HomeMy WebLinkAboutDangas, George10 January 2005
Heather Tetrault
Board of Town Trustees, Town of Southold
PO Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Heather,
JAN 1 3 2O05
$outhotd Town
Board of Trustees
Just to follow up from my phone call of earlier...
I took a walk on the beach to see the crew trimming trees from the top of the bluff
of i600 Hyatt Road almost right down to the beach. As I mentioned in my call, if
the key language of the code is "disturbing the soil," then I don't think that this
work directly violates the code. However, I would ask you and the rest of the Board
to rethink the spirit of the code, if not the letters themselves.
Doesn't it make sense that when you remove the canopy of leaves, two things
happen:
1. No longer buffeted by leaves, rain falls directly to the ground, increasing the
likelihood of water/erosion damage, and
2. Massive and improper "pruning." Especially of old trees and bushes, may
result in the death of the tree/shrub and the eventual loss of the root
system, further adding to the instability of the soil.
Unfortunately, historically many people in town try to get away with questionable
work during the winter months, especially where the concentration of year-round
residents is Iow. ! see a tree crew clearing trees in mid-winter - when it's difficult to
tell viable branches from dead ones and when the Bay Constable is not making the
summer rounds in the boat - and in a sensitive area, and my suspicions and
concerns are elevated. ! hope that both prove to be unfounded.
As I said, I fear a domino effect along the bluff as new property owners, one by
one, are haphazardly stripping the very trees, branches and plants that have held
the bluff on this side of Horton's Point in place. It's a shame that people, even in
this day and age, think they can improve on nature's design, and in doing so often
destroy the very habitat that attracted them to this place and with little or no
understanding of the long-term consequences. Just as we learned that jetties add
to erosion woes and don't solve them, I hope you and the Board can help make
sure we are not setting ourselves up for a major trouble down the road.
Very truly yours,
William Toedter
1800 Hyatt Road, PO Box 389, Southold, NY 1197!
3 ]anuary2005
JAN
~.~hold
Boerd of
Heather Tetrault
Board of Town Trustees, Town of $outhold
PO Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Heather,
! just wanted to drop you a brief note to thank you for taking the time to call,
let me know of the current status of the Board's inquiry and to listen to my
thoughts and concerns. That simple effort made a great difference in my
views about the attention and outlook of the Trustees. You've given me hope
that in years to come, there may still be a great deal of natural beauty and
resources preserved for the enjoyment of future generations.
Given the Trustees' part-time status, ! again offer my time and services
towards to goal of environmental protection and preservation for the Town.
Thanks again for the follow up. Like I said, it really did make a difference.
Very truly yours,
William Toedter
1800 Hyatt Road, PO Box 389, Southold, NY 11971
cc: .1. Horton
22 December 2004
Heather Tetrault
Environmental Technician
Town of Southold, Board of Town Trustees
Town Hall
PO Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
DFC 2 7 £ 04
Southo~d Town
Board of Trustees
Dear Ms. Tetrault,
1[ want to thank you for letter of 22 November 2004 (copy enclosed). 1it is the first
time that a member of the Board has taken the time to respond to any
communication from me and T truly appreciate the effort.
However, 1[ need to point out several problems your letter and this matter with the
Leudesdorfs' property have brought to light.
Despite your note that stated, "We will contact you to let you know how this
is resolved,~ no such contact was ever made. 1in fact, the first contact !
received on this matter was a letter (copy enclosed) from the Leudesdorfs'
attorney threatening to take me to court should 1[ ever make such an
~unfounded complaint" again. My response to that letter is also enclosed. You
can imagine my disappointment that 1[ had to hear of your findings in this
manner and not from the Board.
Fortunately, 1[ brought the letter to the attention of the Bay Constable and he
took the time to answer questions ! had not only about this event, but
questions 1[ have been asking the Board for two years now and have never
gotten any answers to.
As explained to me by the Bay Constable, there are NYS DEC guidelines with
respect to wetlands, like the bluffs. However, the Town of Southold, at the
recommendation of the Board, did not adopt the full complement of State
guidelines. Therefore, while most of the rest of the State has one set of
wetlands code based on the State guidelines - making education and
enforcement easier, more efficient and equitable - the Town of Southold is
different. Why, 1[ do not know. But don't we deserve the maximum protection
suggested by the State DEC and enjoyed by most other residents of the
State?
Because of the Bay Constable taking the time to help me understand the
Town code, it appears that the code allows the trimming/pruning of trees,
even past the bluff line, without a permit as long as the soil is not disturbed. T
take it that the intent of the code is to prevent unnecessary disturbances of
the fragile bluffs.
Page 2
But in this case, trees were not judiciously pruned or trimmed. They are now
just trunks with no small branches to support enough leaf growth to make the
tree viable. The result - dead trees in the bluff whose root systems will wither
and disappear, causing eventual collapse or uprooting of the trees in the wind
or snow, and thus, causing the very disruption to the soil and the fragile bluff
that the code was supposed to prevent.
(Please note that the despite my initial call to the Bay Constable where !
mentioned trees being cut at ground level and pictures ! took to support that,
the Bay Constable did not go down the embankment to see those cuttings -
cuttings which truly come close to undermining both the letter and intent of
the code.)
This town prides itself on the preservation of its resources. That preservation
is a long-term, if not indefinite, time line. Why can't we look beyond the near
term and come up with a code that actually protects our resources as well as
our property for the distant future? Haven't we learned that one person's or
group's actions can have devastating repercussions in the future? The current
code does not protect the long-term viability of the bluff, nor does it protect
any property or provide any property owner with a way to protect against
damage or to address damage through the law. As the Bay Constable
explained, even if the bluff did collapse next to us and then led to the collapse
of our property, we would have no ability to prove that the action of
decimating the trees caused the problems directly, especially since the
current code permits such action.
