an
excerp from the environmental assessment form submitted to you
in connection to the application. And I draw your attention to
items ~ 10 & 11. It has been said to you tonight and it was
said to you (could not understand this word). I'certify that
the information provided above is the truth to the best of my
knowledge. The truth is that the Suffolk County Health
Department has not issued a permit for this particular piece of
property. It's a fair question to ask whether the Land Use Co.
knows that or whether the Land Use Co. knew that before they
stood up here tonight. Or whether is was done deliberate or not
may be for you to decide. The fact is that the Land Use Co.
Board of Trustees 15 November 17, 1994
represented the previous owner for the Suff. County Health
Dept. The Land Use Co. must h~ve known that the statement
made to You tonight that there was a Dept. Of Health permit
issue wa~ untrue. ~
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: This last Sheet' that you handed is what now?
MR. HARMON: It is a request for a variance submitted on behalf
of the p~evious owner of the property to the Suff. County
Health ~ept..prepared by the LEd Use Co. The only point is
the Land Use CO. has been instrumental in activities with the
Suff. County Health Dept. and they knew that there wasn't a
Health DePt. permit issued by Suff. County. The reason I
know that is that I s~poke to Charles Brigham of the Suff.
County Health Dept. a couple of days ago and he confirmed that
for me. We're talking about whether or not you were given
accurate~information or not. In the application form there's an
ind~cation as to whether or not there's going to be any fill
deposited or removed. And the answer NA. Presumably there is
oing to be no fill and no deposit on this particular piece of
r°Perty. I have only recently had access to theDEC permit
file with respect to this piec~ of property. It is very clear
from rea~ing the DEC file that there is an intention to do some
sort of excavation. There is an intention to do some sort of
filling on this property and this is something that the Trustees
should be aware of. Because iF could affect run-off into the
creek, it could affect .... ~have some sort of environmental
which I'm certain~y not in a position to verify. I
wish I could give you a complete answer on the ~ill. I really
dOn~t k~ow the answer to that. This is just another Dept. of
Environmental Conservation form talking about the p~ospect of
doing fitting on this Particular piece of property. The
second of information that was given to you that I
submit, this wasn't true. We're also talking about
con~uitting a very significant resource to somebody. And the
questionis can we trust them. Can we really count on them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Count on who?
MR. HARMON: The property owner. This is something very
important. It goes beyond them, it goes beyond me. It ~oes way
beyond me. Can we really trust them
TRUSTEE ~KRUPSKZ: If we could trust everyone we wouldn't have 3
Bay Constables.
MR. HARMON: Well, I guess I'm getting to that. ~ you know,
there is a history to this particular piece of property. The
h~story ~s there was a dock off the szde of that property. As I
understand it, there is a code of the Town of Southold, there is
a requ~irement that a permit be displayed. Well this is the
permit that-was displayed when that dock was being built. It
happens to be an expired permit for the dock. So it seems to me
whoever was responsible here for that particular piece of
property doesn't really care what the Trustees say. The
reason .....
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Can we just back up for a second, I'm not
sure I understand you. This is a permit for a dock that-they
built.
Board of Trustees 16 November i7, 1994
~R. HARMON: That's an expired permit. From the previous owner,
this passed summer, August. There was no permit paid for the
permit the Trustees did issue a pe~Ltit, did not issue a permit,
the Trustees have approved a permit. There was no fee paid in
order to get the permit issued. Rather than paying a fee to
construct a dock, they simply posted an expired pe~-mit in its
place.
MR. BOWMANN: That's not true.
MR. HARMON: In addition to that the permit which was not
issued° This is a picture of a path going to the dock through
the vegetation and there was no authorization cut that
vegetation and to cut that path. Finally a couple of details
here. Each of these .... this is a blow-up of the purple map.
This is the wetlands boundary (indicating map).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What year was that.
MR. HARMON: This looks like 1978.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think it would be more effective in your
presentation if you could point out your own house location
which we could use as a reference point to the proposed project.
MR. F~A~ON: This is an earlier map before the house was
constructed, but right here is essentially the Alcus property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just as a matter of land mark reference.
