HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-10/25/2000MINUTES
October 25, 2000
7:00 PM
PRESENT WERE:
AB SENT WAS:
Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President
James King, Vice-President
Artie Foster, Trustee
Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee
Lauren Standish, Clerk
Henry Smith, Trustee
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 at 8:00 AM
TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 at 7:00 PM
WORKSESSTON: 6:00 PM
TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of September 20, 2000.
Minutes were not available for the meeting.
MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for September 2000. A check for
$4,160.50 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
TT.
PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for
review.
TTT. AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES:
J. Kevin McLaughlin, Esq. on behalf of ORIENT WHARF CO. requests an
Amendment to Permit #474 to allow for the existing 6'X 8' shed, which houses necessary
water filtration equipment to remain on the wharf, as long as the filtration system is
required in order to obtain a potable water supply. Located: 2110 Village Lane, Orient.
SCTM#24-2-28.1
POSTPONED UNTIL NOVEMBER AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST
Ongioni & Borelli on behalf of AQUAVIEW HOMEOWNERS ASSOC., INC c/o
WILLIAM A. GEROSA requests a Waiver to install a temporary "barrier" type fence
with sign on the west and east property lines of the Aquaview Homeowner's Assoc., Inc.
The homeowners association wishes to install iron stanchions with a light chain, linking
each stanchion from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Suspended from each chain will be a
sign that states "private property". Located: 425 Aquaview Ave., East Marion.
SCTM#21-2-6
POSTPONED UNTIL NOVEMBER AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST
Mark Boeckman on behalf of STEPHEN N. & ALEXIA QUADRANI SACHMAN
requests a Waiver to replace the existing steps down to the water and construct a 12"X
15" deck at bottom of stairs. Located: 4705 Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#111-
9-9
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE POLIWODA
seconded. ALL AYES
Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of FRANK CICHANOWICZ requests an
Amendment to Permit #5115 to add a swimming pool with spa and surrounding grade-
level patio and/or deck in the rear yard, add 4' chain line or other approved fence
surrounding pool area, and add an impervious driveway. Located: 155 Hall's Creek Dr.,
Cutchogue. SCTM#116-7-1
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application with the condition that
drywells be installed for the road run-off and pool back-wash, TRUSTEE KING
seconded. ALL AYES
En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of KIMBERLY MUELLER requests an Amendment to
Permit #5119 to include the construction of a 4'× 14' fixed timber catwalk with a 4'× 6'
access ramp at its landward end and 4'× 7' steps to grade at its seaward end. Located:
1445 Bungalow Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#123-3-19
TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded.
ALL AYES
J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of WILLIAM A. MALLINS requests an Amendment to
Permit #5116 to install a permanent 4'X 40' elevated catwalk, 4'X 20' ramp, 5'X 5' float
and 6'X 20' float to be secured by two 8" piles. Located: 70 Jackson's Landing,
Mattituck. SCTM# 113-4-3&4
TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve a 4'X 40' elevated catwalk, 4'X 20' ramp, 3'X 5'
float and 6'X 20' float to be secured by two 8" piles, with the condition that, including
the vessel, it is not to be more than 1/3 across the width of the creek or more than 50'
seaward of the vegetated wetlands, which ever distance is the least. TRUSTEE
POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES
Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of DONALD T. DECARLO requests a Waiver to
construct a nautical type fence, post and rope between wetland boundary and high water
mark (min. 8' of high water mark). Located: 1425 Kimberly Lane, Southold.
SCTM#70-13-20.9
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the change to the existing Waiver to allow for a
nautical type fence with the condition that the fence is not to exceed 4' in height, and that
from the southerly fence line, the first two posts and associated ropes have to be removed
and from the northerly line, the first post and associated ropes have to be removed.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES
DOROTHY GALLAGHER requests an Amendment to Permit #92 to include 55' of
3'10" boardwalk and Transfer Permit #92 from Barbara Rader Punch to Dorothy
Gallagher. Located: 40 Beachwood Lane, Southold. SCTM#70-10-62.1
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded.
ALL AYES
VICTOR ZUPA requests an Amendment to Permit #4992 to install two two-pile
dolphins to stabilize the ramp and dock and rectify the decreased low water depth
resulting from the removal ofa 10'X 10' section of floating dock. Located: 4565
Paradise Point Rd., Southold. SCTM#81-1-13.1
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application with two single-pile dolphins
to be located 3' from the existing bulkhead. The inside of the float is to be no greater
than 3' from the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES
10.
MARTIN & MARJORIE DUNN request an Amendment to Permit #1676 for a 10'X
4'4" fixed dock and a 16'X 4' floating dock and to Transfer the permit from John H.
Brochard to Martin & Marjorie Dunn. Located: 1570 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck.
SCTM#122-4-3
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application with the condition that the path
used to access the dock be on the left, or the south side of the property, and that the rest
of the Spartina and Baccharis wetland area be left undisturbed. TRUSTEE POLIWODA
seconded. ALL AYES
11
JOHN A. FANELLI requests an Amendment to Permit #5155 to down size the original
project plan to a fixed dock of 4'X 64' and 1 pile with a pulley system, as described in
project plan approved by the NYS DEC. Located: 2227 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic.
SCTM#86-5-11.4
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application with the condition that the
one pile is not out any further than 30' past the fixed dock. TRUSTEE KING seconded.
ALL AYES
12.
DOUGLAS DE FEIS requests an Amendment to Permit #5188 to include the existing
patio decking stairway and dock, while maintaining existing foundation footprint on
survey. Located: 1165 Cedar Point Dr. West, Southold. SCTM#90-1-3
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded.
ALL AYES
13.
SCOTT SCHULMAN requests an Amendment to Permit #1011 to re-deck the existing
fixed portion of the dock and replace 4" iron piles with two 6" or 8" timber piles. Float
and ramp will remain the same; dock pilings will remain the same. Located: 1575 Pine
NeckRd., Southold. SCTM#70-5-41
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application with single, timber pilings,
TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KING moved to go off the Regular Meeting and go onto the Public Hearings,
TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS
FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLAND 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) MINUTES OR LESS, IF POSSIBLE
Land Use Ecological Services on behalf of MICHAEL McALLISTER requests a
Wetland Permit to install timber stairs for beach access and stone armoring along the
existing bluff toe. The stairway is proposed to be 100'+/- long and 4'+/- wide with a
proposed 4'X 8' timber platform as a resting area. The stairway is to be supported by
4"X 4" CCA timber posts. Existing deteriorated timber remains of retaining walls and
stairway to be cut as necessary and removed to an approved upland location. Applicant
also proposes to install 150 linear ft. of stone armoring at the existing toe of bluff, 170
linear ft. total including the proposed returns. A proposed 100 +/-cy. of"Natural" stone
(1-2 ton) is proposed to be placed on filter fabric on grade along 1,280 sq.ft, of existing
bluff scarp. Proposed stone installation to be approx. 8' wide at 170 linear ft. total.
Located: 17665 Soundview Dr., Southold. SCTM#51-1-3
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We now have a new description. The apparent high water mark
has been moved landward slightly to more accurately depict the observed location. The
returns have been removed from the plans so as to cause minimum disturbance to the
existing bluff scarp and the proposed stone armoring has been limited to two stone wide,
or 5' wide and is proposed to be installed between elevations 8' and 10'. With that in
mind, and if anyone would like to review this now, would anyone like to make a
comment in favor of or against the application.
TANYA LACHENMEYER: I'm from Land Use Ecological Services. I see you have the
revised plans. The rock armor has been changed from 100 cy. to 75 cy. and instead of
1,280 sq. ft. it is reduced to 750 sq. ft. and that is per the DEC's recommendations. We
have not received DEC approval yet but these are the plans that they asked for.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm going to take any other comment before I ask the Board. Is
there any other comment?
ED BOOTH: I'm the next door neighbor to the west. We discussed this a few weeks
ago. ! think you have letters in your folder from Mr. Nicholas. We're not very
enthusiastic about this. ! think from my point of view, it's probably an aesthetics thing. It
looks nice the way it is. Other than some need of stone scarp along there, ! think will be
rather intrusive. As far as the intrusion part, ! was here last meeting, and we talked about
this intrusion on the beach and those stones and rocks won't be projecting out on the
beach, and however they will be there and the whole front there is eroding but ! assume
that stone structure will hold it in place and the erosion will continue around it on the
other side. So, the other point is that there is a freshwater spring that comes out from
under there and ! don't know what the stone will do to that wetland. I'm sorry to see it
go frankly. ! think that if you build that wall there, it will detract from the general
ambiance of the cove there and so I'm not happy with it and that's all I'm going to say.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? Actually, I've got a question since
you're familiar with it. Where is high tide there?
ED BOOTH: Just up against the phragmities. Those stakes are quite close to the edge of
the bank. The high tide comes in there and during a full moon the tide just laps up there
even without a wind.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Against all of that clay?
ED BOOTH: Yes. The clay is good. The clay holds that bank better than sand does and
you know the rate of erosion there increased remarkably. We figured out, my brother and
! that we lost about, we'll it's been since the 30's because we have pictures of course, of
family sitting way out there and the long slope of grass that goes down, as we saw some
of those rocks appear years ago, so we know roughly what the erosion rate is.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! think because like a lot of areas, you've lost your beach
elevation that's protected you.
