HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-10/29/1987HENRY P. SMITH. President
JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, Vice-Pres.
PHILLIP J. GOUBEAUD
ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR.
ELLEN M. LARSEN
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
OCTOBER 29, 1987
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1892
7:00 P.M. - Regular Meeting
The regular meeting of the Board of Town Trustees was held on Thursday,
October 29, 1987 at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold. President
Henry Smith called the meeting to order.
Present were:
President Henry P. Smith
Vice-President John M. Bredemeyer, III
Trustee Phillip J. Goubeaud
Trustee Ellen M. Larsen '~'
Trustee Albert Krupski
Bay Constable Donald Dzenkowski
John Holzapfel, Chairman, Conservation Advisory Council
Clerk Ilene Pfifferling
Approximately 45 people were in attendance in the audience at the beginning of the
meeting. Trustee Smith asked John Holzapfel, Chairman of the Conservation Advisory
Council to join the Trustees on the dais.
Trustee Smith advised that the Field Inspections ~re ~cheduled for November 18, 1987
to~commende at I1:00 A.M. the Trustees will depart from Town Hall, Main Road,
Southold. The date for the next regular Trustee meeting will be held on Tuesday,
November 24, ~987 to commence at ,7~:0~0 ~P.M.
Moved by Trustee Goubeaud seconded by Trustee-Bredemeyer it was
RESOLVED to APPROVE the minutes Of the--' Special Meeting held on October 6, 1987.
Vote of Board: Ayes: Ali - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Goubeaud it was
RESOLVED to APPROVE the minutes of the September 24, 1987 meeting.
Vote of Board: Ayes: All - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
Moved by Trustee Goubeaud seconded by Trustee Krupski it was
RESOLVED to APPROVE the December 1987 mooring renewals,
Vote of Board: Aves: All - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
Trustee Smith gave the September monthly report as follows: Application fees $400.00,
Dock fees $1050.00, Wetland Inspection fees $90.00, Wetland Application Fees $1050.00,
and mooring renewal fees $220.00 for a~.total amount of $2810.00 which has been forwarded
to the SupervisorTs office to be placed in the General Fund.
Board of Town Trustees - October 29, 1987
Page 2.
II. PUBLIC: NOTICES:
The~'Public~ Notices are published on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board if any
one wishes to review them.
III. COMMUNICATIONS:
1. From James Manos regarding the Connors application. This letter will be placed
in the file.
2. _,l~rom Marjorie A. Serrell regarding the pipe on the Vail property.
3. From Mary DeMartino requesting an extension on permit.No. 302. Moved by
Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Goubeaud it was
RESOLVED to Approve the request made by Mary DeMartino for an extension on
permit No. 302 for a period of one year. Said permit will expire on December 26, 1988.
Vote of Board: Ayes: All - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
4. From Estelle E. Adams regarding the Critical Environmental Areas Designation.
This letter will be placed in the file, The Trustees will review all of the information
from the Public Hearings at h work session so that they can make a determination in
this matter, hopefully, by the December meeting~Awork session will be held on De'c. 1st.
5. From Albert J. Moyse, President, Rabbit Lane Association regarding the silting
under the bridge on Bay Avenue, East Marion. This matter was referred to the,:
Highway Dept. ~
6. From Thomas C. Jorling, Commissioner, D.E.C., Albany regarding maintenance
dredging projects. Trustee Smith advised that for a maintenance project they do not
need a 15 acre spoil site. For a new project a site of that ~giz,e would be needed.
7. From Supervisor Francis J. Murphy a request for comments regarding the depletion
of Little Neck Clams. This matter was referred to the Baymen for their comments.
8. From Sheila D. Parrish, Permit Manager, Costello Marine Contracting Corp.
a request to rescind the application No. 569 for Robert Waldron. Moved by Trustee
Larsen seconded by Trustee Krupski it was
RESOLVED to RESCIND the Application No. 569 submitted by Costello Marine Contracting
Corp. on behalf of Robert Waldron.
Vote of Board: Ayes: All - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
9i From William D. Moore, Attorney requesting that the Board hold in abeyance any
permits at the foot of the r.o.~w, on Opechee Avenue, Southold while the Town
Attorney is reviewing the matter. The Trustees will conduct business as usual
until they are advised differently. :-
10. From the Land Use Company a survey on the Zeidler property. This letter will
be placed in the file.
11. From Christopher Connors regarding property on West Drive, Southold. This
legier will be placed in the file.
Board of Town Trustees - October 29, 1987
Page 3.
12. From James McMahon, Community Development Admin., information regarding the
Seed Clam program.
13. From Samuel Markel regarding the Christopher Connors application.
14. From Inez Vail, a_revision to application No, 559 reflecting a 6T return.
Moved by Trustee Larsen seconded by Trustee Krupski it was
RESOLVED to Amend the application of Inex Vail to reflect a 6' return on the property
located on Wells Avenue, South01d.
Vote of Board: Ayes: All - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
15. ~From the Planning Board a request for more information regarding Youngs Marina.
16. From Alan J. Croce, Under Sheriff, regarding the possibility of a Marine Unit
within the Sheriff's Dept.
17. From the Office of Ecology comments on-the Christopher Connors matter.
The Trustees proceeded with agenda.item No. 5.
V. LEADS:
1. EN-CONSULTANTS, INC. ON BEHALF OF WUNNEWETA POND ASSOCIATION - LEAD
Moved by Trustee Krupski seconded by Trustee Larsen it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Trustees declare itself lead
agency in regard to the State Environmental Quality Review Act
in the matter of the application of Eh-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of
Wunnew6ta Pond Association for a
Wetland Permit on certain property located on Bridge Lane, Cutchogue.
1. Vote of Board: Ayes: All - This resolution was declared duly adopted..
2. EN-CONSULTANTS, INC. ON BEHALF OF JOHN DWYER - LEAD
Moved by Trustee Larsen seconded by Trustee Goubeaud it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Trustees declare itself lead
agency in regard to the State Environmental Quality Review Act
in the matter of the application of Eh-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of'John
Dwyer for a
Wetland Permit on certain property located on Old Mill Road, Mattituck. The
Trustees felt that there was no emergency.
2. Vote of Board: Ayes: All - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
3. ANTHONY LEGGIO - TABLED
Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Goubeaud it was
RESOLVED to TABLE the application of Anthony W. and Carolyn R. Leggio until
the violation is satisfied on the property.
3. Vote of Board: Ayes: All - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
Board of Town Trustees - October 29, 1987
Page 4.
4. MANFRED KUERNER - LEAD AGENCY
Moved by Trustee Goubeaud seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Trustees declare itself lead
agency in regard to the State Environmental Quality Review Act
in the matter of the application of Patricia C. Moore on behalf of Man fred
Kuerner for a
Wetland Permit on certain property located on Carole Road, Southold.
4. Vote of Board: Ayes: Ail - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
5. DR. VELJKO J. KRSTULOVIC - LEAD AGENCY
Moved by Trustee Krupski seconded by Trustee Goubeaud it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Trustees declar~e itself lead
agency in regard to the State Environmental Quality Review Act
in the matter of the application of J,M.O. Consulting on behalf of Dr. Veljko
J. Krstulovic for a
Wetland Permit on certain property located on South Drive, Mattituck.
5. Vote of Board: Ayes: All - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
6. LAND USE COMPANY FOR EI,I,EN GUITON - LEAD AGENCY DECLARATION
Moved by Trustee Larsen seconded by Trustee Krupski it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Trustees declare itself lead
agency in regard to the State Environmental Quality Review Act
in the matter of the application of the Land Use Company on behalf of
Ellen Guiton for a
Wetland Permit on certain property located on certain property located on a
r.o.w, off of Grand Avenue, Mattituck.
Vote of Board: Ayes: All - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
7. J.M.O. CONSTRUCTION ON BEHALF OF JOHN F. MCGILLIAN - LEAD AGENCY
Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Larsen it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Trustees declare ~tself lead
agency in regard to the State Environmental Quality Review Act
in the matter of the application of J.M.O. Construction on behalf of John F.
McGillian for a
Wetland Permit on certain property located on a private road on Fishers Island.
Vote of Board: Ayes: All - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
PATRICIA C. MOORE ON BEHALF OF JOHN KEATING - LEAD AGENCY DECLARATION
Moved by Trustee Goubeaud seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Trustees declare itself lead
agency in regard to the State Environmental Quality Review Act
in the matter of the application of Patricia C. Moore on behalf of John Keating
for a
Wetland Permit on certain property located at 19995 Soundview Avenue, Southold.
Vote of Board: Ayes: Ali - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
VI. ASSESSMENTS:
Board of Town Trustees - October 29, 1987
Page 5.
1. EN-CONSULTANTS, INC. FOR HARRIET FREEDMAN, BRUNO ILIBASSI & THOMAS
BELL - NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Goubeaud the following was
declared:
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NOTICE OF NO-SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE: October 29, 1987
APPLICATION NO.: 575
NAME: EN-CONSULTANTS, INC. ON BEHALF OF HARRIET FREEDMAN, BRUNO
ILIBASSI AND THOMAS BALL
This notice is issued pursuant to the provisions of Article 8
of the Environmental Conservation Law State Environmental Quality
Review and 6NYCRR Part 617, Section 617.10 and Chapter 44 of the
Code of the Town of Southold, notice is hereby given that the Southold
Town Trustees, as lead agency for the action described below has determined
that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency which
may also have an application pending for the same or similar project.
TYPE OF ACTION: Unlisted
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: To construct 300+ lin. ft, of timber retaining wall
entirely above the line of MHW. Backfill with 270+ cu. yds. of clean sand to be
trucked in from an upland source. Wall will extend from existing bulkhead return
7' n/o corner and end in a 10' return on the east side.
LOCATION: Arshamomaque Avenue, Southold~ 1000-66-2-44, 45, 46
REASONS SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
1. Vote
An environmental assessment form has been submitted which
indicated that there would be no adverse effect to the
environment should the project be implemented as planned.
Because there has been no response in the allotted time from
the Southold Town Building Dept. and the New York State D.E.C.
it is assumed that there are no objections nor comments from
those agencies.
of Board: Ayes: All - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
~3oard of Town Trustees - October 29, 1987
Page 6.
2. RICHARD MOHRING, JR. - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (NEGATIVE)
Moved by Trustee Larsen seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer the following
negative environmental assessment was declared:
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NOTICE OF NO-SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE: October 29, 1987
APPLICATION NO.: 576
NAME: RICHARD MOHRING, JR.
This notice is issued pursuant to the provisions of Article 8
of the Environmental Conservation Law State Environmental Quality
Review and 6NYCRR Part 617, Section 617.10 and Chapter 44 of the
Code of the Town of Southold, notice is hereby given that the Southold
Town Trustees, as lead agency for the action described below has determined
that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency which
may also have an application pending for the same or similar project.
TYPE OF ACTION: Unlisted
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: To fill with 3000 cu. yds. of fill and to construct'
a house that will be more than 75' from the bulkhead and extend the berm
parallel to the bulkhead and to be placed approximately 40 ft. landward of the
existing bulkhead. (It is noted for the record that a letter of no jurisdiction has
been issued on the house.)
LOCATION: Corner of Pine Neck Road and Kimberly Lane, Southold; more
particularly known on the Suffolk County Tax Map as 1000-70-13-20.1.
REASONS SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
1. An environmental assessment form has been submitted which
indicated that there would be no adverse effect to the
environment should the project be implemented as planned.
2. Because there has been no response in the allotted time from
the Southold Town Building Dept. and the New York State D.E.C.
it is assumed that there are no objections nor comments from
those agencies.
2. Vote of Board: Ayes: Ail - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
Board of Town Trustees - October 29, 1987
Page 7.
3. ANTHONY ROBUSTELLI - LEAD WAS RESCINDED & WAIVER GRANTED
Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Krupski it was
RESOLVED TO RESCIND the Lead Agency Declaration declared on Sept. 24, 1987
regarding the application of Anthony Robustelli for a wetland permit to construct
a deck on an existing residence located at 5 Haywaters Road, Cutchogue.
Vote of Board: Ayes: Trustee Smith, Trustee Bredemeyer, Trustee Larsen, Trustee
Krupski, Trustee Goubeaud
Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Krupski
WHEREAS, Anthony Robustelli requested a Waiver of the Wetland Ordinance for
the construction of a deck on to an existing residence on property located at
5 Haywaters Road, Cutchogue,
WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with ~he
property in question and the surrounding area, and
WHEREAS, the Board ma. de the following findings of fact:
1. By this request appellant requests permission to construct a 41'6"x9'x15~
deck onto an existing residence on property located at 5 Haywaters Road, Cutchogue.
2. The project will not affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people
of the town.
3. There has been no response from the Building Dept. or the D.E.C. and therefore
it is assumed that there are no objections nor comments from those agencies.
Now therefore it is
RESOLVED that Anthony Robustelli be and hereby is granted a Waiver of the
Wetland Ordinance as requested to construct a deck on property located at 5
Haywaters Road, Cutchogue.
Vote of Board: Ayes: Ail - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
Board of Town Trustees - October 29, 1987
Page 8.
4. J.M.O CONSULTING FOR MICHAEL J. SCHULAM - NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT
Moved by Trustee Goubeaud seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer the following non-
significant environmental assessment was declared:
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NOTICE OF NO-SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE: October 29, 1987
APPLICATION NO.: 579
NAME: J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of Michael J. Schulam
This notice is issued pursuant to the provisions of Article 8
of the Environmental Conservation Law State Environmental Quality
Re~iew an.d '6NYCRR Part 617, Section 617.10 and Chapter 44 of the
Code of the Town of Southold, notice is hereby given that the Southold
Town Trustees, as lead agency for the action described below has determined
that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency which
may also have an application pending for the same or similar project.
TYPE OF ACTION: Unlisted
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: To reconstruct approximately 118' of timber bulkhead
which is located above the SHT line. New structure shall be reconstructed in
line with adjacent bulkheads to either side. Existing lawn area will then be graded
to backfill the new structure.
