HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-04/21/1999MINUTES
April 21, 1999
PRESENT WERE:
ABSENT WERE:
Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President
Artie Foster, Trustee
Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee
Scott Hilary, CAC Chairman
Greg Yakaboski, Town Attorney
Lauren Standish, Clerk
James King, Vice-President
Henry Smith, Trustee
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, May 19, 1999 at 12:00 noon
TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 at 7:00 PM
WORKSESSION: 6:00 PM
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded.
ALLAYES
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of March 24, 1999 Regular Meeting
TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES
MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for March 1999: A check for
$3,020.72 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
II.
PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for
review.
III. AMENDMENT S/WAIVERS/CHANGE S:
Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of WILLIAM FELIX requests an Amendment to
Permit #552 to construct a 4'X 16' addition to existing walkway, which will result in a
walkway 4'X 52'; dock also includes existing 3'X 10' ramp and existing 8'X 24' float.
Relocate two 2-pile dolphins 16' seaward to secure float in new location. Transfer
Permit #552 from James Long to William Felix. Located: 760 Oak St., Cutchogue.
SCTM#136-1-39
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the Transfer of Permit #552 and to Table the
application for the dock, ramp, and float until soundings are available.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES
JOHN & MARILYN DEVEAU request an Amendment to Permit #4970 to add onto the
rear of the house as shown on the survey dated 2/4/99. Located: 1240 Glenn Rd.,
Southold. SCTM#78-2-30
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE POLIWODA
seconded. ALL AYES
Robert Brown on behalf of RAYMOND & BARBARA TERRY requests a Waiver to
construct a deck addition to their residence on the water side of the home, approx. 62'
from the existing bulkhead. Located: 610 Jockey Creek Dr., Southold. SCTM#70-5-11
TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE POLIWODA
seconded. ALL AYES
MARGARET E. BRYAN requests a Waiver to install a split-rail fence along westerly
property line including a portion within 25 ft. bluff line and to remove encroaching deck
and boardwalk built by neighbors at edge of the bluff. Located: Isabella Beach Rd.,
Fishers Island. SCTM#10-6-12.4
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded.
ALL AYES
ESKENDER EREY & ANGELICA BENGOLEA request a Waiver to extend the deck
(eastward). Located: 680 South Lane, East Marion. SCTM#38-6-7
TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE POLIWODA
seconded. ALL AYES
DOMINICK PARRELLA requests a Waiver to raise a porch roof approx, one foot and
add a front door. Located: 1275 Mill Creek Dr., Southold. SCTM#135-03-41
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE FOSTER
seconded. ALL AYES
Susan E. Long Permits on behalf of BELVEDERE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT,
INC. requests a third one-year extension on Permit #4346 for the construction of a fence,
geoweb access ramp, jetty reconstruction, relocation of existing dolphins and installation
of buffer piles and floats at the end of First Street, New Suffolk
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE POLOWODA
seconded. ALL AYES
IV.
PUBLC HEARINGS:
THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING
APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE
SUFFOLK TIMES. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO
ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.
PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF:
FIVE (5) M1NUTES OF LESS, IF POSSIBLE
Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of BERNICE LETTIERI, ANDREW LETTIERI
AND JOE GAZZA requests a Wetland Permit to improve an existing access road to 4
parcels. Located: 5 acre parcel off Main Rd., East Marion. SCTM#22-3-19, 20, 21 & 22
POSTPONED UNTIL NEW PLANS ARE SUBMITTED BY ATTY.
En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of THOMAS & PATRICIA NADHERNY requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 92' fixed timber catwalk with a 4'X 6' timber deck at
landward end and a ladder on the seaward end. Located: 1085 Pine Neck Rd., Southold.
SCTM#70-5-34 & 35
(Tape Broke)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: .... The problem is, is that this is a very shallow creek.
ROB HERRMANN: So what would the Board like to see here. A catwalk that ends
before the water and doesn't provide any dockage at all.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That will give him a right to get to the creek.
ROB HERRMANN: And not a right to dock a boat.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well you see that's what we've always wrestled with. You have
a right to dock, what size boat.
ROB HERRMANN: You can't dock anything in 0' of water. The point of this is just to
be able to get a small dingy or rowboat in at least a foot and a half of water at low tide.
That's all this is. Obviously you can't, you know, I mean this whole thing is designed,
when we go through the DEC and they say, well take off the float, and make it fixed, and
everything else the whole purpose of that is, even though the DEC, by law, can't regulate
boat size, that is what there are trying to do. And so they design the dock so that it can
accommodate typical large boats that would be associated with a floating dock.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it's not that simple. That's one side of the argument because,
the structure is over public property. Once that structure is built, the size of that structure
determines how much public property is going to be monopolized by one person. That's
the argument from our side. Not that the homeowner needs a big boat, and we're trying to
regulate the size of the homeowner's boat, it's that we're trying to regulate the amount of
private structure on public lands.
ROB HERRMANN: Well which is why we limited this to 30' from the shore with no
float. I mean that's the purpose of this proposal. I mean you're perfectly within your
rights to object to this too but at some point we have to know what is acceptable.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well it's case by case too. I can't say, and I think that's some of
the problems we had with SEQRA and the Type I! that the Town did it's own Type I!
list, and we went over this years ago when we abandoned SEQRA at one point, we'll call
those the good o1' days, is that if we, it's hard to set a standard for docks and say, this is
going to be unlisted, this is going to be Type II, because every location is so different that
it's hard to apply one length of dock for every property. That's really hard to do.
ROB HERRMANN: Well that's what I'm asking. Would the Board prefer to see the
catwalk cut back 30' and then put a ramp and a float to be consistent with the Permits that
were issued to the neighbors? There are only three ways to go. You allow a fixed dock,
you allow a floating dock, or you allow no dock. It's pretty cut and dry. We understood
the objections to the floating dock, and assuming the Board would still be willing to grant
homeowners in Southold the right to dock a boat, we went with the fixed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But ! think...
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Rob, did you look at the depths of those neighbors. The
homeowners? How much water depth do they have over there?
ROB HERRMANN: It looked like, the floats that ! saw, were on the bottom at low tide.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Of the neighbors?
ROB HERRMANN: Yeah of the one's that ! saw.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: See those Permits issued back then were mistakes.
ROB HERRMANN: Absolutely.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Well we don't make mistakes twice.
ROB HERRMANN: Absolutely, that's why you're looking at the proposal in front of
you now, with no float. That's the whole purpose of this.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But then you're looking at a fixed dock that's going to intrude, be
as intrusive as the ramp and the float, permanently though, not seasonally.
ROB HERRMANN: Well the objection to the float is that the float is on the bottom and
not that it's going to be intrusive. It's the same as a floating dock. What's the difference
between 30' of fixed catwalk vs. 6'X 30' float. ! mean if anything you've got a narrower
structure that's going to be open pile structures opposed to a solid float sitting on the mud
flats. That was my understanding especially of the DEC's objection. That's why they
started cutting out floats on these because they didn't want the floats resting on what they
call coastal mud flats at low tide. So that's what I'm saying. This is no attempt to try and
bamboozle you, this is an attempt to ......
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! understand. Honestly, in the field we did have a problem with
it, for that reason. It would be a permanent structure 30' out. Whereas those other ones,
they may have been mistakes made in the past, but it's a temporary structure 30' out.
Whereas this is a permanent structure. That was the problem. Yes, ! understand what
you're trying to do and it's legitimate. Well we can't vote on it tonight anyway. Do you
have the short form filled out?
ROB HERRMANN: No ! don't have it filled out because it wasn't a requirement of the
application.
GREG YAKABOSKI: Correct, that's fair.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So what can we vote on then? (talking) Are there any other
comments on this application? Do ! have a motion to Recess the hearing?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: So moved.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of CLEAVES POINT CONDO. requests a
Wetland Permit to install four 4'X 30' fingers, four 4'X 25' fingers and an 8'X 66' "T"
float. Located: Shipyard Lane, East Marion. SCTM#38-7-4.2 & 4.8
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor or against
the application?
JOHN COSTELLO: I'm the agent for the applicant. Cleaves Point. I just want to make
one comment. First of all, you've got to designate yourself as Lead Agency. Make a
motion to do that. The second thing is that you need to declare it Unlisted or Type II.
I've had probably about 30% or 40% of my docks declared a Type II. The others are
Unlisted. That's your option, and to delay the tactics.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, no, no. Did you say delay the tactics?
JOHN COSTELLO: Al, ! don't want to get into it to much and start an adversarial
attitude on the SEQRA process and everything else. We didn't have the courtesy of
knowing anything about this, not the least courtesy, you should've informed these people.
! would've done it to you, ! wouldn't do this to a dog.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Hey, ! didn't hear about this until 6:00 tonight when ! walked in
the door.
JOHN COSTELLO: ! apologize, Artie, ! only think it's too bad that you didn't because
you're a Board member. You should've known plenty in advance.
GREG YAKABOSKI: ! would just like to make a comment that on behalf of the Board
that this is an issue that ! have been researching and that ! brought this to the Board as my
opportunity to speak to the Board tonight at the worksession. ! was available to speak to
the Board tonight as to SEQRA and as to the Unlisted Actions tonight for the first time.
JIM FITZGERALD: Excuse me, we're required to give adjacent property owners two
weeks notice to come to a public hearing, but, you're not required to give people notice
when you're changing the procedure entirely.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: We didn't have the opportunity. This was just presented to us at
6:00 tonight and told on a legal side that this is the way we have to do it.
JIM FITZGERALD: Well, but by the presenter. ! mean there has got to be, at some
place in this ....
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well it's an awkward time frame. It was just brought to out
attention tonight, after all the research that Greg did and said that this is what you have to
do from this point on. Believe me, it's not something ! relish.
JIM FITZGERALD: I'm not talking to the Trustees. I'm talking to however said this is
what you have to do from this point on, from this moment on.