ED BOOTH: Yes. The scouring back and forth is a hard thing to understand. I'm
certainly not an expert on literal flow, but the general feeling is, when you put a bulkhead
here, and you haven't got one all the way along, say the whole 2000 ft., ! know what's
going to happen. It may not erode there, it will erode for us. But that's going to happen
anyway, of course.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TANYA LACHENMEYER: The only thing ! can add is that this started out as a
bulkhead application which you know the DEC asked that we revise the plans to become
softer on the natural installation, so we complied with that and then the project has been
reduced significantly so it won't be so intrusive. ! think this is a minimal installation
considering what we started out with.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! was thinking about this today and something jogged my
memory going back to the neighbors. We walked down on the Nicholas' platform
because, to get a better view, because you can't walk down on the McAllister one. To
me, I'm uncomfortable voting this out. ! would like to see the revised plan in the field
and revisit it because there's no other structure there and we want to be really careful
here. It's not like you're saying well we're just butting up to the neighbor's bulkhead and
it wont' be any different. There's no other structure in the area. It seems to me like
Nicholas made some sort of application for something we probably, 10-12 years ago, and
I'd just like to see if we could find something, what they proposed and what the outcome
of that was, years ago. But in light of just receiving new plans, I'd like to Table this if
the Board has no objection, and we can revisit it.
TANYA LACHENMEYER: Do you want it re-staked?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, it should be. Thank you. I'll make a motion to Table the
application.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
GORDON PRICE: I'm the designer of the house on top of the bluff and ! do have some
photographs here of the site from the water. ! can understand your premise. Are you the
gentleman that owns this house?
ED BOOTH: That's Mr. Nicholas.
GORDON PRICE: If you don't approve of the rip-rap or the stone, which was submitted
as a result of the DEC disagreeing with the CCA vinyl, this is a much more natural point
of view. Would this in any way prevent us from starting our demolition of the original
house so that we can put up the new house?
TANYA LACHENMEYER: ! have a letter of non-jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! really think that the house and pool demolition and
reconstruction is non-jurisdictional from our Board. I've just been told by the Town
Attorney just before our meeting, and this is his opinion, that if you have a letter of non-
jurisdiction from our old 75' setback, the Town Board recently changed that to 100' so
that letter of non-jurisdiction is invalid unless you've done the work.
TANYA LACHENMEYER: So everybody that has a letter of non-jurisdiction has to
come back if they never started the work.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is what he told me just tonight. Let me measure this.
TANYA LACHENMEYER: Usually, ! thought things like that get Grandfathered. ! can
see like the application we have on next, the Rupp application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We assumed it would be Grandfathered.
TRUSTEE KING: Unless the work has substantially been started.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now in this case, 100' from the MHW is not even up to the top of
the bluff so that the pool and the house construction, or reconstruction and removal and
demolition would still be beyond our jurisdiction in this case. Unless the Coastal Erosion
is going to come into play here.
TANYA LACHENMEYER: We're landward of that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! can't find it on this one. Could ! see that? It's on this one.
Artie, what do you think?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yeah, they're going to cut that whole grade down to stop it from
pitching towards the sound side.
GORDON PRICE: We're going to pitch it down toward the street. There's a septic
system that's on the water side now that's going to be changed to the back of the house,
or the south side of the house and we're going to put in a new well which is right on the
street, we we're taking things away from the bluff, as far as we can.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, the house and pool are non-jurisdictional so you can get
going on that. The letter of non-jurisdiction would still stand unless you want, well we
can send you another letter of non-jurisdiction stating it being beyond the 100'.
GORDON PRICE: So we're still okay?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, you are.
MARGO BOOTH: ! walk the beach about once a week and (can't hear) and I'm more
concerned about the wetlands the anything. Just for the record, ! would like to submit a
photo that shows how the phramities have actually filled that property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll be out there in November to re-inspect that.
Land Use Ecological Services on behalf of GERALD R[IPP requests a Wetland Permit
to construct a 918 sq. ft. addition to an existing single-family dwelling. Proposed
addition shall be located a minimum of 93' landward of the wetland boundary (high-
water mark). Located: 19375 Soundview Ave., Southold. SCTM#51-1-19&20
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the
application?
TANYA LACHENMEYER: I'm here on behalf of the applicant. We're before you
tonight because of the change from 75' to 100'. Originally this was going to be a
separate house on this lot but Mr. Rupp has decided to just construct an addition to the
existing single-family dwelling. It is located 93' landward of the high-water mark or the
tidal wetland boundary. He is located further landward than the existing house.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Was that little addition every built? They proposed a small one-
story addition a year or so ago.
TANYA LACHENMEYER: I'm not sure.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: ! don't believe so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment on this application? You looked at it
Artie.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's awfully close to that bluff.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It says 30' from the top of the bluff and it's just behind the
coastal erosion line. We've been out there a number of times. The brick patio there is
right on the edge. It's very close. Maybe we could have him replant. What do you think
Ken? If you want we can all look at it.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's already cleared.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there house plans already drawn up for this or is this just the
proposed location?
TANYA LACHENMEYER: We don't have actual house plans.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So the actual addition could be slid back away from the bluff
then another 20'.
TANYA LACHENMEYER: Well another 7' and we'll be out of your jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So it could be slid back another 7'.
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
of plans.
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
KING: It would make life a lot easier.
POLIWODA: ! would recommend that.
KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application until we get a new set
FOSTER: Move it back 7'. That would solve a lot of problems.
KRUPSKI: ! made a motion to Table it, do ! have a second?
KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
Ed Goodwin on behalf ofASTRID GADDIS requests a Wetland Permit to build two
bulkheads landward of existing secondary bulkheads to terrace bluff in levels. Return
walls to be built on east and west side connecting new walk north and south so
neighboring properties have no erosion problems. All material will be 1.5 CCA lumber.
A set of stairs will be placed in same location. Sand areas to be planted with beach grass,
Montauk daisies and Rosa Rugosa. Located: 7020 Great Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel.
SCTM#126-11-6
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here to speak in favor of the application?
ED GOODW1N: I'm here on behalf of the applicant if you have any questions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor or against
the application? Well we all looked at it last week and basically they're going to get
what the neighbor has. If there is no other comment, do I have a motion to close the
hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of THOMAS & ROBY GLUCKMAN requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a fixed dock, consisting of a 4'X 98' fixed catwalk, 3'X 14'
ramp, and 6'X 20' float to be secured by two (2) 8" diameter pilings. Located: 1350
West Cove Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#111-5-2
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the
application?
JIM WALKER: I'm from Inter-Science and Pat Moore is here as well. I'll highlight
what we did so far. We've revised the plans to show the dock at 5'. The total length of
the fixed pier catwalk is 4'X 91', the ramp 4'X 14' and 6'X 20' floating dock with (2) 8"
pilings. That's a total length of 124'. It's also 5' shy of the dock to the south and it
allows the dock to be located in a position where the NYSDEC requires it being for a
permanent dock so it wouldn't be take-out dock which is normally part of the fixed dock
and it wouldn't have to be installed every Spring and removed every Fall. The reading
that we gave you are new water depths that we measured October 11th. The floating dock
sits in about 2 iA' of water and we staked the seaward and landward end of the dock. At
the inspection you recommended a single access. The old landing will be removed and a
new landing will be provided in the new dock location and the old location will be
planted with vegetation. For the Board of Trustees purposes, I talked briefly to you in the
field about it, and if you're still concerned with the length of the dock, for all other
practical mitigation, this can be reviewed and mitigate the environmental impact from the
dock assemblies, and I have them here for you tonight. The bulk of them are intended to
remove CCA wood from surface waters for instance the regulatory agencies often
recommend that you use plastic floats instead of a CCA treated floating dock. This type
of dock is made a local company. You can also use aluminum ramps for this type of
dock. Often time regulatory agencies elect to reduce the size of the pilings. To me this
size dock with the tidal range that is has for this type of location, it would be fine if you
use 6" pilings. I'd like to try to reinforce to the Board that we're trying to be as flexible
as possible.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment on this application? Does the Board
have any comment? I like the location a lot better. We reviewed this application a
number of years ago and it's always been the contention of the Board to make the dock as
short as possible, looking at 1998, that's when we reviewed it last. Now, you said you
reduced the length of the entire structure by 5'. Is that reflected on the plan that you gave
us last week in the field or is that an additional 5'?
JIM WALKER: (can't hear) The total length from the bulkhead is 124', and that was
originally proposed to be 129'.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Even if you went, and I'm talking about the plan you submitted
to us in the field last week, if you want for a la' reduction in the overall length, the loss
of water depth would be roughly an inch, based on what you've submitted and based on
what we saw in the field, two years ago.
JIM WALKER: ! don't want to belabor that point. I'd like to accommodate the Board of
Trustees. (can't hear) If the Board if worried about the impact of the dock, I'll give these
dock materials to you first so that all of the (can't hear).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When you apply to the DEC or the ACE, do you provide them
with soundings in the field.
JIM WALKER: If they ask for sounding in the field, we will give them. (can't hear)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How about if you turn the float. You would still get your,
according to your earlier submission of the 4' water depth. If you turn the float, you
would still achieve that and yet you'd save la'. Make it a "T" instead of a straight out.
JIM WALKER: ! need to get to that 4' line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: According to what you submitted on October 13th, it shows float
at 4' of water. Actually if it were turned, it would reduce the overall length by 14'.
JIM WALKER: The NVGD shows 2 iA' of water.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're not going to bust into those bushes again but my point is
that if you turned the dock and had it this way instead of out, you'd still have 4' by this
measure and you would take 14' off the overall length of the structure and you'd still
have your 4' NVGD.
JIM WALKER: 4' of water is at 124'.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well that's what you show on what you submitted.
JIM WALKER: ! get what you're talking about but ! think the survey is pretty self-
explanatory. From 124' away is the closest point to the dock.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But that's one of the devices that we use to reduce the overall
length of the structure, is to modify their configuration, and still achieve your water
depth, your desired water depth.
JIM WALKER: If there was any way to shorten the dock and still get to 4' we would.
It's 124' to that 4' line as shown on that survey and that's what we have to supply to the
DEC.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But what we just looked at out there, doesn't that show the whole
float at 4'?
PAT MOORE: ! just want to remind you that our dock is now 5' shorter than what was
approved next door.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually it shows 11' shorter than the adjacent dock. That's
what ! have in the file.
PAT MOORE: Our dock is 11' shorter than the adjacent one. So it's even more
persuasive that... ! think we're taking a big chance that we're going to get to that point
and be off by the one foot that we need in order to achieve the...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But what I'm trying to suggest...