F/R. HARMON: This is the entire piece of property right he~e,
which is undeueloped and we plan to keep it that way.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have a current map?
MR. HARMON: If you compare, and take the scale on each one
these things, take the Scale on the survey, take the scale off
the blue map, what you'll find is that the distance h~re is
greater than what has been given here. I believe by about 25
feet. In Other words the house should be 25 feet further over
in this direction. And I believe this is the diagram to work
off, not this. Finalty, the survey that's been given to you is
not current. ~y understand that the survey has to be given to
you within one year. This is a survey that goes back 3 years
and it doesn't show the proposed filling and p~posed
excavation. Bottom line, as a technical matter, the application
is simply inaccurate and in addition to that they simPl~ have
not provided Yo~with enough information upon which t~ grant a
wetlands permit and I'll ask you to do a number of thin~s. I~l~
ask you to consider this, I'll ask you to deny the aPPlication
for a wetlands permit and ask you to consider your Negative
Declaration and to issue a Positive Declaration with respect to
this piece of property so that you can be fully informed and you
order a cc~plete environmental impact statement considering the
delicacy and sensitivity of this particular piece of property.
I'm confident that if you do that and I'm confident that if you
protect this area in a way that the law has already protected
it, that nobody can quarrel with what you as a matter of good
document, as a matter of law., as a matter of what's right, you'd
be doing the right thing, so confident, that if you do that and
anybody challenges you in doing that I'd be entirely be prepared
to represent you at no fee to the Trustees in any challenge to
your action. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might
have and leave these with you.
Board of Trustees I7 November 17, 1994
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, your very organized and it's a very
gsnerous offer. One question I'd like to answer you, and I'm
not answering for Mr. Bowman. The wetlands line in question,
when we review an application, we don't refer to a map or even
an aerial photograph line in general. We go out on a field
survey, the applicant has to stake the house or the activity and
we will measure that activity based on wetland line, based on
the site. We're not gonna refez to the map and just look at
the drawing. When we do it in the field, we do it more
accurately because the maps get distorted every time you blow
them up. So we don't rely on that map.
MR. HARi~ON: Well, I think you already have a determination here
· as to where the wetland line is.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's a gray area because our wetland line
tends to be more protective than someone elses, some other
agents wetland line. Because we're a local body of Government
we tend to be more protective and tend to look at it a little
more conservatively, that's why we do a field survey.
TRUSTEE GARRELL: In the documents that you have handed to us,
there's one form that's got an estimated amount of wetlands on
the property. I couldn't figure out by looking at that whether
that was 3 ~er cent or .03 per cent. I assume the wetlands
areas forms a rather small part of the property or the wetlands
are a much larger per cent of that property.
.~MR. BOWMAN: It's a fringe marsh that extends around the whole
peninsular.
TRUSTEE GARRELL: And the fringe marsh is a small per
centage of the dock.
MR. HARMON: This is the entire habitat designation from the
Dept. of State.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mr. Bowman would you like to make an comment?
F~. BOWMAN: I'm sure the.Board, and I'm not gonna stand here
and try to , your ail aware of the meaning of
personal and habitat. The that I
want to point out to Mr. Harmon is, maybe he's aware of, is
that I, in conjunction with the building corporation did the sub
division andgot the approvals for his ho~se that he lives in
right now, which was also in that critical ~nvironmental area,
and also part of that significant habitat a~e~. In fact his lot
provided a better habitat than ~s lot. It had much more
mature cedars in it and those maps are used as a guide ..... and
I'm not gonna give he Board a lesson in Why their prepared and
why their utilized. But it still comes down to this is still
private property, it has not been set aside for habitat. We try
to minimize the development on the lot and as you can see bY the
plan we have tried to do that. We have undisturbed areas. Most
of the lot is gonna be undisturbed. We've met all criteria
for development. All the setbacks. I haven't asked for one
variance except the Health Dept~ And that is to move the
well., Mr. Alcus's own well closest to his own sanitary
system. The Health Dept. has granted us a variance to move
the well, his well, cIose to the sanitary system~ I don~t know
wether you are Mrs. Sullivan or not [directing question to
person is audience). We had to make it as part of that approval
Board of Trustees 18 November 17, 1994
of that waiver, we have to, and offer that is open that would
pay for the relocation of her wells as well.