GREG YAKABOSKI: As to your question, this is simply one of the rules and
regulations, State Law, that has to be complied with. ! did confirm my research with
DEC counsel, and that's how it started. As to, if there is any requirement in the Law, you
folks are well aware of the Law, ! believe your on the business side, ! don't know your
name, under SEQRA rules and regulations, and you know the rules, that there is no two
week notice or ..... the two week notice is for public hearing, apples and oranges.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This delaying tactic thing, you've dealt with us for a long time,
we don't play any kind of games for what, for what gain to us. To delay something for a
month. What gain could ..... what good is that possibly going to do for us to have six
additional items on our agenda next month. This is no benefit to us. Believe me. What
good is that going to serve this Board.
JOHN COSTELLO: I'll save my comments for the end of the meeting.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any time.
MARK SOLOMON: I'm here on behalf of Cleaves Point. Once again I'm here to seek
approval for our Permit. This is now the third hearing that we're at. The first time we
were told informally, when we reviewed it in the office, that we should be grandfathered
in on the existing Permit. We came here with all good intentions to do that and we were
told that it was postponed and that we should fill out a Full Permit. The second meeting
we filled out a Full Permit and we were told that your new interpretation of a rule that has
been on the books since 1987 or so, which was again, the first time we ever heard that,
and now today, after meeting with the attorney two weeks and getting (can't understand)
of that ruling, and having the DEC, evidently discuss this matter with you and make a
recommendation that they move forward on our application, we are hearing yet another
interpretation. On behalf of what was just said, I don't know of any legal body or
government body that acts immediately based on telephone information and verification
of something that changes the means of an approval cycle that has been in session for a
while. Based on my application, we should've been approved three months ago now.
So, once again, we're being put in a situation to, need it be, held for further legal
requirements, based on the people filing for this initially, I think that's ridiculous, quite
frankly. We have existing dock facilities that have been in since 1983. We came to you
with a request to improve them in order to make them safer from wave action. We had a
wave curtain that was there that was damaged during severe storm water, not normal
storm water, and we are at sea, I guess is the best word to say right now, with what to do
with it. Can you react to the DEC in your review of our Permit that we have since filed a
revised drawing. Can you vote of that today based on what was done earlier. That is one
question. The other is that the Permit that we are seeking now is to install the fingers that
were originally permitted to us but we never built at the time because we didn't have the
need based on the amount of boaters we had. So it's really a question of are you going to
let us do what was allowed and what we were originally permitted for. As you know the
east dock is (couldn't understand) requesting this floating addition, not addition, but
floating improvement in design, and the neighbor to the west of us already has a docking
facility that is fixed that extends a good deal further south into the water than either of
our docks so it certainly can't be discussed on a navigational issue and I think that with
your permission I'd like to move toward getting you to move affirmatively on our behalf.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there any other comment, for or against the
application?
JOHN COSTELLO: I'm the agent for the Cleaves Point Marina. ! had discussions with
the DEC and I'm sure you are aware of, and it was discussed to reduce the size of the
overall dock from the requested 125', from 120'. If we considered reducing it to 100'
plus the wave curtain at the end it. That eliminated two of the finger piers and reduced
the size by 20'. We did make those adjustments, and mailed copies of those adjusted
drawings to Pam Lynch at the DEC and Laura Scovazzo the analyst. That request is said,
as a result of a meeting with the Southold Town Trustees and if we would do that, they
would approve it. ! talked with Chris Arfston, Pam Lynch, and Laura Scovazzo on it. As
soon as they got three original drawing copies, they would approve it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When we met out there, was it two months ago, you Kenny and I,
there was a dolphin laying on the beach? Was there that day some discussion of exactly
that?
JOHN COSTELLO: Discussion? The discussion was, there was a possibility that they
do not need, Cleaves Point Condominiums, did not need all the slips, that the alternatives
of reducing the size was something that, ! can't make a decision for them, but that was
suggested as a possibility, yes. Absolutely.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry. I'm looking for the original Permit. I just had it.
JOHN COSTELLO: ! also met with the DEC on that same day. They were supposed to
be there but they came later as you all know.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So you're referring to the Permit from 1993 where this Board
approved fixed pier, ramp, floating docks, floating wave curtain, proposed dock will
retain existing 9' 6" fixed inner section will extend existing 6'X 90 iA' fixed pier, and 6 X
235' float with an outer "L" of 6'X 32'. ! don't understand it. The overall length of the
proposed fixed pier is equal to the length of the present fixed pier, ramp, and float and
floating wave curtain. The tongue and groove wave curtain will be attached to the center
of the fixed pier and a 6'X 8' fixed platform will be added to the west side of the fixed
pier and the existing 3'X 14' ramp and (6) 6'X 20' floating docks placed on the west side
of fixed pier and secured by additional pilings. (11) pilings will be placed various
distances west of fixed pier; (5) pilings will be placed 20' east of fixed pier to create
slips. Is that the Permit you were referring to?
JOHN COSTELLO: No. That Permit, the one you just read, was a request for an
Amendment for an existing floating dock set-up that they had at that location. An
existing floating dock. All that was converted into the stationary dock, with the fingers,
with an "L", to breakdown the waves, piles, and the wave curtain underneath the dock.
Under an Amendment by the Trustees. That was the East dock. Again, as Mr. Solomon
said, when we first approached the Board of Trustees on this, we were told that it should
be applied for as an Amendment, we did. It was then determined by this Board, and it's
this Board's right, certainly, that the job consisted of more action and should be a full
application. Again, you exercised that right, and we proceeded with a full application.
Upon coming in here on the night of the full application, we were notified that the
CEHA, which is the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area, prohibited structures, again, ! was
ironed out to some degree, we both discussed it with the attorney, and we have gone
through that process. Again, we've come here tonight one, again with the application
that we thought was approvable, after many discussions with the DEC, and certainly
you've had the same discussions with the DEC. This is on the West dock, only the West
dock, and it only consists of floating docks. The floating docks that were permitted at
this location were not required to be removed. They could stay there, indefinitely, by the
DEC. They also extended out this far to 24' further than the original application of 120'.
We were allowed to go out to a fixed wave curtain by the DEC. That wave curtain was
destroyed, removed, not by me, and ! don't know when it was removed. That wave
curtain was over 100 and some odd, ! think it was 111 ', don't quote me on that because
I'm not quire sure of the footage, but it was well over 100' in length. It was put there in
order to make it safer. That's the intention now. DEC suggestion, ! had an open dialogue
with Pam Lynch, Laura Scovazzo, Chris Arfston, and considered reducing the dock by
the 20', eliminated the two finger piers, that is an acceptable thing to do, after having
discussions with the Southold Town Trustees on inspection. Previous inspections, I
requested that ! could be there, and again, we all have to work for a living, and that's
where we all are tonight. If this Board is going to take some action, ! wish this
Board..(changed tape), was a determination of this Board that wasn't necessary. From
this Board and the Board's counsel. Again, another favorable thing with this application,
as opposed to some of the other applications, depth of water is not an issue with the DEC,
and ! hope it's not with this Board. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone else like to speak.
MARK SOLOMON: Just to show you what has been going on over the years, this might
be helpful. This was the first of the docks designed by Manny Kontokosta as the
originator of the community in 1982. We immediately installed, or he installed ! should
say, just the main float in each case. Never the fingers. He knew that was a problem, we
brought it to your attention, or the Board's attention, way back when. That was enhanced
to this in 1984, amended. He put in the wave curtain at that point, but never put in the
fingers. This was all at his expense, the community wasn't sold out ...... Years later, 1993
! think it was or 1994 when we came in front of you, we put in an amendment to change
this dock to this dock and if you remember we put in splash boards under here to break
the wave action which is presently that way. Storm and wave. By design, this took all of
the boats that are now on the west side of this dock instead of the east end of that side,
and made it 100% acceptable to everybody. It's a perfect solution to what we had going
wrong with getting on and off our boats. We now, instead of going to you and asking for
another fixed "T", we said, this really handles most of the storm water, the only problem
we have is handling wave action which is this way from boats going across here. So we
want to make this a heavier float of steal construction, instead of wood construction, in
order to knock down the wave action, and at this time we would like to add some of these
fingers, in order to again, improve by design the capacity of it. It is shorter than
originally recommended, we have two less slips based on the so-called compromise that
the DEC and you guys worked-out two or three weeks ago, and we would like to move
forward. ! don't this infringes on any new laws, new interpretations, and as ! said this is
the third time we're appearing before you for this very Permit. ! hope that clarifies some
of the thinking that has gone into it in the past.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment?
SUE HALLOCK: ! manage the condos and ! just want to make a comment from the
standpoint of our area being critical for scalloping. I've been in the condos since August
of 1983 and I'm on the grounds pretty much five days, sometimes seven days a week,
especially more into the season, but as far as the scalloping season, ! can never recall
seeing a scallop boat out front scalloping in our boat basin. And that is in 15 years. Now
that doesn't mean to say that somebody slipped in there, but I've never seen anyone there
in all that time, and ! just wanted to make that comment.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
SUSAN LONG: ! guess ! just have to get up here and say that I'm a little befuddled
tonight. I've been working the permit process for over 11 years and when ! submitted
this application ! thought it was a piece of cake. ! looked at it, ! went back to the records,
and that's my job, to look back, research, and see what was approved. And, when !
originally submitted the amendment, ! thought everything was OK. I'm somewhat
surprised tonight that it's still ongoing, ! don't quite understand, and ! would hope that
you guys would do whatever you have to do, Lead Agency, whatever, just get on with it
and let's get some approval here. ! honestly don't see anything wrong with this
application and ! say that through my past experience. There have been application that
have been put before me and ! can readily say, Oh no, this isn't going to fly. This one
came to me and, like ! said, ! thought it was a piece of cake and I'm really surprised. !
hope you conclude it quickly and in a favorable way. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
JOHN COSTELLO: I'd like to submit this. It's a copy of the letter that ! sent to the
DEC, and when ! sent it regarding the ongoing discussion with them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Not to answer all of the comments, but one of the
reasons why we asked for a full application was because when these structures were
originally permitted, ! personally felt that it was a mistake that it was way too much of an
intrusion into public lands. We didn't, ! didn't feel that we should just give it a quick
amendment to something that ! felt was after the fact of a mistake. ! think it would've
been unfair to what ! presented in Chapter 97 to do so. Having said that, Kenny do you
have any problem to what is basically a compromise, taking 20' off and putting on the
float.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yeah, ! agree with their compromise with two stipulations.