10
JIM WALKER: May I see this? It's 124' to that line and that's what we need. You can
get a floating dock instead of a CCA treated wood dock. It' s not -4' everywhere there
it's -4' here. That's what happens. It's -4' at a 124'. That's what that's drawing is
based on.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well it's just a suggestion.
JIM WALKER: ! understand and it's a suggestion that's perfectly logical but ! don't
think we can shorten it up and still reach 4' of water based on that survey, and that survey
is by a licensed surveyor and that's what I've got to depend on. All the other things we
can mitigate.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm in agreement with what you said about why going out and
extra 9' to gain an inch. But ! understand their problem also.
TRUSTEE KING: ! don't see a problem with it.
JIM WALKER: ! just want to remind the Board that ! can submit these and you can have
them for your files. It's an offer, a standing offer.
JIM FITZGERALD: Just for my own information, how long will you permit a dock to
be built in order to reach the DEC's magic 4' of water?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Every location is different.
JIM FITZGERALD: We went through the same thing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, and it's kind of a sore spot. Nothing personal of course.
We try to review every one independently in it's context and with the surrounding docks
and that includes other structures in the area. The only other alternative I'd like to
suggest is approving it 20' less and if the DEC approved this one, then amending it up to
that. We can approve this 20' less on the basis of water depth and providing access and
you can apply the plan to the DEC and if they approve this or if this don't approve the we
approved, then you can come back and amend this.
PAT MOORE: The only problem ! have with that is that (can't hear) has to be brought in
4 months. It's not intended to be in any way threatening but that's...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Believe me it's not.
PAT MOORE: No ! understand, we've been there before, but that's the legal
requirements that ! have to worry about, because ! have to preserve the rights of the
property owner and ! don't want it to be a problem with this Board. We've given you
every ability to mitigate with environmental (changed tape, can't hear).
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You have to understand that we have been very consistent each
month with the length of a dock. If you're only going to gain an inch, we're not going to
give it to you. We'll cut you right back. In this case, we have a set of soundings and it is
only an inch and a half, maybe, not even two inches.
PAT MOORE: The DEC does not approve it. I've tried. We are battling over the silliest
dimensions and you can poll everybody here. They are having the same problems. We
are coming to you with a reasonable application given the docks that are in that area. We
are the third of fourth dock and we are shorter than the other docks that you approved.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: ! wouldn't use that as a good argument because the Moeller
dock is over-extended. ! didn't vote of that dock. We've seen the mistakes and we don't
make them twice.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can look at the Riley dock that's two docks down.
JIM WALKER: (can't hear)
11
TRUSTEE
hearing?
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
KRUPSKI: Do I have any other comment?
KING: So moved.
POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
Do I have a motion to close the
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want to make a motion Ken and incorporate some of the
suggestions for alternative materials?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What length do you want to go with?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We approved the dock with an overall length of a 104' and the
DEC does not approve that as a permanent structure, then you can come back.
PAT MOORE: ! thought we got away from that suggestion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Apparently not.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: ! don't agree with that, with what the DEC says. Why should
be amend to what they say? My opinion is, why give 20' extra feet of the dock if you're
only gaining an inch. That's only common sense. If you want my motion, I'll make a
motion to Approve the dock permit to consist ofa 4'X 71' fixed catwalk, 3'X 14' ramp
and a 6'X 20' float secured by two 2-pile 8" diameter pilings.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: There's the motion, what are we going to do with it?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there's no second, the motion is lost. Did you second it?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: No ! didn't but ! want to tell you this, we met with this man out in
the field and we talked about a few different things. We told him what we thought we
wanted, he agreed to do it, now he did it and he brought it to us. ! think we should
address it. We as much as told him we were going to Approve it if he did it this way so
lets Approve it. That's what ! feel.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Alright, that motion is lost. Artie, do you want to make a
motion?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application as requested which
was agreed upon in the field.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want to add anything to that?
TRUSTEE KING: 6" pilings.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Also, to remove the existing platform and relocate it to the south.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To the new catwalk location, and that there be no middle piling
in the dock and the decking be made of other than CCA and the float be the state of the
art plastic float. Any other suggestions? And that there be access stairs for the beach
access placed on both sides of the catwalk near the bulkhead.
JIM WALKER: The ramp will be aluminum.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll second it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? Trustee Krupski Aye, Trustee King Aye, Trustee
Foster Aye, Trustee Poliwoda Ney.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll need a new set of plans showing the access stairway.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're going to jump around here and move to #20 and then we'll
come right back to you.
HAROLD HEPENSTEIL requests a Wetland Permit for the alteration and renovations
to the existing dwelling. Located: 1055 Bungalow Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#123-3-14
12
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The CAC has recommended Approval with no conditions. Is
there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? Against? Does
the Board have any comments?
TRUSTEE KING: ! looked at it. It's an addition over a deck. I'd like to see a drywell
put in for the roof run-off and probably a good idea to put a row of hay bales around the
excavation site to keep it from going down on the lawn. Other than that, I'll make a
motion to Approve.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! need a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
bales.
TRUSTEE
KING: So moved.
FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with drywells and hay
FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of SUSAN & ROBERT TOMAN requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, breezeway and garage, sanitary system and
well. Located: 3480 Main Bayview Rd., Southold. SCTM#78-2-13
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the
application?
PAT MOORE: Mr. & Mrs. Toman are here if you have any questions and this is because
of the 75' to 100' setback change and this was non-jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of or
against the application? There is a letter here that ! will read from the adjacent property
owner. (Letter attached.)
PAT MOORE: This is a pre-existing lot. There is public water in the street so he could
connect to public water. We will be going to the Health Dept. My clients are going to
contract on this property and they want to be able to build a house, obviously.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: From our concern, the neighbor has a legitimate concern. From
our standpoint...
PAT MOORE: ! don't where this neighbor is but they ...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Your survey shows they are right across street.
MR. STARKY: May ! comment on that. ! called the water dept. in Westhampton. They
advised me or the person buying the lot, to contact a lawyer who (can't hear) and they
would be put on a list to be connected to public water. It might take 6 months, it might
take a year, but they would be on the list.
PAT MOORE: If you recalled a while back, there was a moratorium but now that's over
so we should be able to get verification that we can hook-up relatively quickly.
MR. STARKY: ! own the property, and the buyers of the property said they weren't
going to build tomorrow. This is their future home within a year or longer.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: ! know a lot of times in situations like this, there are contingencies
made where the buyers of the said piece of property would agree to pay for the...
MR. STARKY: ! wouldn't want to do that.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well if you offered to hook the lady up to public water, she
probably wouldn't be a problem. The only other alternative as ! see it as having a lot of
experience with Health Dept. is that you might have to go to a Board of Review. And the
13
Board of Review may make that offer. If you agree to hook the conflicting person up to
public water...
PAT MOORE: We've got the parties mixed up here. He's the one that would have to
hook him up.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Oh you're Mr. Konarski.
MR. STARKY: No he's the property owner.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Basically, what I'm saying is that if you agree to hook up
Konarski's house to public water, and she agrees to allow you to hook it up, you wouldn't
have a distance problem. Now if you have to go to the Board of Review, that may be
what they suggest that you do, having been to the Board of Review a few times.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You have an option of connecting the neighbor up.
PAT MOORE: One way or another, because of the adjacent wells we are going to be less
than tee'.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: You're about 80' short there.
PAT MOORE: What he's asking is, if he agrees to hook him up, ! don't think that's
within your...
TRUSTEE FOSTER: No, no, we're not asking...! made a suggestion.
PAT MOORE: Well that is a possibility.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: If you offered to hook the lady up and she accepted, and the water
authority accepted the application, you'd get rid of the problem with the 70' to the well,
because it isn't going to fly through the Health Dept. As far as we're concerned, ! don't
think we had a problem with it, did we?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well because the septic is well out of our jurisdiction. We'll get
past that. The CAC has recommended Disapproval because they were unable to
determine the distances because of the lack of stakes and were the limit of clearing would
be.
PAT MOORE: It was staked.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were out there last week and we saw the stakes and we
measured. The only other thing that we did discuss in the field is something that was
brought up earlier at our worksession. The limit of clearing and non-disturbance area, we
would like to see a split-rail fence put in at the 75' non-disturbance area to delineate that
from the upland area that would be lawn and house and whatnot.
PAT MOORE: ! can understand hay bales at the limit of clearing and it would be an area
that stays natural but ! think a fence would essentially cut their property in half. It's not
very aesthetic and not very useful.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! don't know about useful if it's a non-disturbed buffer area.
PAT MOORE: ! think the DEC looks at it as saying, well you can keep the vegetation
natural, you don't build any structures, and no hard surfaces.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our Code is different. A non-disturbance zone is a non-
disturbance zone.
PAT MOORE: It essentially takes away half the property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! thought that was what was proposed looking at that in the field.
PAT MOORE: No that is the jurisdiction setback. This was originally prepared under
the 75' setback. Because of the timing, it ended up being pushed to this meeting with the
tee' setback.
14
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What does the Board feel is an appropriate setback for this? If
you want to go by the DEC, they usually require a 50' non-disturbance setback.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's from the wetland line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. So we would like to see a split-rail fence. You can just
draw it on the survey, a split-rail fence erected at 50' and then you would have your yard
that you could clear for up to that and that would be the limit of clearing.
PAT MOORE: A split-rail fence would be an intrusive way to cut off your property
because some people may want to have some way to get down to ...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh well you could have a path or walkway, of course.
SUSAN TOMAN: Even for aesthetics, no one to the left or the right or across the creek
from us, no one has a split-rail. It's just wide open. ! can't see why we have to have a
split-rail.
PAT MOORE: We can understand the buffer, and that's not a problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then what's your suggestion to maintain that buffer? Because
these buffers have been disappearing at a rapid rate.
