HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-02/24/2000 MINUTES
Thursday, February 24, 2000
7:00 PM
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 at 11:00 am.
TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 at 7:00 PM.
WORKSESSION: 6:00 PM
TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of January 26, 2000
TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES
II.
lll.
1.
MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for January 2000. A check for
$5,117.94 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for
review.
AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES:
Richard Zahra on behalf of the MARLENE LANE CIVIC ASSOC. requests a Waiver
to place a portable sunfish boat rack on their privately owned beach. Located: Peconic
Bay Blvd., Mattituck. SCTM#126-6-10
TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application with the condition that the boat rack
is placed on the northside of the concrete bulkhead and that it is seasonal from May 31 -
Oct. 31. TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES
En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of KENNETH & DEBORAH SEIFERTH request an
Amendment to Permit #5010 for a 4'X 66' fixed catwalk, elevated a min. of 2.5' above
marsh grade, with 4'X 4' stairs at the landward end and 4'X 5' steps at the seaward end;
and a 8" diameter piling and pulley system. The fixed catwalk will extend approx. 31'
seaward of the seawardmost edge of the inter-tidal marsh. Located: 2000 Nassau Point
Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#104-10-10&ll
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve with the condition that the pulley is seasonal
from April 1 - Oct. 31, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES
En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of RONALD RYZOFF & BARBARA ANN MARCUS
requests a Waiver to construct a 10'X 19 iA' wood deck landward of embankment and
adjacent to existing stairs to beach. Located: 12340 Main Rd., East Marion. SCTM#31-
14-6
TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application with the condition that 6" of turf is
to be removed from under the deck to allow for drainage and that a copy of the deck
plans be submitted prior to the Permit being issued. TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL
AYES
Land Use Ecological Services on behalf of EDWARD FOX requests an Amendment to
Permit #5084 to reflect a new dwelling configuration and location, sanitary design, stone
terrace instead of decking, a pool house and the addition of a 55' non-disturbance buffer
located to the north of the proposed improvements. Located: 2503 Camp Mineola Rd.,
Mattituck. SCTM#122-9-9.4
TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve the application with the condition that there are
drywells installed for the backwash of the pool and hay bales are to be placed down at
55'. TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES
DWAYNE & MARILYN ADSITT request a Transfer of Permit #1602 from Michael &
Susan Egan to Dwayne & Marilyn Adsitt. Located: 1250 Jackson's Landing, Mattituck.
SCTM# 106-9-18
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Table the application until the Town Attorney reviews
the application. TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES
JOE & NICOLE ARETZ request a Transfer of Permit #4851 from Richard Correia to
Joe & Nicole Metz. Located: 855 Knollwood Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#107-6-5
TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL
AYES
WILLIAM J. & LORRAINE E. DALTON request the last One-Year Extension to
Permit #4417 to construct approx. 100' of bulkhead to attach to neighbor's existing
bulkhead, reconstruct a 30' low-profile groin and construct a single-family dwelling with
a 20' non-turf buffer behind bulkhead. Located: 185 Watersedge Way, Southol.
SCTM#88-5-57
WILLIAM & MILLICENT TUFANO request a One-Year Extension to Permit #4881
to remove existing house and construct a new house in a new location with a non-turf,
non-fertilized buffer area to be maintained in front of house toward the Bay. Located:
2482 Camp Mineola Rd., Mattituck. SCTM#122-9-9.6
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI stated that because the project was substantially started, an
extension is not necessary. A letter will be sent to the applicant.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS
FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD.
I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE SUFFOLK TIMES. PERTINENT
CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE
PUBLIC.
PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF;
FIVE (5) M1NUTES OR LESS, IF POSSIBLE
Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of MICHAEL O'DONNELL requests a Wetland
Permit to reconstruct existing 4'X 16' fixed walkway, and extend it landward 10' giving
overall 4'X 26' size and add a 4'X 16' ramp and a 5'X 16' float with 3 piles. Located:
6010 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM#138-2-29
JIM FITZGERALD: I'd like to change the project description to indicate that the
proposed would be secured by 4 piles at the corners and with cross members to support
the float 2 iA' above the bottom. No less than 2 iA' above grade.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else who would like to make a comment on this
application? Do you see what he's saying? He's going to hold the float off the bottom.
We were out here two different months. Any questions?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is that going to be any further than the neighbors?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's about the same. That platform is not going out any further.
It's just going to be a ramp and a float. Your description on the cross-section drawing
says "proposed float". It should say "ramp".
TRUSTEE SMITH: You've got the float and the ramp mixed-up.
JIM FITZGERALD: No.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Yes. 4'X 16' ramp and a 5'X 16' float.
JIM FITZGERALD: I'll fix that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other questions by the Board? Do I have a motion to close
the hearing?
TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion on the Board?
TRUSTEE SMITH: I have a motion to Approve the application with the change of the
float to only drop down to 2 iA' above the bottom with some sort of a stop arrangement
and with plans to follow.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE SMITH: When you get us a drawing of how you're going to do this, then
we'll...
JIM FITZGERALD: Yes, I'll get you a new project description which says what I just
said.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. We're giving you the Permit based on receiving the
new plans so you can type it up with that.
Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of FRANK CICHANOWICZ requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a single-family dwelling with on-site sewage disposal and public
water. Located: 155 Hall's Creek Dr., Mattituck. SCTM#116-7-1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the
application?
JIM FITZGERALD: As we discussed during the inspection, we have provided a new
survey which shows the house at a 50' setback from the road which is an additional 10'
between the structure and the wetlands. It was my understanding that you thought that it
was going to be OK. Also you'll notice, and I forgot to mention this when we were at the
site, the hay bales will be along the 10' contour which is significantly landward of the
landward edge of the path.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? Board? Do I have a motion to close the
hearing?
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
SMITH: So moved.
POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
KRUPSKI: Does anyone want to make a motion?
SMITH: I'll make a motion we Approve the application.
KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of WILLIAM MANOS requests a Wetland Permit
to construct a single-family dwelling with on-site sewage disposal system and public
water. Located: 12035 Soundview Ave., Southold. SCTM#54-5-46.1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of this
application?
JIM FITZGERALD: The plan I think is self-explanatory. I provided Lauren today with
a copy of the DEC permit which has been recently extended to next year that upon which
we base the wetlands boundary (can't hear).
TRUSTEE KING: Did we get CAC comments for this?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm looking for those next. We requested from the applicant the
copy of the DEC permit which states "to construct a single-family dwelling, garage,
driveway, well, septic system, a 50' undisturbed buffer area will be maintained". I'm
looking for CAC comments. The CAC did not make a recommendation because of
inadequate wetland delineation. The survey that we received from the applicant shows
the wetland line. Is there any other comment before the Board comments?
MARY MURTAUGH: What is the distance from the wetlands to where this house is
going to be constructed?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's proposed to be constructed at 50'.
MARY MURTAUGH: Why not 75'?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Good question.
WHITNEY BOOTH: I'm the next door neighbor there and I'm kind of curious, since I
had to do 75' and argued and argued and got nowhere, why is 50' okay on that side of the
pond.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Good question.
JIM FITZGERALD:
WHITNEY BOOTH:
JIM FITZGERALD:
what they approved.
WHITNEY BOOTH:
WHITNEY BOOTH: The other question is, on the application on the copy that I
received, it said something about public water. What is that talking about? It's in the
letter. It says "house to be constructed and says public water". This was received from, I
presume, these people Mr. Fitzgerald is with. It said right in there that this is public
water and I don't know why it said that.
JIM FITZGERALD: I think it said that because the applicant had indicated to me that
public water was available in the area however you'll notice that we have also shown a
well on the map which is leftover from the original submission to the DEC.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, there's a well located right on the edge of the road.
WHITNEY BOOTH: I noted that but that the thing about the 50' vs. 75' stands.
JIM FITZGERALD: The answer to that question is that for whatever the DEC approved
that when the Permit was issued originally in the early to middle 90's. I don't recall the
exact date. This being a freshwater wetland, it is not necessarily subject to the 75'
setback requirement that they apply to tidal wetlands. It's a different department.
TRUSTEE SMITH: According to my map I got here, this house could be moved 22'.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well I'll take everyone's comments first.
WHITNEY BOOTH: One more comment there, of 1987 the DEC had no jurisdiction
and they assumed jurisdiction some time but I don't think it was early in the 90's. I think
it was fairly recently.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think the Permit was issued...
When the Permit was issued?
No, that the DEC had anything to do with it.
Oh, I'm talking about when the Permit was issued because this is
But how can they issue a Permit when they don't have anything to
do with it. It's non-jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's happened before. 1995 is the Permit date, I believe. Yes,
May of 1995, but I don't want to get into that, really.
JIM FITZGERALD: I'm lost to explain the DEC policies.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. We don't really want to get into that. That's not going to
make a big difference.
WHITNEY BOOTH: The DEC was brought up here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well I don't think it's going to matter unless the Board has a
question with it.
MARY MURTAUGH: Pertaining to this property, as I spoke to you earlier about the
property from, extending, all of the wetlands, extending from Great Pond to Kenney's to
Lily Pond, where this house is being built, I think there should be no construction there.
This house is going to be built basically at the borders of Lily Pond and that area of the
wetlands actually comes closer to the roadway making further down where we live and I
think that land should not be built on. Definitely you're marginalizing the wetlands by
destroying the woods and the pond is right there at the roadside practically. I think,
whatever the rules are from the Town Code, which are not as rigorous as the
environmental conservation laws of the State...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, in this case the State issued a Permit for them to build a
house at 50' away from the wetlands.
MARY MURTAUGH:
the 300'?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI:
MARY MURTAUGH:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI:
MARY MURTAUGH:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI:
MARY MURTAUGH:
Well why is that if the rule is 300'. They can still build within
Yes, but they have to issue the Permit to build within 300'.
On what rational would they do that.
We don't know.
This land is fragile as anything.
Well that's what they did and we don't know why they did it.
Well it should be re-thought. It should not be built on.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other questions?
NEIGHBOR: I'm curious about the public water because to my knowledge, it's two
miles away. I'm just curious as to why they're requesting that.
JIM FITZGERALD: No, we're not requesting it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The public water really wouldn't have anything to do with this
Board. What they've shown here on the approved DEC Permit and also on a separate
survey is a location of a well on the property right next to the road. So, that really
wouldn't affect our decision whether they get public water or a well.
JIM FITZGERALD: It is, perhaps, the result of a misunderstanding between my client
and me.
NEIGHBOR: I don't remember her name, but I agree, if you go down to that property,
that pond is right there. There's a slope and then there's the pond.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were there last week.
NEIGHBOR: So you see.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone else?
MARY MURTAUGH: As I said earlier, when I was a child that flooding came up to
Soundview Ave., it will happen again probably every 50 or 60 years, and we're reaching
the 50 and 60 year mark and I think that, you hear all of the time, that we're in a new
cycle of environmental catastrophe, if you will. We should plan for those events. Even
though, in the last few years, there has been no tidal flooding there but it is subject to
tidal flooding and it is vulnerable to tidal flooding particularly as you go down to that
lake and up again to where we are where the land really slopes down. Right now it's
fresh water but it won't always be that way. So, when you talk about distances that are
set for freshwater, building close to freshwater, you have to consider that this might not
always be freshwater.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Well we went out on field inspection last week and
actually the scheduled day got too dark and we couldn't go, so we went the next day.
Our observations were that the house would be better placed 75' back from the edge of
the marsh, which would put it basically outside of our jurisdiction except for some room
for clearing and actually constructing the house, which would give the applicant room to
place the house but really minimize the impact on the pond.
JIM FITZGERALD: Where would you place it Al?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Further west. Well on this survey, further southwest.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Right up against the property line, 10' the property line from that
western house. This property line.
JIM FITZGERALD: Okay, you see that the elevation of the corner of the house is 15' at
that point. The reason for moving it back would be?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to minimize the impact of the house on the pond there.