All floats be removed by October 1st, and all swim floats be removed by October 1st as
well within the basin.
MARK SOLOMON: Before you discuss that, can we just talk about that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. Absolutely. Just one second. Here is a letter from 1995
saying, RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Trustees grants a one-year
extension to Permit #4224 as amended with the condition that the floating docks be
removed by the first Monday in October of each year.
MARK SOLOMON: And, we have complied with that on the East dock, each and every
year.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But this would be a condition going onto the new floats.
MARK SOLOMON: We understand that and that's what I'm just here to discuss with
you. Is there a precedent with that other than in our community for other people to
remove their docks by October lSt? Ken, ! guess ! ask you this question.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Well we don't face marinas, establishing new marinas, over
scallop beds.
MARK SOLOMON: These are not new marinas. These are existing marinas. Since
1982.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Expansion of floats.
MARK SOLOMON: This is not expansion.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You're covering more surface bottom.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But ! think what your asking is that most marinas aren't located
in traditional shellfish areas.
MARK SOLOMON: I've been there 18 years now. I've seen scallopers working the
area from the open waters and into, between the(can't understand) dock and the
breakwater and I've seen them out in the other waters. I've never seen them in our area,
ever, with or without our docks in place, and the amount of coverage that we're
extending, compared to what we already have, is so minimal that we probably would be
scalloped out in one or two passes if that. To put that restriction on our community (can't
10
understand) well into late October, November, is definitely an inconvenience or more to
us. ! believe this is unfair and ! wish you would reconsider that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we have the resolution from 1995, so you're saying that you
don't want that condition place on the new ....
MARK SOLOMON: That's correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And, is there a date that would be ..... December 1, would that
be...
MARK SOLOMON: December 1st would definitely be approved. Yes. That would be
fine because we're not commercial fisherman. We're not into it later than that in the
season. But, we should have the rights that other people have in the area to enjoy a full
boating season. Because, where would we go, as of October 1st, when we abandon it,
when we're going to be using it for another month to six weeks. Last year ! had to rent
more space at a neighboring marina to keep my boat. ! kept it at Orient Point at expense
$350.00 for a six week period or a five week period. ! think that is unreasonable when !
own waterfront property with dockage.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, that gets into the argument of, if you remember the last
application, of a private structure over public bottom. But, your argument, however, is
reasonable. Ken, would you have any problem with December lst?
MARK SOLOMON: ! plead with you to be reasonable.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That would only be on the middle structure.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yeah, ! know.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And that would give, whoever wants their boat later into the
season an opportunity to do so. Most everything would be out.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: ! don't see that unreasonable.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Artie?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: No, ! have no problem with that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ok. Now we can't give you an approval tonight.
MARK SOLOMON: Why? This is a process that started three months before this
change in legality.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Unfortunately, it's not a change in legality, am ! right? It's a
change in the interpretation of the legality.
GREG YAKABOSKI: It's a change in the understanding and I'm not sitting in your
shoes, but ! think tonight the two applications that have been the most frustrating, would
be your application, and ! know that Mr. Costello represents a Nancy Walzog, which is
also one that has been on, other than those two, ! believe, all the other applications before
the Board this evening, are on for the first time. It's one of those things, again ....
MARK SOLOMON: This is our third time. It should've been approved three months
ago.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, not necessarily, but ! can't see where the Board has a
problem with this. I'd like to close the Public Hearing and have it closed and just vote on
it next month, because ! don't think the Board has anymore concerns over it. But,
because of our change in the SEQRA review, there is a problem with voting on it tonight.
JOHN COSTELLO: That's certainly your prerogative as a Board. ! hope you expedite
whatever legal prerogatives you have. And that's one of them. I'd also like to have you
declare yourself, on this application, as the Lead Agency, and ! would like to also have it
11
declared as either a Type II or an Unlisted Action. I think you can also specify in your
resolution what your going to require for that action. It happens all the time. Counsel?
GREG YAKABOSKI: Tonight, ! think with the Board, ! believe the Boards going to
consider the simply classifying it as an Unlisted Action, then ! believe, we don't have to
classify themselves as Lead Agency tonight, that can also be done at the next meeting,
and ! don't foresee it slowing up your application.
JOHN COSTELLO: Who declares Unlisted or Type ! or Type II? The only Lead
Agency does that, makes that classification.
GREG YAKABOSKI: No, when the project comes in, the initial Board... let's say for
example, a project needs DEC, ACE, and Trustee and Town Board approval, let's say for
example. The application comes in, at first lets say, to this particular Board. This
particular Board would give the classification. Type I, Type II, Unlisted. It's going to
work out fine. I'm always willing to stand corrected.
ROB HERRMANN: The only reason it's significant is because on this application the
DEC has probably already rendered the SEQRA determination and Lead Agency. If
you've gotten as far as a notice of complete application, which is sounds like you have.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So does that render our SEQRA determination moved at this
point?
GREG YAKABOSKI: Did you receive notice from DEC as Lead Agency? ! think that
the most prudent and wise course of action, and ! think it's in every Board's and
applicant's best interest is to follow the course set forth tonight. It's simple and it's the
best thing to do, and that's my advice.
ROB HERRMANN: I'm just trying to help. I'm not trying to undermine you at all. I'm
just saying ...
GREG YAKABOSKI: ! don't feel you are trying to undermine me. ! don't take it that
way at all and ! appreciate your comments. For example, let's say the DEC did declare
Lead Agency. If the DEC did not notify specifically and especially if they didn't send a
notice to the Trustees, it's defective. You know that as well as ! do. So, ! think your
comments through the entire evening have been very positive and ! appreciate. ! don't
mean to come across as ... ! obviously know what your talking about as does Mr.
Costello. ! just think that as far as the..looking at the docks and the way the Trustees are
reviewing the SEQRA process, ! think the most expeditious, in that especially an
application who was already become involved in the process, but tonight ! think this
would be the most expeditious manner in dealing with it. ! don't foresee this course of
action leading to any delay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Having said all of that, ! don't think the Board has any other
comment on this application. We would like to close the Public Hearing and maybe we
can just render a decision based on what was agreed upon tonight at next months
meeting. Now, during the Public Hearing do we declare Lead Agency during the Public
Hearing?
GREG YAKABOSKI: No after the Public Hearing. Normally what's going to happen,
as the applications come in, we're going to classify them. This is just for starting off.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Then do ! have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Moved to closed.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
12
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So the applicant is required to fill out the short form? And then
we can review that... I just am uncomfortable in, and always have been about trying to
expedite the process. What is the time frame on declaring Lead Agency? How long do
we have to wait now that we have to co-ordinate with other agencies?
GREG YAKABOSKI: You can do an Unlisted Action so that you won't co-ordinate
with other agencies.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In all fairness to the applicant, would it be possible to have a
sooner vote on this application, or any of these Unlisted applications before next...
But you only have...there is no meeting between now and next
GREG YAKABOSKI:
month. Correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI:
that possible?
GREG YAKABOSKI:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI:
GREG YAKABOSKI:
problem.
Well that's no problem. We can have a special meeting, but is
Yes it is possible. You can have a special meeting.
Yes, you know what I'm getting at.
The only problem is, is having a new meeting. That is your own
SUE LONG: Excuse me. Is it possible that you could pass a resolution approving a
project subject to the completion of the SEQRA process?
GREG YAKABOSKI: No.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is our approval going to hold you up in any other regulatory
place?
JOHN COSTELLO: I'll just make one other suggestion, not for now, this has nothing to
do with this application, I can see your concern, and it should be your concern, because
you represent everybody in Southold, but, delays can be a problem because seasons come
and seasons go and people want to enjoy the boating season, not in the winter, (changed
tape) simultaneously, declare the actual type of project, what form they wish to have
filled out, long or short, depending of what was determined, and concluded at the same
single meeting, either a negative dec or a positive dec, and approve it or disapprove it, all
into one meeting. Now there are two actions on every, and on Shelter Island I'm sure, the
Town Board in Shelter Island who acts, is the attorney ....
GREG YAKABOSKI: Which one? Is it Frank Tedeschi or is it Helen Rosenblum?
JOHN COSTELLO: Helen Rosenblum. They simultaneously do it which is expeditious.
GREG YAKABOSKI: Yes, I believe everything you're saying is a true statement.
JOHN COSTELLO: This Board may have wanted to ask .....
(Talking)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Artie and Ken, do you have any objections for a special meeting
in a weeks time? When are we supposed to meet with the CAC?
LAUREN STANDISH: Next Tuesday, April 27.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ok, we have to meet with the CAC on the 27th, so we'll meet on
the 27th for the special meeting and we'll render a decision provided that we have the
short form. We can render a decision for these six applications on that night. At least
that won't set everybody back.
JIM FITZGERALD: What about those that you already have an environmental
assessment form for? Can they be voted on tonight?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How many do you have?
JIM FITZGERALD: One.
13
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Which one?
JIM FITZGERALD: No. 6.
JIM FITZGERALD: I'm unclear about why there has to be this delay where you can't
vote on .... is because of the absence of the short form?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
JIM FITZGERALD: Oh ok.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We finished No. 3, and before we go on I'd like to call a very
brief recess, for about 3 min.
Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of NANCY L. WALZOG requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a 4'X 20' ramp from the top of the bulkhead continuing with a level
80' dock, 32"X 16' ramp, 6'X 20' floating dock secured by three 2-pile dolphins.
Located: 12832 Main Road, East Marion. SCTM#31-14-15
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of the
application?