LOCATION: Knollwood Lane, Mattituck; More particularly identified on the
Suffolk County Tax Map as: 1000-107-6-2
REASONS SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
1. An environmental assessment form has been submitted which
indicated that there would be no adverse effect to the
environment should the project be implemented as planned.
2. Because there has been no response in the allotted time from
the Southold Town Building Dept. and the New York State D.E.C.
it is assumed that there are no objections nor comments from
those agencies.
4. Vote of Board: Ayes: All - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
;Board of Town Trustees - October 29, 1987
Page 9.
5&6 STEPHEN PERRICONE - APPLICATION NO.TS 580 & 581 - TABLED
5&6
Moved by Trustee Goubeaud seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer it was
RESOLVED to TABLE the Application No.'s 580 & 581 on behalf of
Stephen Perricone for a wetland permit until the property is properly staked
for inspection.
Vote of Board: Ayes: Ail - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
7A. J.M.O.CONSULTING ON BEHALF OF MARJORIE TODD - TO AMEND APPL.
7A.
7B.
Moved by Trustee Krupski seconded by Trustee Larsen it was
RESOLVED to AMEND the application of J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of
Mar jor~e Todd to reflect in kind, in place replacement of a 70' bulkhead
and to backfill with 30 cu. yds. of sand to be trucked in from an upland
source. Property is located on Bayview Drive, East Marion.
Vote of Board: Ayes: All - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
J.M.O. CONSULTING ON BEHALF OF MARJORIE TODD - TABLED
7B;
8.
Moved by Trustee Krupski seconded by Trustee Goubeaud it was
RESOLVED to TABLE the application of J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of
Marjorie Todd whereas the application does not reflect what is on the site.
Vote of Board: Ayes: All - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
GLENN JUST FOR JOSEPH BERARDINO - APPLICATION NO. 583
Moved by Trustee Larsen seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer ~he following non-
significant environmental assessment was declared:
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NOTICE OF NO-SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE: October 29, 1987
APPLICATION NO.: 583
NAME: Glenn E. Just on behalf of Joseph Berardino
This notice is issued pursuant to the provisions of Article 8
of the Environmental Conservation Law State Environmental Quality
Rdview and 6NYCRR Part 617, Section 617.10 and Chapter 44 of the
Code of the Town of Southold, notice is hereby given that the Southold
Town Trustees, as lead agency for the action described below has determined
that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency which
may also have an application pending for the same or similar project.
TYPE OF ACTION: Unlisted
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: To construct a 14' x 16' timber dock.
LOCATION: Sound Avenue, Greenport: 1000-040-1-10 & 11
RE~SONS SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
1. An envirorfmental assessment form has been submitted which
indicated that there would be no adverse effect to the
environment should the project be implemented as planned.
2. Because there has been no response in the allotted time from
the Southold Town Building Dept. and the New York State D.E.C.
it is assumed that there are no objections nor comments from
those agencies.
8. Vote of Board: Ayes: AlL- This determination was declared duly adopted.
Board of Town Trustees - October 29, 1987
Page 10.
9. ANTHONY L. MACARI - APPLICATION NO. 567 - NEGATIVE ASSESSMENT
Moved by Trustee Goubeaud seconded by [:.Trustee Krupski the following non-
significant environmental assessment was declared:
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NOTICE OF NO-SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE: October 29, 1987
APPLICATION NO.: 567
NAME: Anthony L. Macari
This notice is issued pursuant to the provisions of Article 8
of the Environmental Conservation Law State Environmental Quality
~itD;view and 6NYCRR Part 617, Section 617.10 and Chapter 44 of the
Code of the Town of Southold, notice is hereby g~ven that the Southold
Town Trustees, as lead agency for the action described below has determined
that the project will not have a s~gnificant effect on the environment.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency which
may also have an application pending for the same or similar project.
TYPE OF ACTION: Unlisted
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: To place a cement ramp over an old ramp.
LOCATION: 3120 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck; 1000-122-4-20-1
REASONS SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
1. An environmental assessment form has been submitted which
indicated that there would be no adverse effect to the
environment should the project be implemented as planned.
2, Because there has been no response in the allotted time from
the Southold Town Building Dept. and the New York State D.E.C.
it is assumed that there are no objections nor comments from
those agencies.
Vote of Board: Ayes: Ali - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
Board of Town Trustees - October 29, 1987
Page 11.
President Smith recessed the regular meeting to hold the Public Hearings
on the Wetland Applications as follows:
7:30 P.M.- In the matter of the application of Inez B. Vail.
7:32 P.M.- In the matter of the application of Eh-consultants, Inc. on behalf
of Stongg's Marine Center.
7:34 P.M.- In the matter of the application of Peconic Associates on behalf of
Youngs Marina.
7:36 P.M.- In the matter of the application of the Land Use Company on behalf
of Gerard H. Schultheis.
7:38 P.M.- In the matter of the application of the Land Use Company on behalf
of Richard Zeidler
7:40 P.M.- In the matter of the application of Costello Marine Contracting Corp.
on behalf of Robert Waldron. (see page 2 for resolution withdrawing application. )
7:42 P.M.- In the matter of the application of Marie Ongioni, Esq. on behalf of
Gregory Follari.
President Smith called for a recess following the public hearings. The regular~
meeting resumed at 10:05 P.M.. Mr. 'Danfel C. 'Ross, from the Law Offices of
Wickham, Wickham & Bressler, P.C. appeared before the Board on behalf of
Christopher Connors. Mr. Ross submitted information to the Trustees which will
be forwarded to the Town Attorney for his review.
VII. WAIVERS:
1. WILLIAM E. TUITE - WAIVER GRANTED
Moved by Trustee Krupski seconded by Trustee Larsen
WHEREAS, William E. Tuite requested a Waiver of the Wetland Ordinance for the
extension of a porch (25' x 7') in conjunction with other major repairs to
the dwelling located at 580 Midway Road, Southold
WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with
the property in question and the surrounding area, and
WHEREAS, the Board made the following fin.dings of fact:
1. By this request appellant requests permission to extend a porch in
conjunction to other major repairs on his dwelling.
2. The project will not affect the healt~h, safety and general welfare of the
people of the town.
3. There has been no response from the Conservation Advisory Council so
it is assumed that there are no objections to the pro~ect.
Now therefore be it
RESOLVED that William E. Tuite be and hereby is granted a Waiver of the
. Wetland Ordinance as requested to extend a p~ch (25' x 7~) in conjunction with
other major repairs to the dwelling located at 580 Midway Road, Southold.
1. Vote of Board: Ayes: All - this resolution was declared duly adopted.
Board of Town Trustees - October 29, 1987
Page 12.
2. STEPHEN LUPOW, ATTORNEY ON BEHALF OF THE HAY HARBOR CLUB, INC.
The Trustees review the information submitted by Stephen Lupow, Attorney on
behalf of tl~e Ha3~ Harbor Club, Inc. and it was determined that this work is
a normM maintenance and no permit is required.
3. FREDERICK RAYMES - TABLED
Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Smith it was
RESOLVED to TABLE the Request made by Frederick Raymes for a Waiver
of the Wetland Ordinance to build a residence on property located at 704
Wiggins Lane, Greenport, property is bulkheaded. The Trustees will have
to inspect the site prior to taking any action on this request.
3. Vote of Board: Ayes: All - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
4. DEAN KAMEN - WAIVER - APPROVAL
Moved by Trustee Smith seconded by Trustee Goubeaud it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Trustees Waiver the need of a Wetland
Permit as requested by Dean Kamen to construct a tower with a turbine
generator on North Dumpling Island as long as the recommendations from the
Coast Guard are adhered to.
4. Vote of Board: Ayes: All - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
VIII. MOORINGS:
1. RON KRAUT - APPROVAL
Moved by Trustee Krupski seconded by Trustee Smith it was
RESOLVED to APPROVE the request made by Ron Kraut to place an offshore
mooring in Richmond Creek using public property as access with the provision
that fore and aft anchors are used.
1. Vote of Board: Ayes: Ali - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
IX. AMENDMENTS TO PERMITS:
1. IOSEPH A. ZUHUSKY - AMENDMENT TO PERMIT
Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Smith it was
RESOLVED to TABLE the request made by Joseph A. Zuhusky to amend his
permit No. 2292 to reflect an on-shore stake in Narrow River, Orient.
Trustee Bredemeyer advised that there is no room in that area at this time
he will be placed on a waiting list until such time as room becomes available.
1. Vote of Board: Ayes: All - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
2. LAND USE COMPANY ON BEHALF OF JOSEPH W. HENDERSON - TABLED
Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Krupski it was
RESOLVED to TABLE the request made by The Land Use Company on beh'alf,,
Joseph Henderson to amend his permit no. 435 to reflect a 8' x 34' float
subject to the inspection by a Trustee or Bay Constable.
Vote of Board: Ayes: Ail - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
Board of Town Trustees - October 29, 1987
Page 13.
3. STANLEY CHASE - EXTENSION APPROVAL
Moxced by Trustee Smith seconded by Trustee Larsen it was
RESOLVED to APPROVE the request made by the Land Use Company on
behalf of Stanley Chase for an extension on permit No. 2234 for a period
of one year. Said permit will expire on October 30, 1988.
3. Vote of Board: Ayes: All - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
X. APPROVALS
INEZ B. VAIL - APPROVAL - APPLICAITON NO. 559
Moved by Trustee Goubeaud seconded by Trustee Krupski
WHEREAS, Inez B. Vail applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit
under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of
Southold, application dated July 14, 1987, and
WHEREAS said application was referred to the Southold Town
Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and
recommendations, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Town Trustees with
respect to said application on October 29, 1987 at which time all interested
persons were given an opportunity to be heard, and
WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area, and
WHEREAS, the Board has considered all the testimony and documentation
submitted concerning this application, and
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the project as proposed will
not affect the health, safety and genera] welfare of the people of
the town,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED that Inez B. Vail BE AND HEREBY IS GRANTED PERMISSION UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE WETLAND ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO:
Construct a rock revetment, to the height the applicant wishes, and to revegetate ·
seaward of the structure with Spartina alterniflo~a and to revegetate with a five
foot section landward of the revetment with red fescue or similar and to construct
a six ft. return. Property is located on Wells Avenue, Southold.
The- vegetatior~ is. to be done five feet on either side of the structure.
This permit will--~x~ire On October 29, 1989-if work has
not commenced by said date. There are two inspections required and
the Trustees are to be notified upon the completion of the work.
Prior to the issuance of said permit by the Clerk, the applicant
shall file with the Clerk a certificate that he has public liability
insurance policies insuring against any liability which may ar~se
in the performance of the operations pursuant to such permit in such
amount as shall be fix'ed by the Trustees, which said policies shall
name the Town as a name insured. Please take further notice that
this declaration should not be considered a determination made for
any other department or agency which may also have an application
pending for the same or similar project.
Vote of Board: Ayes: All - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
'Board of Town Trustees - October 29, 1987
Page 14.
STRONG'S MARINE CENTER - APPLICATION NO. 561 - APPROVAL
Moved by Trustee Larsen seconded by Trustee Smith
WHEREAS, Eh-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Strong's Marine Center applied to the
Southold Town Trustees for a permit
under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of
Southold, application dated July i7, 1987, and
WHEREAS said application was referred to the Southold Town
Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and
recommendations, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Town Trustees with
respect to said application on October 29, 1987 at which time all interested
persons were given an opportunity to be heard, and
WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area, and
WHEREAS, the Board has considered all the testimony and documentation
submitted concerning this application, and
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the project as proposed will
not affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of
the town,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED that Eh-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Strong~s Marine Center BE AND
HEREBY IS GRANTED PERMISSION UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE WET'LAND ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO:
Maintenance dredge by dragline 20' x 70' area at the east end and a 20' x 200'
area along the south side to 4' below mlw; place spoil, 350 cu. yds., on upland
- landward of bulkheads and paved roads. Permit is approved with the provision
that the existing drainage pattern on the property is not disturbed. The project
must conform with the existing topography on the site. No filling of the phragmites.
Property is located on Camp Mineola Road, Matfituck.
This permit expires on October 29, 1989 if work has
not commenced by sa~d date. There are two inspections required and
the Trustees are to be notified upon the completion of the work.
Prior to the issuance of said permit by the Clerk, the applicant
shall file with the Clerk a certificate that he has public liability
insurance policies insuring against any liability which may arise
in the performance of the operations pursuant to such permit in such
amount as shall be fixed by the Trustees, which said policies shall
name the Town as a name insured. Please take further notice that
this declaration should not be considered a determirfation made for
any other department or agency which may also have an application
pending for the same or similar project.
Vote of Board: Ayes: All - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
YOUNGS MARINA - APPLICATION NO. 574 - by Peconic Associates- TABLED
Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Krupski it was
RESOLVED to TABLE the application submitted by Peconic Associates on behalf of
Young's Marina until the Trustees and Town Attorney review the file.
Vote of Board: Ayes: All - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
Board of Town Trustees - October 29, 1987
Page 15.
LAND USE COMPANY ON BEHALF OF GERARD H. SCHULTHEIS - APPROVAL - 566
Moved by Trustee Goubeaud seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer
WHEREAS, The Land Use Company on behalf of Gerard H. Schultheis
applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit
under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of
Southold, application dated August 4, 1987, and
WHEREAS said application was referred to the Southold Town
Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and
recommendations, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Town Trustees with
respect to said application on October 29, 1987 at which time all interested
persons were given an opportunity to be heard, and
WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area, and
WHEREAS, the Board has considered all the testimony and documentation
submitted concerning this application, and
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the project as proposed will
not affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of
the town,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED that the Land Use Company on behalf of Gerald Schultheis
BE. AND HEREBY IS GRANTED PERMISSION UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE WETLAND ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO:
Reconstruct within 18" approximately 2~5' of bulkhead and to backfill with 80
cu. yds. of trucked in sand, to construct a 3' x 12' ramp, 4' x 36' float, dredge
a 10' x 30' area to 4' at mtw and to construct an addition to the existing house and
to extend the deck to the north by 6'4" and to construct a 13' return on the bulk-
head. Approval is as f~llows: To construct the bulkhead 18" in'front of the existing
except the 40' section, which is to be replaced in place. The applicant is to speak
to the owner of the underwater land in regard to the placement of the dock. A
letter is to be sent to the D.E.C. in support of the dredging to a depth of 8 ft.,
property is located on Schoolhouse Creek, New Suffolk.