TRUSTEE SMITH: There's room to do it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's room to do it should it should be done. I mean it's not
the convenience of the applicant here but if you can accommodate the environmental
protection, you should do it. Any other comment?
Where would the house be relative to the pond?
It would be 75' away from it, well it's not anywhere now, so it
MARY MURTAUGH:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI:
would be 75' away.
MARY MURTAUGH:
the pond.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI:
MARY MURTAUGH:
I didn't think there was that much distance between the road and
It shows that on the survey.
Who was the survey done by, the owner?
JIM FITZGERALD: The survey was done by a licensed surveyor.
MARY MURTAUGH: But for the potential owner.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it's a licensed land surveyor and we have to accept that.
JIM FITZGERALD: The house is not going to go between the pond and the road. It's
going to go toward the west property line.
MARY MURTAUGH: So it would be 75' from the pond?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. Well from the wetlands.
JIM FITZGERALD: So it would be more than that.
TRUSTEE KING: From the shoreline to pond it would be much further than that.
TRUSTEE SMITH: It's probably like 150', 175' from the pond.
MARY MURTAUGH: It just doesn't look like there's that much land there. I didn't
measure it either.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well that's what it is. Right now, from the pond itself, it's about
110'. So, if you moved it back it would be about 135' from the pond itself. We're not
measuring from the pond, we're measuring from the wetlands.
MARY MURTAUGH: Right. So, it's 75' from the wetlands and 135' from the pond.
NEIGHBOR: Yes, I own the house west of this. You said to move the house 10'. Is it
appropriate.
TRUSTEE SMITH: That's the Town Code. It has to have 15' on one side and 10' on the
other side and it has to be 25' between the two houses. I'm not 100% sure but it was that
way when I built my house.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? Kenny?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the house
shown at... and we'll need a new drawing on a new survey, with the house shown at 75'
from the edge of the wetland line as marked by the DEC Permit map and showing, how
much room do you want to give for construction? 10' for construction?
TRUSTEE KING: As little as possible.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Showing a line of hay bales staked at 65' off of the wetland line,
to remain during construction to limit any debris washing down the hill, and to be no
clearing within that 65' area.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of PHILIP ALBRIGHT requests a Wetland Permit
to construct a pile supported 4'X 40' dock, hinged ramp 4'X 16', and floating dock 6'X
20'; install two 2-pile dolphins to secure the floating dock. Construct one-family private
residence with on-site sewage and private well, and a detached three-car garage.
Located: 4483 Wells Rd., Southold. SCTM#86-1-9.6
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the
application?
JIM FITZGERALD: As with O'Donnell, I would like to suggest that we describe the
dock float as being secured by 4 piles with a stop mechanism to keep the float the
appropriate distance from the bottom, 2
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here, while we're reviewing this, is there anyone
here that would like to speak in favor of or against the application?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I didn't like where the stake was on the field inspection.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're trying to get a sense of where the length was. We're just
taking a look at the length of the dock, and we're trying to place it in relation to what
where we saw the stake on field inspection. CAC recommends Disapproval.
TRUSTEE SMITH: They recommend Disapproval on what?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The house is out of our jurisdiction. The dock, they have
Disapproval. They said that there's an "adverse impact on the inter-tidal wetlands as well
as inadequate water depth to support the structure", and that's what Kenny brought up,
and he is familiar with this part of the creek. It shows 3' of water here.
TRUSTEE SMITH: I don't know about 3'.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I didn't think so either.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: At super low-tide there' s no water there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We had a problem with this on field inspection as far as water
depth. We'd like to see these numbers some how, as far as water depth goes, somehow
verified. Our personal experiences show that there is no 3' of water there. There's no 2'
of water there at low tide.
JIM FITZGERALD: Where the stake was?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well there was ice on the creeks last week so it was impossible
for us to verify it, safely.
JIM FITZGERALD: What would you like me to do.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Also, this project extended at least halfway across that
channel.
JIM FITZGERALD: No.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It looked like it from the shoreline.
JIM FITZGERALD: I have, and I'm sorry I didn't bring them, but I have pictures that
were taken the next day, at the low tide, and the stake is about a 1' inside the water that's
left, at that extremely low tide. In other words, if the water at that extremely low tide was
40' wide, the stake is of 1', 2' inside on the ...
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: How about bank to bank. East bank to west bank.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It shows 70' here.
JIM FITZGERALD: Is it on there?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, it shows 70'. Is the stake still there, do you know?
JIM FITZGERALD: I presume. Al, it was still there after the ice was gone.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken, could you go out and verify it? The water depth. We spoke
to you about this last week that we were uncomfortable about these water depths.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then what? I go out there and find 4" or a 1'...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well then we'll know.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Well how am I going to get up there. It's mud. I can't get up
there at low tide by boat.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Get a kayak in there from Spring Lane.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I don't have a kayak.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Take my kayak. We have to verify these. I mean, no one is
comfortable with the submitted information.
JIM FITZGERALD: So what shall we do?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well I'm going to make a motion to Table it and we're going to
decide who is going to go and check it out, check out the water depths.
JIM FITZGERALD: How are we going to check it out?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what we're trying to decide here.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We can check at high tide and subtract, average depth.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you know what the drop is there?
TRUSTEE POLIWIDA: Probably 3-4', somewhere in there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's a pretty big discrepancy.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It depends on the day. The average low tide.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what I thought too. A foot tops.
JIM FITZGERALD: Where, in the middle of the creek or where the stake was?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we couldn't let him go in the middle because that would be
more than a 1/3 across.
JIM FITZGERALD: No I understand, but I want to know where you're talking about.
Where the stake was it was 6"?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, all the way out to the stake. But include part of the float.
JIM FITZGERALD: Well it seemed to me that, during our discussion at the site, you
said it went out pretty level and then dropped off sharply, somebody said.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what Kenny said. But, I would like to have him verify
that.
JIM FITZGERALD: The stake is in the part that was still water, at extremely low tide.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But the problem is that if that stake was halfway out which it
seemed to be to us at the time of the field inspection last week, then that's too far out
anyway. Because then you'd put a boat on the end of it and it would be way out there.
I'll make a motion to Table the application and set up, Kenny can I meet you down there
sometime at low tide and we'll measure it?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yeah.
JIM FITZGERALD: May I join you?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely. When is low tide? I can go tomorrow, or Saturday,
anytime is fine.
JIM FITZGERALD: I can't do it this weekend.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm working.
TRUSTEE SMITH: How about if you do it at high tide. It would probably be easier.
10
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Give both of us a call, but not on the weekend because Mr.
Fitzgerald has plans. Maybe Monday. I have a motion to Table this. Do I have a
second?
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of CHARLES SIREY requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a fixed open walkway 4'X 78', with steps at landward end; hinged ramp 4'X
16', and floating dock 6'X 20'; install two 2-pile dolphins to secure floating dock.
Located: 435 Westview Dr., Mattituck. SCTM#139-1-23
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here to represent Mr. Sirey?
JIM FITZGERALD: I, in this case, don't have anything to add to the material that was
submitted. The location is in the midst of a group of 6 or 7 existing docks and it would
be the same. The same length and the same water depth as all the other docks that are
there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to comment on this
application in favor of or against? CAC has Approved this application. This is the one
that we looked at from the bridge. They're all in line.
TRUSTEE KING: I think it's probably the last dock to have in there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve with the Stipulation that it's not to
extend any further seaward than the neighboring docks.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
Land Use Ecological Services on behalf of JOHN HURTADO, JR. requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a single family dwelling, sanitary system, and driveway. Driveway
consists of grading between two small freshwater areas not regulated by DEC. Located:
10995 Bayview Ave., Southold. SCTM#79-5-2
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of Mr.
Hurtado?
CHARLES BOWMAN: Al, I think we've been through a lot on this so I'm not going to
go through the whole thing but we are in agreement that this driveway should've been
able to be accessed from the Land Trust property. That option is impossible now which
is a problem. The reason it can't be is that the Trust is only a lot owner. All the other
owners have joint use of that road and actually there's a prohibition in their deeds
preventing them from giving easements to anyone to use the road, which is pretty strange,
but it's there. Mr. Hurtado was in agreement with you and I that this would be great, and
I think John Halsey of the Land Trust was and Chris Pickerall, who live on the property,
was going in as a "go between" with the neighbors, and it all seemed like a great idea, but
not possible. Given that, ifI could make a suggestion too because I think the whole idea
here was to make sure we protect those little wetland areas, to minimize any
impacts.., the only thing that we're concerned about is the width of a fire truck to be able
to get down there. I had put in a specification for a 12' wide driveway. If it could
narrower than that, I'd certainly be willing to call the fire department to see if we could
drop it to 10'. Also, just standing out there, I've been there 4 times now, I think we could
11
selectively remove trees so there really is not that much and then if we do just a minimal
gravel drive through that area, we're not going to be changing elevation. I would be
concerned about the turtles that may be in either wetland and certainly be able to cross
over. I think that's real important and that's why we have no curbing, just a little very
shallow 6" swale on each side and if it's gravel, we may not even need that because how
much run-off are we going to get from a 10' wide gravel drive on either side. So I think
the possibilities are there to really minimize it and certainly Mr. Hurtado would do
anything the Board desires.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He has been willing to cooperate with us. Are there any other
comments on this application? What I'd rather do here is separate the driveway out from
the house, if we could, and that would at least allow Mr. Hurtado to move ahead with all
of his other permits that he's going to need for the house, and not hold him up, and then
go out and look at the driveway again. We were under the impression, after meeting with
Mr. Hurtado last month, that we wouldn't have to be addressing this.
CHARLES BOWMAN: And I agree with you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If we could go out there again next month and look at the
driveway...
TRUSTEE SMITH: I think we ought to find out from the fire department what their road
requirements are.
CHARLES BOWMAN: I'll do that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: After we can actually meet you on site. We can act on the house
itself and then he can move on with those permits. Is that all right with the Board?
CHARLES BOWMAN: That would be great. I have a couple of ideas that would even
improve that driveway even better after I looked at it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to go off the hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve the application for a single family
residence, well, and sanitary system, as shown on survey. The house will start 75' back
from the bank. There will be a non-disturbance buffer of 50' from the bank which will
conform to the adjacent development on the northwest side of that property.
TRUSTEE SMITH: What was in that deed that saying that he can't use it?
CHARLES BOWMAN: It was actually a prohibition in the deed which, I can certainly
sent you a copy of that, I thought A1 had a copy from the Land Trust. The prohibition
prohibits those lot owners from granting permission to give anyone permission to use the
road other than their guests.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Okay, because I'm going to take a hit from some of the neighbors.
CHARLES BOWMAN: And the Land Trust, who I felt actually owned the road and gave
an easement to these other people, is no more than a lot owner.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We assumed just sort of the opposite.
CHARLES BOWMAN: I thought that they owned the road and just had given easements
to all the other owners. Not the case.
TRUSTEE SMITH: In other words, the property owners own the road jointly.
CHARLES BOWMAN: And are prohibited from granting easements to anyone other
than their guests.
12
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So I have a motion to Approve only the house with the 75'
setback for the house and the 50' buffer zone and I'm going to need that shown on the
survey, if I could. Have the buffer zone put on the survey. We will address the driveway
at next months March 14th field inspection. We'll meet you out there.
TRUSTEE SMITH: How about if they were all in agreement of doing this? Every
property owner.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that would work. But I think they all have to be in
agreement.
CHARLES BOWMAN: Quite frankly, I think Chris Pickerall tried to broker that, if you
will, and they wanted Mr. Hurtado to re-do their road for them. I mean it was just
basically holding him up for ransom.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Alright, I have a motion, do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
Land Use Ecological Services on behalf of WILLIAM MALLINS requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a 4'X 40' fixed timber dock, elev. 4' above marsh, a 3'X 20 'ramp
and a 6'X 20' float. The whole dock will have 12-8" piles overall. Located: 70
Jackson's Landing, Mattituck. SCTM#113-4-3&4
CHARLES BOWMAN: Jim had asked us to re-stake that. There was ice until just
recently so we actually had it scheduled for tomorrow to re-stake this. I have no problem
postponing this to re-stake tomorrow for the next meeting to accommodate the request if
necessary.