MRS. SULLIVAN: Could you describe that offer?
MR. BOWFLAN: Could I describe it? Whatever it takes to move
your well ....
MRS~ SULLIVAN: Off our property into an easement.
MR. BOWMAN: Absolutely not.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Wait, excuse me, there will be plenty of time
for this discussion, but Mrs. Sullivan, your free to speak but
for the record we have to stay in turn and keep it orderly.
~R~ BOWI~AN: I have the Health Dept. approval right here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'd like to see that.
MR. BOWF~UN: It's based on the information granted the request
for variance with provisions indicated in the determination
dated 1993. The cognizant points of this are that the applicant
is proposing to install a sanitary system less than 150 feet
from a private well. The determination, which was a 3 to 1
determination by the Board to grant the request provided that
the following conditions are met: 1) that the applicant shall
covenant in a language acceptable to the County Attorney, that
the on site well does not meet the Dept.'s standards for depth
and separation distances for potential sources of contamination,
his own sanitary system~ 2) will hold open an offer to relocate
the Sullivan well if requested. The offer shall be in effect
until the Dept. issues a final approval for the project when
he builds his house. We have to go in for an actual approval to
construct to do that and in that point of time Mrs. Sullivan
will be able to ask that~here well be relocated. The well is to
be relocated, and again I have a map here. These are all Health
Dept. concerns. On her property and the very edge of her
p~operty and not within the easement area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But here's the thing that concerns the septic
system and well. Our jurisdiction lies within 75 feet of the
wetlands. If the well and the septic system is not included in
that 75' area, what we determine the wetlands to be, then it's
outside of our jurisdiction, and it's strictly Suffolk County.
I'm not trying to pass the buck, but every agency can't carry
every other agencies burden. I just wanted to make that clear.
That's their burden, now if Mr. Alcus is forced to move
something back into our jurisdiction, either the well or the
septic system, then again it becomes our concern.
MR. HARMON: Which is not the case.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It doesn't seem to be the case. That's
between you and Mr. Alcus, and it's a valid concern,
obviously, and he's gonna be your neighbor. But outside of
that 75' jurisdiction, that's our limit.
MRs BOWMAN: The Dept. did issue a waiver with those conditions
on the Health Dept. I would be more than happy to meet with
Mrs. Sullivan later and explain to her and give her the map and
show her where it is.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That seams to be more appropriate discussion
for a Health Dept. hearing though.
MR. BOWMAN: I'm not going to go into the water quality or
critical habitat. We have met the Health Dept.'s set backs
Board of Trustees 19 November 17~ 1994
and exceeded them 100~ from the~surface waters just so we will
not have an effect on the creek and the water quality of the
creek. Mr. ~armon's center system on that particular lot is
probably closer that this one. I don't think we're gonna be
asking him to move his sanitary system for the sake of that
water quality either. Other that that I think I've state
previouSlY, that the whole reason we're back here is that we had
to solve the well question with the Health Dept. otherwise the
hQuse w~uld have been constructed already. Again, to reiterate
Mr. Harmon's lot and this lot went hand in hand in the
s~hdiviSion process and were looked at and approved as legal
building lots at the same time, and I wish he would respect that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One point I would like to make, that Mr.
Harmon did make, is the fill. When we approved the application
originally, I think 1991, one of the concerns was run-off. One
of the permit conditions where they have no turfed area on a
proper~y, which means there is no sprinkler irrigation systems
which minimizes water use or basically you~d have to have a real
natural setting, no lawn at all, no lawn chemicals, fertilizes,
anything to contaminate the water. Because we realize it is a
very sensitive area. ~owever, the house is planned 75' back
from th~ wetland line which is the extent of our jurisdiction.
The reason this Board has jurisdiction is because there is
activity associated with building a house. And unless that
houSe were put on pilings with no fill, and if they could place
out 76' it would be completely out of our jurisdiction. So 'the
queStiQn is the fill. I didn't get a chance to look at what Mr.