This permit will expire on October 29, 1989 if work has
not commenced by said date. There are two inspections required and
the Trustees are to be notified upon the completion of the work.
Prior to the issuance of said permit by the Clerk, the applicant
shall file with the Clerk a certificate that he has public liability
insurance policies insuring against any liability which may arise
in the performance of the operations pursuant to such permit in such
amount as shall be fixed by the Trustees, which said policies shall
name the Town as a name insured. Please take further notice that
this declaration should not be considered a determination made for
any other department or agency which may also have an application
pending for the same or similar project. The applicant is advised to contact the
Coast Guard if they plan to do the work from the water side of the property.
Vote of Board: Ayes: Ail - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
LAND USE COMPANY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD ZEIDLER - TABLED-571
Moved by Trustee Krupski seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer it was
RESOLVED to TABLE the application of the Land Use Company on behalf of
Richard Zeidler pending a review by the Trustees of additional information that
was received regarding the application. The applicant is to he-advised to move
the garbage on the property ~the gas tank is to be placed on the back side of the house.
Vote of Board: Ayes: Ail - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
Board of Town Trustees - October 29, 1987
Page 16.
MARIE ONGIONI, ESQ. ON BEHALF OF GREGORY FOLLARI - APPROVAL - NO. 573
Moved by Trustee Larsen seconded by Trustee Krupski
WHEREAS, Marie Ongioni, Esq. on behalf of Gregory Follari applied to the Southokl-
Town Trustees~for k permit
under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of
Southold, application dated July 27, 1987, and
WHEREAS said application was referred to the Southold Town
Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and
recommendations, and
WHEREAS, 'a public hearing was held by the Town Trustees with
respect to said application on October 29, 1987 at which time all interested
persons were given an opportunity to be heard, and
WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area, and
WHEREAS, the Board has considered all the testimony and documentation
submitted concerning this application, and
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the project as proposed will
not affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of
the town,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED that Marie Ongioni, Esq. on behalf of Gregory Follari BE AND HEREBY IS
GRANTED PERMISSION UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE WETLAND ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO:
Remove a natural berm approximately 55 ft. wide, 9 feet high spanning the width
of the subject property. All material will be used to regrade the plot in conformity
with the character of the neighborhood. Property is located on Sound Drive,
Greenport. This permit will expire on October 29, 1989 if work has
not commenced by said date. There are two inspections required and
the~ Trustees are to be notified upon the completion of the work.
Prior to the issuance of said permit by the Clerk, the applicant
shall file with the Clerk a certificate that he has public liability
insurance policies insuring against any liability which may arise
in the performance of the operations pursuant to such permit in such
amount as shall be fixed by the Trustees, which said policies shall
name the Town as a name insured. Please take further notice that
this declaration should not be considered a determination made for
any other department or agency which may also have an application
pending for the same or similar project.
Vote of Board: Ayes: All - This resolution was declared duly adopted;
MRS. RAX I. YOUNG
Moved by Trustee .Goubeaud :seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer it wasa
RESOLVED to Approve the request made by Mrs. Ray I. Young to reconstruct
two low profile groins in Place and extending from the bulkhead to the lwm and to
revegetate with Sp artina alterniflora. Property is located on Hobart Road, Southold.
The applicant is advised to check with the D.E.C. and Army Corp of Engineers
to see if other permits are required for this project prior to Commencement of same.
Vote of Board: Ayes: All - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
Board of Town Trustees - October 29, 1987
Page 17.
ROSCOE COREY - DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION
The Trustees inspected the property located on Clearview Road, Southold as
requested by Roscoe Corey and they have determined that they have no
jurisdiction in regard to the project.
FRANK BURR BY THE LAND USE COMPANY - DETERMINATION
Moved by Trustee Krupski seconded by Trustee Goubeaud it was
RESOLVED to TABLE the request made by.the Land Use Company on behalf
of Frank Burr, Fishers Island for a determination on the need of a wetland
permit until the Trustees or the Bay Constable makes a determination on the
prol ject.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: All - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
In regard to the request made by Meinrad A. Danzer for a determination of
jurisdiction on property located on Yennecott Drive, Southold the Trustees
advised that he should go to the Health Dept. as they will have questions
regarding the site that will have to be addressed first. The Trustees would
like to know the history of the property in regard to the drain on the property.
Sharon & Philip Ofrias, as referred from the Planning Board, the Tr.ustees visited
the site and they felt that attention has to be given to the ponds on the property.
They would recommend that the building envelopes be kept 75' from the wetlands
so that it is kept out of the Trustees ].urisdiction.
Steve Latson appeared before the Board to ask if a before and after survey was
required for the Broadwaters Cove project. Trustee Smith advised that on all
new dredging projects a before and after survey will be required. He continued
to say that the Broadwaters Cove project was for maintenance dredging.
Frank Licari - Approval
Moved by TrusteeKrupski seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer it was
RESOLVED To Approve the request made by Frank Licari to replace his float
and repair to the existing structure as long as all of the other agencies approvals
are obtained prior to the commencement of the project, Stillwater Ave., Cutchogue.
Vote of Board: Ayes: All - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
Trustee Smith advised that there is a piling in Town Creek which is on the edge
of the channel, obstructing navigation. Trustee Smith requested that the Trustees
request permission from the Town Board, that when someone comes into the creek
with a barge, that they will allow the piling to be removed?
Moved by Trustee Goubeaud seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer it was
RESOLVED to ADJOURN this Trustee meeting there being no further business
to come properly before the Board. (11:05 P.M.)
Vote of Board: Ayes: All - This resolution was declared duly adopted.
Ilene Pfifferling, ~Jerj~o rus ee~f~
PUBLIC HEARING
OCTOBER 29, 1987
IN THE MATTER OF
STRONG'S MARINE CENTER
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE TOWN
TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, AT THE SOUTHOLD TOWN HALL, MAIN
ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1987 ON THE FOLLOWING
APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE WETLAND ORDINANCE
OF THE TOWN.
Trustee Smith:
In the matter of the application of Eh-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Strong's
Marine Center to maintenance dredge by dragline a 20' x 70' area at the east end,
and a 20' x 200' area on the south side to 4' below mlw and to place th~ resultant
350 cu. yds. of spoil on the upland landward of the bulkhead and paved road.
Property is located on Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. Does anyone have any comments
on this application?
Roy Haje, Eh-Consultants, Inc. for the applicant, Strongs Marina: The application
before you here tonight seeks permission to maintenance dredge an existing basin
which has over the years silted in. I visited the property with you, and we discussed
the reason and the. need for the dredging. The spoil will go into an upland area which
has been worked for several years. It is used partially for storing boats in-the winter
time, parking, etc. it ~s a non-wetland area. We have received D,E.C. approval.
]There is an existing Army Corp permit which has been in effect for several years
and remains in effect. I encourage your approval of this project.
Trustee Bredemeyer: I was not on the group survey, unfortunately, was there some
discussion regarding the grading of the property to maintain the natural drainage on
the property, the spoil site so that it would not totally fill up and create a contour
that would drain back into the basin and into the wetland?
Roy Haje: There was some discussion. Some of the. Trustees had discussed the
spoil site.
Trustee Krupski: That was my concern on the application. I didn't see any problem
with the maintenance dredging. The fact that there was a natural drainage on the
property already there it didn't have to be created which solved run off problems
from the boat yard going into the creek. I wanted to see the natural drainage
area maintained.
Trustee Larsen: Yes, there was a question that Mr, Strong may have wanted to place
the fill, as you know, in that natural drainage area where phragmites were. We
would want to see that maintained as a natural drainage area for .the whole property.
We don't want.the fill put in there.
Roy Haje: Mr. Strong is here tonight.
Trustee Larsen: Yeah, where is ..... I think that we got that ironed out as far as
the disposal.
Trustee Smith: Will you speak into the microphone?
Page 2.
Strongs Marine Center - Public Hearing - October 29, 1987
David St rong: The drainage area that you speak of is a large area. We have
been filling it ever since I have been on the property, with approval. It doesn't
change the run off. We put the stone, at the D.E.C. and everyone elses request
and the natural graident is to run to that. I don't quite understand, you are
saying to leave that as a marsh?
Trustee Bredemeyer: No, No. The concern was that .you raise the grade in the
spoil site so that if you have a crown there, then you are dumping all of the run
off back into the basin of the creek'. You have a negative grade away from the
water now, which tends to handle the drainage on the site as opposed to dumping
into the waterway. I think that the Board was hoping that in the distribution
of the spoil that the same grade could be maintained or at least not exceeded and
create a slope down into the creek.
David Strong: On the advise of the Suffolk County Mosquito Control, and every one
that has been there, ever since the County backed that whole area in we paid something
like three thousand dollars to have a topographical map done. They recommend that
you run to a small crown in the middle of the property. That was what the whole
game plan is.
Trustee Bredemeyer: Behind the crown?
Trustee Krupski: Behind the boat storage.
David Strong: Well, yeah, the crown would run to the bulkhead, to the existing
bulkhead. It was like a 50/50 so half would run one way and the half would continue
to run the other way. That is what they recommended me to do, and that is what
we have done. That is what we intend to continue to do.
Trustee Smith: That is water that just falls on this site. It is not water that runs
from some place else and collects on the site.
David Strong: No, not in that area. The way the water runs from another area
to the surrounding area is the area that we need to continue to maintenance dredge
from land that is not under our control that was allowed to be raised higher then
that land.
Trustee Smith: Thank you.
Daniel Ross, Wickham, Wickham & Bressler for the Salt Lake Village Association:
Their concern was where the spoil was going to be placed. I'm not sure that I am
able to tell from the discussion, is there a map or something?
Trustee Smith: Yes, there is.
Daniel Ross; The map that-accompanied the application, [ believe, shows that the
spoil will be placed to the north.
Trustee Larsen: (Tape not audible).
Daniel Ross: Isn't that area blacktop? Is it going further than the blacktop.
Trustee Krupski: (looking at the map) this area here.
Page 3.
Strongs Marine Center - Public Hearing - October 29, 1987
Daniel Ross: Our concern was that it was the area that was filled.
Trustee Smith: On the existing fill that is there already.
Daniel Ross: Okay, thank you.
Trustee Smith: Are there any other comments? No comments? From the audience?
No comments. Tl~en I will close this public hearing.
7:56 P.M.
Ilene Pfifferling, Clerk to Trustees
PUBLIC HEARING
OCTOBER 29, 1987
IN THE MATTER OF
INEZ B. VAIL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE TOWN
TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, AT THE SOUTHOLD TOWN HALL, MAIN
ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 29, I987 ON THE FOLLOWING
APPLICATIONS' FOR PERMITS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE WETLAND ORDINANCE
OF THE TOWN.
Present were:
Trustee Henry P. Smith
Trustee John Bredemeyer
Trustee Albert Krupski
Trustee Phillip J. Goubeaud
Trustee Ellen M. Larsen
Ilene Pfifferling, Clerk
Trustee Smith: In the matter of the application of Inez B. Vail to construct a
concrete retaining wall consisting of 91 ft. with a 25 ft. return. Property is
located on Wells Ave., Southold. I believe we have an amendment to this application.
It is a 6 ft. return instead of a 25 ft. return. Does anyone here have any comments
on this application of Inez B. Vail? No comments. Do any of the Trustees have
any comments?
Trustee Larsen: Mr. Vail, I may be the only lone voice speaking out on this
application. But, you are asking to put a 91 ft. bulkhead in front of your
property on a creek where there is adjacent marsh on the other properties. You
have a garden with a concrete bulkhead coming right up to the high tide mark on
the creek. Now, we have 'had conversations and you feel that you have a problem
with flooding during heavy Winds and the winter tides which I could see. The grasses
that would naturally grow in front of your property haven't been kept there because
you want to keep the view, you and your wife. But the 6 ft. return and the 91 ft.
of bulkhead there, if you get a storm, it wilt go aro~fnd the back of the bulkhead and
all of the garbage will be deposited there anyway. So I don't see where you are going
to solve anything by putting this in. So I am not going to be in favor of voting for
this. In fact it can actually scour out your beach even worse as a result. I just
want to let you know that it is my opinion that this area on a creek, that the grasses
came back normally that they will act as a natural filtration device. Normally, I don't
know what any of the Board members will do, 'but we don't usually grant any new
bulkheads on creeks. That is something that we tried to get away from.
Trustee Smith: It is not a bulkhead, it is a retaining wall.
Trustee Larsen: They are basically the same.
Trustee Smith: They are not. A retaining wall is above the hwm. A bulkhead is
below the hwm.
Trustee Larsen: When you loose beach, with a retaining wall installed, a retaining
wall will very easily turn into a bulkhead. It has happened time and time again.
Just look along the beach. You will see lots of retaining walls that are now bulkheads.
Public Hearing - Page
~Inez B. Vail
Trustee Goubeaud: W~aat we are talking about is a retaining wall.
Trustee Bredemeyer: An extremely low retaining wall.
Trustee Larsen: Welt, I'm just telling Mr. Vail that I will not be voting in favor of
this. Okay.
Trustee Smith: Okay, thank you for your commenzs. Does the C.A.C. have any
commenzs on this.
John Holzapfel: t think we gave it to you before.
Trustee Smith: Mr. Vail do you wish to speak?
Mr. Vail: Regarding the marsh grass, I tried to point out the fact thaz in front
of the yellow bulkhead there is a patch of marsh grass that has been there for
25 years trying to work its way forward, but has not succeeded. You have heard
the story about the bald headed fellow, that you can't grow grass on a busy street.
Now, there are certain places in all of the creeks, you can take right down the end
of Jockey Creek there there is about 25 ft. of plain White sand before you get to the
marsh grass. There is to much water going by. I think that I have lost 6 or 8 ft.
of shorefront already. I don't want zo have to go back to the assessors to ask for
a tax reduction for a loss of property.
Trustee Smith: Thank you. Are there any other comments? No comments. Then I
will close this hearing ~n the matter of Inez ]5. Vail.