PAT MOORE: This is going to create all kind of Title problems. If they go to sell,
they're going to be looking at something that looks like the property cuts off at the split-
rail fence.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not if it's on the survey.
SUSAN TOMAN: Aesthetically, ! don't know what any of my neighbors will think.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we're not worried about what the neighbors are thinking
actually.
PAT MOORE: Well they personally don't want to look at a split-rail fence blocking off
the view of the natural vegetation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well a 3' high split-rail wouldn't be blocking it off. Actually
they could let it grow over it and they wouldn't even see it. We need a suggestion then to
maintain that buffer area.
PAT MOORE: We can put some natural plants in there. Some Rosa Rugosa or some kind
of shubbery.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: A row of vegetation of some type.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: A row of vegetation would be nicer. We would require the hay
bales during construction.
PAT MOORE: That's fine.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What's going to grow there?
PAT MOORE: Whatever will grow.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Privet hedge or arborvitae's.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It doesn't have to be wetland because it's in the buffer area. It can
be bayberry or whatever will grow, it's almost an evergreen and native so it doesn't
require any care, and it can be sheared low to whatever height you want. Any other
comment? Do ! have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with a 50' non-
disturbance buffer to be marked by a row of plantings and a row of hay bales during
construction.
15
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Hay bales at the 50' and we'll Approve the survey...just have the
surveyor draw the line at the 50' parallel to the 75' and have the buffer area written in. Is
there a second on it?
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of ELLEN A. GROPPE requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, driveway, and septic system. The
24'X 36' proposed dwelling is to be built on piles and located 47'+/- from the wetlands.
A 40' non-disturbance buffer is proposed adjacent to the tidal wetlands line. Located:
985 Bay Shore Rd., Southold. SCTM#53-3-12
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of or against the
application? The CAC recommends Disapproval because of the inadequate setback and
question the inadequacies of the survey regarding the distances on the survey from the
edge of the wetlands to the proposed structure. We did measure the distances in the field
and found them to be fairly accurate. I'm going to propose non-turf on the west and
north side of the house. The house is going to be on pilings so they don't need fill here.
That will alone minimize the impact. What do you think Artie?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: In the front only? Or out to the 40' no-disturbance line?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, no. Just in the front of the house.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll go along with that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with a 40' non-
disturbance buffer, that there be no turf and no fill placed north or on the west side of the
house or on the west side of the proposed driveway and no fill or turf on the east side of
the house either. The only fill to be brought in is for the septic system on the south side
of the house. Native species should be planted after construction and that there be a
staked row of hay bales at the 40' no-disturbance buffer line during construction.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Have then write in "no-turf' and "no fill" in these areas on the
survey and then it will be a lot clearer.
Catherine Mesiano on behalf KARL RIESTERER requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a second floor addition to extend 5' beyond existing footprint (no first-floor
expansion) and for the installation of a 18'X 30' in-ground pool with additional retaining
wall landward of existing seawall. Located: 1945 Calves Neck Rd., Southold.
SCTM#70-4-47
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the
application?
CATHERINE MESIANO: I'm here on behalf of the applicant. (changed tape, can't
hear) The second portion of this application is with respect to the proposed swimming
pool which they propose to construct in the area of the bluff between two retaining walls.
The reason for the requested location is that, and you've been to the site, if you could
recall that there is a boat ramp on the beach, that boat ramp accesses the boat house
which is below grade, and that boat house is constructed of concrete block walls and
16
poured concrete ceiling. There is a concern to the integrity of that structure if there were
disturbance to the ground in the area immediately adjacent to that area of the backyard
area of the property. In order to come up with a location for a pool, they're looking to
improve this site. One thing ! would like to note is that the notice stated a 18'X 30' in-
ground pool, we reduced that to a 14'X 30' in-ground pool. The retaining walls were
proposed to be concrete, probably inter-locking blocks rather than poured concrete, and
those walls would be no greater than 4' in height, so the first wall would be set back from
the existing seawall approx. 4' and it would be a maximum of 4' in height setting the
basis for the edge of the pool and the next retaining wall would be actually seaward of the
existing retaining wall. The entire pool structure pool area would be beneath the existing
grade of the existing backyard. At this point I'll stop and see if you have questions
because I'm not sure if I've addressed your concerns.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well first of all, is there any other comment? The pool would be
below the existing grade. How much further below?
CATHERINE MESIANO: ! believe from the bottom retaining wall to the top retaining
wall, we have a maximum of 4', is the difference in the grade from the lower proposed
retaining wall to the higher proposed retaining wall. So, the backyard grade is about 16'
and the pool with be at about 12'.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What makes up the 4' difference?
CATHERINE MESIANO: From the existing seawall, there is presently a slope for
approx. 4' from that slope, at the approx. 12' contour, a 4' retaining wall, 4', that would
be above the ground and would be constructed sub-grade. That would give you a 4' area
in which to start the grade at which the pool would be installed. The pool would be
installed at that approx. 12' location, elevation. The proposed retaining wall would be at
a 4', at a 16' elevation, so the difference between the two proposed retaining walls is 4'
in height. The pool would be set at a grade of approx. 12'.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! think the Board felt that in this case it would be a mistake to de-
stabilize what is a stable, heavily vegetated bluff. Why couldn't the pool be moved back
directly towards the house?
CATHERINE MESIANO: We considered that and there are two large trees that they
would hope to retain. They are really the only two shade trees in the back of the property.
The are large substantial trees. There is only approx. 25' from the seaward side of the
house to the edge of the bluff to begin with. The backyard is very minimal. Also, the
property being wedge-shaped, it widens as you go closer to the water, again, my concern
is the underground boat house, and the impact that the excavation may have on that
underground structure. The house was built in the 40's. The boat house is sound but I'm
not an engineer, ! don't think the Riesterers have had an engineer look at the boat house
to see what it could sustain as far as disturbance.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is this pool drawn on to scale here in this survey that we have?
CATHERINE MESIANO: ! measured it out. It's 14'X 30'.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It' looks small.
CATHERINE MESIANO: Here is another copy. Also, I've high-lighted here because
the survey doesn't show...the boat house doesn't follow the line of the ramp, it takes a
turn and narrows this was towards the backyard. This is vegetated over here and there are
two large trees in here. So, that's the problem.
17
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It seems like from a practical stand-point, two trees are a lot
easier than to try to remake this what is a very stable bank. It's a very heavily vegetated
stable bank.
CATHERINE MESIANO: We would intend to keep it stable with the use of retaining
walls and of course the road indications, would be tended to during the course of
construction. They don't intend to have the construction done with heavy equipment, it
would have to be done by hand because first of all, bringing heavy equipment across the
boat house would be risky so they are not proposing to bring in any heavy equipment. It
would all have to be hand done.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll read the comments from the CAC. The CAC recommends'
Approval of the Wetland Permit to construct a second floor addition and recommend
Disapproval to install an 18 'X 30' in-ground pool. The CAC recommends' Disapproval
of the pool for the following reasons: 1) The existing lan&cape does not conform to the
proposed pool structure. 2) There would be excessive infringing upon the wetland
boundary. 3) The proposed alteration of the bank would have a negative impact on the
wetlands. 4) The existing wetland buffer and there is no need shown for disturbance. To
add to that, if the pool were moved further toward the house, there is room. Especially on
the original pool that was shown, there is certainly room to move it towards the house.
You would have to remove the trees but you wouldn't have to de-stabilize the bluff and
put all of that in jeopardy.
CATHERINE MESIANO: They were trying to retain the pond in the corner of the
property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The fish pond. It seems like we've never allowed a pool on a
bank like that on the creek and it seemed like a bad place to start, especially where there
is an alternative to putting a pool next to the house.
CATHERINE MESIANO: How much leeway would we get because putting it up
against the house would be a problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our concern is for the creek there. We wouldn't want to see it
anywhere near the bank. It should be behind the existing retaining wall.
CATHERINE MESIANO: The more substantial retaining wall, which is the lower
retaining wall, the higher retaining wall is basically a landscaping retaining wall.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But that marks the top of the bluff. ! agree with the CAC.
TRUSTEE KING: ! do too.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What do you think Arite?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: ! agree.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! think that's the feeling of the Board on this?
CATHERINE MESIANO: If we came to you with a better re-vegetation plan would you
re-consider it?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! don't think so. ! think we would allow a pool up on the lawn
area, but above the bank.
KARL RIESTERER: We have a series of walls there, ! guess you saw it. We have a 4'
wall that's about that big down by the seawall and then it goes up and back about 4', then
goes up another 4', another stabilized wall, and it actually would be much stronger
stabilizing the bank than it is now and the pool would go, and up to another wall that
would be made out of concrete and block and again, much more stabilized that it is now.
So, realistically, the whole thing would be much stronger than what we have now. The
18
weeds and the things that are growing on that hill now, we never can plant anything
because nothing seems to grow well.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But our contention is that everything is growing quite well there
and it's holding that bank in and protecting your property.
KARL RIESTERER: Well we've had erosion at points where we've had hurricanes and
we've just filled it back in again, but this would make it much more stable. As far as I'd
be concerned, ! really didn't want to lose those trees either. We were told by the architect
and the gardener that if any equipment or anything goes within about 10' of those trees,
the trees will die. The trees are about 100 years old and they are beautiful trees and they
shade the house. Again, ! really didn't want to lose them and ! didn't want to have a pool
underneath them with leaves and everything going into the pool.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well ! think, and you have to work within the constraints of your
property, and it would seem that it is less than a half an acre, you definitely have some
limitations that you have to work with physically on the property, and ! think the Board is
unwilling to allow a swimming pool on a bank that steep but we would let you put it in
on the upland, above the bank. That's going to be up to you, whether you want to accept
that or not. If you want to come in with an alternative plan showing the pool on the
upland, ! don't think anyone would have a problem.