Harmon gave me, I just wanted to review that° I wanted to see
the date. The date of the concern of the fill from the DEC was
dated i990. When was the DEC issued?
MR. BOWMAN: I don't recall.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is it identical to what this Board had issued
preViously.
MR. BOWMAN: 1991. February 12, i991 as the date of protection
from the Marine Habitat Protection Bureau.
TRUSTEE ~ARRELL: Was this a Type I action then?
MR~ BOWMAN: No it was not. It should have been, but it was not.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: tt might not have been a Critical
Environmental Area at that point. I don't know when the Town
designated that creek a critical environmental ar~a~
MR. BOWF~AN: But it was a Type I action because it is ta6t on a
significant habitat.
MR. HARMON: The extent to which he is trying to ride the coat
tails of what was done previously~ what was done previously,
With all dO respect to the lack of information provided
previously, simply was incorrect. It was a Type I action and it
should have been handled as a Type I action, but it was handled
as an unlisted action.
MR. BOWMAN: tt was not, and neither was the s~hdivision which
proceeded even the application to build houses on it.
MR. HARMON: At the time of the subdivision the area had not
been declared a significant habitat. That occurred in' 1987
after a house was built. And I'd like to stand on my statement,
there is no Health Permit from the Dept. of Health~ and that
Board of Trustees 20 November 17, 1994
is clear from what Mr. Bowman has. They're saying that their
not necessarily gonna approve the application even though they
granted a waiver. It's very much an open question. He should
show it to you if he has it.
MR. BOWMAN: I'll give you a copy of it Mr. Harmon, it's right
here. I read from it, they granted a waiver, the only thing we
have to do build a .....
MR. HARMON: He has not said they have granted a permit, he
Should say they granted a permit.
MR. BOWMAN: I think Mr. Harmon better go back and study what
the Suff. County Health Dept. procedures regulations are.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let's look at what's relevant here. Again, I
don't think a sanitary system is relevant in this~area, because
it seems to be outside o~r jurisdiction. And I realize you
can't build a house without it, but that's Why there's a
separate entity of the surf. County Health Dept.
MR. HARMON: The only reason I'm getting into this...I
understand that completely, and I'm not asking that you do
anything about the septic system, but you've got to count on the
information that's given to you. And you've got to believe in
it, and we've all to act upon it because we accept it as true.
TSere are a few things presented here which I've shown are
inaccurate, near for the balance for what's been sul~nittedto.
You should look at with some question. It's not enough to tip
the scales. That's my basic point.
TRUSTEE GARRELL: Could I ask Chuck Bowman? How many lots are
in that sUbdivision?
MR. BOWMAN: I believe there is three. It's comprised mainly of
phragmites intermixed with doodle vegetation with some
cedars. As you go further towards the Harmon's house it became
more of a forested property dominated by cedars'and' oaks.
That's why I'm not quite sure wether there's another lot there
next to theirs as part of the subdivision. Those lots required
a significant clearing for the homes to be constructed.
TRUSTEE GARRELL: The Harmon property had no wetland on it,
MR. BOW~6AN: Fringed~
TRUSTEE GARRELL: It had a fringe to it?
MR. BOWMAN: Absolutely, the fringe goes right along that whole
area. There are no bulkheads on that creek, appropriately, its
a beautiful creek. In that instance too, we're more than
willing on this., in fact, we have told the owner time and time
again going back years, that it is a very sensitive site that
any .... even landscaping should be of native plant material,
beach grass, and that there should be no ornamental plantings.
The Harmon's have ornamental plantings,
TRUSTEE GARRELL: Well let's suppose that Mr. Alcus were to
build something similar to what the Harmon's have now. WOuld
there be any significant environmental impact in that area?
MR. BOWMAN" My myself, have certainly observed the amount of
wildlife that utilizes that area, and truly if we wanted to
preserve the lot as habitat that would be wonderful. But any
wildlife that would be displaced by this house, we have all the
park and open space available right across the creek. I don't
know if that's the right answer, there has to be an impact when
Board of Trustees 21 November 17, 1994
you build a house. Certainly we're not going to deny that. What
I can say is there is certainly sufficient open space or that
wildlife couldn't be displaced to.