JOHN COSTELLO: I'm the agent for the applicant. ! have a couple of suggestions for
the original application, and ! think that this Board, after ! had discussions with Mrs.
Walzog, and where we originally requested 8" pilings, (can't understand) with Mr.
Poliwoda's concern about the shellfish areas and it should be a concern. It should be a
concern to everybody in Southold. ! am going to try to resubmit and request to reduce
the size of the pilings, the size of the materials, and possibly, a request from the DEC that
we only make the inshore portion of the dock, a fixed structure that's permanent. It
maybe low, low water.., low, low water is approx. 55' from the bulkhead, presently there
are pilings that go out 47' that was the remains of an old dock that they used to have
there. OK. From that point on, I've had discussions with Mr. Hamilton that if they were
going to allow a dock, again, in that type of shoal, water conditions, the only thing they
would ever allow would be a removable, seasonal dock, because you know Mr.
Hamilton's stand on the depth of waters. Then there are the Trustee's concerns about the
length. So ! suggested that that be a possibility. ! think that this Board, making a
determination for less and having the portion that's out in the water, where the shellfish
area is, be removable on a seasonal basis.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could you have those plans for us by next week.
JOHN COSTELLO: Absolutely.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So that we can review them. Artie, Kenny, any comments on
that?
KEN POLIWODA: No, I'd like to see the plans.
JOHN COSTELLO: What it would be, it would be a reduction in size of the materials as
specified. We'll probably reduce 6" or 7" pilings so that when we pick them up .... we
have to try to attempt to keep the installation and the removal costs down so it's
economically viable. She would want to know the economics, over a period of time,
because if that is the only way that we would get a dock from the DEC, it may not meet
her needs economically that she use her property for a dock. She wants to make that
business decision based on the economics. So ! will submit these plans by next week.
KEN POLIWODA: How many pilings are we looking at out into the water?
JOHN COSTELLO: ! haven't counted them up. ! could tell you right now. Fifteen. !
put less of them in because it's less that has to come out.
14
KEN POLIWODA: My concern is not her business but it's for the environment
underneath where they're going to be putting those pilings in, putting them in and pulling
them out.
JOHN COSTELLO: Again, Mr. Herrmann said, DEC, on occasion, they, because of the
shoalness of water, they want a seasonal, and removable.
KEN POLIWODA: I'm not agreeing that we put fixed structures in there at all.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! think part of the reason they're behind this, and I'm..a lot of this
is a guess, I'm explaining for the DEC, is that some of these docks on the bay have
become unusable, or are unusable because of the wave action. Then we get into
situations of people needing wave curtains, and, ! don't know if you know what ! mean,
and other structures to break the waver energy, and if the structure is built and then not
used, say this structure is built as permitted, or any structure, and then not to use it really
because a monument on public land and a burden to the public because it's there
monopolizing that area. Any structure.
JOHN COSTELLO: Well right now they intend to use it. (away from microphone, can't
understand).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? Question? So we'll see those plans next
week. I'll make a motion to Recess the public hearing. We'll have to open the public
hearing when you bring in more information. Do ! have a second on that?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
JON KERBS requests a Wetland Permit to build a single-family home with a 30'
setback from the freshwater wetlands. Located: 400 Rene's Drive, Southold.
SCTM#54-6-4.4
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of or
against the application?
JON KERBS: I'm just here to answer any questions that you may have.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Looking at this survey ! noticed that the building envelope, the
one that you gave us, extends, in kind of an odd shaped line to the freshwater wetlands,
and ! was kind of wondering about that. That was something ! hadn't noticed when we
looked at it in the field.
JON KERBS: What ! had done on all of these lots is just to get an idea of the starting
plan and just took the setbacks. ! put that on there just as a starting point. But ! know
we're dealing with a setback in the front, a setback in the rear, and 30' from the wetlands,
and that's what I'm asking, if! could put it that area in there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Another question, ! think it's our goal here to minimize the
impact on those two wetlands. Would it be possible to move the house closer to the road,
in other words, further to the east.
JON KERBS: Well, if! go closer to the road, then I'll have to get a variance. It really
doesn't minimize anything. I'm right smack in between those two wetlands now. !
won't be any farther away from them by doing that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! thought the front yard variance was 40'.
JON KERBS: No, it's 50'. ! went down to the Building Dept. because of the big
"magill" about this, this was done under one acre zoning and then they did something
with the Code saying that when it was two acre zoning, they had to drop the setbacks for
two acre zoning, so I'm stuck with this. ! really didn't want this. ! was speaking to Bill
15
Moore who is trying to get them to change this whole thing. A few years ago I tried to
get something done about that and haven't gotten anywhere. So that's why I'm stuck
with these setbacks. ! wasn't happy with that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Another thing we talked about in the field...that proposed house
would actually be, more or less, the proposed building envelope then, the width.
JON KERBS: Yes, I'm asking for that because that's, you know, we need about that to
make a decent size house. Which the decks are going to have to be included in that also.
Actually, ! think it's a little small.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well there are certainly a lot of constraints on this lot. ! think
what our main concern here is, is just to minimize the impacts on the ponds and to make
sure that that is handled right. So this, before ! get Board comments, are there any other
comments?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: CAC comments?
SCOTT HILARY: We recommended Disapproval.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Why is that?
SCOTT HILARY: Why is that? This is an important limit resource in the Town of
Southold. If you looked on that, Soundview Ave., that corridor, these are habitats that
exist within that area and to fragment or to continually build or to make compromises
within them is going to definitely have a large impact in the long run, on these systems.
These are havens for frogs and salamanders, potentially the endangered tiger salamander.
We didn't do an inventory of the area, it's well within 100', it's 30' you're asking which
is right on the wetland system. We have concerns where the cesspool, ! mean ! don't
have the plans right in front of me, where the cesspool location is going to be, potential
run-off, and like ! said, in the Town of Southold, we're limited with our freshwater
resource. We have plenty of saltwater, and ! would hate to see this diminish and
disappear, making compromises.
JON KERBS: If! could comment on that. The cesspools are going right behind the
cesspools on all of the existing lots. The cesspools are right there and we putting them on
the same grade and the same place, exactly where the other ones are. ! can't see where
the cesspools are going to make a difference.
SCOTT HILARY: Well that wasn't our ultimate..
JON KERBS: Well it's not a pristine area. It backs right up to the neighbors.
SCOTT HILARY: Well that wasn't our ultimate decision obviously but we were
concerned with that. That impact. Just like when you build catwalks, by itself, a single
catwalk doesn't have a large effect, but cumulatively in surface area, it does have a
negative impact.
JON KERBS: What ! was trying to do with this is to put it right between the two. ! was
getting this through a recommendation from the DEC. It was one of the representatives
from the DEC, so that's where ! got this. So what ! was going to do with this full plan is
to minimize ..... as much as ! could and still have a building lot.
SCOTT HILARY: What was that recommendation? DEC?
JON KERBS: When ! spoke with the DEC they said that they would like to see it 30'
away from the ponds. After that they decided they had no jurisdiction and gave me a
letter of no jurisdiction. But just as a suggestion from their, ! don't know what his title is,
but their representative...to me we're minimizing the impact here and if you deny it, that
makes it not a building lot.
16
SCOTT HILARY: The other question I had was that there's an access road in there? Is
that correct? Was a permit given for that? Al? Do you know?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That road was built in the 70's. He just went in there and cleaned
the brush growing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's an existing subdivision.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were out there before it was cleared and Mr. Kerbs came to
us (changed tape).
SCOTT HILARY: Now if I'm not mistaken, the same applicant is building in the same
area?
JON KERBS: I'm in the process of getting permits on the other two lots.
SCOTT HILARY: And all of those lots have wetlands.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, one lot had no wetlands, one lot we approved the building
permit last month with a 50' setback, and the house was 85', so the house was non-
jurisdiction. But a 60' clearing setback.
SCOTT HILARY: What we don't want to see, if you go west of there on Soundview
Ave., west of Peconic Dunes Camp, there is a lot of that same system in there. If each
applicant tries to sneak a house in there, and you're setting precedent this evening in
allowing that to happen, we know what's going to happen in the long run. It's just going
to be a fragmented system with cumulative, potential, negative impacts.
GREG YAKABOSKI: What do you mean by a fragmented system?
SCOTT HILARY: When you put a structure, whether it's a catwalk, a fence, you're
fragmenting a contiguous environment, a contiguous habitat and potentially having
impact whether it's mammals or amphibians moving through a corridor system
depending on what type of season, whether they're laying eggs, or just moving in that
system to feed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This place here is already fragmented. You have the house right
there across from it on that road. Have you been up there?
SCOTT HILARY: That's the other thing. I did not see this. These are comments from
my board but I am very familiar with that area. I wasn't able to see the proposed
structure on site.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's a house across from that pond and then there's another
lot that they're going to put a house, that there's no wetlands on it at all. Into the west
you have quite a bit of development there.
JON KERBS: Have you seen the survey?
SCOTT HILARY: I have seen it. Can I see it again?
JON KERBS: I just want to show you was where there other houses were and were
they're cesspools were in relationship to what I want to do. This is approximately the
same grade. It comes up...they're lawns come up to about maybe 20' from here. 20' or
30' from this property line and then it's woods beyond that.
SCOTT HILARY: So you have the wetlands systems bordering both sides. How about
to the north?
JON KERBS: Well this is Dogwood Lane, or Hickory. This whole street is houses, and
two empty lots. But other than that I think there are 10 houses here, all with cesspools on
the back, all abutting this. So, it's not a pristine area. I think it would be totally
reasonable to put a stipulation in that there be no clearing and no development in all the
rest of this lot. Except for driveways in the front. But essentially if you don't approve
17
this, I mean this is the most minimum thing I can do, if you don't approve this, you're
saying it's not a buildable lot and this is an approved subdivision from 1978.