KARL RIESTERER: Actually the pool would be down 4' from the level of the land. It's
not that it's on the side. Aesthetically, ! think it would look very nice. A lot nicer than it
looks right now. We spoke to the neighbors and they were all in favor of it. ! thought it
would certainly enhance the area and make it more stable. Also, it would preserve those
two trees.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What do you think?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: ! think it's a bad idea.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We still all think it's a bad idea to put the pool on a stable bluff.
We have never approved anything like this in the past and for good reason, ! think. So,
our alternative here is to approve the house construction and disapprove the pool, or if
you like, we can approve the house construction and approve a pool in the upland portion
above the existing retaining wall and then you would have everything you need and you
could come in with an amended plan and we could give you the permit then. Otherwise,
if we disapprove the pool tonight, you'll have to come in with an amendment later, if you
want the pool on the upland next to your house.
MRS. RIESTERER: If we say "yes" to that, and should we decide after going through
the drawing that we wouldn't be happy with the pool that close to the house, does that
mean that we are obligated and we can still go ahead with our house plan if we decide we
don't want the pool?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely. As opposed to denying the pool tonight and then
you decide, well we should've, it will give you a better option.
MRS. RIESTERER: What if we had a better engineering plan to keep it stable?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Doubtful.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: ! wouldn't approve the pool until it was staked, as we would
approve it up against the house.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! think we should Table this and let you think it over instead of
just voting on something that you might be really unhappy with. Unless you want to just
vote on the house tonight so that you can get that moving.
19
CATHERINE MESIANO: Can you make a decision on the house?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure, then you can move forward on the house and you wouldn't
have to wait another month. Is there any other comment? Do ! have a motion to close
the hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE ARTIE: I'll make a motion to Approve the construction of the addition to the
house only, with the condition of a staked row of hay bales at the top of the bank during
construction.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
S.E. Long Permits on behalf of TIMOTHY & NANCY HILL requests a Wetland
Permit to install 4'X 45' fixed catwalk, 3'X 12' ramp, 6'X 20' float secured with two 2-
pile dolphins. Located: 360 Oak Ave., Southold. SCTM#77-2-2
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here to speak in favor of the application?
KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN: I'm here for the applicant, also Susan Long is here. I'd like to
hand up to the Board a new set of plans and also copies of the old plan showing the
differences. Basically what we've done here is at the DEC's direction, turned the float
perpendicular to the end of the ramp. We've also extended the fixed catwalk, dock,
landward back to the concrete seawall. What's basically happened is the catwalk has
been extended to 75', the ramp is now 3'X 14' and the float is now turned sideways and
still remains the same configuration, 6'X 20' float. This gets us out to acceptable water
levels and it's basically in the same position as the old plan.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else who would like to speak on the application?
We actually met with the permitting agent, Sue Long, in the field last week and we had
the discussion about the length of the dock in relation to what was not only appropriate
for the area, and environmentally sound, but also in line with the neighbors which we
though would be appropriate there also. ! don't think this plan reflects that. It doesn't
reference that.
SUSAN LONG: When we were out at the site, we were on the west neighbor's dock and
we were looking east at the dock on the east side, and our focus point was the stake ! had
in the water. That stake was at the end of the float of Dr. Hill's proposal. That stake was
actually 92' from the seawall, so in actuality, when we talked about the fixed portion of
Dr. Hill' s dock to be in line with the easterly dock, ! did not think of it at the time, but
actually there was...that line would be 32' landward of that stake that we were looking at.
So the line that were looking at really is within proximity within the realms of what you
said you would approve at the site. In addition, ! had mentioned that the DEC stated they
wanted the dock on an "L" and it was mentioned at the site that it wouldn't be a problem.
So, in order to accommodate the DEC's requirement that we have 40" of water at the end
of that float, ! flipped it around on that drawing that you have and then ! re-drew it
backwards, and even though there's approximately 15' added on to the catwalk, that is
still 15' landward of that stake you were looking at.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! don't think that is what we talked about in the field. We talked
about drawing a line between Mr. Schwartz's dock on the west to the end of the catwalk,
the end of his catwalk, to the end of the neighbor's catwalk on the east, and having the
end of Dr. Hill's catwalk...
20
SUSAN LONG: Dr. Hill's catwalk will be within that line. I spoke to Angelo, and he
couldn't be here tonight, but it's not going to exceed the docks there.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: The catwalk or the whole structure?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was no where near the stakes though. The imaginary end of
Dr. Hill's dock.
SUSAN LONG: That was 92' from the seawall, that stake. That's the end of that float.
That stake represents the end of the float, not the fixed dock.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This would be about 20' past the fixed dock. Is that right?
SUSAN LONG: That stake was 30' from where the fixed dock was going to be.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Say that again please.
SUSAN LONG: The stake is 30' father out than where the end of the fixed dock is going
to be.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ok. That should only be 20' more than because the ramp is 14'
plus 6' for the float.
SUSAN LONG: No, it was 20' plus 12'. 32'. The float was in a straight out
configuration. So that was 20' then there's a 12' ramp, and then the catwalk.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But on this red drawing, you're adding extra structure there. Is
that right?
KEV1N MCLAUGHL1N: Well if we're extending the catwalk, yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well that's not what we discussed in the field though.
SUSAN LONG: But it's still within the reign of your approval. It's still 15'.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're talking about the fixed dock, not the float.
SUSAN LONG: That's right.
TRUSTEE KRUPKSI: Kenny didn't think that the float on the neighbor's was a legal
float. We didn't want to use that as a reference point. We only used the fixed portion of
Mr. Schwartz's and the other neighbors, to determine the end of the catwalk, catwalk to
catwalk. But, on this red portion, you've added more catwalk. You're saying that's only
to bring it up to speed.
SUSAN LONG: Right. But it's still 15' inside of that stake that we're looking at. It's
still in line with the neighbors.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well if you say so.
SUSAN LONG: If you approve the dock, your condition out there was that it was not to
extend past the neighbors. I'm not going to submit something to you that ! believe is an
error and certainly Angelo is not going to construct something that is an error.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We can end this and say catwalk to catwalk, draw a straight
line and when Angelo builds it, draw a straight line and say that's it, regardless of the
number of feet on a piece of paper.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we asked them to get us a measurement, and she has.
SUSAN LONG: The other thing ! would like to bring to your attention is that the DEC is
requiring that there be 40" of water at the end of the float. Each time I've gone out and
measured, it has been 43" and ! was advised by the DEC to put the 43" at the end, to
represent an accurate sounding that ! got. So, that float can be probably pulled in a few
inches to meet the 40" mark, because once we got out there, we found it to be pretty
level. In actuality the dock may be a little shorter to get to that 40" water mark.
21
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What do you think, Artie or Jim? I guess I don't have a problem.
We're going to put that in the condition that the end of the catwalk can't exceed a line
drawn between the two neighbors' dock.
SUSAN LONG: Can I also ask when you're taking this into consideration for approval, I
know in the very, very beginning, I forgot about it but it has come to my mind now, that I
know my clients were upset about when the dock had to be extended to the seawall
because they have small children. I would like in that approval if you would approve
some sort of a construction of a latched gate to be put there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: How about all of those structures in the wetlands that have
been put in recently?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The boat rack is inappropriate.
KEV1N MCLAUGHL1N: Just for the record. There are access stairs showing on the
new drawing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? Do I have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application to install a
catwalk that will extend no further out than the eastern and western catwalks in a straight
line, a 3'X 12' ramp, and a 6'X 20' float secured to two single-pile dolphins with the
condition that the boat rack be removed from the phragmities and the small boat also in
the phragmities also be removed. A gate also with stairs is approved.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
10.
J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND COUNTRY CLUB
requests a Wetland Permit to remove material that has eroded into an existing drainage
ditch, then to install soil erosion matting in the existing ditch to provide for proper
drainage, between the 1st Fairway and the 2nd Green. Between the 17th Tee and the 16th
Tee, the applicant proposed to remove existing collapsed drainage pipes and to remove
any material restricting the flow throughout the existing ditch. Collapsed pipe shall be
replaced with 18" PVC piping. Between the 1st Tee and the 1st Green, the applicant
proposed to install approx. 260' of 18" PVC pipes. To install +220 of vinyl sheathing
along edge of existing ditch. At the bottom on the 16th Green, the applicant proposed to
regrade a 60'X 70' area and then to re-vegetate area with Spartina patens which shall be
planted on 6" centers. Along the 14th and 16th Holes, the applicant proposed to install
erosion control blankets, place staked hay bales on top of the blankets and to raise the
elevation of the area to prevent flooding and therefore erosion into the existing marsh.
Area shall be replanted with grass. Located: East End Rd., Fishers Island. SCTM#1-1-
3.13
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Move to Table the applicant until an inspection is made.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
11.
J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of MICHAEL & GRACE GRIFFIN
request a Wetland Permit to construct a seasonal docking facility consisting of a 4'X 50'
catwalk elevated 3 iA' above grade, 3'X 12' ramp and 6'X 20' float secured by two 8"
piles. Located: 435 Pine Place, East Marion. SCTM#37-4-14&15
22
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of this application?
GLENN JUST: Just to let the Board know, this client just came to me and asked for a
seasonal dock and that's why it's laid out this way. ! didn't use NGVD or anything like
that. ! put on some waders and used a stick. ! got to 2 iA' of water and ! stopped, and
that's how ! decided on the length of the proposed structure. Ken, did you get a chance to
go to this today?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: ! was there yesterday at 4:30.
GLENN JUST: ! was there this morning at 10:00. This was the first opportunity ! had.
From what ! understand from some people that live on Spring Pond, is the trouble with
ice and stuff. So, that's another reason for a seasonal structure. If you need to take
another look at it, that's fine with me.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! think we have to.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You know our concerns. What's your personal opinion on
this?
GLENN JUST: It's 29' seaward from where ! measured it this morning. 29' seaward of
the spartina alternaflora. It's drops down really quick and it's a really hard bottom.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want to Table it?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes, ! would Table it.
GLENN JUST: ! have no objection to that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment?
GLENN JUST: I'll re-stake it for the next inspection.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Table the application.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
12.