TRUSTEE GARRELL: How many acres is this lot?
MR..'BOWS~%N: It's about 1.3 acres. I'd say 85% of it if not
even more is going to remain undeveloped.
T~RUSTEE GARRELL: The pity of it is that I suppose the hind
site is always better~ but the pity of it is that it couldn't
have been picked up in the parcel with the Harmon house or some
adjacent house or simply set aside. Purchased as a lot.
MR. BOWMAN: I don't think at that time that the subdivision was
large enough that the~ could have clustered it or kept that much
open space ...... just say "gee there are just two or three lots
in there"° Again, at that time, it still does, it fits all the
setback requirements. I'm sure right now if you did the
SUbdivision, and the Harmon~s house wasn't there and you still
have the three lots, you'd have a lot more restrictions as far
as the size of the houses and maybe a reduced area of lots so
that some could be open space.
TRUSTEE ~ARRELL: When was your house built, Mr. Harmon?
MR. F~%P~MON: b~out eight years ago.
TRUSTF~E GARRELL: A~d the size?
~Ro RARMON: It's one level and built up on a concrete
foundation that cuts back into the bank.
TRUSTEE ~ARRELL: Then it's single level,
MR. H/kRMON: It's si~gle level and its got about 90' long.
TRUSTEE SARRELL: Width?
MR. F~ON: Maybe 30 feet. Maybe 25.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The old permit that the Trustees granted in
December 1990. Is that identical to what the DEC issued?
~R. BOWMAN: Yes, it was. Coming back to the fill question, I
think the Trustees had put a requirement that he have the
specific building plans as to how the house was gonna be
configured. That the fill would be limited to what would be
necessary for the sanitary system, and if not, I am suggesting
it to you, if your gonna be re-approve it this time. Because
that is all that is necessary and also to go further if the
restriCtion wasn't in the old permit, put one in that all
disturbed areas be replanted with natural plantings.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Another condition that would be appropriate
would be the hay bales be left in place. Any other questions,~
or comments? Does any Board member have any comments or
questions?
TRUS~ HOLZAPFEL: I'll'make a comment that I think is in
general. It's that the house is beyond 75' and just on the very
edge of our jurisdiction and that every effort has been made to
get out of the wetland permit area and has been moved as far
away as it can be from the wetlands. My feeling is that it
doesn't impact the wetlands at all. It's a house~ it's a
private piece of property that he has a right to build on and
it's not entering into the wetland.
TRUSTE~KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: I'll move to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES
Board of Trustees 22 November 17, 1994
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: A motion on that?
TRUSTEE HOLEAPFEL: I'll make a motion that we approve the
application with the following stipulations: Hay bales be left
in place and not be removed after landscaping be done.
TRUSTEE GARRELL: Can you make a stipulation on vegetation?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh sure.
TRUSTEE HOLEAPFEL: Let me finish, no conventional turf lawns.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: CAC comments were in favor.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Once again, I am making a motion that we
approve the application with the conditions that were on the
previous permit.
TRUSTEE GARRELL: Reluctantly I'll second. ALL AYES
9:01 p.m. - In the matter of EDWIN BERNH~dDT requests a Wetland
Permit to replace 83' of existing bulk~head within lg". Located
500 Koke Drive, LILCO Pole $6, 500' from Main Bayview
Road~ Southold. SCTM $87-5-4
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone here tike to speak either in
favor or against this application?
MR. BERNHARIYF: I have no further information for this request.
TRUSTEEiKRUPSKI: There's a picture here. The CAC recommended
that you use all caution and not destroy the spartina
patents. Of course the spartina patents are i~ortant in
front of your property and is for protectingyeur property when
the wave action hits that and the beach doesn't get washed out
in front of it. Zt hOlds your property and protects it. So
they want to make sure you maintain and use ail caution in
protecting tke grasses there. They also recommend that a buffer
of spartina patents which is the lower marsh grass planted in
accordance with the Town Cede. And I'm gonna ask the Chairman
Qf the CAC if he could clarify that.
MR. LOUCKA: It was our understanding that there is a code
either ~hrough the Building Dept~ not the Trustees though, .....