TRUSTEE KING: No, I'm pretty familiar with the area. There's a floating dock to the
east and there's one up in the corner to the west. If we just draw a line between those two
and it's not to be any further than that and keep them in line, I think it'll fit in there
alright.
CHARLES BOWMAN: I agree with you.
TRUSTEE KING: I wouldn't have a problem with approving it tonight.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have any other comment?
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the stipulation that
it's not to extend any further seaward than the line drawn between the neighboring docks
to the east and west.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES
En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of ROBERT WIECZOREK requests a Wetland Permit
to construct a fixed timber dock, consisting ofa 4'X 12' ramp to a 4'X 42' fixed catwalk,
elev. 4' above marsh, a 3'X 20' hinged ramp and a 6'X 30' float with a 4'X 4' extension
for ramp to be secured by (2) two-pile dolphins. Located: 835 Tarpon Rd., Southold.
SCTM#53-5-8 & 57-1-39.2
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the
application?
ROB HERRMANN: This hearing is actually held over last month in order to present it to
a full Board this month. That may or may not still be a problem. Essentially it was
discussed at the last hearing, the Board, I don't believe had any conceptual problems with
the dock generally speaking, but did have some questions and one or two of the Board
members had some objections to the 6'X 30' float as opposed to a 6'X 20' float. At least
13
for Henry Smith, who was not at the last hearing, we basically presented an argument to
the Board that it has been at least my observation of this Board's long-standing policy
that over privately-owned bay bottom, this Board has approved 6'× 30' floats as opposed
to 6'× 20' floats. We have since received, since that last hearing, a NYSDEC Permit for
the 6'× 30' float. I know that the Board that was here had a couple of questions about
potential environmental impacts and we had argued that the impact of a 10' longer float
6'× 30' vs. a 6'× 20', there would not be any demonstrable impact increase in impact
between the 6'× 20' and a 6'× 30' float and again, while we understand it, it has been the
Board's policy to limit the float size to 20' over public bottom, this is a privately-owned
boat basin, now owned by the Wieczoreks. John Costello is here as a contractor if the
Board has any questions in terms of the construction of the dock. Mr. Wieczorek and his
wife are also here again if the Board has any questions of them.
TRUSTEE SMITH: I've got a question. Why do they need a 30' float instead of the 20'
float?
ROB HERRMANN:
last month.
MR. WIECZOREK:
Well that I'll let Mr. Wieczorek address as he, I believe, addressed
We have a 39' boat and it's a sailboat 40 hp., so getting into a small
dock like that would be quite difficult with a large boat and as I indicated last time,
jumping offa 40' boat onto a 20' dock is quite difficult from a safety point of view and
also from a protection of the value of the boat also.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The discussion we had last month was that for environmental
reasons, a 6'× 20' float is the standard size that we'd rather go with and the applicant
requested that we postpone it until we had more than three Board members here to make
the decision so we accommodated him. I think all of us felt the same way.
TRUSTEE SMITH: I don't think there's a need for a 30' float.
JOHN COSTELLO: Could I make a comment on this. You have to judge each
application on it's own merits. Some docks tonight you approved as 5'× 16' that would
accommodate that applicant for sure, many of the ones you were encouraging through
policy, not regulations, but through your policy, trying to encourage 6'× 20' floats. I
think you're doing the right thing. If you don't need a larger float, a 6'× 20' float is
certainly adequate in most cases for outboards. It is less convenient, environmentally, the
difference environmentally, you can't document, the degree of environmental damage
that an extra few feet of float is going to cause, on bottom, and the attempt, again, is
trying to get out into the water. It's a sailboat, it's 39', a 6' draft, and is trying to get to
that depth. Sunlight dispersion in 6' of water, as you well know, is well documented in
6' of water. What is the difference? They are trying to accommodate, and I tell you,
when you have an application come in for a 70' or 80' boat to be accommodated, it's
going to be different every time. Everybody's application is going to be different. This
Board should review every one. Henry's dock, Henry can accommodate his large boat.
He has off-shore dolphins in the creek. It's shallow draft in there. He's dredged. He
also lays in an "L" shaped, like this is intended to be, across the part of the dock and the
ramp. I mean, he can secure his boat adequately. But, this is a sailboat, an expensive
vessel, they want to be able to maintain it, they want it to be secure. You also know the
conditions that are in that creek. It's clay. There are nice clam beds. It's wonderful clam
beds. Mr. Wieczorek owns the clam beds. He owns the bottom. This is his bottom.
He's not shading town wetlands, and it's a reasonable request for a 39' boat to be
14
accommodated for. The other thing is that by being broadside, it was my
recommendation to Mr. Wieczorek that he entertain having the small (can't understand)
on the float to accommodate the ramp because the ramp can intrude into the 6' wide float
and become less safe. That was part of the application and it was approved by the Army
Corp. of Engineers, it was approved by the DEC, and I think that this Board, and I give
you a lot of credit for encouraging the floats, as many as you can, but there are occasions
that you have to entertain securely managing larger vessels. Whose going to
accommodate larger vessels?
TRUSTEE SMITH: I disagree with you John.
JOHN COSTELLO: You're entitled to.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because then you can accommodate a 93' vessel.
JOHN COSTELLO: I don't want to get adversarial about it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If the rise and the fall is such that he needs an addition to the
float to accommodate the ramp, I don't have a problem with that.
JOHN COSTELLO: It's simple logic, I hope.
TRUSTEE COSTELLO: Kenny? What do you think?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I think the float shouldn't be any greater than 6'X 20'.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment?
ROB HERRMANN: I would have just one final comment which is again, that I would
ask the Board to certainly make clear their policy. It has been explained to many
applicants in the years I've been before this Board that over public bottom, the Board has
to set a limit over the amount of public bottom that can be occupied by a float. Over
private bottom, it's a little bit of a different story and Al, I understand your argument that
you could extend it... but what if he had a 200' boat, do you approve a 100' float? I
mean, there's obviously limits of the absurd but I don't think we've crossed that
threshold from a 6'X 20' float to a 6'X 30' float over a privately-owned bottom. Trustee
King had mentioned that at the last hearing that he didn't have any problem with it and
seemed to agree with my assessment of the Board's policy. Now, if that has changed, I
mean we need to be made aware of that, I think, in some more formal fashion. Certainly
the Code will direct you to identify a demonstrable environmental impact that would
occur from a 6'X 30' float vs. a 6'X 20' float, and in 6 iA' of water, I don't think you're
discussing a problem with shading, there's no bottom vegetation there, it's a clay bottom,
there's in fact debris of an old dock that was there in the past. That's our position. Based
on environmental consideration, the DEC has reviewed it on those merits, as is their duty,
and has approved it. The DEC does not, by routine, approve 6'X 30' floats. Normally a
6'X 20' float is the widest that's approved by the DEC. In some cases, over deeper water
bottoms, some private bottoms, the DEC will grant a larger float for larger craft. We
were out to the site twice, we are familiar with the site, and the CAC recommends
Disapproval. They're not specific, they just say that the structure is too excessive. I
don't think if it were public bottom we would grant such a large structure. You asked to
demonstrate the environmental differences, the environmental affects of a 6'X 20' vs. the
6'X 30' float, I'm sure if you came up with a $150,000 we could do a nice study and we
could decide one way or another. That's the only way.., you want something that we can
demonstrate, short of that, I don't know how we could do that.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I could give you one piece of advise. If you degrade the
private bottom which adjoins the public bottom by whatever shellfish you do diminish in
15
that 10', those shellfish probably spawn into the public bottom. So, there's probably a
link.
ROB HERRMANN: But do you feel that the presence ofa 6'X 20', let's say there's a
boat or no boat, that the shellfish would be diminished by the presence of that float sitting
over 6 iA' of water at low tide? ! mean, we're both scientists and ! don't understand the
nexus between those two statements. ! mean ! hear what you're saying, but if you could
demonstrate to me that the presence of this float, or the additional presence of that 10'
would cause some sort of environmental degradation, I'd adhered to what you're saying.
But, ! just don't see that. Just to say it doesn't make it so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But that leads us down the road of willy nilly. That doesn't give
us anything to go by, applicant after applicant, month after month, and year after year.
You have to have some sort of guidelines based on environmental conditions to lead you
to a decision, and I'm not saying against Mr. Wieczorek because ! don't know him and
that's fine. He moved to Southold, he's welcome here and ! don't have a problem with
him having a dock over 6' of water. ! mean that's fine, but if you don't have some sort of
basis of control, he has a 39' boat and well, he could have a 53' boat. Then there's no
end.
MR. WIECZOREK: ! just want to point out one other thing. As indicated earlier, it is
private bottom. We own, it's 3¼ acre of private bottom. We'll have one dock on that, so
you're talking about 3¼ of an acre and you're talking about an addition of 10' for that
area. ! don't see...! mean forget the $300,000 study, ! don't see how that's really
impacting.., you've approved things earlier this evening where you have docks next to
each other down the creek, there's certainly a lot more.., less than 3¼ of an acre I'm sure
of water when you have all of those docks next to each other, which I'm somewhat
familiar with some of those creeks, but not all of them. ! respectfully request permission
to have something that would be safe for myself, my wife, who are boaters, our children
fortunately have grown up and left the household and off our payroll, and we boat alone
most of time, or with friends, and coming into a dock with a 39' boat, a small dock is
frankly, would be rather tenuous and unsafe. That's the basis of our request. It's not to
destroy the environment or anything else and you know that area. It's a large open area
that there would be one dock on.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. ! think we just have to vote at this point. ! think
we're talked out.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Also the 4' above marsh seems excessive. It's going to look
excessive across the creek.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's a problem. The DEC is not.., they've all been 4'.
ROB HERRMANN: ! think that was covered, Ken, at the last hearing. ! explained that
we would be able to reduce it to 3 iA' and ! believe that it was a special condition of the
DEC permit approved 3 iA' above grade from tidal wetlands areas to the bottom of the
deck sheathing. So, that is fine.
JOHN COSTELLO: I'd like to make one last comment. The Trustees, ! gave you the
information on where to get the discs on the placement of docks and the shading effects.
! believe it was from the University of Maine. They did research and you've got the disc
in your office. ! have the disc and it's pretty interesting where the direction of the floats
and the shading, the effects of the shading on it, and they tell you how to design the
docks. What it is, the direction of this float where the sun is moving from east to west, it
16
is parallel, almost parallel with the float. So the shading affect is minimized because the
sun will disperse sunlight onto the float. Again, perpendicular to the east and west, there
is considerably more shading and more effects.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Do I have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to Approve the application for a fixed timber
dock consisting ofa 4'X 12' with the 4'X 42' fixed catwalk, elev. which is not 3 iA'
above marsh and a 3'X 20' hinged ramp with a 6'X 20' float, with a 4'X 4' extension for
ramp to be secured by (2) two-pile dolphins.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just uncomfortable with it. We didn't have a big problem
because of the depth of water there, it is private bottom.
TRUSTEE SMITH: I just feel we have a policy for a 20' float and we have to stick with
that. It's worked out in the past.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Kenny?
TRUSTEE POLIWOA: I'm for it.
TRUSTEE SMTIH: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm voting AYE. There's three AYES Jim.
TRUSTEE KING: Alright. I'll agree with you. AYE
ALL AYES
JOHN COSTELLO: Let me ask you a question. Is that the policy of the Trustees?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It has been.
JOHN COSTELLO: Is it a policy or is it a regulation? Did the public have input into
this? I would just like to know.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: A policy. The public has input into this every month.
JOHN COSTELLO: Okay, wait a second. Did you ever hold a public hearing on some
of the policies that you're initiating?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Which ones are we initiating?