7:49 P.M.
tlen~' P~ifferling
PUBLIC HEARING
OCTOBER 29, 1987
IN THE MATTER OF
Gerard H. Schultheis
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE TOWN
TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF SOUTH'OLD, AT THE SOUTHOLD TOWN HALL, MAIN
ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1987 ON THE FOLLOWING
APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE WETLAND ORDINANCE
OF THE TOWN.
Trustee Smith: In the matter of Gerard H. Schultheis by the Land Use Company to
reconstruct within 18" 245 ft. of bulkhead and to backfill with 80 cu. yds. of trucked
in sand and to construct a 3ft. x 12' ramp~ a 4' x 36' float and to dredge a 10'
x 30' area to 4' below mlw and to construct an addition to an existing house and to
construct a 13' timber return on the bulkhead. Property is located on a R.O.W. off
of Orchard Street, New Suffolk. Are there any comments regarding this application?
Glenn Just, Land Use Company: My name is Glenn Just for the applicant Gerard H.
Schultheis. I submitted a letter to the Board today, I don't know if you have had
time to review it.
Trustee Bredemeyer: Will you g~ve us a summary of the letter, I don't know if
everyone had time to review it?
Mr. Just: It was a request that the Board take another look at the site, to allow
the construction within 18" in stead of the in kind and in place replacement. It
brought out different reasons for this, financial reasons, as far as time of the
actual length of construction. With in kind and in place, there is a danger of
the house collapsing or part of the bank collapsing. There is a marine contractor
here tonight who knows a lot more about this than I do. Mr. Schulthies is also in
attendance.
Trustee Larsen: Wasn't it originally an emergency?
Mr. Just: Yes it was.
Trustee Krupski: Can I see the map?
Mr. Just: A copy of the deed is there that shows that the property is indeed to
the center line.
Trustee Larsen: When you went to the D.E.C. and got an emergency permit did
they give you 18" in front of?
Mr. Just: Yes, they did.
Trustee Smith: Is this 18" going out into the channel of Schoolhouse Creek?
Trustee Larsen: Yes.
Glenn Just: Agmn, we have Mr. Schultheis here if you have any questions.
Trustee Smith: Well, I would like to know, it has been the Trustees policy that
Page 2.
Public Hearing - Gerard H. Schultheis
when it's inside of a creek, any bulkhead replacement will be in kind and in
place. This particular one, when we looked at it, the channel is now enough.
If you go in front of it that will be 18" smaller, then 20 years down the road
there will be 18" taken off of it.
Trustee Bredemeyer: We are stepping on peoples rights. How do you propose to
handle the bowing? That seems to be another problem? If you are seriously
bowed already, how do you propose to replace 18" in front of it?
Mr. Samuels: The bowed section has to be removed. I am well aware of the problems
that you are having. It is a difficult one, I am well aware of that. The house has
been there for some time. There are some real practical problems and the reason
that the emergency permit was not worked on was that lust doing this pro~ect this
close to a house if very very difficult. Regardless of how quickly the work is done,
there are risks. There is no question about it. It is a risk that we would all Iike
to avoid. The bowed section ~s out 42 or 44 inches. We realize that it would have
to be removed. That can be closed up in two days. The in kind and in place
replacement we are talking about two or three weeks. In a fairly high elevation it
doesn't take much of a storm to wash out ten feet of backfill. There is a real
practical problem on this one. It is not one, which is usually the case, where it
is of no import to the landowner other than the expense. This is more expensive
of course too. This is not the principal problem. The problem is that the house is
going to be at risk. There is no solution that I know of, other than working like
blazes to get the thing done. The days are shorter and weather is different now.
That has a particularly difficult southeast exposure, as you know. It takes quite
a hammering in what we consider our high tide storms.
Trustee Smith: Let me ask you, in kind and in place construction, can it be done?
Mr. Samuels: It can be done. If it has to be done, it will be done. There will
be a lot of gray hairs. I don't know of anyone who will offer any assurances to
Mr. Schultheis that he may not have a problem with his house. It is a liability
that no one wants to accept.
Trustee Krupski: Wouldn't it be safer to build a bulkhead behind the present bulkhead?
Mr. Samuels: Well, as you know, we are all very familiar with bulkheads. You know
the components of the bulkhead. That would be excavating down to at least low
water where the lower whaler would go. You have to have enough room in this
trench for a guy to swing a hammer. You are really talking about an excavation
that would be right up to the edge of the house. You can't work in narrow little
spaces that is the problem with our argument with the DEC and the 18". Sometimes
it does not give us enough room to put in a 12 penny nail no less an 16 penny nail.
Working in back of it, because of the nature of the site, because of the storm exposure
and the history of what happened to this bulkhead Mr. Schultheis is a Civil Engineer,
and he wants to build a bulkhead that will last for many years. It is very heavy
construction as a matter of fact and I took my original specifications to him and he
amplified on them. For example it is a 25' 12" piles, 3 x l0 - 20' sheathing. Building
that structure or a structure that is suitable may not be ~mpossible but it is one
that I woun'l sign a contract for. I don't think that it can be done. I go in and
out of Schoolhouse Creek a lot, two boats can not pass now. Schoolhouse Creek
needs dredging drastically. We would like to be able to recover anything that we
loose in the bowed out section. We will loose some. If it is removed in kind, I am
fairly certain that we will loose a lot more in the creek. You are also handicapped
Page3.
Public Hearing - Gerard H,
Schultheis
~n that you can't have a barge in that opening for any length of time during the
day. There are still people who use that creek. With a barge you can't really let
them pass. There are some fishermen that have to get in and out. You have
to use a Yery small barge. You have been to the house, you would have to have
a crain with a long boom on one side to do one part, then you have go go to the
other side to do the other part. This is an ~unusual situation.
Trustee Krupski: The section that has the bow in it that has to be completely removed,
how long isl that~ section?
Trustee Larsen: 25 ft.?
Trustee Bredemeyer: Will the type of construction material that you are using permit
a deeper maintenance channel along the bulkhead side to counteract the shoaling there
now to possibly get a better sweep of water.
Mr. Samuels: No question about it. With 20 ft.. of sheathing you can go to 8 ft.
of water very easily. You will never get a D.E.C. permit to do it. But you can
do it.
Trustee Bredemeyer: If you got a D.E.C. permit for 6 ft. they typically were letting
4 ft. for these smaller entrances, you might be able to dredge to it. It seems that
the last time I was in there you can'l go to it?
Mr. Samuels: You can't go up to the bulkhead. It has shoaled off. There has been
so much leakage there seaward of the bulkhead.
Trustee Larsen: For all practical purposes 18" in front of it you can do that except
for the 40 ft. section which will be in kind and in place. That is the extremely bowed
section.
Trustee Smith: You will dredge to a 6' depth you say? You. don't have a permit to
dredge this?
Mr. Samuels: The D.E.C., generally as one of their permit, one of the conditions is
that you return the waterway to the condition that existed prior to the project that
you are working on. We have always construed that, the D.E.C. does, that if you
loose fill that you can remove it. I dare say that I would not at this point dredge to
6 ft. without a specific permit or Mr. Hamilton saying that I can dredge to 6 ft.
Trustee Goubeaud: What is the possibility of doing it a section at a time, in Rind
and in place?
Mr. Samuel~.: Yes, we have considered that pioneering. Pioneering is when you do
a section at a time .... .'i-~
Trustee Goubeaud: Right.
Mx. Samuels: That is the way it will have to be done if~ it is replaced in kind.
It will have to be pioneered.
Trustee Goubeaud: You are exposing yourself.
Mr. Samuel~: You are exposing yourself because you are doing 20 ft. then you take
out the next 20 feet, then you backfill ~ behind the 20 ft. you completed. Then you loose
Page 4.
Public Hearing - Gerard H. Schultheis
the majority of that because it has not been comphcted yet. Y0u~ are constantly
loosing fill a head of yourself. Pioneering sounds good but it is some hard to do.
When I can't even get a crane between the house and the bulkhead. This is a fun job.
Trustee Smith: 18" and you are going to build it out of heavy material so that this
will last a longer period of time.
Mr. Samuels: Mr. Schulthese is there tonight. He is a Civil Erfgineer. A Civil
Engineer wears belts and suspenders. He is going to pound and one half cca, which
is heavier treatment. He is u~sing heavier tie rods, heavier material.
Trustee Smith: What you are saying is that expense seems to be no object?
Mr. Samuels: No, I would not say that, that is not true. Because of the nature of the
site he doesn't have a lot of options, He doesn't want to have to do it again.
Trustee Smith: With your estimation this job, if it was built to Mr. Schulthese
specifications, what is the li~e expectancy of it?
Mr. Samuels: Conservatively speaking I would say 35 years. I don't think that the
way that this is designed that there is any storm risk at all. He is going to raise
it slightly. There is a potential for all of the topping from the bay side, if you got
another storm Nelson you are going to get water up over the backfill. It should not
affect the structure. One inch tie rods, 20 ft. anchor piles driven ....
Trustee Smith: I have to admit that you do have a very umque situation there.
I would not like to be in Mr. Schulthese~s shoes, Lf it had to be done in kind and
In place.
Trustee Larsen: There is an awful lot of risk to remove the whol~ thing, the
environmental impact from it all, all. the fill running in. The support of the house,
possibly to-hmve it undermine, and if we~were guaranteed that it would not exceed
more than 18" ~ddition in depletion to the width of the canal 44 ft. in kind and in
place. You will be ~n and out of there quicker. I think that this is an alternative,
conmdering what the other alternatives are.
John HOlzapfel, Chariman, C.A.C.: The C.A.C. was against ghat originally. But
upon listening to what you have to say, I could take it upon .... to say that we would
not fight that because it sounds like the better thing to do. We were concerned with
the distance across, it seemed so narrow. We didn't want to get out into that. But,
this makes more sense.
Mr. Samuels: A letter from the Trustees requesting an amendment of the D.E.G.~ to
the permit allowing us to dredge right up to the bulkhead t6.. adequate depth so
that the boats then can .... that in itself will widen the channel much more than trying
to save 18". There is a bar there now, and you can't get close to the bar.
John Holzapfeh The width on the survey showed the width of the creek to be 80 or 85
ft.
Mr. Samuels: It doesn't look it?
John Holzapfel: A boat went by and it was a 26' and we thought that two boats
would not get by.
P&ge 5.
Public Hearing - Gerard H. Schultheis
Mr. Samuels: When I go in there with my boat, if there is a boat coming out, I
wait until he comes out before I go in. A lot of that is because it is so shoaled
on the north side.
Mr. Holzapfel: We had a little bit of concern with your neighbor where the dock
was going to be put, with the ramp down and out, it seemed that you were coming
out one way, and he was coming out the other way?
Mr. Samuels: I am not familiar with that.
Mr. Schulthe is: If you extend a straight line from my property and you measured
from that straight line from the dock it would be 22 ft. Right now I have a boat
that is 10 ft. wide with a float that is 4 ft. that is 14 ft. that leaves 8 ft. to the
outside for the boat to pass by. BAsed on his dock, that is in position right now.
Trustee Smith: Will you explain that to me on the suvey.
Mr.~ Schulthe~is: If I take a straight line right here, he has a dock right here,
that comes out like so (showing on the map) he has pilings right here. From the
straight line out to the edge of the dock, it is 22 ft. to the piling it is about 6 ft.
less than that where the permanent piling is. I own to the center line to the creek on
Mi sides according to my deed.
Trustee Krupski: I don't understand that, it contradicts what is shown on this.
(indicating to map). I'm not arguing with you.
Mr. Sclmulthejs: I don't know ~vhat their deeds say either.
Trustee Krupski: What this map indicates is that this ~s one property (showing on
map ).
Mr. Schultheis: There is an existing floating dock, 5 ft. wide that came with the
house when we bought it.
Trustee Smith: Have you talked to Mr. Larry Tuthitl to see if you could come to
some agreement on this. I think if you talk to him you can come to some agreement
with him. The way it looks to me, t think that he owns all of the underwater rights.
Trustee Bredemeyer: In the past, the Town Attorney has charged that the Trustees
don't have to be overly concerned who the owners are, but if we do give a permit
and you find yourself in some sort of conflict with Mr.. Tuthil1, it is best to check with
him. Well we at least for warned you. Sometimes it isnTt to clear on the maps then
you may have a problem.
Trustee Smith: This is the deed line? Right? They way it is shown on here part
of the bulkhead is on his property.
Mr. Schultheis: Back a few years ago, he filled in there, I d~on't know what the
circumstances are, I understand that he did it without a permit and when the former
owner bought the house there was a portion of this deeded over to this particular lot.
That is reflected in the deed.
Trustee Krupski: Is that underwater or upland?
Page 6 .~
L~ublic Hearing - Gerard H.
S chultheis
Mr. Schultheis: It is upland.
Trustee Smith: This was amended on Dec. 1, 1978, in 1985 and in Jan. of 1987.
This should be an up to date survey. On this survey, Mr. Tuthill owns up to
your bulkhead here. This is your property there as it is shown on the st~rvey.
Mr. Schultheis: My attorney tells me the center line of the creek can be looked at
center line here, center line to the creek is here (showning on the map.)
Trustee Smith: There are a lot of deeds that are written that way and it is out
into the creek is what they consider the center line.
Trustee Larsen: We are here to decide if it is more environmentally compatible
to go 18" in front of or take the whole thing out.
Trustee Smith: Do you have something you want to say? ~to someone in the audience).
Does anyone else have anything to say regarding this application?
Trustee Goubeaud: Where the bowed section is when you take that out you will
have one complete straight line, 18" out from the property.
Mr. Schultheis: If I took the straight portions that exist now, exclusive of the
bowed portion and drew a line 18" out from that I would maintain that straight line.
In essence you~would be eliminating that 44 inch bow into the creek. In essence
widening the access to the creek.
Trustee Smith: Are: there any other comments? No comments? Then I will close this
public hearing in the matter of Ge'rard H. Schultheis.