TRusTEE HOLZAPFEL: There'S no high marsh there, it's a bulkhead
with alternaflora in front of it and not much space for
patents. Patents has to be higher up and there's nothing there.
MR. LOUCKA: O.K.
TRUSTEE KttUPSKI: Judging from the picture that Bill took on
this field survey I can't quite see where they could plant
spartina patents. It's standard procedure when someone
replaces a bulkhead like this there's a good deal of disturbance
inthat area~. What we recommend or condition the permit On is
that you not put in a turf area, and in this case, I think your
limited. A certain area of no turf between the bulkhead and
your house. So you wouldn't have any lawn there. You'd have to
p~t in a natural vegetation or stones.
MR. Bernhardt: you mean from the bulkhead to the house?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, not the whole distance, but based on every
property, we go on something ITke this~ we go on 10 feet or
something, you put in stones~ or beach grass or low growing
shrubs.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Just 'so there's no fertilized lawn next to
the bulkhead.
MR. BER/eHARDT: Now we're talking in front of the bulkhead?
Board of Trustees 23 November 17, 1994
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No in back of it. I think that would be the
only condition or consideration here.
TRUSTEE GARRELL: Move to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'll make a motion to approve the
application with a 10' non-turf buffer
TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES
9:07 p.m. - In the matter of En-Consultants on behalf of THOMAS
BOYLE requests a Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct
170+/- 1.f. of stone revetment and backfill with 2500+/- c.y. of
clean sand to be trucked in from upland source. Purpose of
structure is to prevent further erosion to property and concrete
wall which is collapsing. Pro~ect is an emergency. Also would
like to construct a one-family dwelling, sanitary s~stem, &
driveway, ail as shown on site plan. All in accordance with the
Trustees .condition that the owner will restore the bluff above
MHW. NOTE: Applicant would like to amend this application,- as
per recommendations of the DEC in their letter dated March 15.
Located 600 Leeton Drive~ Southol~. SCTM $59-1-7
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone here like to speak in favor of
this appliCation?
ROB HERRMANN: I~m here for En-Consultants for Thomas Boyle,
and if there are any concerns I'm here to help.
TRUSTEE GARRELL: It's not an ememgency to construct a single
family dwelling with a sanitary system is it?
TRUSTEE ~KRUPSKI: Our big concern ~ere ..... and we've been to the
site. In fact, Bill and I saw it from the water, we did a water
tour outthere and we understand that there is a problem out
there. I can't see how else you can solve this problem, and we
saw the DEC comments. The CAC ~eCommended apDrovat with
conditions ~hat property owner maintain 50' east of his
revetment(equal to the 50' currently eroded on east side of
owner's property) This will protect his property from northeast
storms and will avoid damage tothe SouthoId Town Beach~ which
is what we said. The applicant understandably has a problem but
that he has to be responsible for damaged caused. It's my
~eeling that the structure that will be built won't erode the
beach as readily or as' severely as is currently there. It seems
like that revetment is gonna cushion the blows a little bit
instead of just pounding it out.
MR. SAMUELS: The revetment, theoreticalty, an achor reduces,
absorbs up to 35 to 40% wave ener~ rather that a concrete
seawall which reflects I00% of wave energy. That's why they
gained so much favor with the environmental regulators.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On thing that we talked about with Roy, which
he agreed to and its in here, last month is that they be
responsible, after a major storm event to refilling in the Town
Beach. But we want to make it so that it's fair to Mr. Boyle
and fair to the Town. Obviously if Kenny's Beach looses 20 feet
on the whole length of the beach we're not gonna hold Mr.
Boyle responsible for that. What we'd like to do is get a
measurement of that pocket inside off that corner, that's
eroded, above MHW. The pocket that's eroded into his property
Board of Trustees 24 November 17, I994
and come up with a figure of yards that would fill that pocket.
Not up to grade of his property, but to match the grade coming
down towards the beach. You would fill it ~olid. Granted it's
not gonna be as severe because of the revetment, however, it
will occur in a severe event. I'm talking about above ~.