JOHN COSTELLO: Remember you had on the depth of water, size and width, and now
you're putting a policy in on trying to... and I agree with you.., you're trying to regulate
the size of the floats. I encourage that. But, you have to take a look at each application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We do. We were there twice John, and this is our second public
hearing. We didn't just .... and we listened and we listened to all of the arguments.
JOHN COSTELLO: You should hold a public hearing and try to get the public's input
into this if this is going to be a regulation of this Board.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If we had a public hearing, you might not have a dock being
built in the future. You'll have all of the environmentalists here.
JOHN COSTELLO: I have no fear of that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's 20 public hearing tonight.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You might have 50 homeowners and 300 environmentalists.
En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of KIMBERELY MUELLER requests a Wetland Permit
to remove approx. 95' of bulkhead, and replace with 93' of vinyl low sill bulkhead, 10
c.y. of upland material will be excavated from behind northern portion of bulkhead and
used for backfill with approx. 10 c.y. of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland
17
source, excavated area will be planted with spartina alternaflora and patens 6' on center
and remove and replace inkind/inplace 17' northern return with low sill vinyl return and
construct a 14' southerly low sill vinyl return. Located: 1445 Bungalow Lane,
Mattituck. SCTM#123-3-19
TRUSTEE KR~SKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the
application?
ROB HERRMANN: I don't have anything to add beyond what we discussed at our
inspection of the property and what was added at the last meeting. Basically a low sill
bulkhead and replacement of the deteriorated bulkhead that's there and the creation of
inter-tidal behind it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this application?
CAC recommends Approval.
TRUSTEE SMITH: I've got no problem with this.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We addressed it last month and we were out there again on field
inspection. Looks like a good application? Novel, but it's good. I'd like to put a
condition on the application that photographs be taken north and south, before and after
construction.
ROB HERRMANN: I wasn't planning on doing that but I'll definitely forward them
over to the Board.
TRUSTEE KING: What's going to become of that little wooden ramp. It's going to stay
there or what?
ROB HERRMANN: It's going to stay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want to have them remove it?
TRUSTEE KING: Maybe eventually it will rot away.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then let's have them remove it.
TRUSTEE KING: It's on two pieces of property.
ROB HERRMANN: Al, I think we have to contact the adjacent property owner. I don't
think that Mrs. Mueller could just cut it in half. It seems like she should but I'm not
going to venture into the potential legal battle between two neighbors.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there a problem? Maybe the neighbor would welcome having
it removed.
ROB HERRMANN: It's possible but it's just not part of the application.
TRUSTEE KING: If it's at all possible, remove it.
ROB HERRMANN: I'll certainly mention it.
TRUSTEE KING: If it starts a hornets nest, then don't worry about it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But, what we're saying is that we're not trying to glorify this or
justify it. Through this application, we're not going to justify it. If it rots away, it rots
away.
ROB HERRMANN: I understand what you're saying. Well, would you feel comfortable
having the Board issue a letter of recommendation that would be sent out with the Permit
directly to Mrs. Mueller. I would feel more comfortably if you would initiate it as
opposed to myself. Not for my client, but best for the interest of the neighbor.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it's like Jim says, if it's a hornet's nest, let it stay. Do I have
a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
18
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the condition
that pictures be taken north and south, before and after construction and that a letter of
request made to Mrs. Mueller to remove remains of wooden ramp on the corner of the
property.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES
10.
En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of DAVID & ANN CORIERI request a Wetland Permit
to remove and replace (in-place) (2) +/-50' existing timber groins with vinyl groins.
Located: 412 Park Ave., Mattituck. SCTM#123-7-9.2
ROB HERRMANN: I know the Board has been down to the site and was impressed as I
was by the amount of up-drift build-up from the replacement of the Homan groin up-
drift. I believe that Mr. Corieri had, shortly after the time of the construction of that
groin, contacted this Board and also the DEC regarding, basically inquired as to whether
that groin had in fact been constructed in compliance with the Permits. It is my
understanding, please correct if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that it was this
Board's determination that the structure was constructed in accordance with its' permit
and based on conversations with staff at Marine Habitat Protection at DEC that it
conformed with their permit as well. DEC staff had indicated to me that they would
obviously approve the Corieri's application to reconstruct those groins in front of the
Corieri property in an attempt to regain back some of that beach. Mr. Corieri had
indicated to me that the Board had some comments and it certainly it seems like a matter
worth discussing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? We just got a letter from apparently the
neighbor. (Al read letter from neighbor.) CAC recommends Approval.
ROB HERRMANN: Just a quick response not only to that letter but also just to clarify a
statement that I made earlier, for the record, because it wasn't entirely correct. What had
also been indicated to me by the DEC staff was that, the project was undertaken in terms
of the part that was actually undertaken, was undertaken in conformance with their
permit. In other words, the groin that was reconstructed, and whatever, and I'm not sure
which groin it is on that Homan property, but one of them was to have been cut back and
has not been cut back. That may be part of the cause of why there has been such an
excessive build up on that up-drift. Now I don't want to mis-speak because I don't have
a Homan plan or permit in front of me. I have not gotten a hold of it. But, my
understanding was that one of those groins was supposed to be cut back and was not.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We you on the site recently?
ROB HERRMANN: The last time I was there was probably about a week ago.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were there also a week ago. We always hear you talk about
if you replace the groin, the way it is, it won't have any effect on the literal drift of sand
movement or sand deposition.
ROB HERRMANN: I would never say a groin has no effect on the literal drift.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, no, if you replace it inkind/inplace. It should have no effect.
ROB HERRMANN: Of a functional groin. That's right. Ifa groin is not functioning
whatsoever (can't hear). I would never say to the contrary.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, but, so how can you explained what happened at the
Corieri's. You can see obvious loss of beach.
19
ROB HERRMANN: Basic geology. I mean if you have a groin that is not functioning
and you replace it, and again, ! can't speak to the facts of whether the groin that was
constructed is longer than what was there, whether it's higher than what was there, or
whatever, if it is exactly what was there, then what that says to me is that the groin that
was replaced, was non-functional. Because the only way you could have that kind of
disparity in beach build up is if you, basically you have the same effect as if you
constructed a brand new groin.
TRUSTEE KING: ! don't know. It's a strange situation.
ROB HERRMANN: Which to me is basically what the premise of the permitting of
groins of both this Board but even more clearly and outspokenly by the DEC is that only
the functional portions of groins are allowed to be replaced. Normally you have a
situation where the outer end of the groin is deteriorating, there's sheathing falling off,
it's collapsing, let's say that's 55' and then it's functional through 40'. The permits that
we've consisting gotten at En-Consultants, has consistently gotten from both this Board
and the DEC, only is to replace that portion which is functional. ! think that's been a clear
policy of this Board and a clear policy of the DEC at the reason for that is exactly what
you just asked me. That's why ! responded fairly emotional to your suggestion that !
would make a statement that replacing a non-functional groin with a functional groin
would have no effect. Of course it will.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, no I'm saying a functional groin with a functional groin.
ROB HERRMANN: Then it should not have an impact, that's correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We looked at the Homan groin before we approved the
reconstruction.
ROB HERRMANN: ! would not believe for a second that every foot of that groin all the
way out to the end was completely functional and that this groin is exactly the same. It's
the exact same elevation from bulkhead to end, the length is the same, it's impossible.
It's not even something that's a subject of opinion. ! mean, you just walk down there and
you look at the difference in the beach.
TRUSTEE KING: ! know. Why is this beach failing so much when these groins are
basically pretty functional? Why did they lose the sand out of them?
ROB HERRMANN: The only reason, again, that ! can think of is that what is usually the
most significant part of the groin in this type of area, the literal cell, which is the
outermost end. You could have a groin in here that's half that length and you could of
built it three feet higher and still not have the kind of effect this has.
TRUSTEE KING: We had a lot of discussion on this with the Homan groin, ! can
remember, because ! sat right here and said that ! wanted to see it shorter and everybody
said, oh no it's there, it's already there, what harm is it going to do to replace it the way it
is.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It was functional.
ROB HERRMANN: If it were functional all the way out to the end, you would not have
seen that change.
TRUSTEE KING: Well it's happened.
ROB HERRMANN: But it's happened because of what you're saying you contested with
the Homan application. You said you wanted it shorter. If it had been constructed
shorter, you would not have seen this extent of impact. Sure, you would've had some
20
beach recovery because that the point of the groin. But the impact of a groin has
everything to do with it's length.
TRUSTEE KING: Those other groins were supposed to be replaced and they weren't.
They didn't touch them. They only did the easterly groin.
ROB HERRMANN: The ones that were supposed to be replaced?
TRUSTEE KING: They were supposed to be replaced, but they weren't touched.
ROB HERRMANN: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: But, ! still don't understand why these people lost so much sand.
(changed tape)
ROB HERRMANN: One thing that is pretty clear, and ! can give you the footage, but if
you draw a line straight across, first of all the Homan groin is almost 10' longer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But the other Homan groin is even longer. But the other Homan
groin is 15' longer than that one.
ROB HERRMANN: That's exactly what I'm saying. If you have this, the end of this
groin, did it show on the survey what the existing elevation of the end of that groin was.
This is 2 iA' above the beach according to this survey. 2 iA' above the beach at the end,
whereas the Corieri groin is 1.1'. It's more than a 1' difference in elevation. This groin is
a 1' higher and 10' longer than this. So, when we say we're going to replace this
inkind/inplace that means the end of this groin needs to end up in that same elevation. !
would venture, with all do respect to whoever represented the application, ! would say
that it's very unlikely that the very seaward end of this groin was almost 2 iA' above
grade before it was replaced. This end may be the same. When we design these low-
profile groins, the idea is to get lower and lower and lower until you're below high water.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So you're saying it's the elevation that's caused the difference
and not the length.
ROB HERRMANN: ! think it's both.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! don't think that groin is any longer than the original one.
TRUSTEE KING: No, it's not.
ROB HERRMANN: But what I'm saying is that it may be more functional in that area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not that much more functional, Rob. Even if you lost 5' off that,
! mean that' s a tremendous amount of sand.
TRUSTEE KING: My question is if you go further west, why doesn't this one starve this
cell?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yeah, why isn't that?
TRUSTEE KING: It's further out and it's much higher.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The one to the west is longer. 15' longer.
TRUSTEE KING: On the Homan property, the furthest one to the west is way out, much
higher, why didn't it starve this area like it happened to Corieri' s. That's what ! don't
understand. It's crazy, it doesn't make sense.
ROB HERRMANN: That ! don't know.
TRUSTEE KING: That groin is almost to the top of the bulkhead and goes out way
beyond the others and yet these are full.
ROB HERRMANN: There's obviously some literal transport here coming down that this
outer more highly elevated end of this groin is catching that sand. ! mean it's got to be.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The other one should rob that cell and it doesn't.
21
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If you drilled a nice big hole in the groin, in the end
somewhere, wouldn't that allow the sand to pour through?
ROB HERRMANN: Oh sure. If you cut it back, if you cut holes in it, ! mean, if you take
away the functionality at the end of it, sure.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The sand could then fall through and drift out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You were saying the DEC wants them to shorten which groin?
ROB HERRMANN: What I'm saying is, when ! spoke to DEC staff, ! was advised that
there was some groin or groins on the Homan that were supposed to have been replaced
and made shorter and were not. They were left. Mr. Corieri had made the inquiry, !
believe, before he even retained me for this project, both with the Board and the DEC.
He had asked me a long time ago, if you'll recall, ! had represented the prior owner
LaConti for the bulkhead replacement, and then ! believe the Corieris had come back
with the retaining wall and there was a return proposed, and he had asked me at that time
about the groins. ! had explained to him that they would have to be low-profile, that only
the functional portion would be able to be replaced, and he asked me if the groin review
would likely take longer and ! said yes, and he said well, I'll put this off. So, that's turns
out to have been an unfortunate piece of advise by me because in the time that he put it
off, the Homan groin was reconstructed and you see the result that you have. So, there's
has got to be something about the outer end of that groin, whether it's the elevation or
whatever, but again on this survey, the top of the groin is 2.3' above grade whereas the
Corieri groin, it' s 1.1 '. So, it' s more than a 1' higher and that' s definitely going to make
a difference. It has to. That's the entire purpose when the DEC comes out and says it has
to be low-profile because if you kept the groin 60' or whatever feet out, 3' above high
water, you'd have even more build-up. It's the just the basic functional response of a
literal drift, the sand being transported literally along the drift of the beach.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What I'd like to see on this application is instead of where the
jetty meets the bulkhead, it's a new bulkhead, instead of saying so many feet above the
beach, I'd rather see a measurement from the top of the bulkhead.