Again, can't we put in place a code that recognizes that actions we take today
may cause disastrous and irreparable harm in the future and thus, seek to
restrict such actions? Too many people think about the near-term - they may
only keep the house for five years, or may have 10 years to live - and not
care about the long-term effect of their actions. That's where the Town is
supposed to step in and help protect the Town and its resources against
people who do not understand or care about the future.
While you letter and past communications with the Board express that the
issue of enforcement is the responsibility of the Bay Constable, would you
help me understand why the Board then turns around and involves itself with
enforcement - particularly going against NYS DEC recommendations for
enforcement actions? On the property to the other side of ours - 1900 Hyatt
Road - upon further review, the NYS DEC reversed its earlier position and felt
that the work done on that property warranted a fine. However, the Board
decided not to fine the property owners, thus undermining enforcement of the
code.
Page 3
When is the Board goin. g to stop overlooking infractions? Until the Board
supports the decision of the Bay Constable and the NYS DEC, people - both
property owners and contractors - will continue to get away with degradation
of the very resources the Board is supposed to protect. And with new
property owners up and down this section of the bluff each little bit adds up
to the potential for problems on a large scale..
If the police released someone because they only stole a little, were only
hitting their spouse a little or were only a little above the legal level of
intoxication, everyone would be livid...and rightly so. So why is it okay to let
people get away with infractions of the code and not fine them, especially
when the very people the Board says are ultimately responsible for
enforcement suggest a fine, reverse it?
Again, besides your letter, the Board has never taken the time to personally address
questions and concerns. The Bay Constable was kind enough to help me understand
several things, previously addressed to the Board.
For example, I previously complained that the residents of 1900 Hyatt Road had
used heavy equipment - tractors and bulldozers along the bluff to uproot trees, re-
grade the land and dig trenches for a sprinkler system. ! express this concern
because In a public Board meeting the previous year, when the previous owners
were seeking a variance for a pool on the bluff-side of the house, the Board said that
after careful inspection of the properties, after careful consideration of the fragility of
the bluff, the Board would not allow heavy equipment to be used on the bluff-side of
the house. Myself and every neighbor attending that meeting came away with the
same understanding - that the Board recognized the fragility of the bluff and that no
heavy machinery could be used on the bluff-side of the house for any reason. ! have
now, two years later, learned that we were wrong and, most importantly, why.
It seems that despite the Board's exhaustive and careful work in this matter, despite
their finding that the bluff has been eroding and is in a fragile state - especially with
a major collapse just 600 feet to the east - and despite their proclamation that no
heavy equipment would be allowed on the bluff-side of the house because of these
tenuous conditions, the Board's pronouncement is not binding. Only when specifically
written in Town code or in a variance are the Board's proclamations binding.
Now, doesn't it seem strange that despite a long and exhaustive review and the
unanimous findings that the bluff, particularly in this area, is very unstable and the
Board's pronouncement that they would not allow heavy equipment on the bluff-side
of the house in building a pool, that the use of heavy equipment right on the bluff
(and documented by photos) to rip out trees and their roots or to dig trenches for a
sprinkler system is not a concern?
Page 4
Of course it's strange...strange and frustrating. This incongruity of what's acceptable
at some times and not seems contrary to the Board' mission to help preserve the
Town's natural resources and help property owners support those efforts.
So perhaps you and the Board can help me understand these issues so that the
Town and concerned citizens can help being about needed changes, so that Town
codes can be updated in ways that they are fair and yet easy to understand and
enforce, and so that we can enjoy for years and years to come the very natural
beauty that has captured hearts of residents and generations past.
Along these lines, ! have requested of the Board and the Supervisor's office that the
Town look into several matters that other towns and counties have already adopted,
such as no longer allowing the burial of residential oil tanks, especially in such an
environmentally sensitive and isolated area that relies on the ground water, as well
as guidelines on light pollution, limiting both residential and commercial use of
spotlights pointing upwards, practices that currently whitewash the night sky,
depriving star gazers the ability to clearly see our night sky, and also affecting
migratory patterns of birds and the life cycles of nearby marine life. Have any of
these suggestions be considered? !f so, what have been the outcomes?
Again, I thank you for taking the time for replying to my initial letter. Please tell me
how we can keep the lines of two-way communication open and how I can learn how
the Board addressees these matters.
Very truly yours,
William Toedter
1800 Hyatt Road, PO Box 389
Southold, NY 11971
Phone: 631-765-3137
CC:
3osh Horton, Southold Town Supervisor
North Fork Environmental Council
NY State Dept, of Conservation
22 December 2004
Charles R. Cuddy
Attorney at Law
PO Box 1547
Riverhead, NY 11901
DEC 2 7 2, ,J4
$0uthdd ~0w~
Board of Trustees
Dear Hr. Cuddy,
Thank you for your letter of 29 November 2004. Unfortunately, both the facts and your
conclusions are not 100% accurate.
While the Southold Bay Constable - the enforcement authority for the wetlands areas, such
as the bluff - relayed his findings to the Town Board of Trustees that, based on his
preliminary inspection, the work in question seemed to be within Town code, he explained to
me that the work was not within the State Department of Environmental Conservation
guidelines. The difference between the State guidelines and those adopted by the Town have
been and continue to be a source of confusion, frustration and concern among both residents
and the Bay Constable.
The Bay Constable took the time to explain to me the key considerations of the Town code
with respect to the bluff, something the Board of Trustees has not done to date. But because
of the difference between the State guidelines and the Town code, the fragile nature of the
bluff and the extensive work done, the Bay Constable agreed with my decision to report the
activity to the proper authorities for further examination.