Hearing Closed:9:24 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING
IN THE MATTER OF
PECONIC ASSOCIATES ON ~BEHALF OF YOUNGS MARINA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE
TOWN TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AT THE SOUTHOLD TOWN HALL, MAIN
ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK, ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1987, ON THE FOLLOWING
APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE WETLAND ORDINANCE
OF THE TOWN:
7:34 P.M. - In the matter of the application of Peconic Associates on behalf of
Youngs Marina to enlarge and rebuild marina for 138 boats to include 4 main docks
and 69 finger piers and approximately 2900 cu. yds. of dredging. Property is
located on Sage Road, Southold.
Present were:
President Henry P. Smith
Vice President John Bredemeyer
Trustee Phillip J. Goubeaud
Trustee Albert Krupski
Trustee Ellen M. Larsen
Clerk Ilene Pfifferling
Bay Constable Donald Dzenkowski
Trustee Smith: After reading the official public notice Trustee Smith asked if there
were any comments for or against this application. He requested that if someone
wanted to speak that he or she use the microphone and state their name.
Bill Barth, N.F.E.C.: Before the N.F.E.C. can approve or disapprove this project
the N.F.E.C. feels that the impact of a 50% increase in the boat population will have
to be addressed. We feel that a site drawing of any wetlands or shellfish beds should
be supplied. The composition of the disposal site of the dredge spoil should be
stipulated. An upland site drawing showing run off Control and the adequac~y_~of~' -~ ~
parking facility should be furnished. Finally all of the agencies involved such as the
Board of Trustees, Planning Board, etc. should work concurrently on a project of
this nature so that no permits are issued until all the pertinent questions are resolved.
Trustee Smith: Thank you, does anyone else have anything they would like to say?
Howard Malone, Pres., Southold Shores Association: This is west of the Cove. We
have a lot of questions to ask, I'm not prepared to ask them all tonight. We had a
meeting last weekend and there is great concern about the commercialization so close
to our development, and established property there, We represent about 25 to 30 homes
existing now and there is a possibility of another 25, ,people have already bought the
lots. Since they are not residents, they were not up on the current events here.
Great concern came about at the fall meeting. We would like to pitch our strength and
spirit in with the environmental people so that we can get a clearer picture now, if it
is going to impact our area? We are being encroached by commercialization all along
the entire area. That is pretty much what I have to say, we would like to go on
record really not approving the heavy commercialization. Thank you.
Trustee Smith: Is there anyone else?
Christopher Kelly, Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelley: I'm am Christopher Kelly of
Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelley, Riv~rhead, and I am here on behalf of Henry
Page 2.
Public Hearing in the matter of Peconic Associates on behalf of Youngs Marina
Weissman and George Flynn.neighbors of the property. They live across the cove.
We have several arguments I would like to make tonight. We oppose this expansion.
One, we think that S.E.Q.R.:A. has not been complied with at this point, I will
explain why. We also think that there are several Zoning problems which will have
to be cleared up before this application can go forward. I also have an expert
witness here tonight to present to us as to the ~mpacts. ]?hat expert is Larry Penny
who I will introduce as soon as I am finished making my remarks. I have prepared
a memorandum that I would tike to give to the Board. ~Came up and gave same to
Trustees.) One of the problems that this application presents, it 'is kind of a complex
S.E.Q.R.A. compliance problem. I think that the Board may be looking narrowly, to
narrowly, perhaps with blinders on when they declared itself lead agency on this
project when they proceeded with a negative declaration. As the Board well knows
the S.E.Q.R.A process has been on going with the Town Board with regard to this
project for a little over two years. The Trustees were lead agency back before
September of 85, relinquished that lead agency status to the Town Board. The Town
Board has been lead agency ever since. This project is not just a project to expand
a marina. The project encompasses an 82 unit motel, a 125 seat restaurant and
associated parking. This has been the subject of a Zone change application before
the Town Board. It has not been withdrawn at this point. It has also been the
subject of an extensive S.E.Q.R.A. review which is in~cluded a positive declaration
made by the Town Board. The preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
there was an addendum to that D.E.I.S. and a Final Impact Statement. There were
also comments by numerous participants in that proceeding. I would like to hand that
to you now. (Came up and gave same to Clerk.) The point here being that this
application did not appear here over night. It has a long history to it. Questions
have been raised through out the S.E.Q.R.A. process are relevant here. I ask
that you incorporate, by reference, the Town Board's records in this proceeding
including the comments that have been submitted and the testimony. We have been
there several nights before the Town Board giving testimony both the Planning
Consultants and our Naturalist and Biologist. That:s'hould be incorporated into your
proceedings and you should review it carefully before you take any action on this
application. The S.E.Q.R.A. process did come to a culmination before the Town
Board. The culmination was a set of findings by the Town Board as to what impact
this project would have on that Cove, which is a very significant cove. We will
explain that to you shortly. Much of the testimony before the Town Board centered
on the impact of surface waters that the expansion of the marina facility would have.
Plan on page three of the memo, what the Town Board's findings were, the set of
S.E.~.R..A. findings as an exhibit. Exhibit A, of the memo, so you can see what
the town's own document. It sets forth five items that have not been adequately
mitigated. The Board concluded that, . and ' we disagreed at the time, with the
handling of this by the Town Board but it has never been challenged legally
because the Zone change has never been approved. H6wever;~ you as an involved
agency are bound by their findings as lead agency. There the Board"concluded
that adverse impacts field during the S.E.Q.R.A. process for the requested change
of Zone will be minimized or avoided by further analysis under S.E.Q.R.A. during
the site plan process for Zahner formerly Southport or any other combination of uses
proposed, that by incorporating fully those mitigating measures against the final
project planned the result is that the Town Board is in an effort to pass the buck here.
It has not taken the steps necessary to mitigate the environmental impacts under
S.E.Q.R.A.. What it has said::is that the S.E.Q.R.A. process will not be complete
Page 3.
Public Hearing in the matter of Peconic Associates on behalf of Youngs Marina
until an elaborate site plan is submitted and approved by the Planning Board that
incorporates the mitigation to take care of the concerns that the Town Board has
outlined.
Trustee Bredemeyer: For a Zone change or for a specific project?
Christopher Kelley: For the project as a whole. I will go into that. It is another
point that I raised in the memorandum. S.E.Q.R.A. is very specific on not permitting
agencies to segment review. You seem to be very sophisticated in S.E.Q.R.A.
matters. Segmentation is when you take on proponent of the project and look at it
without considering the cumulative impacts of the related proponents of the project.
I think that is what we have here. If you look at it simply as an application for the
marina and to dredge you are missing the ramif:ications, the environmental ramifications,
of the project. On page six, I said that the criteria set forth in the S.E.Q.R.A.
Handbook asks to define segmentation, you have to look at the over all action. If you
don[t you are violating the spirit in the letter of S.E.Q.R.A.,
Trustee Bredemeyer: It doesn't exclusively rule it out. This Board has segmented
previously. Sometimes it allows you to put a portion of a project under closer
scrutiny.
Christopher Kelley: Page seven, the S.E.Q.R.A. Handbook says that if any one of
letters A thru H can be answered "yes" that this is a project that should be looked
at as a total. (A thru H in Memorandum, page 7). I think that you have such a
project before you at this point. The two points of S.E.Q.R.A. compliance here, first
of all the S.E.Q.R.A. process is not complete and will not be complete until mitigation
is imposed. S.E.Q.R.A. requires an analysis of environmental impacts as well as
mitigation. We have the analysis up to now. We have had no mitigation. According
to the Town Board's findings that woun'I be done Until the~ site plan stage. Second
point being this should not be segmented in terms of its review. There are a couple
of other 'Zoning matters I-would like to bring up here.that I think are questions that
the Board has to deal with in terms of its review and terms of jurisdiction weather
it has the power to grant this application even if it was so inclined. First of ali
the applicant, we have found, has no evidence of record, but the applicant has not
shown that he has a valid preexisiingnon conforming use for 91 boat slips on the
site. Now exhibit B of the memorandum does an aiaalysis of the stages in which the
applicant acquired the property and what the various Zone changes have been on the
property through out the history.
Trustee Larsen: What page are you on?
Christopher Kelley: Exhibit B.
Trustee Larsen: Thank you.
Christopher Kelley: That goes through the deeds by which the property was
acquired. What we have here is a preexisting, non conforming marina. There is
a serious question about that preexisting, non conforming use encompasses all of the
property or only a portion of it? You can see there is a map attached to the memorandum.
Exhibit B. It shows that the property exists before, excuse me, six separate parcels
that were acquired at different times by the applicant. Some prior to the existance
of the use and some subsequent. In any event, these are real questions wthether
Page 4.
Public Hearing m the matter of Peconic Associates on behalf of Youngs Marina
the applicant has a legitimate use over the parts of the subject site that he
proposes to expand the marina onto. This points out another problem here,
if in fact it is a preexhisting non=conforming use~ which we suggest it is~t
~here is a problem with how much expansion can occur on this site. The Town
Code in section 100-118 [El is quoted on page 9 of the memo it says that a
non-conforming building, which these docks would be, may not be reconstructed or
structurally altered during its life to an extent exceeding in aggregate cost Fifty (50)
percent of the fair value of the building, unless the use of such building is changed
to a conforming use. The applicant here is proposing 138 boat slips. Existing he
claims is 91 slips. However, I would submit to you that the number of slips is not
an adequate measure of the extent of the expansion. In fact if we look at the
linear footage of the=docks proposed, the existing dockage is approximately 1600 lin.
feet. The proposed will be 3227 feet or over a 100% expansion of linear footage.
Now again, text cited in the code is one of value. Even if we use this linear footage
one we see that there is over a 100% expansion. The value test (tape not audible)
because he ~s only allowed to expand 50% of the value of the current docks.
Certainly 100% of expansion of new docks would be much more than 50% of the value
of the current docks. So I think that this is a Zoning problem that this Board
does not have the power to solve. Nor, does this Board have the power to go
forward with this application until the problem is solved ~ it by a variance or
Zone change. Further more, we have the set backs problem there have been no
variences applied for, at least no application that I am aware. It is a "C" light
industrial zone, side yard setbacks of 30 ft. and rear yard setbacks of 50 ft. you
will notice on the map that I doubt that they can meet those setbacks. In some
instances the the docks go up to tlie property line. That consideration only the
Zoning Board can solve~the Trustees do not have that jurisdiction. So those are
three problems ghat are ghe heart of this Board's jurisdiction and its ability to act.
We ask that you consider these carefully and consult with council before taking any
action. There is another point that I would like to make, and that is a Planning
consideration, I have attached to the memo two letters that were received by the
Town Board during the S.E.Q.R.A. process one of which is from the Suffolk County
Planning Commission. The Planning Commission conditioned its approval of the
whole project, one of its conditions was no 'expansion of the marina. You can see
the letter in there of August 85, which is attached. Also I will point out the
letter from the Department of State which is an exhibit to the memo, that department
is also very critical of this expansion. The last point that I would like go raise is
that the standards by which the Trustees are to grant or deny a permit can not be
met by this application the Article 97 standards, I am sure you are very familiar with
and.~must, apply, have not been complied with by the applicant. The next testimony
by. Larry Penny will go on in more depth. What I would like to point out though, some
of the statements that the Town has made in terms of its Waterfront Revitalization
Sludy and in that Waterfront Revitalization Study Comr~emts~:are made, several comments
about what exactly marina expansion and construction can do to the waters of Southold
Town and how damaging ~t can be if not monitored carefully. I cite on page 14 and
15 of my memo, "The solution of Southolds coastal waters, specifically its bays and
estuary systems isa problem that must be dealt with quickly and directly and it is
not ~o get beyond the capabilities of the Town to ~remedy. A~ major contributor to
pollution to Southolds coastal waters are marinas and related activities. Even with
strict regulations. (tape not audible) ~ Because of the consentration of boats; ~he
consentration of pollutants is greater. The same is true of untreated human waste.
Even with laws requiring holding tanks and pump out to shore stations, increase
arou~nd marinas. Excessive boating activities, noise, movement and disiurbance
Page 5.
Public Hearing in the matter of Peconic Associates on behalf of Youngs Marina
of the water and bottom by props to some estuarian and saltmarsh ecosystems
are enough to endanger their existence. The study goes on'to talk about the
impact of poisonous bottom paint and makes a conclusion that for these reasons
it is very important to manage the expansion of these facilities very carefully as
the need for more and larger facilities grows. The New York State D.E.C. has a
great influence over these cases but when creating policies, Southold should consider
the increase in pollution and activity very carefully when dealing with marina construction
and expansion. This is the Town Board's own study commissioned and done by
Dave Emilita's firm. The Town itself has acknowledged the damaging impact that
marine expansion ~can have. In light of the problems that this application acrid
for this small area of Sage Cove, which you will see is a very productive shellfish
area. In fact, I have attached a letter from the Baymen's Association testifying
to that fact;in the memorandum. It is a very productive shellfish area. I would
ask the Board to carefully consider wheather we need expansion in that area, if
we should have expansion in that area, and what it would do to the shellfish. In
summary what I would ask you to do, ~either deny the application outright at this
point or in the alternative hold in abeyance the decision until a ill] site plan is
submitted. And the mitigation requested by the Town Board is proposed and worked
out by the Planning Board and the other agencies. At this point I would like to
ask Larry Penny to step up and give some technical testimony.
Mr. Howard Zehner: I would petter to speak...
Trustee Smith: Well, Mr. Penny was part of Mr. Kelley's presentation, so I think
that we should let him finish.
Mr. Christopher Kelley: Mr. Penny's resume is contained in the document I submitted
to you. You probably know that he is a Natural Resource Director, East Hampton
Town, and you are probably well acquainted with.
Trustee Bredemeyer: We all got a copy of the impact statement on the original
statement as well.
Larry Penny: I am here on behalf of the interveners Mr. Weismann and Mr. Flynn
who have been involved with this application from the very beginning and I think
that this has been going on for a year and a half. So I am not a new comer to
the application. My expertise is Environmental Science and I serve on many committees
in addition to my duties in East Hampton I am on the New York State Shellfish
Advisory Committee. I chair the Water Quality Sub-committee of that committee.