ROB HERRMANN: What they give you is an elevation of 4.8. What ! had asked for
was the difference between the top of the bulkhead and the jetty which Joe Ingegno has
been good about doing and they sort of mish-mashed it on this one.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. That's what we would like to see.
ROB HERRMANN: ! can definitely provide that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we just wanted to see if you had any clue as to what
happened there.
ROB HERRMANN: That would be my best inkling.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, but it doesn't explain why that cell is full.
ROB HERRMANN: No, ! can't answer as to why that cell vs. the next one up, ! mean
there's obviously a difference in the sand flow there and it may be the elevation. That's
very, very possible. If you get turbulence, any king of storm movement there, there is a
good deal of sand that's going to pass over that groin. If you raise the bar, literally, then
the sand can't pass over. Again, that's the exact reason why the DEC pays so much
attention to discussing the idea of a groin being constructed low-profile. You're going to
get the biggest impact, not necessarily up by the bulkhead, because especially if that area
is dry most of the time. So, half the time you don't have any literal transport of sand
there. Whereas, as you go out into the inter-tidal area and beyond, that's where you're
22
11.
getting sand transported literally. So, the elevation of the groin out there is much more
critical than at the upland end. You use it as a measure on the upland end because it' s the
only way to enforce your permit. You assume that the elevation continues to drop down
but it's the elevation at the seaward end that's more significant because that's where the
geological action is actually occurring.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I agree. Any other comment? Do I have a motion to close the
hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the Wetland Permit. We need a
measurement from the top of the bulkhead to the top of the groin.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And to be done inkind/inplace.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Are we going to make these low-profile?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well it should be done exactly inkind/inplace, regardless of what
they are now. All in favor. ALL AYES
En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of ANDREW MOORE & KAREN SILVEIRA requests
a Wetland Permit to construct an "L" shaped fixed timber dock, consisting of a 4'X 90'
fixed catwalk (elevated a min. of 3.5' above marsh grade) 3'X 16' ramp; and 6'X 20'
float secured by (2) 2-pile 10" diameter dolphins. Construct a +/-100' vinyl retaining
wall to be tied into existing bulkheads to north and south and backfill with approx. 100
cy. of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source. Located: 515 South Dr.,
Mattituck. SCTM#106-11-21
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of the
application?
ROB HERRMANN: There are essentially two aspects to this application. The first is a
request for a retaining wall along the toe of the bank. This would be certainly the most
critical part of the application in that there is extreme erosion at that embankment going
on. You've got continued loss of upland vegetation coming down that bank, continued
loss of soil and you've got that framed shed inching closer to the top of the bank. So the
proposal is actually to be a fairly low-sill retaining wall, no relation to the low-sill
bulkhead but a low level retaining wall along the very base of that embankment. It's
going to be almost 20' landward of where the existing inter-tidal vegetation is now and
about 8' landward of where high water is coming up in that area. The retaining wall
would be high into the existing structure in both directions. One, to the property owned
by Williams and the other by Skinner. The second aspect of the project is, of course, the
dock that's proposed. I realize that the Board was out there. It was impossible to do any
kind of staking during the time that this application had been submitted and tonight
because of the ice. But, the dock is basically has been designed in accordance with the
same extension into Mattituck Creek as the Williams' dock, the adjacent dock. Whatever
questions the Boards has, I'm here to answer them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On the dock length, first, we didn't see that. We measured the
neighbor's dock. It was 60'.
ROB HERRMANN: 60' from...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well that was the total length.
ROB HERRMANN: Are we looking at the same dock?
23
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The one to the south. That was the one I could get to.
ROB HERRMANN: Oh ok. I'm talking about the dock that's immediately to the north,
which would be the closest one to this proposal.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're talking about the one to the south. Which was the one !
could get to and measure. The other one ! couldn't really access from the beach.
ROB HERRMANN: ! mentioned the dock to the north because obviously the one has
been proposed as far to the north on the property as possible because of the presence of
the inter-tidal marsh vegetation that fronts most of the rest of the property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! don't think the location was a problem. The CAC recommends
Approval with the condition that the length of the catwalk be shortened as much as
possible. ! think we would like to see it kept in line between the two neighbors. Would
that be acceptable?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's fair. This should be a straight-out dock to a straight-out
float.
ROB HERRMANN: As usual, we are actually limited here by the DEC's regulations,
well ! should say their policies. The applicant would like to dock his boat parallel to the
shore. A shore parallel float is also a way to take advantage of the water depth. If it's a
straight-out float, a portion of the float is going to be in less than 2' of water and the other
portion of the float is going to be in excess of that. The dock that's proposed is actually
designed so that the entire float is sitting in 4' of water which is going to be what's
required. There' s no way we can go in this kind of environment with some sort of
seasonal stick dock of 4" posts. It's not going to happen.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! don't think we have a problem with that. ! wouldn't have a
problem sending a letter to the DEC, ! don't know how the rest of the Board feels, telling
them that in this case, there shouldn't be... it should be kept in line with the neighbors and
brought back another 10' or whatever. This should be a permanent dock, and not a
seasonal dock there. But ! don't think we have a problem with that.
ROB HERRMANN: Right. I'm not suggesting that you would. I'm saying that if you
don't have 4' of water at low tide, you cannot get a permanent dock from the DEC. This
dock will be pulled in basically...
TRUSTEE KING: ! think I'd like to go take some soundings. You might be able to pull
this in a little bit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yeah, ! think we can pull this in and still get 4' or else, in this
case ! don't see where you shouldn't have a permanent dock.
TRUSTEE KING: ! remember there's quite a bit of water fairly close to the beach there.
ROB HERRMANN: ! didn't take the soundings here. The soundings were provided by
Steve Pawlik. I'd be happy to meet you over there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you give Jim a call then.
ROB HERRMANN: Yes. As I've said for the past year, if we can keep the 4' of depth
closer in, ! have no problem with moving it in. Again, it's a continuing struggle between
this Board's agenda to keep the docks shorter in shallow water and the DEC's agenda to
longer in deeper water.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But this one's a different case. ! think it should be a permanent
dock here.
ROB HERRMANN: Jim, ! would be happy to get together with you.
24
12.
13.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's just part of the problem though. That's the easy part of
the problem. The bank is eroding, no question about it. But, and I don't know ifI
... personally have a big problem with the retaining wall at the bottom of it, but it's
eroding from the top down. The upland is draining down the bank and I'd like to see
some sort of a wall or some sort of mitigation for the amount of water coming off the top
of the bank pouring down the embankment eroding his bank into the creek.
ROB HERRMANN: I don't remember if there was turf down to the crest.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You wouldn't really call it turf. No. Sort of a yard area. But it's
a steep bank and it breaks off sharply. They're contributing to their own problem.
ROB HERRMANN: What do you mean when they say they're contributing?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well all the upland is rushing down that bank and cutting into it.
They're de-stabilizing it from the top.
ROB HERRMANN: The only problem with stabilizing from the top of the retaining wall
is only going to direct any run-off onto Williams and Skinner.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm not suggesting that either.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Maybe a set of rings would be better.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well it's their problem. It's their bank that they're losing. We
would like to see that addressed, as a part of the whole project.
ROB HERRMANN: We could take a look at that too Jim, and maybe, I'm not sure,
sometimes, I'm not sure if it's soil conservation service, but I've heard that if you can
identify basically an area where the overland flow is becoming a channel to put in a
drywell.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It was very dark when we left there and I thought of this the next
day. That's a big part of their problem. I'd like to see that addressed.
ROB HERRMANN: Well have to look at it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table it.
ROB HERRMANN: One other comment before I leave, on one of the next applications
that's postponed, Richards, Kenny you and I need to get together. I think it's pretty clear
sailing.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yeah, it's a cleared out in there.
ROB HERRMANN: So I'll get in tough, Lauren I'll get in touch with you and I'll try to
set up something with Jim and Ken.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I need a second to Table.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Possibly next Monday?
TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KING: You can call me right at home Rob.
En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of JOSEPH CORNACCHIA requests a Wetland Permit
to relocated existing dock consisting ofa 3'X 14' ramp and (3) 4'X 20' floats secured by
(7) 8" diameter pilings onto owner's parcel from owner's other parcel, and remove (2) 8"
mooring piles and (1) two-pile dolphin. Located: 635 Kimberly Lane, Southold.
SCTM#70-13-20.4
POSTPONED AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST
En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of EDNA RICHARDS requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 4'X 58' dock elev. 3'5" above marsh, a 3'X 14' ramp and a 6'X 20' float with
25
2-8" pilings and 2'X 4' steps from existing stone all to catwalk.
Broadwaters Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#111-1-1
POSTPONED AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST
Located: 2300
14.
En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of JAMES & LILIANA MIHALIOS requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a 77' retaining wall with 2-12' angles returns and 150 cy. of clean
sand as backfill and planted with Cape American Beach Grass. Located: 640 Lloyd's
Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#99-1-60
POSTPONED AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST
15.
Catherine Mesiano on behalf of KERMIT JOHNS requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 4'X 100' fixed timber walkway, a 3'X 12' ramp and a 6'X 20' float with 6"
diameter low-profile piles to be installed from existing retaining wall over tidal wetlands
to Haywaters Cove and inkind/inplace replacement of existing +/-30' timber wall and
steps. Located: 1800 Broadwaters Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#104-9-10
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the
application?
CATHERINE MESIANO: We met on this last month and there was some question as to
the water depth and you requested that the project be staked again at the proposed end of
the floating dock as well as 20' landward of that. ! did have that staked but it was very
icy and ! don't know if the stakes held. We were there, and ! know that they were there
that morning but ! don't know if they were there when you got there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, thank you. They were.
CATHERINE MESIANO: As we mentioned the last time, the proposal as far as
replacing the existing retaining wall, that's to be eliminated from the application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We had a question with the length of the dock.
CATHERINE MESIANO: ! don't know if we were able to resolve that because of the
ice conditions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we measured the neighbors.
CATHERINE MESIANO: And you were in agreement that they're accurate with respect
to what's indicated on our plan?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! couldn't tell you that. The neighbor had a 32' dock. Well both
neighbors had close to 32'. Well, this one's only 28'. The other one is 32'. That was
past low water. That was past the vegetation. We'd rather not see anything extend
beyond 32' which would cut it back substantially. That would not include the fixed
catwalk, which we have no problem with the catwalk coming out all the way to the edge,
but then the structure, to match the neighbors, would be 32' out past that, beyond the
vegetation.
CATHERINE MESIANO: ! think we still need to resolve, for the client's benefit, that
there will actually be water under the dock.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we had a discussion about that in the field as well that
there's an inshore channel, a natural channel, along that edge. I'd imagine it was
impossible to get soundings because of the ice cover, but we were reluctant to allow any
structure past there because of the inshore channel, it does seem to be an area where
scallops survive. We saw quite a few scallop shells up on the neighbor's float. We'd
rather not impact the .... Cutchogue Harbor historically was a tremendous scallop
26
producer. We rather do everything we can to encourage that again. We'd rather not have
a structure go beyond what the neighbors already have there, which would not intrude
into that inshore channel, that natural channel there.
CATHERINE MESIANO: So you're saying the proposed catwalk.., please reiterate it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The structure, whatever, well the DEC is not going to allow any
float in less than 2 iA' of water, which you're not even showing on your original plan.