! did not interfere with the work performed on the Leudesdorfs' property nor did ! go on or
cause any damage to their property. As previously instructed by both the Town Board and the
Bay Constable with regards to my past reports about possible infractions of the Town code, !
documented the work being performed and contacted the appropriate authorities to look into
the matter. And 1' did so not only because of a possible infraction of Town code, ! did so
because of my concern of the danger such extensive disruptions of the bluff pose to the
stability of all surrounding properties - especially Hrs. Toedter's property - today, a year from
now and 10 years from now. Such extensive, irreparable bluff damage can be seen just 500
feet to the east.
As resident caretaker of the property, it is not only my right but my responsibility to report
what ! believe to be are not only infractions against Town codes to protect irreplaceable
natural resources but are actions that also could place our adjacent property at risk of
irreparable damage, now and in the future.
As an officer of the court, you would not advise a client or a member of the community to
ignore what they perceive to be an infraction of the law or any actual or potential threat to life
and personal property. You'd counsel them to contact the proper authorities to deal with the
issue, just as ! did. And if ! heard or saw what ! believed to be a crime being committed - a
gunshot, break in or act of vandalism - on the Leudesdorf property, neither you nor they
would suggest that 1' not report that to proper authorities.
Page 2
As the Trustees, Supervisor and other Town departments will tell you, I have reported - and
will continue to bring to the Town's attention - problems with and infractions of various Town
codes by anyone, not just the Leudesdorfs...especially as they concern environmental issues
that threaten the Town's natural resources and people's enjoyment of them, but especially
those that I feel threaten the stability and well-being of our family's property.
Despite the fact that over the years our family has incurred damage to property, theft of
financial resources that threatened our well-being, and the loss of life inflicted by other
people's insensitivity, disrespect and improper actions, ! was raised in a family that does not
believe in being part of the litigious cultural our country has spawned. !f we believed that as
people and neighbors, taking people to court was the way to address problems, we would
taken the Leudesdorfs to court long ago to address the damage they and they contractors
have inflicted and continue to inflict on Hrs. Toedter's property, including but not limited to:
Having built a dirt passageway for construction equipment on the Toedter property
during construction of the Leudesdorfs' home - a road that buried and destroyed a
prized 25-year old garden of miniature evergreens. The Leudesdorfs admitted to the
encroachment and damage and promised to repair the damage and replace or pay for
the destroyed plants, but never did.
· Allowing construction trucks and other contractors' vehicles to use our property (all
clearly marked and documented after the above issue), without our prior knowledge or
permission, to park their vehicles and access their site, including parking a concrete
truck on the lawn and dumping or washing excess loads of cement on our lawn.
· Building the foundation of the their retaining wall up to 16 inches into our property, as
well as having wood forms and supports and bracing entrenched three feet or more
into our lawn, while Mr. Leudsedorf sat in his car and watched the work being done.
And when ! asked Mr. Leudesdorf to remove the intrusive material, part of his
response was, "!'m allowed to build up to four inches into your property." AS you
know, this is not correct.
· Permitting and failing to respond to Mrs. Toedter's request to address the water and
soil run-off problems we have encountered since the re-grading of the Leudesdorf
property - problems that did not exist for the 49 years prior to reconfiguration of the
Leudesdorfs' property. This problem has resulted in continued damage to gardens and
lawns as water and dirt pours over and around the retaining wall, as well as down their
property and onto or lawn resulting in the expense of building a wall to try to minimize
some of the problems created by the Leudesdorfs.
!n spite of this demonstrated disrespect for our property, we have been patient in the hope
and belief that the Leudesdorfs would be upstanding enough to correct these issues and
oversights over time.
As ! said, we are not a litigious family, despite damage and costs we have incurred. But if the
Leudesdorfs want to press me into litigation for simply exercising my right to report a possible
infraction and our concern of potential damage to our already battered property, then !
suggest that we should look at addressing all matters, past and continuing, that have resulted
in damage to our property as well.
Page 3
Again, ! have not nor am I singling out the Leudesdorfs in reporting their actions to the
proper enforcement and legislative Town authorities. ! have addressed my concerns on many
issues - and proposed several courses of resolution - to the Town Supervisor, the Town
Board, the Town Building Department and the Suffolk County Health Department, among
other organizations, on various issues over the past two years.
Because I seek to help improve the Town by preserving its rare and irreplaceable resources -
as well as look out for the long-term stability of the bluff and our family property - ! will, as !
have in the past, continue to point out to the Town any problems or infractions ! believe
warrant the attention of either the various Town departments or agencies and/or the
enforcement authorities, no matter who may be behind the possible infraction. Again, this is
not only my right and responsibility but those of all citizens and community members.
! hope this satisfies your concerns and those of your client.
William Toedter
CC:
J. Toedter
Southold Town Board of Trustees
North Fork Environmental Council
NY State Dept. of Conservation
MaAli~:
P.O. Box 1547
Riverhea& NY 11901
CHARLES R. CUDDY
ATTORNEY AT LAW
445 GRIFF1NG AVENUE
RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK
November 29, 2004
TEL: (631) 369-8200
FAX: (631) 369-90~0
E-malh charles.cuddy@verizon.net
Mr. William Toedter
PO Box 389
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Mr. Toedter:
I represent Arthur Leudesdorf who, as you know, owns the parcel immediately to the east of your
parcel. You complained to Town Officials that he had improperly trimmed buShes and trees on
the face of the bluff. This allegation was without foundation as Town Officials have now advised.
This is to advise you that any such unfounded complaint in the future will be treated by Mr.
Leudesdoff on the basis that you are harassing him, and he will take whatever steps are necessary
to deter such conduct and seek appropriate compensation. I trust it will not be necessary for him
to take such steps.