I am on the Suffolk County Hard Clam Advisory Committee. I serve on the Public
Committee for the Brown Tide study called the Peconic Bay Task Force. I am
envolved with numerous other kinds of studies in this area, Marine Biology, Fisheries,
the quality of our estuaries. If I could, I would like to show the Board, although
I know that you are all familiar with the area, an areal photograph that I could talk
to a little bit about in terms of the setting. [ don't want to take up to much of your
time. This photograph shows the Cove, and we are talking about Sage Cove. It
shows the existing photograph. Of interest, I think are the various impediments
of the Cove in terms of spits and shoals. Of particular interest is the narrow
channel. The Cove is a very large surface area relative to the bore of the channel
and essentially the flushing quality of the coastal lagoon is directly related to the
relationship of the enbayment and bore of the channel. You can see that in terms of
flushing it is going to be a low spectrum of flushability. Now increasing the bore of
the channel may increase flushing. What will probably decrease flushing is to
increase the basin depth of that and that is what is going to happen in terms of the
Page 6.
Public Hearing in the matter of Peconic Associates on behalf of Youngs Marina
removal of 2300 cu. yds. or so. The water will probably be retained in the lower
portion of the basin for a longer time, which will have just the opposite effect.
It will retain the contaminants for a longer time then get rid of them. Essentially
I'm saying that the pollutions acceptability will be (tape not audible) by dredging.
Things being equal, you saw in the environmental impact statement that there is
(tape not audible) where the water circulates for some time before it joins the tidal
outflow which is important to flushing. It is not clear in my mind how the dredging
is actually going to increase flushing or decrease water quality as a result of fl~shing.
I would say that it would have the opposite effect. In terms of the marina you can
see that the site is absolutely stacked to the gills, and it doesn't show the finger
piers it just shows the main piers. I think that it has been calculated that about
3200 ft. of space when you count linear ft. of slips when you count the finger piers .
as opposed to 1600 ft. now. Essentially we are really looking at 100% or more £or
expansion of linear slip space. They are making 138 slips but there will probably
be much bigger boats than are presently accommodated by the marina facility. Bigger
boats are certainly related to a larger amount of pollution. People spend more time
on bigger boats. They tend to have flush toilets. I know it is against the law to
have a toilet and flush (tape not audible.)
Trustee Bredemeyer: Do you have any studies to support ~hat?
Larry Penny: Yes, I have very good studies of Lake Montauk and Three Mile Harbor.
I have included one in the FDIS and I will be happy to make these available to you.
We have been looking for the D.F,.C ....
Trustee Bredemeyer: Does this correlates the boat length to the pollution load?
Larry Penny: Very high coliform loading where you have big boats in marinas as
opposed to small boat marinas. We are talking about more coliform, more boat service
TBT. We hope that TBT wilt be band as a result of New York State Legislative
act this year. ]Boats in general, primarily coliform, but the 'other things that go
along with it. Also, big boats tend to use more shore water. Part of this plan
has to do with a certain amount of water use from the existing wells on shore.
I think that say 645 gal. of water a day. I find that to be a gross under estimate.
I know marinas and I know how they use water. I would say that I would be happy
to provide additional information if you need it. I think that we are looking at more
than 50% expansion, in terms of pollution acceptability here. Now the dredge
spoil is another, in the FEIS the core shows that there is a a lot of silting material
on here. We have a very small channel. It will be a draglining this out here.
I know that we will have a lot of sedimentation is going to be distributed through out
the basin and it is going to go out to Peconic Bay. Again, it is a short term problem,
the kind of problem we are talking about With the big boats with their expected
marina facilities. I'm not quite sure where the spoil is going to go. We are ta~lking
about 2300 yds. of spoil. If you look at the sediment analysis of the core of the
bay you will see that they contain heavy metals. Now they don't contain heavy metals
to the degree of New York Harbor. They do tend ten or ~so parts of lead, twelve,
thirteen per million parts of chromium. These are things to consider where ever you
are going to put the spoil it seems to me that this is rather important.
Trustee Bredemeyer: Would we find that consentration of contaminates at the road side
in front of Town Hall right now do-you think?
Larry Penny: I don't think that you wduld find chromium in that consentration, you
may find lead in it. Still it is indicative I think of the kinds of activities that go
Page 7.
Public Hearing in the matter of Peconic Associates on behalf of Youngs Marina
on in marinas. The kinds of long term pollution that goes on. Almost anything
can be mitigated (tape not audible. ) When we achieve the state of the art that
we want to then we woun~t be able to mitigate. We are making some attempts by
getting rid of TtST. There are several other pollutants that are involved here, human
waste, the hydrocarbon and I think that there is some very good data on hydrocarbon
that the EPA has accumulated. I would be happy to make that available. I noticed that
the FEIS did not mention the hydrocarbon loading. There are a lot of different
potential pollutants that can work in concert to create long term problems.
Now, if this was Sterling Harbor which is permanently closed which is not known
to be a great shellfish source or fishery we would be talking about something
different. Here we have a known shellfish area and we have a known source of
pollution that is with road end run off and so forth that is working together to
close shellfish fisheries because of the coliform level. I think we are talking about
a very strong probability here with 138 slips of closing this spot for shellfishing.
The Henderson Bogwell FEIS talks about the D.E.C. recommending that marina areas
be closed. I think that we are talking about an area that because the water flows
beyond the limits of the marina and we don't know how that will impact the rest of the
basin, we are probably talking about a much larger area than the marina being closed
to shellfishing. Now we do have the possibility of a pump out station. I have been
doing some research on pump out stations. We want pump out stations in the Town of
East Hampton. Unfortunately, for us there are some major problems with seeing pump
out stations really work. Having holds and all the boats involved in these marinas
forcing the pumping out being able to take the pump out material with the chemicals
that are put into the hold to the scavenger waste treatment plant. H2M.has told us
in the Town of East Hampton that we can't do that, we can't take the waste chemicals
to the dump before pretreating the boat waste. There are some real problems that
have to be solved. In 25 or 30 years we will be able to get a handle on it in changing
some laws and a lot of things. Marinas woun't be the polluting types of activities that
they are today. But I think, right now, we don't have a handle on it and I think in
terms of rea] mitigation that we will be able to affect there we don't have a handle
on seeing thai real mitigation will be written into this permit will actually be implemented
and I know Mr. Kelley has gone over the standards and I do agree that for example
the standard (D) 97-28 "Adversely effect fish and shellfish or other beneficial marine
organizams, aquatic wildlife and vegetation or natural habitat thereof." I think that that
standard is going to be hard not to abridge in terms of a positive decision for the slip
expansion here. Also under (I) "Otherwise adversely affect the health, safety and
general welfare of the people of the town."' They are talking about the pollution of
the waters and the loading of the shellfish. Particularly pertinent right now we are
talking about the entire bay system which this is a part going belly up. I think
this serge of brown tide has turned allot of doubters into believers and frankly it is
frightening what might happen. I think that we have to be very conservative here
on how we treat this cove and all the estuarian waters of Peconic system. I think
Part 2, although not signed but I think that it underestimates grossly the impacts
that we are looking at here with the 138 Slip expanded marina. I would be happy to
answer any questions.
Howard Zehner: I am the owner of Youngs Marina. I have been the owner for 17 years.
I bought it in October of 1970. I am quite friendly with Fred Young who brought the
marina 20 years prior to 1950. I would like to refute each and every subject brought up
by Mr. Penny. He brought up five subjects: 1. flushing of the basin and he expressed
an opinion thai because the inlet was so narrow it could not handle the flushing of the
basin. He indicated that the depths of dredging were greater than the depths of the
inlet. That was the opinion I got. I am going to refer to the D.E.I.S. and the F.E.I.S.
only because I think that it is lawyers prerogative. The D.E.I.S. and the F.E.I.S.
Page 8.
Public Hearing in the matter of Peconic Associates on behalf of Youngs Marina
were an entirely different project [have been referred to by the previous two
speakers. That project had nothing to do with the project that is under discussion
right now. That project was for a Zone change and it involved upland development
motel, pool and a restaurant and the marina development. This project is an entirely
different project a/~d is not for a .ZOrie change. It is~ being ~sked for under the
present Zoning that exists at the marina. I just want to explain that I will have
to refer to the other project only in terms of tests that were done and studies that
have been done and drawings that have been done for that project that wil] help
answer some of the questions that came up tonight. Back again to one of the five
subjects that Mr. Penny brought up, flushing. Ther~ is a cross section ~n that
final environmental impact statement of the inlet that shows an ~'end v~ew of the
inlet and it shows that there is 8 ft. of water at low tide (mlt) for a 20 ft. width.
The inlet has a shape like this (showing on the map) 20 ft. wide and 8 ft. deep then
the inlet continues to approximately 100 -150 ft. wide at high tide. At mlw you have
an 8 ft. depth by 20 ft. wide. You have about a 6 ft. depth by about 40 ft. wide-
so you have a rather deep and large inlet compared to approximately an 11 or 15 (I
forge' the acreage) of the basin. So we do have a much larger inlet in terms of
volume in terms of water (passage) than Mr. Penny indicated. Number 2, that the
marina water ~s probably polluted because of the fact that the marina exists there.
Tests were done during that final impact statement that show no water pollution what
so ever except in front of the home directly across the'~basin from me. Number 3, you
stated that that final impact statement for a Zone change, again a different project,
that the spoil contained various metals that could cause pollution of the upland. Those
boring tests that were done for the final impact statement stated that all the boring
tests, all soil samples were below the safe Ieve] except for one area of the basin where
the water depth was in excess of 10 ft. deep. That is where the small boat dock is,
and we don't plan to dredge that area. There are no contaminants that will be put
on the upland that wil] be dredged out. In number 4, Mr. Penny and Mr. Kelley
talked about the marina and shellfish not getting along together, in the other breath
he said that there is a lot of shellfish in the marina. I don't know-how he can have
it two ways? If there are shellfish, if he feels that there are shellfish in the marina,
I would like to state that that marina has been there since 1950 and the shellfish have
existed. In any case the marina bottom is privately owned, it is not a public shell-
fish area. The bottom I pay taxes on, my 4 acres, and those other people pay taxes
on theirs. The last subject Mr. Penny discussed was sewerage. For some reason he
thinks that boat sewerage is worse than the sewerage that is pumped out of a home.
He made a statement to. the effect that boat sewerage Will create more pollution and
the disposal of same would be practically impossible. It is not true. We would pump
that sewerage into a tank up on land and in our case we propose a 150 gal. tank on
land and then it will be taken where cesspool sewerage is taken and placed. It is
the same type of sewerage, I don't understand and of his arguments, flushing, not
true. Water tests have been conducted there was not problems with the water
purity except across the basin at a private home. The boring test of the underwater
soil, only one area was bad and that area is not going to be dredged. Getting back
to Mr. Kelley's comments, he mentioned that in one case my docks touch the border
of my property. The only place that the new docks will touch the border of my
property is where I have an perpetual right of way between the inlet that I own and
that I have dredged and the steel bulkhead, the jetty to provide access for myself and
for my neighbors at Southold Shores from that inlet to my property where the dock
touches the border of my property. It is in my deed to have a perpetual navigational
right of way. That is the only place where I touch my border. In answer 'to Mr.
Frank's point about parking and run off, there is a Planning Board study going on
Page 9.
Public Hearing in the matter of Peconic Associates on behalf of Youngs Marina
Frank, with regard to parking and run off, the Trustees and the Planning Board
are involved in this matter. Regarding Mr. Kelley's comment about the status
of my property and the zoning. The property has been "C" Light Industrial the
entire time that I have known, which is 17 years. I assume that it has been "C"
Light Industrial since 1950 when Mr. Young owned it. Prior to that it was a
brick yard operation which was definitely an industrial operation. It is presently
Zoned properly "C" Light Industrial under which a marina is a marina designation.
Marinas are permitted by exception "C" Light Industrial by exception. I may be the
only marina out here now that has a "CO" for the marina. I found out that we are
suppose to have a "CO" for every thing. When I called the Building Dept. they told
me that they can not think' of anything that a "CO" is not needed for. I have a'
"CO" for the marina. I would like to again, point out that Mr. Kelley is misleading.
I don~t understand where he gets his facts from. He said that we have preexisting
and non-confo rming. It'iS not true. The "CO" that I have involves preexisting
situations. We have letters from Mr. Young and a preexisting "CO" is prior to 1957.
The existing marina zoning is preexisting but not non-conforming. There are a few
buildings. A supply room and a tennis club and pool is new, it is not preexisting
so there is a straight "CO" on it. The only thing on the property that is non-
conforming is the little cottage (15'x30'-) and that has been there and designated as
non-conforming. It was there before 1957 but a cottage does not infringe on Light
Industrial property so it is non-conforming. Everything else on the property we
have a "CO" for and is preexisting. The most misleading statement that Mr. Kelley
made was that we received a positive declaration for the previous project. (With due
respect.) That is untrue. The letter that he read from said that we received a
negative declaration. He just chose to say that we received a positive declaration.
On December 31, 1986 we received a negative declaration, which is a favorable
declaration, for the project that involved the upland and the marina for a Zone Change
to "M-l" Zoning. We have no intention of pursuing that. We stopped, the master
plan is coming out that does not have a "M-l" category, but does have Marina 1 and
Marina 2 categories. Furthermore, we did not want to pursue such a massive plan
with so many upland objections. The only objection, in reference to the negative
declaration, to any thing pertaining to the marina was a spit of land that goes out
into the marina. We had considered removing that spit of land. We talked to
Mr. Hamilton of the D.E.C. and we gave further thought to ii and we decided to
leave the spit of land there. Again, we are not doing that project. Sorry to be so
long, thank you.
Trustee Bredemeyer: I've~.lomked at the tax map and the entire basin is privately owned.
Is that correct?
Howard Zehner: Thai is correct.
Trustee Bredemeyer: Thank you.
Howard Zehner: I have two neighbors that border up to my_mar, i~na, rMr.:..Kiliian~f.[.;.!.w-
on the corner and Mr. Nesack. My docks on that side extend out are in line with
my old docks. They are no further out. The other property around me is all owned
by the people that now own the Sage Property, I think it is Harbor View Realty.
Trustee Smith: Thank you. Does anyone else have anything to say?