So, our suggestion would be a catwalk out 32' with a set of stairs at the end so that they
can access a canoe or kayak or dinghy or whatever. That would be from the edge of the
marsh plus whatever is upland to reach.., the upland, so they're not walking though the
marsh.
CATHERINE MESIANO: Okay, I would like to, if you don't mind holding it over, to
discuss this with my client.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's fine. If they have any questions, they can call us, or if you
have any questions, please feel free to call us. I'll make a motion to Table.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
16.
Catherine Mesiano on behalf of RALPH KAPLAN requests a Wetland Permit to install
a fixed walk 4'X 24' elev. 3 iA' above marsh, a 3'X 14' ramp and an 8'X 16' float with
6" low profile piles. Located: 1657 Meadow Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#116-4-15
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this
application?
CATHERINE MESIANO: At your request, I had the plans re-drawn. We've eliminated
the ramp and float. We've replaced that with a set of 4'X 8' steps and I have the plans
here to present to you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment?
hearing?
TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion on this application?
TRUSTEE SMITH: I make a motion to Approve.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
Do I have a motion to close the
17.
Architechnologies on behalf of DOMINICK BASSANI requests a Wetland Permit to
rebuild an existing seawall and reconstruct and cover the existing deck. Located: 1655
Bayshore Rd., Greenport. SCTM#53-4-6
NANCY DWYER: I think that it's pretty self-explanatory what we plan to do. There's
an existing seawall there right now which we plan to remove and rebuild with poured
concrete and then extend the deck out as far as the seawall and cover the deck.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The only question we had was with the seawall. How do they
propose to reconstruct the seawall and to what elevation.
NANCY DWYER: We plan to reconstruct it as a poured concrete (can't hear) and as
high as the bottom of the deck. I believe it's 5'4" to the base of the deck.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh I see, it'll come all the way up.
NANCY DWYER: It'll come all the way up.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does anybody have any problem with that? Any other
comment? Do I have a motion to close the hearing?
27
TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion we Approve.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
18.
Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of JOHN & LESLEY GRAHAM requests
a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 6' platform off existing bulkhead with a 32"X 20'
aluminum ramp leading to a 6'X 20' float heading westerly secured by two 2-pile
dolphins. Located: 315 Harbor Lights, Dr., Southold. SCTM#71-2-5
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here to speak in favor of the application?
JOHN COSTELLO: If the Board has any questions, this is a reasonably simple
application and if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We had a problem when we went out there, besides the real
blatant violation of clearing. It was really iced over so it was hard to tell how this is
going to set and how wide and deep the canal was.
JOHN COSTELLO: It's on the drawings submitted there and the photographs that were
submitted there shows the width of the channel. It's over a 100'. The float is right
immediately adjacent to the piling that are on the bulkhead now. It doesn't protrude out
into the waterway any more than 6'. It's intended to accommodate a small Boston
Whaler, 17' or 20'.
TRUSTEE SMITH: It's 14', 15' maximum.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But what's the depth in the canal as far as...I mean we don't
want to block off access to the neighboring lots. What's the depth of the canal past the
proposed projects.
JOHN COSTELLO: 6', 7'. That has been dredged before.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does the Board have any questions? We couldn't tell. It was
iced over and it doesn't show... I mean the canal can be a 1' deep for all we know.
JOHN COSTELLO: It's not.
TRUSTEE SMITH: That's standard construction along those canals like that.
JOHN COSTELLO: I've had tug boats in there and turned around to go back out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? Do I have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. This ramp, I take it
John, is coming off the bulkhead, the ramp goes parallel to the bulkhead and the float is
parallel to the bulkhead.
JOHN COSTELLO: Right.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
19.
J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of PARADISE POINT ASSOC. requests a Wetland Permit
to maintenance dredge an existing basin to -4' ALW, resultant spoil +/-1100 cy. of sand
to be utilized as backfill for existing bulkheads and for beach nourishment. Method of
dredging shall be clamshell bucket on crane on barge with enclosed containers. Dredging
will occur in two areas (50'X 100') and (50'X 130'). Located: Basin Rd., Southold.
SCTM#18-1-16.1
28
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of the
application?
GLENN JUST: I'm the agent for the Association if anyone has any questions.
TRUSTEE SMITH: This is strictly maintenance?
GLENN JUST: That's all. I'm not here to discuss anything else other than maintenance
dredging.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone else here like to comment on the application?
VICTOR ZUPA: I'm a resident, my wife and I live on a home directly in the basin, and
submitted a letter which contains details of our comments. To put it in a nutshell, what's
happening here, this annual dredging program formed by Paradise Point, this is a
situation where annual dredging is really not necessary. One, because the bulkheads are
not maintained. They're open, as I earlier point out to the members who came out on the
field trip last week. There are portions of the jetty where sheathing has deteriorated that
dropped into the channel. Sand, which the application is now, dredge that sand out, and
put it right back into the spot where it's going to fall out again. Thirdly, there is run-off
from the road, which enters into the basin, across my property, as I contacted the Board
in the past with respect to the problem that I had. The annual dredging program is
unquestionably detrimental to the basin. There are blue herons on there, there are a
variety of different wildlife, there are fish, clambeds in certain sections, and there is no
need to perform annual dredging. The Peconic Estuary Program has tentatively
designated the basin as a critical natural resource area. The dredging is totally
unnecessary if the bulkheads and jetties were maintained and I object to the annual
dredging program. Now I was out there this afternoon and I noticed something that you
did not see last time and that is, while the channel is completely clear at the mouth of the
channel, I was where the jetties are, it is un-navigable by anything but a canoe, certainly
at low tide. That fill that's gone in there, in my opinion, I've watched it come a month
ago, from the east jetty. I watched it, saw a huge depression appear, I saw the sand go
into the channel, and smooth out into the middle. This is starting to occur again. That
was filled in by a contractor with sand approx, three weeks ago and it's already starting to
empty into the basin. So, I think, I am against the annual dredging, and I think something
should be done, as Mr. Krupski mentioned before, as part of the project, to address the
erosion and the fill that is going into the basin because of poor maintenance on the roads
and the jetties and bulkheads. Thank you.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Well unfortunately most of our creeks in this Town do require
maintenance dredging to keep them open and keep them navigable. It' s just an ongoing
thing. It's a way of life around here and to the property owners who have boats in there
and things like that, it's just something that has to be addressed every few years.
MR. ZUPA: I have a boat, and I have a dock. If that channel was the way it is, I
wouldn't be able to get my boat in or out. But, I also want to protect the basin because
one of the reasons I moved to that area is because of the beauty of the basin and the
wildlife. Now I agree with you, annual dredging, Mr. Sinning has pointed out whose
lived there for years, that there's going to have to be some dredging. But, it's not going
to be to the extent that's being performed now.
TRUSTEE SMITH: And you said you have erosion run-off across to your property?
MR. ZUPA: Yes. The bulkhead on the northeastern corner of my property is completely
filled in from land that was on the bank, because of water that comes off the road, goes
29
across my property, and empties into the basin. The Board was out there several months
ago, they wrote the Association a letter, and all I got back was a letter saying that they
were taking it under advisement. The Board wrote them a letter stating that they felt two
rings in the road would cure the problem. I have an enormous amount of erosion coming
off my lawn, which I fertilize, and goes into the basin. The lawn is a long way away
from where the basin is.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They have problems down there but their not insurmountable.
TRUSTEE SMITH: If he's got erosion on his property, I think he's got to address it on
his property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well it's coming off the Association road.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Well then they're going to have to put rings in or something like
that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what we suggested. But also, they have a problem with
the apparent bulkhead (changed tape).
MR. ZUPA: I believe they have the money. Maybe Mr. Sinning is more able to address
this than I am but I believe they have the money and that it's a matter of getting in
agreement among them with what to do. They've had plans with contractor's for the past
ten years to do something about the bulkheads. We're not talking about small projects in
the sense of a couple of rotted pieces of sheathing, we're talking about open areas. For
instance, the area near my property, which is the Association's responsibility to close,
which is completely eroded. You can see the tied going right back into the anchorman.
TRUSTEE SMITH: What's your feeling on this, John?
JOHN SINNING: I'm the adjacent property owner. I really don't have too many
problems with the annual or semi-annual maintenance dredging. As Vic pointed out, a
lot of it now is just coming right back through the (can't hear) there. The Association
should not be applying just for a dredging permit, they should be applying for a permit to
fix the jetties. The other problem I have with it is that I own the land on both sides of that
entrance. No one has asked me for permission to use that as a spoil disposal area. I
pointed that out to the gentlemen down there last Wednesday. I think they agree with me,
and it' s quite clear that I own that property, the Association doesn't own it. They have an
easement that was given to them back in 1989 and they haven't done one thing to
improve their access. They continue to use mine. I'm afraid of an adverse possession
situation or something coming up here, so I have to put a stop to it now. I'm not against
them using it, as long as they get my permission first.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was our feeling. They want to use his property. If he
doesn't want to give his permission, we can't force him to.
JOHN SINNING: I'm not against them using it, as long as they get my permission to use
it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, and that's a personal matter.
JOHN S1NNING: That permit should include maintenance of those jetties and so forth.
The money is there, it was budgeted back in 1989, and is sitting in a checking account.
They would rather use (talking) and try to take adverse possession of my property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They also have a problem here. A nice low-profile bulkhead,
you know fix this existing one, they extended a nice low-profile one over here. He's
losing land here. It's an erosion problem here. They could solve this problem very easily
too.
30
TRUSTEE SMITH: Well supposed we issue a permit to maintenance dredge this but this
is the last time until their upland problems are corrected.
JOHN S1NN1NG: They have access to that, if they would put the money into it to
improve it. They would rather use my property and that's were the problem was.
GLENN JUST: Al, ifI may, since we met there, and as I told Mr. Sinning, I did go to the
County Clerk's office and I did clarify that, I apologize that I did make error in my plans,
I have re-done the plans, and the area in question is owned by Mr. Sinning. I've
contacted the President of the Association, who was in California at the time and the
contractor who's originally supposed to do it, and we're exploring ways to get the spoil
out of there without using Mr. Sinning's property or if an arrangement can be made
between the Association and Mr. Sinning. I'm not involved with that. That's between
those folks. There's no doubt that, in the past, I've handled applications before for this.
We've always applied, I think the last time you gave us permission to re-sheath 400' of
that jetty and bulkhead. It was never acted upon. As far as the road run-off, we see that
this is a problem throughout the country. I don't think it's a matter of two rings that'll do
the work, it's a whole equation of how many of per square foot of road, and you need
"X" amount of rings per square foot, it would help. As far as the mouth of the inlet,
that's facing due north and the northeast winds, and that's what piling up that sand and
that sand is being driven there from the north. The other thing that I wanted to mention,
Mr. Zupa mentioned that his fertilizers are running off into the basin. If you're
concerned about the basin, don't fertilize your lawn.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did a contractor dump sand there recently?
GLENN SMITH: Not to my knowledge. This is the first I've heard of it.
MR. ZUPA: I can represent that I saw the contractor take the sand with the bulldozer and
push it into a depressed area approx. 18 cy. and what Mr. Just says, is a common area,
which looks like a river coming across my property, will take down actual bulkhead and
all the shrubs with it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We saw that.
GLENN JUST: I'm just saying, you need more than two rings.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But, you need something. But, it's not impossible.
GLENN JUST: Oh I know. We've seen it done in other places. It's something that has
to be looked into. Who owns Basin Rd.? Does the Association own it? Does the Town
own it? That's something I totally agree with.
MR. ZUPA: The Association owns Basin Rd. up to the point of entering Mr. Sinning's
land. In fact, I have the Deed with me.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, but this is ...
GLENN JUST: With all due respect to all parties, I'm here just to discuss the
maintenance dredging. I don't know about the other issues that are there, but I'm not
involved with them. I haven't been asked to get involved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't want to be involved in them either.
GLENN JUST: Not necessarily.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But, are question is, where does the spoil go?