Very truly yours,
Charles . Y
CRC/pc
November 9, 2004
Josh Horton, Supervisor
Town of Southold
Town Hall
PO Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Albert J. Krupski, President
Board of Town Trustees
Town Hall Annex
PO Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Heather Tetrault - Enviro. Tech.
Board of Town Trustees
Town Hall Annex
PO Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
As Mr. Horton and Mr. Krupski know, I have been a strong advocate of protecting and
preserving our town's natural resources. To those ends, I have written letters, with supporting
pictures and other documentation from time to time, pointing out problems and requesting
changes - some close to home and some that concern the whole community. Unfortunately,
those efforts have resulted in little or no action. Unfortunately, the Town's inaction has led to a
groat loss, a scar on the land...one that, like a disease, may spread and inflict great harm. In
fact, it already has.
THE INCIDENT
Without regards for their neighbors or the natural beauty and fragility of the bluff, the
Leudesdorfs at 1700 Hyatt Road have decimated a wide swath of old, removing hard wood
trees from the bluff line down towards the beach - a wetlands designated area. As my mother
put it when her eyes welled up with tears upon seeing the destruction, "It looks like a Civil War
or WWI war zone picture where only trees trunks remain on a smoking, scarred battlefield."
I reported this action to the Bay Constable on Saturday, November 6 when work began.
Unfortunately, the officer handling the call did not know that the Constable was on duty and
routed me to voicemail instead. On Sunday as work progressed, I called the Bay Constable
again, in hopes of stopping this tragic assault on the land, but was told that he was on the water
and was sent to voicemail again. The Constable did return my calls on Monday, upset that calls
were not routed to him and promising to look into the matter. I believe he did inspect the
damage that morning.
THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM
Earlier this year, I reported not one but several incidents at 1900 Hyatt Road, regarding tree
work being done at and below the bluff line, as well as the use of heavy equipment on the bluff,
something the Town Board said in an open headng could not take place on that property.
Despite my calls, letters, faxes and accompanying pictures, little action was taken. Yes, the Bay
Constable inspected the property. But against his suggestion, the Town Board chose not to be
involved - even though they had previously inspected the property and had knowledge of the
property's previous condition that the Constable did not - and the Dept. Of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) chose not to fine the property owners, even though they were in agreement
that an infraction had occurred.
Because of that inaction - although I understand that the DEC is reconsidering whether to fine
the owners of 1900 Hyatt Road because they believe that the infraction was more severe than
first thought - I'm sure that the Leudesdorfs felt that they could do the same - or in this case,
much worse - and get away with it. As I said above, the disease has spread. And with several
new property owners on this section of the bluff, the odds of it spreading even further are groat.
) to get tough on enforcing its environmental codes and policies?
~othing if they are not enforced.
Page 2
NEXT STEPS
With this letter, I am asking you to put the full weight of your offices behind the Bay Constable in
this matter. Please do not just leave the matter to him. Join him and petition the DEC to take
decisive action. The town itself must impart a meaningful penalty.
My grandparents moved to this town because they loved its natural beauty and wanted to be
part of the community because of what it was. This new breed of residents say that they come
here for the same reason, except they insist on modifying the natural beauty to fit within their
needs and they want to improve the community by destroying some of the very things that make
it so great.
The problem is that money means nothing to this new breed of town resident. They look at the
current codes and take a "dsk management" approach, calculating that they break the code and
get caught and get fined $10,000, so what. That's part of the cost of doing things their way.
In addition to enforcing the code and making sure the Leudesdorfs are heavily fined, would you
please consider applying the following steps:
1. Require that the land be replanted in the spdng, and not with two-foot saplings but with
full-sized trees to restore the ecosystem to its previous state. To do anything less would
mean that the Leudesdorfs will have still accomplished their goal of getting a view at the
expense of the bluff and the stability of their neighbors' properties.
2. Require the Leudesdorf to pay for printing, mailing and publication costs of a letter of
apology to not only their immediate neighbors but to all town residents, admitting their
wrong doing, expressing their regret for their actions and stating that they are supporting
the town in enforcement of environmental protection policies. As I said above, money
means nothing to such people, but their name and reputation in the community means
everything. Use the Leudesdorfs as an example. Towns post the names and pictures of
sex offenders. Why not follow suit and make sure people who assault our natural
resources are publicly identified and shamed.
3. In addition to DEC fines, the town should require the Leudesdorfs to pay a fine to a town
fund that would pay for planting trees and shrubs around town.
CONCLUSION
It's time to stop giving people passes. Ignorance is not a defense. They may be nice people, but
nice people often do stupid and harmful things.
In building their home, the Leudesdorfs took advantage of every loophole in the old building
codes to build a house too tall and too large for the available building space. They reconflgured
the contour of their property which to this day causes continuing flooding and erosion problems,
but escaped penalty by getting their C.O. 10 days before the passage of new town codes that
would have held them responsible for addressing these issues.
Page 3
Now the code is clear. The Leudesdorfs have displayed the ultimate arrogance and disregard
for their neighbors, the environment and the town by decimating the trees below the bluff line.
Now is the time for the town to stand firm for once and make sure that they do not get away with
this terrible action and that this disease of thinking that land owners in environmentally sensitive
areas can just do as they please without meaningful repercussion - as what happened when
the owners of 1900 Hyatt Road and their landscaper got away with similar, although lesser,
infractions.
And finally, I would ask that you all keep me posted about action in this case. All too often, I've
been told, "Good point. We see the need for change." And nothing happens. While the greater
issue hera is the protection of the town's wetland areas and the bluffs all along the Sound, my
property is now being assaulted from two sides. The stability of the bluff on either side has been
put at risk. Thus, I need to know that the town is taking this seriously and looking out for my
rights, as well as those of all town residents.