Jay Thompson: My name is Jay Thompson, 695 Bayshore Road, Greenport. I have
been keeping boats in the marina for 11 years. I observe the baymen who are
Page 10.
Public Hearing in the matter of Peconic Associates on behalf of Youngs
Marina
probably one of the nose efficient in knowing where the clams are. T~ey are on
the other side of the basin, on his side of the basin. All of the dredging will be
done on Mr. Zehner's side of the basin. I am a divers I Spend
an uncomfortable
amount of time under my own boat repeatedly. There is nothing living down there
but mud. The marina does have a good flushing action. Several people have had
to move their boats because they found that it was so difficult to get into their docks.
That is part of the reason that he wants to change it. Now some of the boats have
to go across ~the current to get into one dock. It makes it very difficult. I find
no objection to the marina. I have had a boat there for 11 years. I live on Conklin's
Point and I feel that the improvement in the marina, and the fact that there will be
a few more people who can bring their boats out here, will be very pleasant. There
is all ready a major problem on your side of the shore, in the fact that there are
people who can no longer buy boats because there is no place to keep a boat on the
south side. We have room here for the expansion of a commercial piece of property,
I work at a marina and I observe the waters every day from my office at Sterling
Harbor. Sterling Harbor happens to have quite a few ducks in the winter time.
They like to go fishing right outside of the window. This marina is unique. There
is no bulkheading. I can't think of another marina that is not all bulkheaded. All
he is using is pilings. All that is disturbed is a small section on the bottom. With
the pilings you have the shade over, for some reason the wildlife seems to like this
type of area. As to the coliform count !'his is a very family oriented marina.
It is nothing for me to get up in the morning and see a child swimming under the
dock to prove that he can do it and come up. We have a rather violent reaction to
any one using their toilets. I can'i say that some one has been removed, but
I know several people who have left very quickly one summer. We were very suspicious.
I'm sure that they would never admit that Was the reason that they left. If you can't
make the two step, a hundred yards to shore, this is an admitted fact within the marina
women use plastic bags and through them in the toilet. So do the men if they are in
an emergency situation. They pick their baggie up and put it in the garbage. It is
not polite, but it does not go into the water. We don't like to have everyone coming
in from a days sailing on their boat and jump off the back of their boat and go swimming
in the marina. There is no problem where everyone has to leave the marina to go
swimming. This is a family marina, and I am sure that it will be maintained as such.
Thank you.
Trustee Smith: Does anyone else have any comments that they want to make?
Do any of the Trustees want to make any comments. (no restJonse) The C.A.C.?
John Holzapfel, Chairman, Conservation Advisory Council: The C.A.C. was to be very
honest torn between both, it was a very close decision. We were negative towards
the application. We felt that there were a large number of boats~and that the
dredging would have an effect on the water.
Trusee Larsen: I have a few questions for Mr. Kelley. Other than that the only
concerns that I had was that the dredging area. What was the Slope on the ~ dredging
to mitigate the sloping off of the spartina patch that is there. There was no
explanation on the application. How would we be guaranteed of the amount of spoil
that came out of the site. I spoke to Merlon Wiggin and he felt that soundings were
in order and it would be up to the Board to determine how we wanted them metered
and the distances, it looks like 15 to 20 ft. off the end of the spartina spit that sticks
out. What would the depth be? There are a lot of questions in that area, not to
mention the questions that were raised here on both sides.
Howard Zehner: The way it turns out it is 2900 cu. yds. if you measure that out
over the 4 acres of basin that I own the 'actual dredging would be 1/2 ft. if you
can figure that out. However, the basin has an irregular bottom. There are deep
Page 11.
Public Hearing in the matter of Peconic Associates on behalf of Youngs Marina
areas and there are low areas. That is why we are choosing to dredge certain
areas. We thought that we would ~detain the sloppiness of the dredging so we
would bulldoze a little mount and dump into that little mount so that this clay
would harden. So I put it off of the property. That disposal area ~s generally
shown. I have a couple acres where I can put it on. Should it slosh around
we can move it closer to the boat storage area. We just move the area so that
it woun't go to the neighbors propertry. The edge of it is 15 ft. away from my
neighbors property. We could put a little retaining wall, sort of, to hold it.
Trustee Larsen: I was speaking more of the off shore end. The grass section.
Howard Zehner: There is an angle that you have to keep. Valerie Scopaz of the
Planning Dept. said that it would have to be one to three ft. slope. We do not
have to much dredging to do around that spit of land. There is a narrow shoal
around that spit, but we don't even have to take that out. Thank you.
Mr, Neseak: I am a neighbor. I own the bottom that touches up against Mr. Zehners
property. I would like to know if he intends to dredge on my property?
Howard Zehner: No, I do not intend to dredge on you side. Unless you want me to.
Mr. Neseak: No.
side?
Ho ward Zehner: No that is not true.
property.
In other words you submitted plans which show dredging on my
The dredging only takes place on my own
Mr. Neseak: Oh, I understand, when I say on my side, that strip of land that
goes out, right where the basic part of the marina is and there is one side with
outboards on it. That is what I'm talking about.
Howard Zehner: Do you know where the two spaces are? (Tape not audible.)
Mr. Neseak: In other words you are going to dredge on that side towards you then.
Now you are going to come out with a 400 ft. slip straight out in front of my
property?
Howard Zehner: I don't know how long it is off hand? (Tape not audible.)
Mr. Neseak: A good part of your boats will go over on my property?
Howard Zehner: We share that area.
Trustee Krupski: On the potential r.o.w how far does thai extend?
Howard Zehner: That r.o.w, was put in the deed. The original piece and and right
angle showing on the map.
Mr. Neseak: My objection to this is that the dock is out to far, if there is a
prevailing wind and boats come along all of this stuff is going to collect there.
Howard Zehner: I am going to construct the docks so that they are floating so that
nothing will collect under there.
Trustee Smith: Are there any other questions?
Page 12.
Public Hearing in the matter of Peconic Associates on behalf of Youngs Marina
Christopher Kelley: I want to respond to some points. First of all, I am not
aware that the application for a motel/restaurant has been withdrawn. I think
that it was put on hold, and I think that the correspondence reflects that. If he
is willing to state' at this point that the applicalton has been withdrawn and not to
be resubmitted once the new Zoning Code gets put into place then I think that it
puts a new spectrum on the application. The expansion, the fact that the shellfish
exists now with. the relative low scale marina that is there now, that does not mean
that it will continue to exist once the marina has doubled in size. The discussion
with two of the people who have made statements, well the plans are here, the
boats are over here, and there is not going to be an impact from one or the
other. We have to remember that this is all connected by water. Water carries
contaminants. I think on the environmental issues the documents speak for themselves,
the S.E.Q.R.A. doc~uments that the Town Board has. Mr. Zehner's point that he has
a r.o.w, does not eliminate the need for a variance. You can not go up to the
boundaries of your property with a structure, nor can you go within 15 ft. with it.
You just can not do that. It is a Zoning question. This property became "C"
Light Industrial in 1971, before that it was "B". Under the "C" Light Industrial
Zone marinas are premitted by special exception. This property does not have
a special exception for the marina. It has a special exception for a tennis and pool
club. Accordingly it is a preexisting non-conforming use. At a very minimum he
has to go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals to expand a special exception use.
That is case law. I have taken exception to the point that the removal of the spit
of land was the only objection to the marina activity. That was not the only objection.
I refer you to the document again. Another point that I would like to bring up, on
Page 12, Section 97-21 [J] of the Town Code it says "Before an application of the
Trustees is complete the documentary proof that all other necessary permits and
approvals have been obtained must be submitted." You can read it, it is in the
Code. I see the application, those other permits that are required including a
site plan, D.E.C. that the applications are being prepared. According to'the code
you have to submit documentary proof that those have been obtained.
Trustee Bredemeyer: How do we do that under the terms of S.E.Q.R.A.? That
kind of argumentation is ludicrous. We are required, if you want to do S.E.Q.R.A.
and coordinate, how can we do that then?
Christopher Kelley: It is very easy, the Planning Board has to complete the S.E.Q.R.A.
process because the Town Board referred it to the Planning Board. Site plan comes
first. Then you look at the whole plan. Then he goes to the Z.B.A. after he gets
the site plan approval. He can~: not come here, ~none of the other agencies have a
provision saying that all other permits first. Your regulations do. I will leave you
with that. Thank you for your time.
Trustee Smith: Do any of the Trustees have anything to say?
there any other comments from the audience. ( No response.)
this public hearing. (8: 57 P.M. )
(No response). Are
Then I will close
Ilene Pfifferling, Secretary to Board of Trustees
PUBLIC HEARING
OCTOBER 29, 1987
IN THE MATTER OF
RICHARD ZEIDLER
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE TOWN
TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, AT THE SOUTHOLD TOWN HALL, MAIN
ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1987 ON THE FOLLOWING
APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE WETLAND ORDINANCE
OF THE TOWN.
Present were:
Trustee Henry P. Smith
Trustee John Bredemeyer
Trustee Albert Krupski
Trustee Phillip J. Goubeaud
Trustee Ellen M. Larsen
Ilene Pfifferling, Clerk
Trustee Smith: In the matter of the application of the Land Use Company on
behalf of Richard Zeidler to construct a swimming pool with associated decking as
per plan and to excavate approximately 115 cu. yds. Property is located at
100 McDonalds Crossing, Laurel. Is there anyone who wishes to comment on this
application of Mr. Zeidler, for or against it?
Mrs. Walker: It is becoming increasingly apparent that if you allow this situation
to continue we are going to loose the enjoyment of our home and property. The
whole thing that has been allowed to escalate out of all proportion and in direct
opposition to your rules and regulations so stringently applied to the rest of the
populous. Our neighbor's property has become a trash stop, a health hazard, a
breeding place for rats and rodents, and an eyesore. It is robbing us of our
rightful pleasures and real values. You have pictures of the spiteful actions he has
taken against us in protest of your stop work order. He seems to have taken car. re
blanche to feel that you will let him do anything he chooses. Is this true? Are his
political affiliations so strong that people like us don't count? First you gave him
a waiver, negating the due process of 'a public hearing and our right and opportunity
to protest. We still can't understand why. Then you stipulate the dimensions you
he applied for must be adhered to, 26' from the house 30' from Brushes Creek. In
complete defiance he went 39 ft. from his house and came within 17' of the creek. In
so doing he invaded our deeded eye wew easement. He was subsequently issued a
stop work order nine months after he started. In August we challanged his application
finding out many inaccuracies and false statements. Instead of investigating it for
accuracy you valiclated it by acting upon it. I don't think there is another person in
town who could have submitted a publicly discredited application to this board and
created not one iota of curiosity about it's contents.. Quite frankly, I don't think
that it is even legal for you to proceed with this application before authenticating
this application. In September the (tape not audible) with this misrepresentation
by proceeding with an environmental assessment. You' said that it was of no impact
but recommended he remove the encroachments from our easements. When we stated
that it was wrong to act on this invalid application you indicated that ~ve should be
greatful for your concern. The truth of the matter is that he violated your rules and
broke the law, and in so doing subsequently invaded our easement. You have all lost
sight of the real issue here, complete contempt for your agency, your r+~les and the law.
Page 2.
Richard Zeidler
Are you going to let him get away with this. He submitted a plan a:
built something entirely different. He went 13' farther from the h~u
was permitted. He went 12' closer to the creek than he was allowed
8 ft. closer to the road than he was allowed. His total coverage exc
his land. He stated that he trucked out the fill when in reality he ]
toward the creek then brought in three more truck loads. He stated
an inground pool and it is 3 ftc. above the original ground level. HE
there was nothing in his deed that would prevent this construction.
is clearly stipulated in his deed and on the survey. The applicaltpn
set a prescient and you accepted his no. Why? If he can do this
else in the township build within 17' of a waterway? If you allow th:
for authority to go unchecked what is to stop anyone else? How abc
case? How about anyone else that comes before you? I can go on,
all of this. You have 11 pages of statements that we corrected an~
ignore? Why? Why do you require a wetland application at all if
is written on it? Is it that the person who is submitting it preempt
(tape not clear), ethichs prevades the codes of our Town. These E
to protect the public and the environment from any use and rights o
value. We have strived to use these codes to retain the peaceful en
home in its rea] value. It appears that projectorate is commensurate '
The wetland code says that there is no construction within 75' of a
he has done. The Town Code says that all swimming pools are to b,
back yard. A variance to place one elsewhere can be applied for or
is impossible ora hardship. It was neither impossible or a hardshi
to conform. ~ (tape not clear) Both agencies went out on a limb for
Trustees particularly. You did not allow a public hearing. Still in
accepting this special treatment gracefully, he abused and embarras~
He defied your generous perimeters and taking more. Mr. 7.eidler s
allowed to do this. He took a risk. He gambled that you would
dimensions. That pool should not have been put there in the first
~d they
se that he
He went
eeds 20% of
lad it pushed
he was building
stated that
When our easement
asks will this
hy can't anyone
s gross disregard
ut the Gambino
)ut you know
rOU chose to
don't care what
it's contents.
odes were written
[ enioyment or
Oyment of our
vith politics.
reek, look what
.~ placed in the
ly if the conformance
for the Zeidter's
.ira. You the
stead of
ed both agencies
~ould not be
check the
flace. Now that
he refuses to play by the rules it should be taken out. Don't bring up financial
harships that were mentioned before. If he was concerned with the financial aspect
he would never have jeopardized investment by going beyond the law. He would have
adhered to the specifications submitted and that were approved. If he isn't concerned
with the cost you should not be. Make him abide by the rules. Concern yourself
with justice and your duty, not politics. He is wrong. You: know it, we know it,
he knows it. Wetland Code Chapter 97-32 - Hearing on Violation, Par. 3 states that
a person shall be given an opportunity to show cause why such violation should be
modified or rescinded. He has shown no cause. This is being treated as an ordinary
hearing which it is not. It is answering gross violations. There have been no
reasons given to clear the violations. If any of you studied the latest survey that
was submitted, it's dated October 7th. It was noted after the no impact assessment
was determined. Each one he submits shows something new. This one shows a
4 ft. by 10 ft. propane gas tank to be buried about 12 ft. from the creek. Is this
permissable? There was never any mention of a heated pool or with enclosed machinery.