TRUSTEE ~OLZAPFEL: The revetment's running right to the Town
property line, and we're concerned that the Town then begins to
loose the land. and we want to guarantee that that will be
replaced.
~R. S~UELS: So the willingness to match this quantity or the
necessary quantity?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKt: The necessary quantity.
MR. ~A~3ELS: You want to put this quantity in the permit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what we want to dOo We want to make it
so it's fair to him alsoo We don't want-to say "Oh, you also
lost all the beach back here". Well they're not gonna restore
the whole beach, but there is an obvious pocket because of this,
~e want to match that pocket. We need the calculations, we need
he numbers. He spoke to the Town Attorney and we'i1 have to
run them by our Engineer so that we can all agree. We're not
gonna agree exactly~ but as long as we get ball park estimate
af What has to be replaced and then it'll have to filed with the
County Clerk to go with the deed. MR. SAMUELS: There's another
way to go. With a maintenance bond. You take the permit, as
you draw it, with the condition and you send it to an assuredly
company who will then bond the maintenance that agreement to do
this work. tn the event that it isn't done then the Town just
goes to the bonding company and they will give you the money to
do it. LtwilI have to be renewed periodically.
TRUSTEE H~LZAPFEL.: The homeowner then after a~ year, like a lot
of insurance, people just throw it away and say, "Oh we don't
need that anymore because we got our .... "~ you know what I'm
saying? Can they do that to this?
~R. SAMUELS: In the event that there is a super storm here and
the place is wiped again, Kenny's Beach is gonna be like it
was in i938, bungalows floating in the lake.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No ones gonna care. I'm talking about a
storm event.
MR~ SAMUELS: If the covenant is better for you, it's easier to
go to the bonding company then to go to civil court.
TRUSTEE KRU~SKI: But I have a feeling that on a Town Beach,
where this is a sensitive area, it's gonna be built in
suspenders.
MR. SAMUELS: So you want a covenant?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MR. SAMUELS: That's attached to the deed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we will need that before the can issue a
permit.
MR~ SAMUELS: Suppose the amount needed is more than the pocket?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's why we want to cover him. We don't
want to be unreasonable. Do I have a motion-to close the
hea~ing?
TRUSTEE WENCZEL: So moved.
TRUSTEE' HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES
Board of Trustees 25 November 17, 1994
TRUSTEE TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the
application and a permit will not be issued subject to
covenance and restrictions filed with the County Clerk, and
Mr. Boyle restoring Public Beaoh to east in event of erosion due
t~ storm aggravated by Mr. Boyles structure. The specified
amount of Mr. Boyles responsibility will be measured in cubic
yards of sand and will agreed upon by the applicant and the
Trustees before the permit is issued. There should no turfed
areas between the revetment and the house.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we should put a 2-year limit for those
conditions to be met.
9:20 p.m. - In the matter of Peconic Associates on behalf of
ROBERT HOLLEY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 20.5' X
16' single story addition, 54' from the upland edge of tidal
wetlands, landward of an existing dwelling, and relocate an
existing shed (approx. 10' X 10'). Located 1085 Bayshore
Road, Greenport~ SCT~ ~53-3-13
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone here like to co~,~ent on this?
TRUSTEE GARRELL: I'd like to comment into the record from
~erle Wiggin. He had to leave to make a presentation to the
Greenport Village Board at 8:00 p.m. The requests for the
addition is actually further away from the wetlands. The DEC is
under review and you contact him tomorrow is there are any
questions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: W~lat a pleasure a few pictures make, and the
CAC comment was for an approval. Do I have a motion to close
the hearing?
TRUSTEE GARRELL: So moved.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Bill, you want to make a motion?
TRUSTEE ALBERT$ON: I'II make a motion we approve with hay
bales being in place while construction is going on.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKt: Now I need a motion to go back to the regular
meeting.
TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: So moved.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES
V. ASSESSMENTS/ENVIRON55~VfAL DECLARATIONS:
1. En-Consultants on behalf of EDGAR DEBANY requests a
Wetland Permit to construct 100 1.f. of timber retaining wall in
line with and attac~ed to adjacent wall to west. A 12' return
will be constructed on east side. Eroded bank up to 12'
landward of proposed wall location will be regraded and 75 c.¥.
of additional sand fill will be trucked in from upland source
via owners property. ~n existing 3' X 15' stairway down bluff
will be removed and replaced with a 3' X 10' stairway from wall
to beach. Proposed wall will be well landward of AHW and will
correct erosion of bluff. Located 27 Watersedge Way,
Southold. SCTS~88-5-58
Board of Trustees 26 November 17, i994
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to give a Negative Declaration.
TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES
2. En-Consultants on behalf of AQUA FOOD PROPERTIES LTD.
PARTNERSHIP requests a Wetland Permit to replace (within 18")
1,505+ I.f. of existing timber bulkhead. ~aintenance dredge
228'+/- (max.~ X 245~'+/- (max.) basin and 50~+/- X 179'+/-
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 reimoved and deposited at approved upland
source° Basin and channel-previously maintenance dredged to
-10' ALW pursuant to NYSDEC Permit ~15278-0156SP and
1-4738-00728. MUlti-year maintenance permit requested.
Located 2835 Shipyard Lane, East Marion. SCTM ~38-7-7ol
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to table this application.
TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES
3. Eh-Consultants on behalf of PATRICK COL~GIURI requests a
Wetland Permit to replace (within 18") 12S+/- 1. f. of existing
timberbulkhead. Easterly 16' return will be removed and
replaced and extended by 14' to 30' inside of existing concrete
return. Westerly 11~ return will. be removed, replaced and
extended by 25' to 36~ overall. Approx. 65 c.¥. of clean fill
will be trucked in from upland source for backfill. Located
2950 Park Ave., Mattituck. SCTM~ ~123-3-24.i
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to give a Negative Declaration.
TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES
4. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of LISA REALE requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a sidle family dwelling, sanitary
system~ decking, install a 12" CUlvert under %xisting drive,
install crushed stone drive, install and maintain a continuous
line of staked hay bales between areas of wetlands and
The shall be
construction and to create .a f~eshwater pond. pond
created by excavating the areas of the proposed pond (approx.
6,000 s.f.) to -10'. This will allow the pond to fill from
groundwater (see test hole) and the excavated material, if
suitabte~ shall be utilized for regrading around proposed
residence. Test hole also shows that there is no clay present,
therefore, this is not perched water. Any disturbed areas shall
be seeded with Wild Duck Millet (Japanese), Echinoloa
crusgalli. This plant is idea for such an area and serves as
an excellent fo~d source for waterfowl. Located Crescent Ave.,
Fishers Island. SCTM ~6-6-20o5
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to give a Negative Declaration°
TRUSTEE ~ARRELL seconded. ALL AYES'
IV. RESOLUTIONS:
i. Board to set public hearings for the December 22, 1994
regular' meeting for those apPlications that have received a
Negative Declaration.
Board of Trustees 27 November 17, 1994
2. -DONALD ALF~O requests a Grandfather Permit to repair
inkind/inplace (2) 8' sections of existing catwalk (8' X 2
1/2' and 8' X 2'). Entire catwalk will be removed upon DEC
approval of permit which has already been approved by the
Southold Town Trustees. Located 900 Corey Creek Lane, LILCO
pole ~14, 1,300' off Main Bayview Road, $outhold. SCTM
~78-4-13
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve the Grandfather Permit.
TRUSTEE ~ARRELL seconded. ALL AYES
VII. MOORINGS:
i. JOSEPE FP~ZZITTA requests two stakes approx, at high
tide mark in Fair Haven Inlet for an 18' inboard/outboard, see
map.
TRUSTEE WENCZEL moved to deny this application because of
width of creek and at low tide the boat would be sitting on
bottom of marsh and would infringe on marsh area,, also access to
the creek is questionable.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI seconded. ALL AYES
2. RICHARD C. HILARY requests a duck blind for a 10' X 10' duck
blink in Corey Creek.
TRUSTEE TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded.
TRUSTEE GARRELL: Abstained.
Meeting adjourned at: 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted By:
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED AND FILED BY
TIIE SOUTHOLD TOWN
Town Oerk, Town of Southold