Thank you for your time and attention,
William H. Toedter
1800 Hyatt Road,
PO Box 389,
Southold, NY 11971
Phone: 631-765~3137
INCIDENT NUMBER
Town of Southold Police Department
CONTINUATION/SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT O~'l
J]:l~-- J] 0 ~l~ II ~ ~ Page of
BLOCK I
NO.
NAME / SHIELD / COMMAND REPORT~G OFHCER SIGNA~RE
REPORTING OFFICER ~ , ~
SUPERVISOR REVIEWING
Date
DM OF
Du
:'3*
DF
DCJS-3205 12/97) *FALSE STATEMENTS ARE PUNISHABLE AS A CRIME, PURSUANT TO THE NEW YORK STATE PENAL LAW.
........ S'o
On Wed Nov.24, 2004 Jim King, Kent McCarthy, and I visited 1900 Hyatt Road to
review file for reporting to Eric Star.
The bluffis not disturbed and the area along the bluff has been planted with Rosa mgosa.
There were a few stumps within the coastal erosion area, but not enough disturbance for a
violation.
A permit was issued for the stairs which look fine.
89-81-64 14:86 .JOHNBTON LAW OFFICE ID=IBSI7845891 P.61
fep-Ol-O~ 12;17P Southo3d po34ae 6~1 765 2715 P.OI
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Water Re_¢lion One
Bu Iding 40 - SUNY, Stony3~.'ook, New YO~k t 1790-2356
Phone: ($31)444-0402 · FAX:
Website: www.clec.~te.ny.us
19. 2004
Donald Dzenkow,~ki
Stmlor Bay Constable
South~ld Town Police Department
Pb ]F~x 911
Pcconic, NY 11958
'['hi.~ is in rcspon~ to our tc}Cphone nonvcl'satl,~n of Augus~ 18~, 2C~, On A!"~I 5t1:.20(< !
~ceived a comp[am~ of bulldov~r~ clear ~t/in8 u bl~a~a in t~ (~s~[ h'ro~on li~c.~ .~cz iCEI[.~,
in the To~ of Southold. l w~ directed bY fl~c DEC Kegi~al Director lo ~l~'¢sii6mI~ ~[~.~ conlcL, zz[
~'i~l ces~0t ~ ~c CHIA ~o~m. AI~ougE lhi~ Stoic pro.am is l~ally imp:~emc.i [~? ~::~ T,.',~.
Tmq~<~, it is my offk:e's res~nsibili~ to oversee Ihc ]~al pro.am
On April 7~, 2004 I traveled to thc site accompanied by $ohn Con~ve.-
Entbrcem~lt Coord in~,~.ol. Werequestedarldgainedaccesstothcailethroug'ape,;,;rmm.tC.l:cfa.,.,.~t<:'-_r;
named Karl who gr~ed l.~ u~ we appcoached thc site. Wc obserYe~ a pa~ked b~- ldoze'.
freshly cut tree stumps, wood ehip~, new planlings, and spray oainled n:arking~ on Ibc srlo'cll~.:t
ma~ 'king thc lee. alien of proposed la~d~cap:ng itc'm.a. TI~ attached photos wc~; taken ca t;'xat she vt.-er_
Thc clearing ha~ taken place between thc house ami ~he blt:fl crest.
Jurisdiction of thc CEHA progcam is desi.~naled on a set of maps Iht poct.o~'
pertaining to this properly is a~tavhcd. The [andxv~d jtlri,~dictional hmit of ibc CELIA
indicated by the land~.'itrd limit of thc heavy line drawn on lh~ ac'rial photoi~raph A p~."h,~r,
clearing which oCC,.lrred al 1900 IIyatt road war $cliward c~f the CEHA I~ne, plying it
of the proDam. This I;!cannl~ ~ a "regulated a~l~vity" under lhc( :El IA program and
pcrn~t. Subsequent inquiries revealo~l no C;EHA permit had been sectored tb~' du~
the town was asked tu ~ilves~ig.ate this matter ft~rther.
One of lbo puroo~ca uf the C0a~tal Eroflon Hazard ,~A~as Progran: is
~vent thc c.~cerbation of ems on ha~s, I and usc, dex el~mem and ot~r a;ti,.im~ arc regc!at~ ~:.
~s to ~inimi~ ~ prm'ent ~amage or ~:ction ~ Iron ~adc
real.es, ot~ ~lral ro~c~ and ~ prot0~t hunmn ]ifc. At 1900 II. ti
protective fca~re which the ~gulalio~ s~:ck to prt)t~<t. Petmltl.mg ~q,~iremect~ ~oul,3
desired [o minimize ~ion from the L~ Island Sound Izlow, as ~cll
~er ~uoff above, b~mtaini~g the bulT~ area could have nUnimizcd tl~c efl~ :5
~n~c~ed lax~s & oth~x ~ 5uffacc~ a~ve. If~croao~t
necc~a~', ~r~ ~adi~g could have di~tcd the surface water ~way ~}~ thc hlu[l' ~ce.
~tings could have been chosen which would mlnlnUz< then need t~r
hz~.
~'hm~k yo~ for your altcntton 1o this ;r~allcr. lt' [ olin be of
to call me al 631
Eric Star
Environmenuil lh'ol,~am ~pccialist
69-~1-64 1~:1~ RECEIVED
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Water, Region One
Building 40 - SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356
Phone: (631)444-0405 · FAX: (631)444-0407
Website: www.dec.state.ny.us
Mr. Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President
Board of Trustees
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road., PO Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Mr Krupski:
Edn M. Crotty
Commissioner
August 11, 2004
SouthoId Town
Board of Trustees
Thank you for meeting with Robert McDonough and myself on June 30t~ to discuss the Town of
Southold's Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas (CEHA) Program. This prelinftnary investigation has revealed
problems with the enforcement of your coastal regulations.