SCOTT HILARY: Well we're not saying it's not a buildable lot. We're just saying, you
know, this is an important area that needs to be conserved in the Town of Southold and
potential negative impact. Our feeling is that freshwater systems aren't looked at the
same as saltwater. Not to say that it's anyone's fault but just because we don't have a lot
of it in the Town of Southold and we don't get a lot of applications. But, we have very
knowledgeable people on our Board and we know how important these systems can be.
You know, that's dramatic saying there could be endangered species in there but we
couldn't say that without doing in inventory, but if we did, and found that, then you
would have some problems. We're going to stick with our recommendations and that a
recommendation to the Board of Trustees.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have any recommendation for any kind of mitigation?
You saw the plan.
SCOTT HILARY: You mean of the wetland itself?.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, because the way we saw it in the field, it will be actual 30'
no disturbance buffer.
SCOTT HILARY: What are the soils there? The hydrology. Have you done ...
JON KERBS: We got a test hole here and we're working with the Health Dept. right
now.
SCOTT HILARY: You mean your proposed building envelope, is it... are you going to
be able to build, is it wet?
JON KERBS: Yeah, it's buildable. There may be things you have to do .....
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Moving it closer to the road, ! don't know if it would be any
benefit because you would have...the development is in the back.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It doesn't matter because you have to go all the way through the
building envelope to get to the septic system anyway, so you're not saving anything.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you had a pristine area in the back of it, you would say "yeah"
move the house right up against the road but it's all developed in the back. So there's no
benefit to push it one way or another there. You're already maxed out in the back
already. We thought about that. We've been out here, ! guess before Artie and Kenny
we on the Board.
JON KERBS: At least two years.
SCOTT HILARY: Just in this area too, I've been on the Board for four or plus years, and
I've seen houses go in questionable areas. Over on Well's Ave is one case behind Great
Pond on the sound side. Another one is on Soundview Ave. We can see this, we always
want this to continue.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, ! agree. But, believe me, we've done a lot of looking at this
lot. We've been out there a number of times. This Board and past Boards. ! remember
our old Board members being out there a couple of times. John Holzaphel, Peter
Wenczel.
SCOTT HILARY: And there comments at the time were?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, you just try to mitigate it as much as possible. What !
would like to see on this is... are the elevations. We wouldn't the grade changed at all.
We want the final grade to be the same. The people in the area have a great deal of water
problems. Hydrology in the area, a lot of clay, a lot of water movement, in many
15
different ways. We walked through the woods last time we were out there and there's an
established stream bed, it ends, then it starts up somewhere else 20' over, it comes out of
the woods and joins it. It's not like it's sand, so you can figure it out.
SCOTT HILARY: That's the other concern, hydrological flow underneath the soils from
system to system.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't want to see that change at all. We wouldn't want any
fill brought in an we wouldn't want the final grade, in fact, I'm kind of considering
having the fill from the excavation taken out, whatever is not needed around the
foundation because ......
JON KERBS: I think as you get in there, you're going to have to work with it a little bit.
I can see the point about there being a whole lot of fill in there and not using the whole
area but at some point you're going to have to work with this whole ...... when you start
digging things out and you start seeing what the soil conditions are and you have to start
having an idea on how deep the foundation is going to be. I'm not looking to be able to
go nuts in there, at all. But I think there should be some leeway as you get working and
you dig a hole and you're all set to go and you've got the carpenters coming next week
and you decide that you want this thing up a little higher, and then you're going to take
some fill and put it around the foundation and level things up. As it comes into the front,
it comes down to it, you're going to have to have it so that all that water doesn't run right
into the house. I'd like to see this cleared up so that we're not in the middle of this and
then we have to come back to the Board.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Maybe you should go out and dig a big hole. Get either a
backhoe or bulldozer and dig a hole down to where you think the foundation, final grade
of the foundation is going to be, the cellar, or even deeper...
JON KERBS: A lot of that is going to be determined by the kind of house somebody
wants to build.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well with a backhoe you could dig a good size hole and just fill
it in, I mean, so that you'd know. Because I don't want to change, if you put a house
there and you don't change the topography, you really shouldn't change the amount of
water flowing off there, and out into the neighbors and whatnot. You shouldn't be
affecting them.
JON KERBS: I have to say, their concerns about water coming out of there are
unfounded.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well it's coming out of there.
JON KERBS: It just really is, it's coming out on their property, it's coming out on the
other property, it coming down the street, it's coming down both ends of Sound Ave., it's
coming down Hickory, and all of these people who are complaining, it's coming right
down out of their houses out onto the street, down there, down to $oundview and on back
across the street. It's just a problem in the whole area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No question about it.
JON KERBS: This house here is not going to ....
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, we don't want to see it contribute to it, that's all.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't believe it will.
JOB KERBS: I think Artie has some suggestions because he knows better than all of us.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is it Artie?
19
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well you have to set the house up, the elevation and the
foundation relative to the road.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: In doing that, you'd have a minimal amount of excavation there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, but we should see how much and then we could say you
have to take material out or is it going to be so minimal that you ....
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You won't be taking anything out of there. What you get out there
you'll have to use to shed the water around the rest of the house and away from the front.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But ! think we should have that on paper because like ! said
before, we don't want to...that's one of our major concerns here and, of this Board, and
on every application, on how the applicant is going to affect the ....whether it's a dock, or
a jetty or anything.
JON KERBS: There's nothing we're going to do there of short of going crazy. It's not
going to affect those other houses. It's just not.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we've seen it.
JON KERBS: ! mean they're crying. Let's face it.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: They just found somebody else to yell at.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well the hydrology there is kind of strange. But, ! think if we
address it then a house there won't affect the neighbors and then we won't have a
problem. I'm just saying, set your height and your foundation and dig a hole, you've got
a backhoe.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You know, Jon, the Health Dept. of probably going to require you
do a grading plan for them. That's all you have to do. Do a grading plan, bring it in and
take a look at it. I'll go back out and look at it again with you and we'll set up some
elevations on it. And that's all you have to do.
JON KERBS: The Health Dept. won't give me anything until ! get something from you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But you need the grading plan for them.
JON KERBS: They're not going to act on anything until they get an Approval from you.
This is the same thing. Everybody is sitting here waiting for everybody else to say yes or
no.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Who did you talk to up there?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Give us a grading plan and then we can say for sure, look this is
not going to affect the neighbors, put this house in...
JON KERBS: What would you see that wouldn't affect the neighbors? What would you
like to see there?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well 30' setbacks. And just a minimum amount of fill placed
around the house after excavation. Even if that means carting some of that fill off. So
what am ! going to do now when ! go to the Health Dept. and they want your Approval
before ....
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you give us a grading plan, and ....
TRUSTEE FOSTER: And if it shows a negative impact you'll get the Approval.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To be honest with you, in the field, ! thought we kind of worked
out that you were going to give us an elevation plan.
JON KERBS: To tell you the truth ! would've had this done by this meeting, if this was
something you decided you wanted.
20
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what I thought we wanted so we could see how the water
was going to flow off that. Can you get us that?
JON KERBS: ! could have but now my surveyor is in the hospital. ! have to wait for
him to recuperate. If I'd known you wanted it ....
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! think we asked for elevations out there though.
JON KERBS: If! had known you wanted, ! would've had it. ! always brought you
whatever you needed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Kenny do you recall any conversation like that? Maybe ! said it
to Kenny, or was it Jimmy or Artie.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: No we talked about elevations, but ! told you it wasn't going to be
a problem.
JON KERBS: The way ! understood it when we were out in the field, we kind of had an
understanding of what we had and, you know, ...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we had an understanding on the setbacks, but ! did have a
concern about the amount of fill and where it was going to be placed and all of that, and
Artie said that there was not going to be much fill because you're not going to be digging
that big a hole.
JON KERBS: That's the point, the practicality of this whole thing, is that you're not
doing a whole lot there. You're just not. You're just doing what you got to do. And
that's the reality.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: There's only a certain kind of house you can put in there because
of the limited amount of lateral room and elevations.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! think we should still have a grading plan before we can approve
it.
JON KERBS: That's fine. ! would appreciate it if you would've told me sooner.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! apologize. ! thought there was discussion about grading plan,
not grading, but elevations in the field.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll do it with you, Jon. We'll put it on the survey.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? Do ! have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Motioned to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
JON KERBS: You'll end up meeting on this next month? Do you think next month
(tape changed)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! think it's something that we really need to do there. Because
that's one of the big concerns there is the water flow.
JON KERBS: Again, ! don't think, anything that you do there is going to make much of
a difference.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what we want to make sure of, that it's not going to make
a difference. They have a problem already with nothing there. Now when you go to the
Health Dept. they might change it on you and then you'll have to come back to us. That
has happened in the past. They'll get Approval from us and Health Dept. says "no" than
you have to come back to us. We usually go with what they say. They have the final say
on the septic system.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: They may want an approved septic system before they'll issue a
permit.
21
JON KERB S: Any way to get the Approval so if they say to me next week, you can go
in there and dig this hole out for the cesspool that you would allow me to do that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well that's kind of what I was asking for before was for you to
dig a hole to see what you're faced with. I have no objection to someone going in and
doing something so everyone can see what's going on there as opposed to going in blind
and giving a Permit for something and then your start digging and then you're like, Oh
my gosh.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well there's a test hole there. There's no secrets as to what's
there. The hole you'd have to dig would be for the septic system. You'll probably have
to go down 50', right? Isn't it something like that? Once you break through, you'll get
an approved septic system. You're not going to hit sand in the foundation area. I'm sure
of that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, when is the meeting next week? Is it Tuesday?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Tuesday. Well get the grading plan done and we can approve that
on Tuesday, and he's good to go. Right?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, we closed the hearing on that.
Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of SCOTT PATCHELL requests a Wetland Permit
to construct a 4'X 6' platform attached to existing bulkhead, supported by two piles; 3'X
16' hinged ramp; 6'X 20' floating dock secured to galvanized pipes attached to seaward
side of piles of existing bulkhead. Located: 1075 West Hill Rd., Southold. SCTM#70-
4-24
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the
application?