GLENN JUST: Well, Mr. Latham does have a barge with a container on it. He's away
on vacation, or he was away on vacation for the latter part of last week, perhaps he could
bring it down to the location down the beach somewhere and off-load it there. That's
something that I have to talk to him directly about.
31
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know, we can't Approve this without a spoil site. I'm
sure you need DEC spoil site too.
GLENN JUST: You could Approve it "subject to". Subject to finding an acceptable
spoil site. Perhaps at that time, Mr. Sinning, the Association can come to an agreement
with Mr. Sinning. I truly don't know. I don't know if anyone started the ball rolling. I
truly don't know.
JOHN S1NN1NG: I haven't heard a word.
GLENN JUST: I have contacted, after we met in the field, Mr. Curcuru and his wife in
California, and I let him know exactly what was going on. I spoke to the Association's
attorney, explained what was just discussed and they're willing to start the ball rolling.
But, I'm not going to do that. But I can explore an alternative way of getting rid of the
spoil. We're just trying.., if we can get permission to do it, that's what we're looking for.
MR. ZUPA: The road problem is really severe and it's, by the way, the water doesn't
just come from my property, it comes from the adjoining land owners', including the
Scrupler's property, that's right across the street, carrying their fertilizer as well, down
across my land. I think that should be... if you give them a permit this year, I think you
have to get some commitment from an Association that's been dragging their feet, for
more than ten years. They're contractors that have proposals for the Association going
back ten years ago to re-sheath this jetty and do other work, and they're not doing it.
GLENN JUST: As far as I can see, this has been going on since the late 80's.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But this also becomes almost a public safety issue if these jetties
are leaking sand into the channel, and material from the jetty, then it becomes a public
safety issue. It takes on a little bit of a different color here.
GLENN JUST: Even if it's private bottom?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I'm talking about the one that goes out into the Bay.
GLENN JUST: We all agreed that at the field, that the work, the maintenance dredging,
needs to be done. As we discussed in the field, I revised the plans to the mistake I had
with Mr. Sinning's property, and explored different ways of getting rid of the spoil. I've
done everything you've asked for.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What do you think, Henry?
TRUSTEE SMITH: I think we ought to let them dredge, to do their maintenance
dredging, but saying that they're not going to do it again until they address their problem
with run-off, and they have a problem with a deteriorating bulkheads. That's all going to
have to be addressed before this ...
JOHN S1NN1NG: They'll still have to have a spoil site.
TRUSTEE SMITH: It's going to happen again.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well they can't do it without a spoil site.
JOHN S1NN1NG: The Association owns the land, part of the land, on the other side.
They have a site, but they let it erode so badly they can't get a truck down there. I
haven't seen them look for a permit to fix that. That's a problem that they caused
themselves.
GLENN JUST: That property is only 50' wide. That's the first thing we explored but it
just physically can't be done on that side.
JOHN S1NN1NG: It's a problem they brought on themselves but it's come to a head
now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It sure has. Do I have a motion to close the hearing?
32
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion we Approve the application for maintenance
dredging after they find an acceptable spoil site and also that this will be the last time
we'll give them a maintenance dredging permit until they address the problem of the
erosion.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
20.
Angelo Stepnoski on behalf of JAMES & LINDA PAPE request a Wetland Permit to
install 4'X 72' fixed dock, 3'X 20' ramp, (3) 6'X 20' floats (in a "T" configuration),
secured with (4) 2-pile dolphins. Remove existing upland shade trees and replace with
beach sand and native trees, shrubs, such as Bayberry, Rosa Rugosa and beach grass
(approx. 100'X 100'). Located: 1885 Home Pike Rd., Mattituck. SCTM#114-1-7.2
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the
application?
SUSAN LONG: If you have any questions, I'll try to answer them for you.
TRUSTEE SMITH: This is the one we discussed earlier in the work-session?
SUSAN LONG: Yes, it is.
TRUSTEE SMITH: In order to get the (2) 20' floats, you own the adjacent property, and
you're going to put it in the Deed that they'll be no dock or float on that property and, in
case you ever did want to put a dock that property, one of those 20' floats would have to
go.
SUSAN LONG: That's right.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We had some questions about the...well I don't think we
resolved anything on the length of the dock, did we?
TRUSTEE SMITH: No.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Sue, do you know what the distance is across that channel?
SUSAN LONG: No I don't. I believe Angelo angled it the other way so it wasn't a
problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do we have anything on file for that?
SUSAN LONG: No I don't.
JAMES PAPE: I brought a couple of pictures, if they help.
TRUSTEE SMITH: What kind of water are you looking for at the end of this dock?
JAMES PAPE: I took these today. You can see the stake Angelo put in. He changed the
angle a little bit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What's the distance on that?
JAMES PAPE: I don't know what the distance is, the total distance across.
TRUSTEE KING: I just wanted to check the length of this guy's dock.
TRUSTEE SMITH: How much water are you going to have at the end of the dock?
JAMES PAPE: I think there's 7' on the opposite side of the float, and 4'7" I believe, I
think he's got it there on the inside of the float at the 72' mark. I think he's got it on the
soundings. 4'9" 50' off.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Why does he want 72'?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To come off the... I think he's saying 50' off the edge of the
marsh.
JAMES PAPE: 50' off the edge of the marsh.
33
TRUSTEE SMITH: Okay, that makes sense.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The area that you want to clear in the front, we'd like to see that
area put on the survey and delineate where it's going to be planted and with what. You
know, a general area where it's going to be planted.
JAMES PAPE: The plan we had drawn up and the dock was on the opposite side when
we first did it, and it shows the plantings and how we plan on doing it. Also, it's also not
a 100' because, ...is your jurisdiction 75'?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
JAMES PAPE: It's probably 15' from high water to the first bit of grass that's there, so I
guess it's probably more like 40' or 50' in depth.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our concern is that the bank doesn't get de-stabilized there. We
don't want you losing any property.
JAMES PAPE: Well that's why we picked this area to do it. In that area, there is no
bank. There's a little bit of grass that's growing in there now. I plan on planting
different grasses and things like that to hold it. There's no trees right up on that sandy
area, so I'm not losing it by pulling any of those trees out. I'm actually securing it more
by doing the planting that I plan on putting in there. What do you think Ken?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I didn't see a problem with it on site.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So it will be cleared and not excavated then.
JAMES PAPE: That's correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And then covered with sand.
JAMES PAPE: Then only thing that I would be removing is the leaves and stuff like
that. It's sand on sand, the whole area is sand, which there's dead leaves and they blow
up.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'd like a deed clause to be run across Greg to make sure it's
correct. We're not attorneys and that's something that's going to be bound to the
property, which won't change hands as far as the applicant is concerned, but you never
know.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, sure.
TRUSTEE KING: Maybe we can just condition the Permit, rather then have you go into
the deed and all of that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Check with the Town Attorney.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You might be able to file it right here with the Clerk.
TRUSTEE KING: We want it to be binding. I think our Permits are pretty binding.
JAMES PAPE: However you want to do it, I'm fine with it.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We'll try to keep it as simple as possible.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRSUTEE KRUPSKI: Any questions? Does someone want to make a motion?
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve but it's not (3) 6'X 20' floats, it's (2)
6'X 20' floats and that's a condition that's based on the fact that these two adjoining
properties, and the next property does not have a dock on it, in the event it ever has a
dock built on it, then one of these 20' floats has to be removed from the present location.
We'll run this by the Town Attorney to see the easiest way to make this legal.
34
21.
22.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And then to clear an area of upland species and to put sand down
and to plant as per planting plan between the existing beach and the upland, Bayberry,
Rosa Rugosa, etc. to stabilize that bank and to cover that area with beach sand. We
would like to see that put, that area put on the survey and also the dock put on the survey.
Just have the surveyor put it on there. Was there a second?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
Permits & Drafting Unlimited on behalf of NEIL SCHLIJSSEL requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a single-family dwelling. Applicant has merged two lots into one.
Located: Stillwater Ave. East, Cutchogue. SCTM#136-2-7&8
POSTPONED AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST
First Coastal Corp. on behalf of KAREN LALLI requests a Wetland Permit to construct
a new house and deck, total 1,996 sf., new septic system, stone driveway, and water well.
Approx. 375 cy. of clean sand will be spread over the property for grading purposes.
Located: Harbor Rd., & King St., Orient. AKA 305 Narrow River Rd. SCTM#26-3-11
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here would like to speak on behalf of this
application?
ARAM TERCHUNIAN: I'm with First Coastal of Westhampton Beach, on behalf of the
applicant. This a relatively straight-forward application. ! understand that the Board did
have an opportunity to visit the site in the field. Trustee Krupski was kind enough to give
me a call and let me know that you had some questions and in anticipation of that, ! have
some things I'd like to give you know, which we will address the issues regarding the
potential wetland plants on the site and give you my assessment.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before we start, we have a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Reiger. They
live across the street and said they weren't noticed. It's not the corner lot, it's the next
one.
ARAM TERCHUNIAN: We noticed Tannenbaum, Sokobin, DePayne and the
NYSDEC. Those were the adjacent owners.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll get into that later, ! suppose, you can go ahead.
ARAM TERCHUNIAN: I'd like to give you a revised site plan. There were some
changes brought about as a result of review of the Health Dept. application and some
information that was brought to light by one of the neighbors to the surveyor, regarding
the location of wells, and, in order to accommodate the required 100' separation between
water supply wells and sanitary systems, we were required to relocate the sanitary system
to the southeast side of the proposed dwelling. I've given you copies of the site plan.
The overall dwelling remains essentially the same, except some of the deck has been
reduced on the southeast side of the dwelling to accommodate the sanitary system. We
believe that this now complies with the Suffolk County Dept. of Health regulations
regarding water supply and sanitary systems. ! believe that you may have a letter on file
from a neighbor concerned about that so that's been addressed.
TRUSTEE KRUPKSI: Is that it?
ARAM TERCHUNIAN: No, ! have one for each Board member. A question was raised
as to whether or not the site contains wetlands as they were to be defined under the Town
Code. ! reviewed the Town Code regarding wetland species and the competitive
advantage that the species need to have in order for an area to be determined as wetlands.
35
What I just handed up to you was a memorandum of my site inspection along with 25
photos which contain photos around the site initially, internally into the site, and adjacent
areas within approx. 100 +/- of the area. In summary, it is my opinion that this area does
not constitute wetlands because the wetland species identified at the site do not have a
competitive advantage over the upland species. Specifically, the only wetland species
found on the site is bacharas and that is found in close conjunction with poison ivy and
with a list of other upland species such as wild cherry and a series of upland grasses. A
question was raised as to whether or not some of those grasses were spartina patens. This
morning ! conducted a site inspection and collected samples of the grasses, using a field
manual as well as the NYSDEC wetland delineation handbook. ! also collected a sample
of spartina patens from the meadow east of King St. so that you can see first hand the
difference between these different grasses. I'll just give you these samples. Another
finding of my field investigation is that apparently this site has been disturbed at some
point in the past, and that there is a considerable about of debris around, not just around
the site, but on the interior of the site. ! showed you a number of photographs of that.
There appears to be a very shallow trench-type feature that was dug through the center of
the property at some point in the past and apparently fill was placed to either side of that.
Nevertheless, even in this low area in the center of the property, the species diversity
clearly upland dominant and although there is bacharus, which is a facultative wetland
species, it's really (can't hear) by the other items. One of the neighbors joked to me that
this apparently was where poison ivy was started because ! walked all through it this
morning and I'm sure I'll need a shot soon. There is one other items brought up by
Trustee Krupski regarding the test hole. ! reviewed the information on that test hole and
his question as to whether or not the water depth itself was reasonable given the
circumstances of the neighborhood. The water depth is showing 3.9' from the top of the
grade to the groundwater level and just roughly, what ! did was, ! went out and located a
drain in the south corner of the property and the water level in that drain was about a 1'
below the grade. The grade is about 6" below the road level which is around between
4.3' and 4.5', and the test hole itself is in a higher part of the property. So, ! think if you
add all those numbers up together, it comes in about 2' higher on that part of the property
where the test hole is and the center line of the road where Harbor and King come
together. So just roughly speaking, it seemed to me that the number 3.9' seemed
realistic. ! didn't check with a rod and level but ! relied on the survey that he did an
accurate job.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But the survey shows that the elevation of the corner near the test
hole is actually lower than the corner by the drywell.