During the coastal Community Assessment Visit (CAV), the various responsibilities required of
the Town for administering Southold's local CEHA program, along with the entities charged with these
tasks, were discussed. Permit review, processing permit applications, and various other related tasks
(see attached Code of the Town of Southold, Section 6-43) are the responsibility of the Southold Town
Board of Trustees (Trustees). The review of variance requests is the responsibility of the Coastal
Erosion Hazard Board of Review (Section 6-34). Enforcement of the local CEHA law is the joint
responsibility of the Ordinance Inspector for the Town and the Town Police Department as written in a
letter (enclosed) dated September 16, 1991 to the Department as part of the package submitted for
certification of Southold's local CEHA law. Also, compliance inspections and h'ansmission of written
notice of violations to property owners or other responsible persons is one of the duties of the
Administrator as listed in Section 6-43 of Southold Town Code.
During the CAV, discussion of a complaint by a homeowner within the Town, reporting a
neighbor clear cutting trees and other vegetation within the CEHA area, raised some questions and
concerns regarding enforcement of the program. The recent activities occurring at 1900 Hyatt Road, as
reported in the complaint, are regulated under CEHA local law and require a permit. The DEC Stony
Brook office inquired as to whether the Trustees had knowledge of these activities or this complaint.
After discovering that the regulated activities were not issued a permit and were therefore violations of
Southold's local CEHA program, the Trustees assured the Department that the Bay Constable was
looking into it. The Bay Constable conducted a site inspection and concluded enforcement was not
warranted. Still suspecting that the activities which occurred lacked a permit and thus, were likely in
violation, the Trustees conducted another site visit and agreed that violations appeared to have occurred.
They indicated that they would have the Bay Constable take another look at it. Again, the Bay Constable
failed to pursue the violation.
After further discussion of the enforcement of the Town of Southold's lo~al CEHA law, it
became apparent that Southold's CEHA program has enforcement problems. Although, the Ordinance
Inspector and Town Police Department have been named as having the responsibility of enforcement of
the local CEHA program as provided to the Department by letter over a decade ago, it is uncertain if the
title of "Ordinance Inspector" exists. The Town now employs an "Enforcement Director", but it cannot
be determined if the "Enforcement Director" has been authorized to enforce CEHA regulations as was
the "Ordinance Inspector" referenced back in 1991. Currently the Bay Constables, which report to the
Chief of Police, appear to be responsible for enforcing CEHA within the town. However, it is unclear if
the Town of Southold has specifically Charged any specific group or individual with enfomement
responsibilities of the local CEHA program.
In the circumstances of the violations noted on 1900 Hyatt Road, it was the intent of the Trustees
to cite the violations and enforce them yet, the Bay Constable chose not to enforce these violation on two
separate occasions. Furthermore, after the Department indicated that there were likely violations
occurring and that enforcement of the local program is necessary for upholding its minimum standards,
the violations were not cited.
Proper enforcement is a requirement for certification of a local Coastal Erosion Hazard Area
programs. DEC monitors the administration of certified local programs through it's Community
Assessment Visit (CAV) program. CAVs are performed periodically to assess the effectiveness of local
programs. CAVs also provide a forum by which DEC can provide technical assistance to local
municipalities to better enable them administer CEHA management programs. A number of CAVs have
been conducted in Southold since certification in 1991. The focus of most of those visits was to provide
technical assistance to the Trustees in interpretation of permit requirements. What has now become
evident is that Southold's enforcement personnel should also be participating in the CAV program. This
would give them a better understanding of CEHA requirements.
The Department recognizes that the town has taken steps to better its regulation of Coastal
Erosion Hazard Areas. The Trustees have recently created a new full time environmental technician
position to help coordinate environmental review. I have spoken with the Trustee's attorney, Brownwell
Johnston, who enlightened me on the responsibilities of the various town departments. However, it is
still unclear as to how Southold has delegated the responsibility of enforcing its local CEHA law.
Because of the confusion and uncertainty of the ability of the Town of Southold to enforce its local
CEHA law, the Department is requesting clarification of enforcement responsibilities including the
individual or governing body which is charged with enforcing local CEHA law within the Town of
Southold. It is also, requested that the Trustees and the Bay Constables provide this office with a written
evaluation of the activities which occurred during the spring 2004 at 1900 Hyatt Road. A copy of the
Notice of Violation, or a brief written explanation of why no violation was written, whichever applies,
can be mailed to New York State DEC, Division of Water, Coastal Unit, Building 40 SUNY, Stony
Brook, NY 11790.
If additional technical assistance regarding CEHA management is required by the Trustees or any
other town official please feel free to call me at 631-444-0423. I look forward to working with you on
improving CEHA management in the Town of Southold..
Eno
cci
Robert McDonough
E. Brownwell Johnsean Esq
Sincerely, ~
Eric Star
Environmental Program Specialist
Coastal Erosion Management Unit
Chapter 6 (Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas) of the Code of the Town of Southold
Section 6-43 (Administrator)
The authority for administering and enforcing this chapter is hereby conferred upon the
Administrator. The Administrator has the powers and duties to:
A. Apply the regulations, restrictions, and standards or other provisions of this
chapter.
B. Explain to applicants the map which designates the land and water areas subject to
regulation and advise applicants of the standards, restrictions, and requirements of
this chapter.
C. Review and take appropriate actions on completed applications.
D. Issue and sign all approved permits.
E. Transmit written notice of violations to property owners or to other responsible
persons.