JIM FITZGERALD: I just want to add that the application includes the Environmental
Assessment Form, but I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One thing we didn't understand. We want a buffer between the
turf area and the bulkhead so that all your nutrients don't run directly into the creek, and
part of that is, as submitted, part of that is done. There is a buffer there. However there
was a pile of sod laying right adjacent to that area and we were kind of concerned about
that.
JIM FITZGERALD: He removed sod.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well it was kind of ....
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think it was there to be installed. Not removed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what it looked like.
JIM FITZGERALD: Are you referring to the last permit that you issued.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, this one here. If you look at your pictures, there is a pile of
sod somewhere along here that looked like it was going to be installed.
SCOTT HILARY: When I was there, it was partially installed.
JIM FITZGERALD: Removed, partially installed sod.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would like to see a 10' non-turf buffer area there.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well there had been some wash-out there, wasn't there?
TRUSTEE FITZGERALD: I'm unclear as to whether it's related to the dock application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well related to the general environmental review of it, location.
JIM FITZGERALD: What about the neighbors.
22
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well the neighbors have a problem. But, every time we get to
the neighbors, then we make them install or uninstall. That's pretty standard. Now, that
was our big concern on the project. Did anyone else have any concerns?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No, just a 10' non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So you have a completed short assessment form,....
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well you won't go out of here emptied handed anyway.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, we have completed the short form. I think we have a
quandary here because we have to close the hearing and we can't vote on it and make it
Unlisted and we can't make it Unlisted until we vote on it. (talking with Greg)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any other comments before we close the hearing?
DAVID DEVLYN: I have a small comment. I live next door to this. There's a dock
everyplace around and the fact that most of the neighbors are so pleased that this dock is
being placed in a way to minimize the obstruction from the others. We are quite grateful
for that.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: We took note of that when we were there. As a matter of fact, that
was one of our comments that we wanted it out of the way of the channel.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Are you the neighbor to the south?
DAVID DEVLYN: Yes, at the end of the creek. To the south are the Geitmanns.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comments. Do I have a motion to close
the hearing?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Motioned to close.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to declare it an Unlisted Action and declare
ourselves Lead Agency and to give it a Neg. Dec. of environmental significance and to
grant Approval of this application.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of CHARLES & BARBARA RODIN
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 196' CCA timber dock, 3'X 20' ramp, and a
6'X 20' timber float. Dock is to be elevated a min. of 4' above grade and will utilize (48)
6"Dia. CCA timber pilings with a depth of penetration to be 8'+. The float is proposed to
be supported by (2) 8" Dia. CCA timber pilings with a depth of penetration of 10'+.
Located: 70 Strohson Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#103-10-16
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the
application?
DAN HALL: I'm with Land Use Ecological Services. I'm here to represent the Rodins
and I met with the Board out at the site and there was a concern regarding the
infringement on the wetlands and the length of the dock. I had done some additional
soundings and submitted them and I think that the proposed dock elevated 4' will cause
minimal effect to the wetlands.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Are there any other comments before I ask you some
questions? I met with Steve Pawlik and Mr. Rodin on Palm Sunday and we had a
discussion with Mr. Rodin, the same discussion that the Board had with you at the site of
the previous field inspection. The concern was for the, there' s an inshore channel there
and there's a public ramp. It's a pretty decent public ramp. Our concern was that the
Rodin's structure could possibly impede navigation to and from that ramp because of the
23
nature of the inshore channel and the sandbar just outside of that. Now you've given
me,...we also had a discussion with Mr. Rodin about the size of the structure and the
necessity of such a structure directly adjacent to a public road ending where there is high
and dry of paved access to that area from his house. ! had that discussion with him on
Palm Sunday and ! told him that, and his concerns were that because of the frequently
used ramp and the end of the road, his structure would become used by the public. Not
public property, but used by the public, which is a valid concern. ! asked him to look into
an alternative of going across, ! don't know if he mentioned this to you, of going across
the neighbors marsh from his property, to that narrow channel, that goes up to the north.
DAN HALL: Yes, he had mentioned that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ok. ! asked him to provide us with soundings, and he said he
would, going up to that channel, so to see if there was any difference in water depth
between directly in front of his property then to the side.
DAN HALL: Ok. The sounding we had completed were done at his property because
we walked further east and the water became significantly shallower so we stopped.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! meant around the bend. There are two other docks around the
bend. That's the location which would be a much shorter catwalk than it would definitely
take it out of the public's eye and the public's use.
STEVE PAWLIK: The only comment ! have is if you bring it all the way around the
bend, you're going over someone else's property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's right.
STEVE PAWLIK: Then, whose dock is it. They own that piece of property, now to
have to move the Rodin's dock over across on someone's property..
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! agree but that was just something that ! wanted him to look at
and consider as opposed to having a structure, what's submitted ....
STEVE PAWLIK: ! think we'd be inclined to move it a little further east and shorten the
length of the dock and ! think the dock would end where the wetlands end and the ramp
and the float, you know, you're eliminating quite a bit of dock structure and you can
certainly understand that he's not going to have 3' of water at low tide, and understands
that he only wants enough water that it accommodates 17' or 18' boat.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now these problems, ...what distance are they out.
STEVE PAWLIK: To the toe of the marsh.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, but ! mean, from the toe of the marsh to the last sounding,
what is that distance?
DAN HALL: (talking) about 60' from the west property line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Take a look at this Ken. (talking)
DAN HALL: If you put a dock across the Trentacoste's property, I'm sure they wouldn't
be too happy about it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, that would be something that he would have to go next door
and knock on their door and work with them about. Not, apply to without his knowledge.
STEVE PAWLIK: ! think in the future that's going to hold up or as Trentacoste tries to
sell the property. There are some legal things that could happen down the road. Now, if
they sell the property or maybe Rodin sells his property, maybe there's a squall between
the neighbors, you know, get your dock off my property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We've got a lot of requests (noise)..and was it an effort to keep
that dock off the road.
24
STEVE PAWLIK: I think we can move it to the east and get it away, shorten the length
of the dock, navigation won't be blocked at all. There are only two other houses to the
east of that would probably go out that way anyway, so it's not like it's a channel that is
used by a lot of boats daily. There's very limited boating in there and by shortening the
length of the dock and the ramp, ! think it's a compromise that acceptable to the Board
and the Rodins because he realizes that he' s not going to have deep water there.
DAN HALL: That's another reason why we put the dock in the location where we had it.
That's where we found the deepest water off of their property because that was more
acceptable to hopefully the Board and the DEC as well.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The original location puts it right next to the boat ramp.
DAN HALL: Right next to the boat ramp, right. That's where we found the deepest
water that's why we put it there.
STEVE PAWLIK: If we revise the plans and move it to the west ...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm just trying to find a location, and ! think the other thing is..
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Do you want my recommendation? Onshore/offshore mooring
stakes. ! don't see a reason to put a dock in this area. It's going to impede navigation in
this spot. (changed tape)
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: My point in putting in the mooring, the onshore/offshore stake,
if it is a navigation hazard, pull the stake right back out. Whereas if you put a dock, a
fixed structure and a float and pilings, you're permanent. Then you say you really
screwed up.
STEVE PAWLIK: How is he going to get to the mooring? Is he going to walk over the
wetlands?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He can walk on Little Neck Rd.
STEVE PAWLIK: He's got to get there. Last week we had not a real high tide but
above average high tide and ! went down to Rodin's property and it was flooded so if this
particular gentleman goes out on high tide, does he have to wear boots to walk over the
marsh to get to his boat? ! would also call attention to the Board that the Board approved
a similar type project that was next to a boat ramp that went over 140' of marsh which
was later then amended to 100' and that was approved within the last six months.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But that wasn't that close to the road and a ramp.
STEVE PAWLIK: The property goes right up to ....
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The property does but the ramp was a couple 100' away and
that's completely different than this.
STEVE PAWLIK: If we move the dock to the east it's not going to be right next to the
boat ramp.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: In that situation the channel runs right against the shoreline in
that ....
STEVE PAWLIK: That navigation hazard is there, is there at the Rodin property.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Well there's a sandbar offshore that's a ...
STEVE PAWLIK: ! understand but we're looking to cut down the length of the dock and
the ramp, we're not looking to go 196' and 20' ramp, we're looking to go 170' which
gets you to the end of the marsh of ramp with 14' length and 20' float. ! mean the overall
length is being reduced substantially, so we're not cutting off the channel we're just
putting a float on the edge of the channel.
25
DAN HALL: Plus, nobody would be coming in from the southeast anyway because
there's shallow water there. They would be coming in around from the northwest.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: If at all.
TRUSTEE KR, L~SKI: Well those were our major concerns when we went out there.
The ramp complicated things a great deal.
STEVE PAWLIK: If we can move the dock to the east, and still keep it down to 170', I
mean we're not looking to build a dock structure out into the water. Believe me, Mr.
Rodin doesn't want to build a dock that 170' over the wetlands if he, you know, no one
wants to spend that kind of money if he doesn't have to but the DEC is not going to allow
to walk over the marsh.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about a smaller dock, you know, size and height wise. It's
just so long.
STEVE PAWLIK: Well we're not looking to build a big structure. We're using smaller
piles then we would typically use, their just 6" in diameter, typically we would use 8",
the piles are going to be low, right off, maybe 6" above depth. We're trying to make it as
minimal as possible. He doesn't want to look at this thing, he wants to keep it as minimal
as possible.
TRUSTEE KR, L~SKI: You know the one I'm talking about. East of Chadwick's? Is it
possible to go with a 3' wide catwalk? Something low profile.
STEVE PAWLIK: The problem you have with a 3' catwalk, and we had this problem
years ago, is ...
TRUSTEE KR, L~SKI: But it's such a big structure, and I'm trying to minimize the
impact on the marsh because it' s so darn long.
STEVE PAWLIK: I understand that.