En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of THOMAS & JEANETTE MEYER requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a two-story, one-family dwelling with attached garage and
deck; connect to underground utilities; install a pervious driveway, sanitary system,
drywells, and drinking water well; and establish and maintain a 55' wide non-
disturbance/non-fertilization buffer adjacent to the tidal wetland boundary. Located:
2570 Clearview Ave., Southold. SCTM#70-10-29.2
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to make a brief comment on this
application?
ROB HERRMANN: The application is pretty straight-forward. The house is meeting
the 75' setback from the wetlands. The sanitary system is actually out of the Board's
jurisdiction and we have proposed drywells and a non-disturbance/non-fertilization buffer
as mitigation for the project as per the Board's usual conditions. If you have any
questions or comments I'd be happy to address them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why does the flagged wetland land not follow, well it's roughly
following the 4' contour and then it goes straight, why doesn't it follow that 4' contour?
ROB HERRMANN: The wetland on that corner, there is some phragmities that
dominates up in that direction but it is mixed in with bayberry, poison ivy, bittersweat, a
bunch of other vegetation that is clearly non-wetland vegetation. That area there
probably is being taken advantage of by the phragmities which tends to keep out other
vegetation, so ! flagged in that area along the line of what is clearly tidal wetland
vegetation. It sort of tapers out into some scattered patens which ! gave the benefit of the
23
doubt to the wetland when I was there, by taking the landward end of that. What you get
then is a mix ofphragmities, poison ivy, and other species.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is this straight line on the map?
ROB HERRMANN: No, the straight line is a FEMA reference. It is the line that
differentiates the coastal barrier area where you cannot get flood insurance, from the
other FEMA zone, which noted, it's under Notes #4, If you're in a coastal barrier legend,
flood insurance is not available for construction in that area. So, that's a FEMA
boundary rather than a wetland boundary. Actually the wetland boundary and the plan
from a long, long time ago is actually shown down by the high-water line. Which,
obviously is not the case. The parcel is a little more than 40% upland.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! think what we wanted in the field was a 55' non-disturbance
buffer, a little more of a buffer there.
ROB HERRMANN: Well the only difficulty with that is if you have a 55' buffer, it's
going to limit the yard area to the house to about 20'. It is not impossible that the DEC
will require 50'. That is what the DEC typically requires. But, they have in some
occasions where the lot is constrained and allowed somewhat less of a buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! wouldn't have a problem with 50'. Actually we would make it
25' off the house instead of 50' off the wetland you would make it 25' off the house.
THOMAS MEYER: Well we have two small dogs and this won't give them any room.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well maybe this isn't the lot then because we're trying to be
consistent on it from an environmental basis and if it's a small lot maybe you need more
room.
JEANETTE MEYER: It's not fair to be consistent if the wetlands are taking up half your
backyard.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But that's what it is. We didn't make the lot, that's what it is.
ROB HERRMANN: ! proposed 35' on this parcel because ! believe we were consistent
with what the Board just approved for Richard Anderson over on Nassau Point where
there are wetlands on either side. On one we had the buffer next to the road and then
there was a buffer on the other side of the house. It was meeting the 75' setback but the
lot was otherwise constrained and almost 100% positive that the Board went with 35' on
the side.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was a little different because there were driveways on either
side, well on the one side.
ROB HERRMANN: There was a driveway on one, well there actually two buffers on the
property. The one buffer you imposed up to, ! think it was 10' on the house side, and on
the other side adjacent to the typical line of wetlands was 35'.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But this is being consistent with what we just approved tonight
with a 50' buffer.
ROB HERRMANN: Well ! know this Board has approved ...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If necessary, but in this case there's room to have a 50' buffer.
ROB HERRMANN: You assumed what ! was going to say, because ! know that the
Board has approved, or perhaps ! should say imposed, 50'.
THOMAS MEYER: What about a fence by the wetlands?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would encourage you to put a fence there.
ROB HERRMANN: ! would say that in this instance that ! would suggest that the Board
not object to that because the DEC will require them to covenant with their Deed that that
24
area not be cleared so it would be more of a violation than say a Trustee condition or
even a condition of the DEC, this would be a covenant that would have to run with the
Deed and there is no reason we couldn't forward a copy of that covenant to this Board.
That says that no only can this owner not clear that when they develop it but when the
property is then sold in the future, that the next owner can't say "well we didn't know
about the buffer", and we they cleared it. That's the purpose of what the DEC does is
they make you file what is called a notice covenant to the Deed, which typically has to be
submitted to the DEC before construction can even start and I'm sure the Meyer's
wouldn't have any problem forwarding this Board a copy of that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where would the proposed fence be?
ROB HERRMANN: It would have to, ! think according to this plan, it would be 35' off.
Of course, that would be subject to DEC approval as well because, although it's just a
fence, even if it was yard-guard, it still a structure in the adjacent area. Even if the fence
were at the buffer area, it would still have to be approved. That whole area, and ! assume
you saw the site, it's predominately bayberry and other typical adjacent area vegetation.
But, basically they would be putting yard guard or whatever they would put for the dogs,
that would include that area and ! think this Board would still have a very clear picture of
what went on because if you approve a fence 35' from the wetland boundary, and there's
any clear-cutting done on the landward side of this fence, ! think it serves the same for
enforcement purpose. You can see if there was any clearing done on that side and
obviously it was in violation. It allows you above and beyond the covenant to maintain
the same enforcement. This is your point of reference on the property. ! think that would
be a reasonable compromise.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What do you think, Artie?
ROB HERRMANN: We can preserve the vegetation in that area without giving up the
use to walk around it or rather for the dogs to walk around it, ! mean ! don't think the
Board can make a decision to the detriment of the applicant based on the presumption
that they are going to violate your permit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, but on the previous application we required them to put in a
vegetated planting at the buffer, we are going to start requiring that, just so we have a sort
of a visual reminder that this is a buffer area.
ROB HERRMANN: Well that's what I'm saying. ! think to put it here in this instance
would serve you the same purpose.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Put it where? At the 35' or the 50'?
ROB HERRMANN: If you put the fence at the 35' mark, but you impose the buffer up
to 25' from the house, as long as the house is constructed pursuant to the permit, it's
certainly obvious whether any clearing has gone on more than 20' from that house,
especially on this lot. The vegetation is not sparse. ! think any clearing would be more
than blatantly obvious by anyone who has seen the property and you know that beyond
that point from 35' mark to the 50' mark you have a 15' area for dogs or whatever, that
can't be cleared. So, you know up to 15' landward of the fence, and up to 25' seaward of
the house is that resultant 15' area as a no-disturbance area. ! don't think there could be
any question of enforcement there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does anybody else agree with Rob? How about a row, it doesn't
have to be a tight row, but just a row of bayberry at that 50', put a fence up at the 35', and
a row of bayberry at the 50' because we want to leave that as no-disturbance. You can
25
13.
14.
have turf up to 50' but...you know what I'm saying, you can put a row of bayberry up,
and then you'd have a marker. You could have turf up to that and then you'd have the
fence going beyond that.
ROB HERRMANN: We're willing to grant whatever it is, just as long as there's one
compromise allowing the additional 20' of use of the property.
JEANETTE MEYER: It doesn't have to be bayberry does it?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well bayberry is our suggestion because it's a native plant that's
growing well there and it's not going to require any care or maintenance. It's just going
to grow there. Beyond that, you can put your fence. That's why we suggested bayberry
there.
ROB HERRMANN: We could come up with another non-fertilizer dependent species
that would be preferable to you. They're compromising to keep that 15' of use so long as
you mark the 50' buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPKSI: What kind offence?
THOMAS MEYER: They're just small pugs so just a 2' fence or ...
JEANETTE MEYER: Probably a 3', like a yard-guard.
THOMAS MEYER: We could have a gate?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Of course. And in fact, if you want to include on this a 4' wide
path to the water.
ROB HERRMANN: We could line that up with the fence.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's not a problem. Any other comment? The CAC did not
make an inspection but they recommend a 50' non-disturbance/non-fertilization buffer.
We covered that. Do ! have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with a 50' non-
disturbance buffer which will include, at the 35' mark a fence.
ROB HERRMANN: It will probably be yard-guard but we have to give you a revised
site plan anyway so we can figure it out then.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: At the 50' mark there will be a vegetated buffer.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of LISA EDSON requests a Wetland Permit to construct
on pilings a one-family, two-story dwelling, deck and swimming pool, install a pervious
driveway and sanitary system, place approx. 850 cy. of sand fill, establish a 30' non-
disturbance buffer adjacent to tidal wetland boundary and connect to public water and
other utilities. Located: 9326 Main Bayview Rd., Southold. SCTM#87-5-25
POSTPONED [INTIL NOVEMBER AS PER THE AGENT'S REQ[IEST
En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of STRONG' S MARINE INC. requests a Wetland
Permit to remove and replace (in-place) +/-268 linear ft. of existing timber bulkhead with
vinyl sheathing. Dredge by clamshell bucket crane up to 20' of bulkhead to a maximum
depth of-4'6" ALW. Approx. 200 cy. of clean sand will be trucked in from an upland
source and used as backfill. Located: Camp Mineola Rd., Mattituck. SCTM#122-9-
6.2&122-4-44.2
POSTPONED [INTIL NOVEMBER AS PER THE AGENT'S REQ[IEST
26
15.
Jennifer B. Gould, Esq. on behalf of EL JOANRAC CORP. requests a Wetland Permit
& Coastal Erosion Permit to removed washed-up debris from winter storms and to
smooth the beach in front of the staircases that lead down to the beach from the deck.
This is necessary to ensure the safety of the customers. This maintenance is performed
once a year in the Spring. Located: 58855 County Rd. 48, Greenport. SCTM#44-2-22
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the application?