F. Prepare and submit reports.
G. Perform compliance inspections.
H. Serve a the primary liaison with the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation.
I. Keep official records of all permits, inspections, inspection reports,
recommendations, actions of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review, and
any other reports or communications relative to this chapter or request for
information from the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation.
J. Perform normal and customary administrative functions required by the Town,
relative to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act, Article 34 of the New York
State Environmental Conservation Law, 6 NYCRR Part 505, and this chapter.
K. Have, in addition, powers and duties as are established in, or reasonably implied
from this chapter as are necessary to achieve its stated purpose.
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
(631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-6641
CC:
[] Urgent [] For Review r-i Please Comment [] Please Reply [] ~ Recycle
May 10, 2004
Albert 3. Krupski, President
Southold Town Board of Trustees
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
tAY i 2004
Southold Towa
Board of Trusteel
Dear Mr. Krupski,
! received Laura's voice message on Friday that you and the Trustees were going to take up
the matter of the bluff that my neighbors and I have brought to your attention. Since my
first letter to your office over a month ago, let me give you a brief update that is most
troubling.
We have not witnessed just one incidence of heavy machinery on the bluff - ! supplied
you with pictures from Day 1 of a two-day effort of a tractor on the bluff's edge violently
digging up and ripping out trunks of recently cut down trees and their roots...
We have not witnessed just two such incidences - two weeks later, another tractor
came to not just level the added top soil which was added in front of the house, but to dig
up and reshape the contour of the soil all the way to the perimeter privet newly planted on
the bluff's edge...
Now, we have seen a third and even more troubling incidence of a tractor on the
bluff's edge - another tractor came last week to dig a two-foot trench to lay an in-ground
irrigation system, with the trench and the farthest-reaching sprinkler head just two feet
from the bluff's edge. (One picture - showing the machine and part of the trench - is
enclosed.)
This latest incidence is troubling not only because of the heavy machinery and the digging
so close to the bluff's edge, but because - just 600 feet west of where the bluff has had
several collapses over the past three years due in large part to excessive run-off and
saturation of the soil from excessive water coming from cleared properties behind the
bluff--a watering system that is already pumping hundreds of gallons of water - even in the
rain like this weekend!--onto the ground just behind the bluff line. (You can still see the
blue flags on the property marking the sprinkler heads.) And add to that the possibility of a
leak or a burst line so close to the bluff's edge and this is just a major catastrophe waiting
to happen.
As ! have said in the past and will say again here, this is not about neighbors not
getting along - we met the new owners prior to most of these troubling incidents and they
seem like nice people.
This is not about trying to keep people from maximizing the use of their property
in ways that are consistent with the Town's codes and with respect of other people's
property and rights. As I've said before, !'m not one to throw stones since our house--built
long before the sensitivity of the bluffs were fully understood and before the Town codes
were in place--would never be allowed to be built in the position it stands today.
And this is not about, "This is fine anywhere but not in my backyard."
Page 2
This is about wanting to have a backyard and not losing it to a bluff collapse due to
unknowing and uncaring landowners and contractors working in sensitive areas. This is
about protecting not only our property, but those of our neighbors and the Town's natural
beauty and resources.
What is most frustrating to me and my neighbors is that two years ago, this Board spent a
great deal of time and effort looking at the previous owners' request to obtain a variance to
build a pool on the bluff side of their house. Before any conclusion was made about their
application, the Board members toured their property and ours and stated afterwards, in a
public meeting, that should the Board approve their application for a variance, it must be
made clear that due to the fragility of the bluff and evidence of erosion on these and
adjacent properties up to Horton's Point, that no heavy machinery would be allowed on the
bluff side of the home to do any work.
Two years later, the bluff is no less fragile, no less unstable and no better suited
for heavy machinery working on the bluff line than it was when the Board voiced this
condition. But when we try to bring this to the Board's attention, it takes over a month to
get a response. And when we try to get action from the Bay Constable, he says he asked for
the Trustees to come on site since he had no previous records of the situation...and the
Board refused. And now we sit here with the damage already done.
As ! said, ! appreciate the fact that you and the Board are beginning to look into this
situation, if not to help us then to help others in the town facing similar problems.
Unfortunately for us and our neighbors, because of the initial delays and inaction, the
damage has already been done. We just have to hold our breaths for the next five or 10
years, seeing if the heavy machinery, the loss of tree and bushes and root systems, the
added constant water from the sprinklers and the unknowing (until it's too late) leak or
broken irrigation pipe causes their property--and ours above it--to slide down to the Sound.
To some, this might seem like we're Chicken Little and calling, "The bluff is falling, The bluff
is falling," But you only have to look east about 600 to the east to see that the bluff indeed
did fall and is still falling, We are concerned and we hope that the Trustees not only share
our concern of today, but the same concern you voiced two years ago,
Please keep me informed of your meetings and discussions on this matter as ! would like to
be involved and share with you my experiences and thoughts first hand.
1800 Hyatt Road, PO Box 389, Southold, NY 11971
765-3137
This picture was taken last week and shows the tractor using the trench digger on
the front digging a 24 inch deep trench and laying the irrigation pipes - with the
tractor, the trench and the piping all converging at a spot just 2 feet from the
bluff's edge.
26 June 2003
Josh Ho[ton, Supervisor
Town of Southold
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
Southold, New York 11971
Albert J. Krupsk
Board of Town T~
Town Hall Annex
53095 Route 25
Southold, New York 11971
-- ~ own Hell
53095 Route 25
Southold, NY 11971
Insp.
Dear Sire,
I'd like to ask your collective help in a matter that I believe reflects a rather large lapse in the
Town's efforts to "preserve its natural resources."