TRUSTEE KR, L~SKI: That's my concern there. If you put a smaller lower structure
there ....
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I have two comments. You mentioned the DEC would not
approve walking through the marsh. I think if you spoke to Chuck Hamilton over a 170'
of catwalk, he would approve walking through the marsh. And second, I'd like to see the
CAC comment.
SCOTT HILARY: We recommended disapproval. We would agree with the proposal as
Kenny just proposed with an alternative use of a mooring.
STEVE PAWLIK: It's ok to walk over the wetlands to get to a mooring.
SCOTT HILARY: Well I'm not saying that's the only answer.
STEVE PAWLIK: Well how to do you get from his property to a docking facility.
SCOTT HILARY: We identified, there's the public access. That was an issue that
played into our decision, where, maybe this isn't the best thing to do, there's public
access, maybe, we don't have to build this huge structure over this fragile system. I have
a silly question, but is Mr. Rodin the owner of this upper marsh.
STEVE PAWLIK: Yes, it's his land.
SCOTT HILARY: ! mean, aesthetics are always a concern but you really can't stand on
it too well. This area, as far as ! know, doesn't have a lot of these large systems in there
and once again, cumulative effect, we don't want to set precedence with everybody. The
land owner has a right to get to the water, but it is public property on that water system
and we don't want to see this, all these, like Gull Pond, Gull Pond is just a disgrace, what
has happened there. Those are our comments.
26
STEVE PAWLIK: In response to the DEC and walking on the marsh, within the last 4
months, the DEC approved 250 docks all over marsh elevated 3 lA ' above marsh.
SCOTT HILARY: Just to give you our view point, you mentioned, you referenced
Richmond Creek. We disapprove that as well. Those are our recommendations. This is
what has happened historically allowing these structures which seems to be the only
solution at this point but it's a shame to have that impact.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Those are our concerns, to minimize this somehow so that it's the
standard .... lower profile, you don't have plans before us now, right? You're still
standing on these plans that show it 10' off of the end of the ramp?
DAN HALL: No, well have to amend that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you could come up with something that would be, now here
you have different depths here. You're at 60' and 115' off the property line. You would
have to come up with something that, you know, the further you go out, the longer it's
going to be. But we would like to see you come up with something that's smaller and not
so long, and lower profile.
STEVE PAWLIK: He has a concrete walk at the edge of his property. We took that
elevation, which is probably lower than 3 iA' 4', would you open to something like that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, let me take a look at it. You don't have any pictures in
here do you.
DAN HALL: ! have pictures in my file.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well I'll go out and look at it.
DAN HALL: ! just thought that, you're concerned that it's raised higher, but the lower
you put it, the more impact it's going to have on the marsh.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it's a smaller structure.
DAN HALL: Well it's not as tall, but the impacts...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well ! think that what has happened is that we have gone away
from (can't understand) catwalk. ! think if we could see something more like a catwalk
here, a narrower structure and then you've got to give us plans showing, with the
soundings, the soundings look accurate, the proposed. Ken doesn't look happy. But,
right now they don't have anything, because this is the original one and that's 10' off the
end of the ramp. ! don't think they want us to vote on that.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There are a number of reasons why I'm not in favor of this
permit. Catwalk. An extended catwalk over the marsh.
STEVE PAWLIK: Well Kenny, what would you prefer people to do? Would you prefer
people to put on a pair of hip boats and walk over the marsh?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If they have to. How many times does a person walk through a
marsh in a season. Maybe 20, 30.
STEVE PAWLIK: Well if they have a boat, they'll be going out there quite a bit. This
dock is not going through the water at all.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: ! can argue that point all day long. Environmentally concern
vs. putting a fixed structure in a wetland is environmentally right vs. walking through the
marsh. ! can argue that all night.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But anyway, you need to get us a new drawing.
DAN HALL: We had submitted a short environmental assessment form can you vote on
that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, because we don't have a drawing.
27
DAN HALL: Oh, I see.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean I don't have to tell Steve because he's done this a number
of times and he's been proven to be responsible as far as putting the structure where it's
not going to affect navigation. ! mean, you don't have to agree, I'm saying on other
occasions we've put them in the best place possible if you had to have a structure there.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm sure there is a best place possible but is it right to put a
fixed structure in there than something that easily taken out if there is a problem like the
boat is on the bottom and it can't be used or if it is a navigation hazard to people coming
off that ramp.
STEVE PAWLIK: And you know if you going to put a mooring stake out there, you
can't keep your mooring stake 20' off the marsh to hold the boat. The mooring stake has
got to be put off, at least, another 10' so you're out even further than you would be with
just a fixed structure. A mooring, you're going to have a line sticking out there. You're
going to have a pully, you just can't tie it tight.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The overall damage to the wetland is minimal compared to
putting this whole entire system you're proposing. I'm concerned about the environment
and the wetlands. That's what my job is.
STEVE PAWLIK: Well then ! guess we should eliminate all the docks and give
everyone hip boots, and start walking over the wetlands.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm not saying that, but this is an extensive problem.
STEVE PAWLIK: Believe me, Mr. Rodin doesn't want to spend anymore money than
he has to and neither do most clients.
DAN HALL: So when we collect our thoughts, we can submit another plan to you?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well you know where we're coming from and, ! wish there was
an easy way of resolving this but like ! said, Little Neck Rd. makes it complicated. Is
there any way to come off of Little Neck Rd. with a catwalk?
DAN HALL: On Town property?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No it wouldn't be on Town property. It would be on his
property.
STEVE PAWLIK: The problem with that is that if you have a catwalk coming off of
Little Neck, you're going to have people walking right up there and onto it. If you built a
set of steps and people are going to go "gee look, the Town's got a nice little float, let's
tie our boat up here", you know.
SCOTT HILARY: He has a fence there currently. A post and rail fence or a proposal for
it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He's got an approval to put a split-rail in there. It's limited, but
he's got our approval on it and ! hope he does it soon.
SCOTT HILARY: ! know your concern about putting it closer to the road but would it
be possible to put it along that fence line minimizing the disturbance to the wetland.
STEVE PAWLIK: Well the thing is, we're trying to get away from the road ending.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you mean angle it out.
SCOTT HILARY: Well I'm not familiar with what type of soils are along that fence line
but if that' s not wetland...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's wetlands right up to it. In fact, the reason was to put the fence
up is because people are making it wider and going into the marsh. It's spartina right up
to the road. Very healthy marsh. But, ! mean, that's why he wants to put the fence up
28
because people are making a mess. So we're going to recess this public hearing because
you're going to give us more information.
DAN HALL: Do you still want additional soundings?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well ! told him that on Palm Sunday, as an alternative, to go over
the neighbor's property and to keep it away from the road ending and to keep it shorter. !
mean that was the idea of the additional soundings going out. ! don't know if additional
soundings would help us any at this point. The ones you gave us ! thought were pretty...
Okay, do we have a second the recess the public hearing?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of SUSAN & PHILIP BACON requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a set of beach stairs. Located: 3335 Nassau Point Rd.,
Cutchogue. SCTM#11-09-02 POSTPONED AS PER AGENT'S REQUEST
ARIF HUSSAIN requests a Wetland Permit to repair and straighten wood retaining wall,
and backfill as necessary, install wood stairs and catwalk, and install stockade fence
along the northwest side. 420 Lakeview Terrace, East Marion. SCTM#31-9-11
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the application? Would
anyone like to speak against the application? We spoke to the applicant on the site and
we asked for the length of the proposed dock. He's got 50' here by 4' coming off the
steps, Oh, ! see, what is that? This is what we were looking for here. That's fine.
ARIF HUSSAIN: (can't understand)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! don't think so. We don't mind if you go out in front a little bit
to put the posts in, but we'd have to go out again and take a look at it. If you want we
could give you an approval to fix that as necessary, tonight, but if you want us to, we'll
have to go out again and look at that. It's up to you.
ARIF HUSSAIN: So ! have come back.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you want that, you have to wait another month. But, if you just
want what you originally applied for, we can give you that tonight.
ARIF HUSSAIN: That's why, see that, it's really dangerous coming down. (can't
understand)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! can't even picture that. We'd have to go out and look at it. It's
up to you. If you want us to Table it...(end of tape) Did you take a look at this Arite?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He wants to straighten that wall out but it looks like you'd need a
big return there. Remember how we jumped down in back of the shed and we walked
along the back here, and that tree was holding it up here, maybe it was holding it here, !
don't know now.
ARIF HUSSAIN: Two trees.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: There are two trees, one here and one over here somewhere.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But, he wants to straighten it out. But, he would need a heck of a
return here wouldn't he.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Oh absolutely. That would have to come all the way back. Way
back to the shed or the tree. It's blowing out where that old dilapidated stockade fence is
right over here because there's nothing retaining it, where your neighbor is throwing all
his garbage. It's all blowing out right over there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what you would need. You need a wall going down...
29
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yeah, I wouldn't have a problem with doing that really, but we
should go look at it. It's probably the sensible way to do it because this is going to be...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh, it's terrible. We really should take a look at it though
because that's is different then what you applied for. What we need though is, you're
going to have to show us some plans on how, you're really going to need a wall from
here to here also.
ARIF HUSSAIN: Actually, I'm thinking about is the long poles and just putting a piece
of wood to cover it up.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Then you'll have exactly what you have out front. It's what
you're trying to get away from.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You going to have to draw a new set of plans and show us what
you propose on how to build it and how high it' s going to be on this side. Is it going to
be as high as this? It's a big area there. Have it, well our next field inspection is May 19.
Have it staked for us, the corners, so we can see where it's going to go to and we need
plans to show us how you're going to build it, because where that drops off that's going
to have to go further out. That's got to be 10'. Ok, so we'll Table it.
ARIF HUSSAIN: Can ! do the fence or no.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The fence? Over here? Just to fix it.
ARIF HUSSAIN: No, to put the new one in.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: The stockade fence he wants to put in. He mentioned it when we
were out there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But there was already a fence there, wasn't it. The first time, you
were out there, he had a fence there already, right?