ARAM TERCHUNIAN: That's because the land actually rises up. Let me show you
something else. It's a good observation. This is just a quick, rough sketch that ! put
together today, but this shallow depression in the center of the property identified by the
dash and dotted line, and these high areas that seem to surround it, are identified by just a
hatched area. Yes, you're absolutely right. The elevation on the west corner is 4.4' and
the elevation on the south corner was 4.5' but there is a bit of topography...just roughly
as ! showed, there's a mounded area of depression and another mounded area. So, we're
going to be placing fill on the property and these sanitary rings are going, by regulation,
have to be a minimum of 2' above seasonal high ground water, so that will be strictly
adhered to.
36
TRUSTEE SMITH: The total feet of the property, I don't see that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: lA acre.
(changed tape)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There was a question brought up by the neighbor that they
weren't noticed. I'll show you the letter if you like.
ARAM TERCHUNIAN: Was there another letter submitted in support of the application
or is that the only correspondence you received? There are several members of the
community here this evening as patient as the Board and I was wondering if they could
have a minute to express themselves.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. I'll just go over the correspondence. There's one from Mr.
& Mrs. Jerome DiPayne about the location of their well. That's the only other one
besides this other that we got from H&F Reiger. If you would like to look at that one, to
see where their located. Apparently they consider themselves to be neighbors. We wont'
be acting on this, this evening anyway. I would suggest that you notice them for next
month' s meeting. Now they show a wetland drain pipe. Is that what' s connected to that
road drain?
ARAM TERCHUNIAN: There's a road drain in the south corner.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. But is that connected to the tidal wetland across the road?
They show that here.
ARAM TERCHUNIAN: I don't know.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Their concern, of course, is water quality from the septic system
and the fact that it's a low-lying lot. I have a number of pictures that they submitted
showing the parcel and the road flooded and I have a number of pictures that were
submitted by a woman, a neighbor, earlier this evening, showing the road flooded.
ARAM TERCHUNIAN: Well this entire area is located within the flood plain so I fully
anticipate that at some point this area will be flooded. The Town regulations require that
all new construction be elevated at or above the flood level. So, that will be strictly
adhered to as well.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone else like to speak now?
ED SOKOB1N: I live at 450 Harbor Rd., which is directly opposite the property in
question. I came because I was very concerned about my well, which is 30' from the
road and directly, right opposite, the original leaching ponds and septic tank. Now, I've
been told that they've changed that because Reiger complained and I complained. Reiger
lives right next to me. He definitely is a neighbor of this property. So, I came but I've
been told that it's changed so I don't have any objections.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak?
NEIGHBOR: I would like to say that, fortunately, I am a friend of both of the families
that are involved here, the Sokobins and the Lallis. Karen Lalli is out of state and asked
me simply to show up to represent her and the point that I would make is that she and her
husband, who is an environmental engineer, are concerned about the ecology of the area
and are willing to make such changes in the locations of the certain aspects of the
property, mainly the house and the well and the leaching bed to conform to whatever the
Board might be appropriate. The property is, I've taken a look at it just as an interested
citizen, (can't hear) had been disturbed does not look like the rest of the wetlands in that
area. I don't know to what use it's been put to in the far years, but what I have seen
myself, it would conform to what you've heard represented in your testimony. I was
37
hoping to see a win, win, situation here for everybody. I think the potential is here and I
thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Anyone else? Do we have any more questions for
Mr. Terchunian? I have a couple of questions. The reason why we're really concerned
about this property, not only does it have the resemblance of being vegetated with
wetland species, but, the proximity to Hallock's Bay, which is the most productive
shellfish area in Southold Town, and so any development along Hallock's Bay is a great
importance to everyone who lives in the Town. This is really the only area where
scallops will survive the brown tide and it's not only local importance, but regional
importance because there's not too many area along the east coast where scallops will
survive the brown tide. That's why we don't take this application lightly by any means.
Now, among other things, I think we're going have to have someone else go out, that we
would hire, to do a full vegetative survey of the property. If we could get something a
little more detailed from you also, as far as the species involved there on that site. Now
you show elevation changes on this but there's no...the survey didn't show any elevation
changes. The four corners go from elevation 4', 4.4', 4.5', 4.5'. They're not showing
those elevation changes. We would like to see that shown from a surveyor. Even have
those flagged or staked so we could see that in the field. Another thing that's kind of
troubling is that you moved the leaching pools closer to the wetlands across the street.
That should be shown on the survey where it says, across King St., where it says
"vacant". If that could be shown in real terms, not the line of the...it's a paper line, but if
that could be shown where the edge of the road really is, and the wetlands on the other
sides, we could determine the exact distance to the wetlands from that property. Also, if
you could show if that pipe is connected under the road to the wetlands. Anything else.
ARAM TERCHUNIAN: Just one minor comment with reference to sanitary system.
That location, again, was dictated by the separation from the water supply.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I understand that. However, that looks like it places it within
our 75' jurisdiction, which is really unusual for that to be the case on any application that
we would ever see.
ARAM TERCHUNIAN: If there's any possible way for us to move outside of that, we
certainly will. Thank you very much.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application.
TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
23.
DAL Construction Corp. on behalf of FRANK PELLIGRINO requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a pile supported 4'X 32' timber dock with a ladder at the end for a
dinghy to access a boat at a mooring. Located: 330 Minnehaha Blvd., Southold.
SCTM#87-3-38
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here to represent?
DOROTHY RANDAZZO: I'm from DAL Construction Corp. and agent for the owner.
I have my certificate of posting and the green card receipts for the notifications to hand
in. Basically I'm here to answer any questions that you may have.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm afraid we have none. I think we were all pretty satisfied with
it. Do I have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved.
38
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application.
TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES
24.
Peconic Associates, Inc. on behalf of DOUGLAS DE FEIS requests a Wetland Permit to
build in front of approx. 120 fl. of deteriorated bulkhead. Work will include replacement
of deck and approx. 20 cy. of backfill between the old and replacement structure taken
from the immediate area in front of bulkhead. Located: 1165 Cedar Point Dr. West,
Southold. SCTM#90-1-3
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of the
applicant?
MERLIN WIGGINS: I'm from Peconic Associates on behalf of the applicant. I just
wanted to mention that the bulkhead is 30 years old and starting to rot away underneath.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we had a big problem down there.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Well I wouldn't consider that a bulkhead to start, when you put
4'X 4's or 4'X 6's into the ground. That's not a bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What happened is they, years ago, they have nice pictures of
them doing it, they filled in the inter-tidal marsh and built a catwalk on top of it.
MERLIN WIGGINS: That's what they did and they put the sheathing in front of it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So it was the consensus of the Board that we'd like to see all that
removed because it's all built on Town property.
MERLIN WIGGINS: So you want to see it removed?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All of what's left of the decking and the bulkhead removed.
MERLIN WIGGINS: As far as any new dock is concerned?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Al, upon removal, we'll re-inspect it and then make a decision
on what kind of structure to approve.
MERLIN WIGGINS: Even though that was there in 19707 They didn't issue permits
back then.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. It's still built on Town property.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's over the public bottom. If it was on his property, above
the public bottom, then it would be different.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I guess what we need too is water depth out front.
MERLIN WIGGINS: The water depth at low tide is 2, 2 iA, 3'. I think it shows there.
The water depth at high tide is about 2 iA', it's shallow. He uses canoes, kayaks, and
small outboard to access the bay area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So what are we suggesting here?
TRUSTEE SMITH: Well 1970 was before you needed permits.
TRUSTEE KRUSPKI: But it's all on Town property. It's pretty well shot. There
doesn't seem to be any erosion there either.
MERLIN WIGGINS: I don't think there's any erosion. The ground coverage is...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Pretty salt tolerance stuff there.
MERLIN WIGGINS: It's pretty what?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Salt tolerant. It's growing right down to it.
MERLIN WIGGINS: Right down to the water's edge. You can see it in the pictures.
Do you have the pictures?
39
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We do, thanks. I guess what we need is some sort of a plan
showing the removal of that and then he can stabilize that is some other way. How about
a low-profile one at the toe of that Ken?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Above the inter-tidal. I wouldn't recommend anything in the
soft-clam beds. If you looked over the edge, you'll see the soft-clam beds and shellfish
beds.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Maybe you'll like a low-profile bulkhead right along the front.
It'll stabilize his property, but not interfere with the clams.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right where the bank growth ends.
MERLIN WIGGINS: Your talking about along here?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
MERLIN WIGGINS: And as far as a deck area is concerned?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can go upland of that, sure.
MERLIN WIGGINS: So the bulkhead would be moved back to here and the deck behind
that.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I wouldn't recommend putting that big of one like he has there
now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we can Table it and you can bring it some plans. Thank you.
I'll make a motion to Table the application.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
25.
CHARLES & ELLEN HAGERMAN request a Wetland Permit to clear the property
within 75' of the tidal wetlands. Located: 465 Hall's Creek Dr., Cutchogue.
SCTM#116-7-3
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I explained to Mr. Hagerman that we wanted all the front yards
of those houses to conform with the other ones and that there really should be no clearing
past the landward, the house side, of the old dirt road there. The reason this happened is
because the house was outside of our jurisdiction, but the contractor went down and
cleared everything. We went down and...we saw hay bales didn't we?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were there last Wednesday. We would just like to see that
bank stabilized on the house side of that dirt path.
CHARLES HAGERMAN: What are intentions were, after the house was built, we were
going to plant up to the dirt road.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But the dirt road should be left in tact because that's the line
we're using for all those house. In fact, your neighbor has encroached on that dirt road
and we've sent the Constables down because he's parking equipment, and he's putting
piles of material, and he's really encroaching.
CHARLES HAGERMAN: Ironically we had gone out and taken pictures because we
had said the same thing. You know, why are all these other people encroaching on it and
we got our hands slapped. Originally our house was 50' from the curb line and then the
Association requested us to push it back and then when the guy cleared the land, he
cleared right up to the dirt road. So our intention is to landscape it all when we're done.
Actually my wife and I are the ones who put up the hay bales. We got so nervous when
the Constable came out and say to take care of it today. I got pulled over by a Southold
Cop on my way with the hay hales coming back. Welcome to the neighborhood.
40
26.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So that would be it then. We would just want you to re-vegetate
along there and not disturb beyond the dirt path. You can keep going on with the house.
I need a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve the plan with hay bales and to re-
vegetating along the dirt road.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
WARREN CROON requests a Wetland Permit to install a 6'X 6' pressure treated
timber retaining wall 11" in height approx. 78' long going from existing neighbor's
bulkhead on west side to existing neighbor's bulkhead on east side. Wall is located at top
of bank outside of tidal wetland and above mean high water line. Located: 2500 Ole Jule
Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#122-4-12
POSTPONED AS PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST
RESOLUTIONS:
Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of GERALD RUPP requests a Coastal
Erosion Permit to construct a (1) story addition to an existing single family dwelling
within an existing brick patio area. Located: 19375 Soundview Ave., Southold.
SCTM#51-1-20
POSTPONED AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST - Chuck Bowman will provide
further information for March meeting regarding Coastal Erosion.
VI.
1.
MOORINGS:
ANTHONY PEDULA requests a mooring permit to replace mooring #936 in Mattituck
Creek with a 19' outboard and a 100 lb. mushroom. ACCESS: Public.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded.
ALL AYES
FRED HYATT requests a mooring permit to replace mooring #807 in Jockey Creek
with a 15' boat. ACCESS: Right-of-way in front of property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded.
ALL AYES
Meeting adjourned at: 11:15 PM
Respectfully submitted by,
Lauren M. Standish, Clerk
Board of Town Trustees