There was not mention of buried gas tanks on the property. This thing keeps mushrooming
How much more can be added? Is the gas tank permitted so close to the creek? What if
it corrodes and leaks into the creek? It is time to stop this nonsence. Have him take
out the pool. Put it where it belongs. In the back yard as per the Town Code. No
special considerations. If you haven't got that survey, I have a copy of it?
Trustee Smith: Does anyone else have anything to say regarding this application?
Mr. Glenn Just: My name is Glenn Just. I would like to point out a few things.
t~age 3.
Richard Zeidler
As per the request by the Trustees the plans were submitted. I would like to
also note that the Trustees have been on the site quite a few times. The patio
that was always there is at the same level of the pool. The patio has not been
raised. I would like to also note that the C.A.C. has recommended approval.
Thank you.
Trustee Smith: Does anyone else have anything they want to say?
Mr. Richard Zeidler: When we submitted our first plans to the Trustees, you were
the first body that I submitted to. First I went to the Building Dept. they told me
I had to go the the ZBA and the Trustees. I went into your office and handed you
what was drawn by Mr. Young. I then went to the ZBA. At that point my
neighbors asked to have the pool moved further towards the south which we did.
We did not come back and notify the Trustees.. We were asked to move the pool.
Trustee Bredemeyer: Will you clarify this? Were you talking pursuant to a waiver?
Mr. Zeidler: I got your permit.
Trustee Larsen: We didn't give you a permit.
]?rustee Bredemeyer: We waived it as we do with most swimming pools behind bulkheads.
Permission to do the job, was based on a survey submitted to us.
Mr. Zeidler: Then I submitted that same survey to the Z.B.A. the neighbors felt that
it was to close to the house and they asked us to have it moved to the south, which
we did. Then they came around with an order saying that you must have a fence
around 4 sides of the pool. The only thing that I think that I did, that I never got
a permit for was move the pool away from the house. I have a 6 ft. walkway, I am
4 ft. from the fence to the pool. When I moved the pool back I changed the permits
which you folks issued from the beginning.
Trustee Larsen: If I recall, Jay correct me if I'm wrong, we don't always give a
waiver for permits.
Trustee Bredemeyer: No, but most are by a case by case...
Trustee Larsen: In this particular case we were told that the woman has arthritis
and this is for exercise. She would like to swim.
Trustee Bre~demeyer: As far as if you made a decision based on someone's medical
condition, I think that that is very commendable of you. I look at the Code as
something to protect the creeks, I'm sorry I didn't care who had arthritis, I'm sorry.
Trustee Larsen: Protecting the creeks, and as you said John, when Henry took us
there that was what was said. The permit was granted based on the plans that you
submitted to us. When the application was also brought to us there was never a
mention made that there was a scenic easement guarranteed to the people across the
way from you.
Mr. Zeidler: When I'm finished with this I will not be in their scenic easement. I have
a deck, and the deck that I have is not above the ground level. When I put my
fence up it will be behind their scenic easement.
Page 4.
Richard Zeidler
Trustee Bredemeyer: The deck appears to be substantially higher than the
native grade that we walked on when we made the first determination.
Mr. Zeidler: The area is exactally the same as my front yard. My fron.t yard
I have not changed at all. My deck in the front I have not changed at all.
Trustee Krupski: We are talking about the grade on the creek side, between the
creek and the house.
Mr. Zeidler: There is nothing I can do. It is water. I could not put the pool
below the grade?
Trustee Bredemeyer: It's counter to what 5 Trustees saw out there. What you are
saying runs counter to what 5 Trustees saw out there. The grade appears
substantially higher. You carried the level out at the deck, now it shows that it is
in the scenic easement. That grade' level is higher than what we have encountered
when we made the original assessment when we walked the property.
Mr. Zeidler: I said that I would take that away from their scenic easement.
Trustee Bredemeyer: And what about the trash? The garbage that was left there
for over a month and one half?
Mr. Zeidler: The trash?
Trustee Bredemeyer: Yes, the trash that was left there out in the open, it seems
like a terrible state of affairs.
Mr. Zeidler: On two occasions, your Bay Constable came and would not let us touch
anything at all.
Bay Constable Dzenkowski: I haven[t been down there when there was any garbage
there? I don't know what he is talking about.
Mr. Zeidler: The building debris comes from my swimming pool and the hot water
and the water tank was put there about two months ago. When I clean this up
I will take a truck and clean this all up.
trustee Larsen: The Town Attorney, Mr. Yakaboski, states that the scenic easement
starts at ground level. The applicaiton that was submitted states that the fill will
be trucked off the site 115 yards. Actually with the excavation that occured, nothing
was ever trucked off so there was 115 cu.yds, left on the site plus according to
MRs. Walker three additional truck loads of 21 cu. yds. each of sand was brought in.
Which raises it to 136 cu. yds. of fill which significantly raises the ground level over
the scenic easement. There is a direct conflict when you say on the application that
the fill will be trucked away. Yet the pool is sitting there the ground level is raised
three ft. the scenic easement is interfered with and the waiver that we gave you
is exceedid by 13 ft. on one side and by 12' on the other side. The ZBA Ordinance says
it should be behind the house. Which could be from lack of coordination between us
we were not aware of I'm sure. It lust seems to me that the Board granted you a waiver
and there was either through your ignorance or mistake, we have clearly a problem with
the dimensions of the size of the pool.
Trustee Krupski: And the location..
Page 5.
Richard Zeidler
Mr. Zeidler: That pool is the exact size that I asked for in the beginning.
Trustee Larsen: We all measured it.
Trustee Bredemeyer: Ellen, it is the same size pool, but the pool was moved out
from the house.
Mr. Zeidler: I was told by the Building Dept. that as long as my deck was even with
the what do ya call it, it made no difference. The walkway that I have there is the
same height and the same width as the walkway I had there originally. I had a walk
way around my house.
Trustee Krupski: When we gave you the waiver, and we looked at it and saw the
effect that so many feet of pool, and walkway, and patio combination would have
on the area, that was quite different from what exists now.
Trustee Bredemeyer: 26 verses 39 ft. was the measurement. We taped it off.
Trustee Smith: The first one, the pool itself extends past that.
Mr. Zeidler: The pool is 16' x 32'. I went to the Building Dept. and they said as
far as my deck is concerned, it is the same height as the ground level, I didn't
need a permit for it.
Trustee Goubeaud: The Building Dept. What were saying is that we issued you
a permit for the pool to be in a specific location based on a survey, you moved the
pool.
Trustee Smith: Waiver.
Mr. Zeidler: I was told to do it by the ZBA because the neighbors asked me to.
Trustee Goubeaud: Fine, then you should have come back to us. The waiver was
given for a specific location, sir.
Mr. Zeidler: No one told me that.
Trustee Larsen: I think that this is to a point that we denied the due process by
granting you-the waiver. We gave you a waiver, the waiver was not adhered to.
This woman lost her eyeview easement which they are guaranteed in their deed.
If that happened to me and I lived across the street, I would be damn mad myself.
I would want to know who that person was that they coUld just do that. They did
not have a permit to do that. You have the right to appear before the Board to
request a permit and that is the purpose of the public hearing right now to discuss
all of this.
Mr. Zeidler: If the height of the view easement is the question, I will dig that
part down to where it originally was so that they have their view easement exactally
the way it was before. It shows on the corner here. It was only the corner that
I have to dig down.
Trustee Krupski: That is only one of the questions.
Page 6.
Richard Zeidler
Trustee Goubeaud: As far as I am concerned, sir, you violated our agreement of
the waiver by moving the pool closer to the water. 1
M~. Zei.dler: [ was told that I could do that by the ZBA.
Trustee Goubeaud: The ZBA does not go and say what other departments can and
can not do. They are only concerned with ZBA affairs. The Building Dept. is
concerned with Building Dept. matters. Unfortunately, they go outside of their
]uris diction.
Trustee Smith: Just because we give you a waiver for certain dimensions and the
Board of Appeals says that you have to move it, that still doesn't erase out the fact
that we gave you a waiver for certain dimensions.
Trustee Larsen: The ZBA has worked with us long enough to know that they would
direct the person to come back here. They would never assume to say that the
Trustees would have no problem with it. They would ask for our memo and comment
from us or request that you come back to us. The problem with this that ~s worse
than anything is where the Board tried to expedite people's applications that we feel
that they warrant a waiver. We don't feel very often that we should hold someone up
for three months wt~en we feel that there will be no direct impact from the project
But it is situations like these when the board is stung, when adjacent property owners
come up to us in arms and we feel that does everyone in the future have-to suffer?~
Do we have to go out on a field inspection and say, can we not grant a waiver on this
particular property because their may be a problem with the neighbors. We want to
cooperate with the public, but we would like to assume that the public is cooperating
with us on the basis of honesty, cooperativeness, and a good working relationship.
This did not help anyone's situation at all. We have been known, in many instances,
to have people remove structures when they have either violated a permit or violated
a waiver such as this. So it doesn't mean that you can go ahead and do something
which is the prevalent attitudes sometimes.
Trustee Smith: Do you have a letter from the Board of Appeals, is it in writing that
they...
Mr. Zeidler: I listened to a lady talk about politics. When I moved into your
community, I have not played any politics what so ever. I haven't gone to someone
to pressure anyone. I haven't done anything after someone told me to stop. I ~it
with a home that I pay $5,200~a year taxes on. My neighbor has not one, but
two homes, and she pays a little over $2,000 a year. The same neighbor that is
giving me the problem with this particular matter, has a second house that is illegal,
that suppose to have a kitchen taken out that same neighbor has put an up stairs
in her home and stay in it and live in it without a building permit. That neighbor
comes here .~because she tried to steal a road. It went to'the Supreme Court and the
neighbors got tired and they wanted the road for ten families that live there. I'm
one of the guys that spent some time to try and make sure that the road was there.
That is the problem; I am not trying to do anything without proper;permits. I used
to be a Trustee myself, 10 years in the Town of Brookhaven. I respect you.
Trustee Smith: Thank you.
Mrs. Walker: [ am Mr. Walker, and I have a few things to show you. Before that time
we went to the ZBA when Mr. Zeidler wanted the pool. Mr. Goehringer said that he
Page 7.
Richard Zeidler
thought that it was the proper place for the pool even though we thought that it
wasn't. He didn't like the idea of the pool being to our property so close.
They guarrantee that they will move it back, not water side but back bay side.
As far as the 6 ft. deck I have a picture here showing the walkway before and I
also have photo's showing the fill being brougt~t in, before and after. I would like
to submit them. (brought them up.) He said that it was 6 ft. This was the fill that
was brought in. You can see on the pool where the dirt went. Here is another picture
of it. This is when he had two young boys put the junk in the front. That alone
will tell you that this man is not telling the truth now.
Trustee Bredemeyer: Can we keep these pictures?
Mr. Walker: We would like to have them back at some time~ That shows the story.
Mrs. Walker: You asked about the ZBA?
Trustee Smith: We will make copies of all the material.
Mrs. Walker: I have it here. There is to be no building construction any closer than
50 ft. to the front property line and no closer than 30 ft. to the water along the
westerly side. No encroachment in the eye view easement along the westerly side.
Screening along the westerly side bushes, etc. shall be maintained except for the
area within the eyeview easement. Lighting must be a mushroom type and
will not adversely glare. (Tape not clear. )
Trustee Smith: Thank you. Does anyone else have anything to say regarding this
application. No comment? Trustees?
Trustee Bredemeyer: Again, I would like to say that if we could get a commitment
from Mr. Zeidler now t.hat if we issued a waiver at this time that he could clean up
the mess while we consider the public hearing record. It would deescalate
some of the bad feelings in the neighborhood and try to clean us some of the mess.
Mr. Zeidler: The only thing I can not move is the big tank because it weighs a ton.
Trustee Krupski: Is it going to stay there forever?
Trustee Bredemeyer: What tank are we talking about. The inground tank, propane tank?
Mr. Zeidler: The propane tank.
Trustee Smith: We have your comments and we will consider them. Ilene will you
Trustee Bredemeyer: If we do anything it will be in writing, it will be specific you
can get it from the Clerk. If you get it you will be willing to abide by it.
Mrs. Walker: Does he need permission to clean up ~n front of his own house?
Trustee Bredemeyer: We have to take a look at it, to see how close to the creek it is.
I think that it would be advisable if the Board goes and looks at it again before we
make a determination.
~ohn Holzapfel: The C~C was concerned with the run off on the side going down
behind the bulkhead. We did approve. The way it stands now, we didn't know the
whole ~ssue. What went on before hand.
Page 8
Richard Zeidler
Trustee Smith: Are there any other comments? No comments~
close this public hearing in the matter of Richard Zeidler.
Hearing closed: 9:55 P.M.
Then I will
PUBLIC HEARING
OCTOBER 29, 1987
IN THE MATTER OF
GREGORY FOLLARI
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE TOWN
TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, AT THE SOUTHOLD TOWN HALL, MAIN
ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1987 ON I~HE FOLLOWING
APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE WETLAND ORDINANCE
OF THE TOWN.
Trustee Smith: In the matter of the application of Marie Ongioni, Esq. on behalf of
Gregory Follari to remove a natural berm to approximately 55 ft. wide, 9 ft. high
and spanning the widlh of the subject property. All material will be used to regrade
the plot to conform with the character of the. neighborhood. The property is
located on Sound Drive, Greenport. Does anyone have any comments fo make on this
ap plic ation ?
Marie Ongioni, Esq. for the applicant Gregory Follari: I simply want to urg.e the Board to
grant the permit so that Mr. Follari can may seek the construction on this property.
As the application states regrading this bluff will be in conformity with the neighborhood
and the surrounding plots.
Trustee Smith: Thank you. Did the CAC have any comments on this.
John Holzapfel: We recommended approval.
Trustee Smith: We didn't find a problem with it when we looked at it. We have to vote
on this, I don't see a problem. ARe there any other comments? No comments.
Marie Ongioni: Thank you very much.
Trustee Smith: I will close this public hearing