ARIF HUSSAIN: But ! can put the fence up to the tree.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Sure, that makes sense.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can put that fence in, sure. Then next month well look at the
rest. Just stake the corner where you want to start.
ARIF HUSSAIN: Do you want exact numbers.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just make a drawing on how you're going to build it.
ARIF HUSSAIN: (can't understand)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll take a look at it. The stairs and the catwalk look fine.
ARIF HUSSAIN: One question, how high ! can build that catwalk.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's about 3' above grade.
ARIF HUSSAIN: About 3', so ! don't need a floating dock.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So that's fine. But, we won't vote on it until next month. But,
you can put the fence up. That's like a safety thing. He can just put that up. That fence
was there, when we went out the first time, we couldn't get around that shed, so he's just
replacing it.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Replace existing fence.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Kenny and ! saw it. In fact, when we went out there the first
time, you couldn't get around that shed because there was a fence there.
ARIF HUSSAIN: No ! tear it down. ! don't have any more.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The sheds gone?
ARIF HUSSAIN: Yes.
30
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Wow, everything is disappearing. But, the first time we were out
there, I don't know if it was in February, I think, there was a fence right next to the shed,
and we couldn't get around it. I would think we should let him put that up.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Absolutely. Put up the fence.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application until next month
because of the application change for the wall.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So moved.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to be next on the list so that
we don't...we can skip around as we get...
10.
Inter-Science Research on behalf of PATRICK KELLY requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 20'X 40' in-ground swimming pool approx. 50' from the bulkhead and a
(approx. 1300 sf.) brick and sand at-grade patio located approx. 45' from the bulkhead.
Located: 215 Harbor Lights Dr., Southold. SCTM#71-2-6
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the
application?
KATHLEEN GRALTON: I'm from Inter-Science we represent Mr. Kelly. The
application is pretty straight forward.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, it is. We looked at this months ago. The only concern we
had was the turf going to the bulkhead. If you could make some provision during the
pool construction not to put turf between the pool and the back, between the bulkhead.
KATHLEEN GRALTON: Turf?.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Lawn.
KATHLEEN GRALTON: Oh. No lawn from the pool to the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. Or in the disturbed area. When they dig, there going to
have to tear up the whole lawn to dig the pool out.
KATHLEEN GRALTON: I'm sure it's a significant area, yeah.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just not to replace that turf. Put in natural plantings, or pebbles,
or something like that.
KATHLEEN GRALTON: So you want a 50' buffer?
SCOTT HILARY: Yeah, there's some distance between where it's going to end up and
there will be lawn still there. And then, they do have a non-turf buffer there currently, I
think. Not that wide.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there?
SCOTT HILARY: Yeah.
KATHLEEN GRALTON: It looks like one to me, up to the bulkhead.
SCOTT HILARY: I recalled something there.
JOHN CAMPBELL: Yes, between the bulkhead and the lawn, there are bayberry
bushes.
SCOTT HILARY: Yeah, it's not 10' but it's there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ok, then the only condition we'd like to see on it is that there be
a leaching drain to put in to drain the pool so the pool doesn't ...
TRUSTEE FOSTER: For backwash.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For backwash into the creek.
31
KATHLEEN GRALTON: A drywell. The buffer area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well it's there already. The buffer area to be maintained as it.
And then the drywell, which is not shown on the plans, but we'll put it in the conditions.
Any other comment? Do ! have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Moved to close.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Motion to approve the application with the condition they put a
drywell in for the backwash from the pool and to keep the non-turf buffer (5') maintained
behind the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
11.
Catherine Mesiano on behalf of SALVATORE PALACINO requests a Wetland Permit
to construct a single-family dwelling approx. 1800 sf. with deck. Located: 790 Oak St.,
Cutchogue. SCTM#136-1-38 POSTPONED [INTIL MAY. PROPERTY WAS NOT
STAKED.
12.
DENNIS & RITA GALLAGHER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a dock on the
site of a previously existing dock. Dock consists of a fixed 4'X 28' section, a 32"X 16'
removable aluminum ramp and a 6'X 20' floating dock. The fixed section will be
secured to existing concrete steps on the land side and supported by three 3-pile bents
spaced 9.3' apart. Floating dock will be secured with 2 pilings at opposite ends. All
pilings, fixed dock and floating dock will be constructed of CCA treated lumber.
Located: 3140 Minnehaha Blvd., Southold. SCTM#87-3-40
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the
application?
DENNIS GALLAGHER: I'm the applicant. ! have a ...I've heard a lot of terms here
before and I'm trying to learn the lingo but the short environmental assessment form, !
had to submit it to the State, so ! have one that ! can give you now. ! didn't submit it with
the application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Alright, you can give that to us. Thank you.
DENNIS GALLAGHER: ! guess I'm just here to answer any questions you may have.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm just looking for the drawing. Do you remember this one?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Did we leave it alone or did we say bring it in.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: No we left it alone.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We left that alone. It was about that tide when we were out
there. As you know our concerns about structures in creeks by now, I'm sure you heard,
one of our suggestions was, if you could turn the float to a "T", it wouldn't stick out as
much.
DENNIS GALLAGHER: ! didn't know much about the full process but ! was trying to
get 2' of water below the floating dock. If! bring it in, probably another 16" at least of
water, it's a very shallow grade of water, ! did it so that it would be more likely to have
enough water below the dock. (can't understand) In my applications to all the other
agencies involved like the State, DEC, and Army Corp. (can't understand)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment?
32
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Sounds reasonable, in that position, where's it's shallow.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's consistent with what's built in the area. Do ! have a motion
to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Moved to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Bear with us for a minute. We just have to straighten this out.
The plans are really well done. Did you do them? They are really nice. Do ! have a
motion to approve the application?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make that motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES
DENNIS GALLAGHER: ! just want to...is this going straight out or...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh no, as submitted.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: As submitted.
13.
LESZEK GESIAK requests a Wetland Permit to construct an 1150 sr. second floor
addition and 128 sf. second floor deck, to be built in the confines of the existing footprint.
Located: 1600 Sage Blvd., Southold. SCTM#53-5-11.2
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of or
against the application?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: CAC?
SCOTT HILARY: Approved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They recommended Approval. Did you look at this.
SCOTT HILARY: If you look at the neighbors' it's pretty...we had a concern in that
area though with the dumping in the freshwater wetland across the street, all the debris.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We didn't see it. It's right across from the house.
SCOTT HILARY: That whole edge is cut and there's a Newsday box there. It's a
significant area, that's just been cut. Did you see that?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yeah, the whole roadway, they plowed right into the
freshwater side. About 15'. They're going to make a road. It looks like they're going to
put down a brand new road.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: No you couldn't drive through there it was so overgrown.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Arite, did you do it?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: No, ! had nothing to do with it. Not me. ! did notice it though.
SCOTT HILARY: ! can't believe that they would want to approve the deck of the
neighbor's next door there. It comes out their back door, it's a deck, it's huge and it just
kind of funnels into their dock, walkway.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Maybe it never was approved. Maybe it didn't even get a Permit.
It's a lot easier to give forgiveness than it is to give permission.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The new house. ! don't recall. That did get a Permit for that
house. If you recall, that property ....
SCOTT HILARY: It's a large deck.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: That used to be an old, little shack there. ! put the septic system in
there. ! can't remember the guys name. Dennis, Kevin, Dennis something.
SCOTT HILARY: There was a deck and it goes right into the dock.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Just container after container of concrete came out of there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
33
14.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
SCOTT HILARY: Is it worthwhile though, for Don to check that out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It should be.
SCOTT HILARY: ! mean, should one of us follow through with that, or do you guys
want to.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It wasn't done when we were there last week.
SCOTT HILARY: ! mean, the dumping is one thing, it's just...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We didn't see that.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yeah, well it was cleared, because ! went up there and turned
around and it was all pushed in, all cleared. Unless there's been more done since ! was
there.
SCOTT HILARY: Well you saw it Kenny, correct?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes. Alright, I'll make a motion to Approve the application as
written.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of ROBERT KELLER requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a 480 sf. deck with attached stairs and to re-vegetate 330' +/-
of shoreline in native wetlands shrubs. Located: 380 Knoll Circle, East Marion.
SCTM#37-5-11
POSTPONED UNTIL MAY AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST
ASSESSMENTS:
THOMAS & PATRICIA NADHERNY
Located: 1085 Pine Neck Rd., Southold. SCTM#70-5-34 & 35
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to declare the application Unlisted. TRUSTEE
POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES
CLEAVES POINT CONDO.
Located: Shipyard Lane, East Marion. SCTM#38-7-4.2 & 4.8
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to declare the application Unlisted and Lead Agency.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES
NANCY L. WALZOG
12832 Main Rd., East Marion. SCTM#31-14-15
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to declare the application Unlisted. TRUSTEE
POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES
SCOTT PATCHELL
Located: 1075 West Hill Rd., Southold SCTM#70-4-24
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to declare the application Unlisted and Lead Agency, and a
Negative Dec. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES
CHARLES & BARBARA RODIN
Located: 70 Strohson Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#103-10-16
34
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to declare the application Unlisted. TRUSTEE
POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES
DENNIS & RITA GALLAGHER
Located: 3140 Minnehaha Blvd., Southold. SCTM#87-3-40
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved declare the application Unlisted, Lead Agency and a
Negative Dec. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES
VI. RESOLUTIONS:
ROBERT & VIRGINIA DIETRICH requests a Grandfather Permit to reface existing
bulkhead inkind/inplace using Shiplap Plastic Sheathing. Located: 55755 County Rd.
48, Southold. SCTM#44-1-15
TRUSTEE POLIWODA made a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE
FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES
A motion was made by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI and seconded by TRUSTEE FOSTER to adjourn
the meeting at 10:30 PM. ALL AYES
Respectfully submitted by,
Lauren M. Standish, Clerk
Board of Trustees