JENNY GOULD: I'm here on behalf of the applicant. Ellen Wiederlight is here if you
have any questions about the application. It's fairly straight forward and we talked about
it at the worksession last month. The only thing ! would ask is that you would talk to the
Town Attorney, if you approve this, about your satisfaction of the violation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We will. We think this satisfies it. Any other comment? Do !
have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to Approve?
POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve.
KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
16.
Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq. on behalf of the ESTATE OF JOHN WHITESIDE requests a
Wetland Permit to remove weeds, dead branches and leaves from the top of the bank
down to the edge of the upland growth, trim trees, apply mulch and replant with Rosa
Rugosa. Located: 801 Maple Lane, Southold. SCTM#64-1-30.2
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of or against the
application? The CAC recommends Approval and that the clearing area be restored to
it's prior condition with a submitted and approved vegetated plan. Henry looked at it. Is
there any other comment? Would someone make a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the condition
that the hay bales be left in place at the bottom of the bluff even after it's planted and that
the area have mulch or wood chips put on the bank to stabilize it after it's planted.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
17.
Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of DENNIS UDE requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a dock with 10'X 4' platform at landward end, 8' run X 4' steps, 71'X 4' fixed
walkway including either steps to ALW at seaward end or ladder at seaward end.
Located: 1227 Pine Neck Rd., Southold. SCTM#70-5-36
Revised project description to read as follows: Construct dock with 10'X 4' platform at
landward end, 8'X 4' steps, 41'X 4' fixed walkway, 10'X 4' hinged ramp, and 6'X 20'
float secured by 4 piles with fixed stops to support float 2'-9" off bottom at low water.
The overall length of the structure is unchanged.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone here like to speak in favor of this application?
JIM FITZGERALD: I'm sorry for the late change in the design but there was a
misunderstanding on my part and it's not what the property owner wanted. ! think the
overall length is exactly the same as the dock to the west. The length on the low water
mark and the high water mark is the same as the structure to the west. The concept of the
27
float is supported at low water where necessary. It's something that we talked about and
used before and presume that it will be acceptable to our friends in Stony Brook.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It wasn't staked. It wasn't marked in the water.
JIM FITZGERALD: No, it was marked at the landward end and the length is the same as
the dock to the west.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The revised plan here shows a catwalk to the edge of the marsh,
ramp and a float, with stops to keep it off the bottom. ! don't have a problem with that.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: How far off the wetland is the catwalk? Because what ! look at
on this piece is paper is something different.
JIM FITZGERALD: From what? The high-water mark?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: From the marsh edge. Where will it end.
JIM FITZGERALD: 3'. Some small number.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Sounds good. ! wish they were all like that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want to make a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of
Dennis Ude as written.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
18.
Amy Martin of Fairweather-Brown on behalf of ELLEN HUFE requests a Wetland
Permit to remove the existing single-family residence and replace with new single-family
residence in different location. Located: 3195 Wells Ave., Southold. SCTM#70-4-9
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the
application?
AMY MARTIN: I'm here on behalf of the Hufe's. (can't hear)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does anybody have any comments?
AMY MARTIN: The measurement went to the bulkhead rather than the high-water
mark.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes, we did measure from the high-water mark.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our standard policy on these type things is that the houses should
be more or less in line with each other, especially where it can be easily accomplished,
especially where this is already the case. ! think we would be hard-pressed to approve an
application to put a house closer to the water when the existing house there is further
back.
(changed tape)
AMY MARTIN: (can't hear)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What we need is a line between the two adjacent houses. That
way everyone is line and it impacts the creek at an equal amount.
AMY MARTIN: Not to argue but in this situation, the people to the west have by choice
put in very large natural plantings, so it prohibits their view to the water.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were there. As a general rule, we don't like to see, just for
encroachment purposes, we don't like to see a house any closer to the wetlands than
necessary. ! mean in this case we can only push you back another 15' because that's the
limit of our jurisdiction.
28
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's for obvious reasons. You push out, then the guy to the east
going to push out and then you'll push out...
AMY MARTIN: Well actually the guy to the east ... (can't hear). But, two weeks ago
this wouldn't have been an issue.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's more like a month and a half. This wasn't our doing either.
AMY MARTIN: ! know that. ! realize that even non-jurisdiction letters issued before
have to come back.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, we would require that this house be pushed back tee'.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: That would be my suggestion. Get it out of our jurisdiction and
then you don't have to deal with it. You don't have to come to us.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're going to require that anyway.
MR. FAIRWEATHER: It's just that we've been designing this house for probably the
last year and the reason for the location is the view to the creek to the east. They actually
lived two houses west to this piece of property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! think the next house gets a better view.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Just a suggestion for the view, in the summer anyway, we
would permit a deck, I'm sure, because the other houses do have decks.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: The house will still fit on the property if you move it back t 5'.
MR. FAIRWEATHER: It does but it then eliminates a lot of view down the creek and
the neighbor's have just recently planted several substantial trees.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But there's nothing stopping them from planting all the way
down and blocking what ...you can go all the way to the water's edge. We can't operate
on...
MR. FAIRWEATHER: We understand but they're just trying to take the maximum
benefit from the property and when we started to design the house, the 75' setback was
your limitation, so we set the house back 85' and now we're in a situation where.., now
we're confused.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Whether it's 75' or tee' our standard policy is to keep the houses
in line to avoid that kind of leap-frogging which we see otherwise. But, that's the way it
has to be.
MR. FAIRWEATHER: Is there any compromise to this situation?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! don't see why we would do that. We have been really strict
about this policy of keeping the houses in line.
MR. FAIRWEATHER: Well we worked within the rules when we designed the house.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can't help that. We weren't responsible for changing the
rules. We have to conform to the perimeters of the rules now too.
AMY MARTIN: The house to the east is further forward than this proposed house. The
house to the west is setback considerably.
MR. FAIRWEATHER: Is it just the average of the two houses on either side or is it the
average of...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's the average of the two houses.
MR. FAIRWEATHER: Because, the house to the west, it sits further back. They
obviously have no interest in taking advantage of the view because they have already
established a line of vegetation that blocks that.
29
NEIGHBOR: I just moved into the neighborhood and I didn't establish that vegetation. I
just moved in. That line of vegetation ! would gladly take down. So, it's not like I'm
trying to block your view.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, we're going to Table this and then you can...
JIM RICH: Can't the opposition speak? My name is James Rich, some of you may know
me, some of you probably don't. Mrs. Hurran lives in the house to the west. Mrs. Burns
lives in the house to the east and ! have photographs that contradict some of the things
that you've said. ! had no intention of ever interfering with Mr. & Mrs. Hufe's plan but
when you sent me the notice ! became infuriated. ! have lived on that street in the house
that ! live in now, which is in Lot #7, which I'll present a map prepared by George Wells
Estate, this is where we all got our property, you guys were there, you know where it is.
This is the Hufe lot. This is Mrs. Hurran's lot. This is my lot. Here is an aerial
photograph taken when the bridge was down. ! don't know if any of you remember that.
They took the Jockey Bridge down. It has nothing to do with it. The line, the straight
line across is a wing of an airplane that the picture was taken to. The house out of the
point is the house the Hufe's now own and was owned by Carl Vail and before that it was
owned by Mrs. Robert Johnson who purchased the house from the George Wells Estate.
We all got our houses from the George Wells Estate. My great-grandmother was a Wells
and that's one of the reasons ! ended up there. The woods across the street, ! purchased
and you can take this back to the Hufe's if you like, ! purchased the woods all across the
street, the remaining heirs of the Wells Estate, my attorney represented me, so that we
could keep a buffer between anybody that tried to develop the Grigonis property. ! have
lived in my house on Lot #7 for 40 something years and my intention to keep this the way
we can. You, Mr. Krupski, said you try to keep the houses in line. If you look at that
aerial photograph you will see that every house is in line except the house that Mr. Vail
built, which is the house that the Hufe's now own. Do you see what I'm saying on that
photograph? See the white roofs? All the houses are in line. You get to this white,
sandy beach out here and you can see where his house sticks out. See, we come along
like this. This is my house, this is Mrs. Herron's house and this house is out of line with
everybody. It starts all the back at the bridge. Everybody was conscious of keeping our
houses in line because we all wanted to be fair. We didn't want one to stick out any
further than the other. Now, if this is granted, it's going to start a domino and we're all
going to start to go down just as you said, Mr. Poliwoda, the guys to the west, myself,
and the next house, which was Hufe's and a man named, and his name escapes me
because I'm so damn nervous being here, and ! just hate to be here because ! am the
godfather to one of the Hufe children. This is probably the worst thing in my life that !
have ever had to do is to come here and fight this. Mr. Denicolo purchased the Hufe
house. He talked to me about this and asked me if ! would come as a defacto
representative of his and I'm not an attorney so he can't hire me, but ! did bring my
attorney with me too. I've been in the house that the Hufe's now own, many, many times
when Carl Vail lived there. If you stand in the living room of the house that's there now,
you have a perfect view of everything from Harper' s Point, over the wharf house in
Founder's Landing, and almost to Paradise Point. You can see all of that panorama from
the living room of the house that's there now. There is absolutely no need for them to be
so selfish and inconsiderate of everybody to the west of them to build that house out that
far. The plan you presented shows a house 78' from the existing garage. Am ! correct?
30
But you think about this. Add 78' to the existing garage, which you say on the plan has a
floor elevation of 15'. You have than on your plan, ! never measured it. To get that
house where you have that little wing in there, which is probably a bedroom, the whole
problem is the view to the east. Not the view to the west.
AMY MARTIN: Mr. Rich, before you get all upset about this, they have already told us
we can't do this.
JIM RICH: ! know, but I'm telling you right now, you're not going to get away with
anything there. I'll have my attorney tell you another reason why.