Two weeks back, the new owner's of 1900 Hyatt Road began clear cutting their property. I
spoke with Thomas Coffey dudng the day as his workers first started clearing brush off our
property and then brought in a tractor to clear the stumps of tree they had cut down. When I
expressed concern about the tractor working so close to the bluff, Mr. Coffey promised me that
the tractor work was done. It was not. Later, as dusk fell, the tractor began work not only near
but on the edge of the bluff. (See the second picture.)
I wrote a letter to the Trustees, including these same pictures, because it has been our
understanding for many years that heavy equipment is not allowed to work in close proximity to
the bluff due to its fragility. The Trustees turned the letter and photo over to the Bay Constable
who, later in the week - and after the damage had already been done - inspected the prope[ty.
His report said that he saw no evidence of excessive or non-allowed practices.
However - and here is the crux of the matter - the Bay Constable readily admitted that his
perspective was only from a post-work standpoint. Mr. Coffey told him that the tractor was only
cleadng dead stumps of long-felled trees. Wrong. Mr. Coffey and his crew cut down over 20
trees (several of the cut stumps can be seen in the second photo) and were using the tracking
to violently remove the stumps and their live roots, dght up to the edge of the bluff.
Mr. Coffey also told the Bay Constable that he had not removed anything near the bluff line.
Wrong. Mr. Coffey's crew cut down and uprooted shrubs and smaller trees at and slightly
beyond the bluff line but covered it up with mulch and told the Bay Constable that the mulch had
been there for years...some since the first tree thinning exercise in June 2003, but not up to the
edge of the bluff, especially around the stairs and next to the Ravitch property.
At this point, let me commend the Bay Constable. He took over 20 minutes to talk to me today
and share with me his thoughts and findings. It's clear that he truly cares about maintaining and
protecting the bluff and other sensitive environmental resources. However, as the Bay
Constable said himself, his frame of reference and point of contention on FUTURE problems
can only be based on his AFTER-THE-FACT inspection and photos.
The reason I am writing to the three of you is that we, as a Town, say that preserving our natural
resources if a ddving force, but we have few overarching and effective enforcement tools. Even
with the new Chapter 97 in place, the building Dept. handles istructures" and the likes, the
Trustees handle variance work issues within the 'erosion zone' and the Bay Constable handles
"wetlands." Yet, it seems to this involved and concerned resident, that there is not enough
coordination and comprehension between the three parties.
Page 2
For example, when the Casheys wanted to build a pool, the Trustees in their public meeting
stated tha~ they would enforce the Town code that no heavy equipment could work in close
proximity to the bluff. The Bay Constable is not aware that there is such a restriction and the
Building Department said there was no such restriction when the Leudesdorfs were building
their home at 1700 Hyatt Road.
And today, in talking to the Bay Constable, his records show that the Casheys at 1900 Hyatt
Road had been issued a ruling that they COULD build a swimming pool on their property and
did not reflect the Town's year-old legal action that revereed that ruling and maintained the
Town's dght to deny the pool.
So the question is, what is a resident to do? We have builders, landscapers and landowners
that are showing contempt for and disrespect of neighbors' rights and preperties, as well as the
spidt if not the word of the Town's building and presewation codes. I previde the Trustees who
provides the Bay Constable with a photograph of a tractor on the bluff's edge, and yet nothing is
done.
In effect, Mr. Coffey and the new owners at 1900 Hyatt Road got away with pushing the spidt of
everything the Town is trying to do to the limit. As the Bay Constable said, he now has records
and first hand experience so they can't go any further. But the potential damage is done and it's
just accepted.., probably even expected in these days. But if the bluff becomes even more
unstable because of this work, we all lose.., not just the people at 1900 Hyatt Road - and worse
yet, we have no recourse because no one took issue with the dangerous activity in the first
place.
Can't the Town make as a condition of resale of any property along the bluff or wetlands that the
new owner must pay for the inspection of the property by the Bay Constable so that he and the
rest of the Town can have first hand, document evidence of the state of the property along the
environmentally sensitive areas? Since my eye witness account and pictures weren't enough to
satisfy the fact that inappropriate action was being taken that could affect a string of preperties,
such a record would give any official a record to compare the pre- and post-incidence state of
the preperty.
I'm sure that there are other solutions. However, there is not a lot of time left to find a way to
protect the sensitive areas where the Trustees, Building Dept. and Bay Constable's
responsibilities meet but don't work in conjunction to preserve our natural resources.
Please look into this matter and make sure that the Town, in unity among all of its governing
bodies, is sending out the apprepdate message to builders, landscapers and landowners that
skirting the rules will not be tolerated, if you find that damage has been inflicted or improper
equipment wes use on the bluff. And please continue to work towards plugging these loopholes
so that other areas will not be subject to the arrogance and disrespect of people you think only
of themselves and not of their neighbors in this town, near or far.
Sincerely,
Willia~ H. Toedter
1800 Hyatt Road, PO Box 389, Southold, NY 11971
631-765-3137
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
~ed Froperty 1~ Eer'dce Ap~C7
SOIJTHOLB
050
/
IIII
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
NOTES:
1.
MAP OF PROPERTY
SITUA TED A T
HORTON POINT
TOWN OF $OUTHOLD
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
S.C. TAX No. 1000-50-01-03
1000-50-01-21
SCALE 1"=30'
OCTOBER 19, 2000
JANUARY 3, 2001 REVISED PROPOSED POOL
FEBRUARY 23, 2001 REVISED PROPOSED POOL
ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED TO N.G.V.D. 1929 DATUM
EXISTING ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN THUS:~m
EXISTING CONTOUR LINES ARE SHOWN THUS: .... 40-----
N.Y,$. Lic. No, 49660
Jose A. Ingegno
Land Surveyor
PHONE (631)727-2690 Fox (6,31)727-1727
SOUND VIEW
AVENUE
97-356H