RICHARD LARK: To save the Board time due to the lateness of the hour, ignorance in
this case is not bliss. There are deed restrictions. The reason you see that line there is
deed restrictions. The map of George Wells was filed in 1927 in the County Clerk's
office as map #859 and that provides two things in the covenant. One of them is "no
residents or other buildings shall be erected which shall be offensively located" and the
other one says "no residents shall be erected on said premises within 10' of the
embankment fronting on the creek". Now you can see from the elevation in the plan that
was submitted to you, this house, the Vail house, which we call down there now and the
Hufe's live in, is built right on the bank. It was built in the 60's, about 64 or so and no
other neighbors, Mr. Rich in particular, since he was probably the only one that lived
down there at that time, did not object to it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why not?
RICHARD LARK: You'll have to ask him that.
JIM RICH: Because ! wanted to be neighborly and it didn't bother anybody at that point.
RICHARD LARK: But it's in violation to the covenant right now and it's built right on
the embankment. You can see that when you go along. There's another thing too that's
interesting. Jockey Creek comes into the Andros Patent. Carl Vail for years, if anybody
lived down there knows that, used to dredge so he could get his boat in there out to the
creek where the County dredged, and put the spoil up and he's added at least 20' to where
it was originally there bulkheaded. So, unless he had a deed, there's a deed to Mr. Vail,
which is their predecessor in title, from the Trustees, the very body that I'm before here,
he didn't own the land. So, your jurisdiction, in reality, is a lot further. If we can
establish through aerial photographs and the dredge spoil and everything else, you cannot
acquire land from the Trustees by filling it. You have to get a deed. You own the
bottom. Artie your familiar with that with Mattituck Creek and what went on there for
years. They had to get deeds from the Trustees all along there. So, it's the same patent
and so if the truth were known, your jurisdiction doesn't stop where you said it was and
she's showing it from 81' from the tie line there. You're actually back, in reality, with
the aerial photographs, another 20'. So, it is true that maybe as you suggested, that they
ought to quit while they're ahead. ! don't think anybody objects to them tearing down
their building and building it on the existing footprint. But, the neighbors are not going
stand for having you build seaward of where they are right today. Not only for the
alignment of the house, there are deeded covenants. So, there are two prongs that would
go after them. One, the exacerbation of the already violation and the other one is that
your jurisdiction truly can be established unless somebody can come up with the deed. !
don't think they can, because that's not the way Carl operated. So, it was just done. The
aerials earlier do show that that point is much father out than it was naturally. Which is
also a matter of record from 1927 when VanTuyl filed the map with the County Clerk's
31
office. So, with those things in mind, I think they ought to either Table the application,
we can present all that evidence, Mr. Rich as he said, was very upset and very reluctant to
come tonight but also there was a letter from the neighbor to the east that should be part
of your record. ! don't know if you got that. They also contacted Mr. Rich and wanted to
make sure that you did have that letter. Where Hufe's used to live on that other lot of Mr.
Deniacolo here, the irony of it is, is that this would completely block his view if this
going on and when Hufe's sold it to him and he stood on the deck there, that was one of
the principle reasons that he bought that house so he would have the view to the east.
Now, that will now be completely blocked, which again, is in concert with your
philosophy to try to keep them all in line. But the reason was, in 1927 when they put the
covenants on, they wanted 10' from that embankment so everything would have sort of
an even flow over everything. That was a natural embankment. It wasn't dredge spoil or
anything like that. There's no question of the dredging. You can see it today because of
the way the literal drift of it is. It all stops right there at Carl Vail's property. When you
go there physically you can see that. The neighbor wanted that letter read and they are
objecting to it immediately to the west, Mr. Rich is objecting to it two properties to the
west, and Mr. Denicolo is objecting to it which is three properties to the west. But I've
given you legal reasons to give cause and again somebody didn't do their homework on
this thing. There's a serious land title question, if the neighbors decide to pursue it. So, !
just wanted to make you aware of that. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. The land title thing, there's an awful lot of cases
where the land has been filled over the years and we don't give up title just because it's
been filled.
RICHARD LARK: That's exactly right so you have jurisdiction because you're the
owner.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely. But, I just scaled it out and it's still, because of the
way land runs away there to the west, it's still, 15' is about all we could push the house
back. We only have a 100'. We have no jurisdiction beyond 100'.
RICHARD LARK: My point is that you own in another 20' landward.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! agree with you but it shows here the tie line, and ! would
imagine they would have a deed that would describe the tie line.
RICHARD LARK: The deed was before and it would just go to the high-water mark.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want to take a look at this?
RICHARD LARK: Yes, because all of the deeds on it just gave a lot on that filed map so
you have to get the filed map. You can establish from the road how far a distance the
water line was at the time of the filed map.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The tie line is here.
RICHARD LARK: Yes and ! understand that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! understand this was filled here.
RICHARD LARK: No, no it was actually filled right back in here. What he would do is,
he would bring a crane, dip out, and the further he could go he could get closer to where
the County dredged so then he could put his boat in. His boats always drafted a
minimum of 4'. I've never known him to have a boat less than 38' there. Nobody
complained because Carl was Carl.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's the same way, if he built his house out too far, it was fine
then.
32
RICHARD LARK: Nobody complained I know. Mr. Rich is sad today that he didn't
complain but being a neighbor, he let it go.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well he's a neighbor now and he's complaining now though.
RICHARD LARK: Well because they're adding to it.
JIM RICH: ! have some photographs. If you look at these photos, this photo was taken
from my house, Lot #7. If you look at that peak out there, that white peak, it's Carl
Vail' s existing house. So you see what we look at when we look to the east? This lady is
going to be in a box when they go out there 78'.
NEIGHBOR: Well it' s going to be straight out rather than.., at this point ! do have a span
in front of me and goes to the east. The existing house seems to be built sort of into the
land, and I'm wondering if the new house would even be higher. Would they bring in
land to even that out?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well ! don't know but our contention is that it can't be within our
jurisdiction and that it should be in line with the neighbors and that's what we said from
the beginning. So then we'll make a motion to Table the application and then we'll get
new plans showing the house outside of our jurisdiction. ! don't know if this has any
other permits that it needs besides.., it might be above a 10' contour definitely.
AMY MARTIN: No, (can't hear).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
19.
Peter F. Bullis on behalf of RUTHANN & ROBERT BRAMSON requests a Wetland
Permit for a complete renovation of the existing house including a porch addition to the
south and one-story additions to the east and north. Located: 12040 Main Rd., East
Marion. SCTM#31-14-4.5
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The problem here is since you're the last one, you have to stay to
the end of the meeting now.
PETER BULLIS: ! have the certified mail certificates. ! have a letter from the
postmaster saying that the Ryoffs have been away on an extended vacation. The Ryoffs
arrived back last night and ! talked to Dr. Ryoffthis afternoon. He had received the
letter, he had sent the receipt certificate back to me which ! can send to you once ! get it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Good enough. Do ! have any comments? What was this
property?
PETER BULLIS: It's always been owned by Mr. Bramson's family whose name
was.., but her family was there for many years. The house on the road was the first house
and the other three houses have been added during the course of the years. Dr. & Mrs.
Bramson want to renovate the house on the bay and become their retirement home as
well as their summer home, and that's what ! have been engaged to help them with. They
wanted the porch, we've been to the Board of Appeals. Two small additions to the east
and to the north. The property has been subdivided several years ago into four
properties, just in case they ever want to sell off part of it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have no problem. We're just curious as to how it was laid
out. It's kind of interesting. We have notes that say that there will be no change in grade.
The final grade should remain the same.
PETER BULLIS: That's correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Beyond that, hay bales at the top of the bank during construction.
33
PETER BULLIS: One other item is the concern with the second property with the
cottage. There is work also being done on that. A letter of no-jurisdiction because it is
more 100' back from the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. Do I have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve with a condition that there be hay
bales during construction on the top of the bank and that there be no change in the
existing grade.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
20.
ROBERT CHILTON requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling
75' from the bulkhead; over-cut between 10-12' for foundation (63-65' from bulkhead).
No cesspools within 75' Located: 1165 Blue Marlin Dr., Southold. SCTM#57-1-13
POSTPONED UNTIL NOVEMBER AS PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST
21
JENNIFER & PENN SANGER request a Wetland Permit to rebuild and improve an
existing rock revetment. The seawall will consist of 2-4 ton boulders placed in a bed of
rock chips and backed with filter fabric. All rocks in the existing seawall will be reused.
Located: Peninsula Rd., Pole #466, Fishers Island. SCTM#10-3-20
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application until an inspection is
made.
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES
22.
SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY requests a Wetland Permit for the
installation of a 16" w/m (ductile iron pipe & 16" H.D.P.E.) for purpose of supplying
drinking water and fire protection to the residents of New Suffolk. The grass area on the
road's edge will contain all work pertaining to directional drilling. (Staging &
Receiving.) The staging and receiving pits are to be approx. 200' east and west of bridge.
Depth of drill will be approx. 25' under the creek bottoms. Hay bales and silt screen to be
installed to contain sediment laden runoff. All excavation to be back-filled, stabilized
and returned to their original condition. Excess fill to be removed and disposed of
legally. Located: West Creek, Mud Creek, Downs Creek, New Suffolk.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does anyone have a problem with this?
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
POLIWODA: No.
KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing?
POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to Approve?
FOSTER: Approve.
KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
23
STEVEN FABB requests a Wetland Permit for two existing floats 6'X 16' connected at
middle to make overall 6'X 32', 3'X 21' ramp, and 4'X 67'8" dock, with two steps at
beginning. Floating dock has four (4) piles, fixed dock has 14 pilings. Located: 1925
Naugles Dr., Mattituck. SCTM#99-3-5
POSTPONED UNTIL NOVEMBER AS PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
34
TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to go off the Public Hearing and back to the Regular
Meeting, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES
RESOLUTIONS:
SYLVIA KAPULER requests a Grandfather Permit for the existing 6'X 20' float with
timber piles and 3'× 15' ramp. Located: 2665 Cedar Lane, East Marion. SCTM#37-4-
12.1
TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded.
ALL AYES
Meeting adjourned at: 11:30 PM
Respectfully submitted by,
Lauren M. Standish, Clerk
Board of Trustees