HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-03/20/2019 U,,
Michael J.Domino,President ® ®f SOTown Hall Annex
y®�
John M.Bredemeyer III,Vice-President 54375 Route 25® P.O.Box 1179
Glenn Goldsmith Southold,New York 11971
A.Nicholas Krupski G Telephone(631) 765-1892
Greg Williams ® y® Fax(631) 765-6641
®lac®UNT°I,� r-
KLCEIVD
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD M AY 2 2 2019
a a
Soutlibld Torn Clerk
Amended Minutes
(Amended on May 15, 2019)
Wednesday, March 20, 2019
5:30 PM
Present Were: Michael J. Domino, President
John M. Bredemeyer, Vice-President
Glenn Goldsmith, Trustee
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee
Greg Williams, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Senior Clerk Typist
Damon Hagan, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 5:30 PM at the Main Meeting
Hall
WORK SESSIONS: Monday, April 15, 2019 at 4:30 PM at the Town Hall Annex 2nd
floor Board Room, and on Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 5:00 PM
at the Main Meeting Hall
MINUTES: Approve Minutes of February 13, 2019.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Good evening and welcome to our Wednesday, March 20th, 2019,
monthly meeting. At this time I would like to call our meeting to order and ask that you
stand for the pledge.
(Pledge of Allegiance).
I would like to take a moment to recognize the people on the dais. To my left is Trustee
Bredemeyer, Trustee Goldsmith, Trustee Krupski and Trustee Williams. To my right is
Assistant Town Attorney Damon Hagan and Senior Clerk Typist Elizabeth Cantrell.
Also with us tonight is Court Stenographer Wayne Galante, and the Conservation
Advisory Council member is Peter Young.
MR. YOUNG: Good evening. And I would like to introduce Carol Brown who is a new
member of the Conservation Advisory Council, and she will give you a two or three
minute thumbnail sketch of her background. Thank you.
Board of Trustees 2 March 20, 2019
MS. BROWN: Hi, thank you for welcoming me into the Conservation Advisory Council.
I'm Carol Brown, I'm retired for two-and-a-half years from Eastern Suffolk BOCES.
I ran their Arts and Education program. My background, I have my Masters in
Environmental Studies and Sciences and I worked for the Nature Conservancy doing
master plans for them for a number of years. I also sat on the Huntington Conservation
Board for four years. By moving out here I had to give up my seat, so I have a new
seat, and in another two weeks I will finish my Cornell Cooperative Extension Master
Gardener program.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you, so much.
Agendas are located on the podium and also out in the hall.
At this time I would like to draw your attention to some postponements.
Postponements are for a number of reasons, perhaps a mailing is incomplete
or submission of additional paperwork or lack thereof.
On page ten, we have number three Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of MILDRED M. PASCUCCI requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit
#8920 to install an AI/OUTS septic system (Hydro-Action AN400)within the
established 15' wide non-disturbance buffer area that runs along King Street,
utilizing ±300 cubic yards of clean fill retained and surrounded by a 160 linear
foot long retaining wall with a top elevation of 6.5'; and to install a native planting
scheme featuring,the planting of beach grass over an 88'x20' area running along the
easterly portion of the premise and over the septic system.
Located: 305 Narrow River Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-26-3-11, is postponed.
Page eleven we have numbers four Bulkhead Permits by Gary, Inc. on behalf of
HARRY BASHIAN & H'AYKUHI BASHIAN requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit to replace all existing 41' long, 41.5' long and 61.5' long navy
bulkheading in-place with new navy bulkheading using vinyl sheathing; along
the 61.5' long bulkhead section, install (1) one 61.5' row of toe armor stone using a
minimum of>18"x18"x18" and (1) one ton stones with geotextile filter fabric placed
underneath; replace existing 12'x26.4', 12'x26.4' and 15.5'x61.5' sections of"U"
shaped decking with new decking in-place using untreated lumber and supported by
30 new 10"x20' pressure treated timber piles; under the ±20'x61.5' deck area add
approximately 125 cubic yards of clean beach sand backfill from an authorized upland
source; and for the existing 26.4'x36.3'two-story dwelling.
Located: 58425 North Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-44-2-15, is postponed.
And number five, Robert Wilson on behalf of STUART THORN requests a Wetland
Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit for the as-built removal and replacement of
existing 2,468 sq. ft. on-grade seaward side stone patio in-place except the area along
the portion of the northern edge where the new patio will be set back from the top of
bluff to allow for new plantings and a decorative split-rail fence; and to remove and
replace the existing garden wall with new 21'6"x6'0" masonry wall.
Located: 19375 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-20.1 is postponed.
Page 15 we have number 14, Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc. on behalf of
MICHAEL KREGER requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing one-story dwelling,
brick stoop, wood deck, shed with wood steps attached to west side of dwelling, shed
with wood ramp, brick walkway, A/C unit on slab, and remove existing septic tank and
leaching pools; construct new 1,895 sq. ft. two-story dwelling to be located 55' from
wetlands with two (2) roofed porches, one 50 sq. ft. roofed porch on the front southwest
side of dwelling and one 21 'sq. ft. roofed porch on the northwest side of dwelling with
approximately 30 sq. ft. of stairs leading down from the roofed porches to the ground;
new 13 sq. ft. outdoor shower; new 740 sq. ft. infinity pool with spa; new 670 sq. ft. pool
terrace; new 45 sq. ft. pool equipment area on concrete slab; new 32 sq. ft. generator on
Board of Trustees 3 March 20, 2019
concrete slab; new HVAC equipment on 43 sq. ft. concrete slab; new pool enclosure
fencing to be located 13.5' from landward edge of wetlands; install a new septic tank
and leaching pools; reconfigure the existing driveway increasing its area from
2,350 sq. ft. to 2,765 sq. ft.; existing garage with wood stoop and steps to remain; install
a system of gutters to leaders to drywells to the dwelling and garage in order to contain
stormwater runoff; expand the existing 5,385 sq. ft. Non-Disturbance Buffer by adding
another 2,925 sq. ft. area to the buffer, including 1,342 sq. ft. of existing native
vegetation and 1,583 sq. ft. of proposed native vegetation which will be planted to the
northwest of the proposed dwelling in order to establish and perpetually maintain
a 8,310 sq. ft. Non-Disturbance Buffer area.
Located: 1085 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-3-13.1, is postponed.
On page 17, we have number 23 Cole Environmental Services, Inc. on behalf of
GEORGE & MARIA RIGAS requests a Wetland Permit to install 110' of coir log
(biolog) at mean high water mark; backfill with +/-15 cubic yards of clean up-land fill;
grade as necessary; plant intertidal and high marsh vegetation; add fill to eroded bank
landward of mean high water; remove invasive plant species along top of bank; plant
upland areas with species form N.Y.S.D.E.C. plant list; install 1'x8' wide planted berm
landward of the existing fence and install 4" PVC trench drain landward of planted
berm to collect and recharge stormwater; existing tidal wetland vegetation along the
creek is to remain undisturbed.
Located: 675 Hill Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-28, is withdrawn.
And 24 through 31 are postponed. They are listed`as follows:
Number 24, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of SIGURDSSON BALDUR,
LLC, c/o WADE GUYTON, MANAGER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
41.96'x57.28' (1,712 sq. ft.) two-story dwelling; a 40.5'x14' (680 sq. ft.) In-ground
Swimming pool with a surrounding 680 sq. ft. terrace; and to resurface an
approximately 1,668 sq. ft. asphalt driveway.
Located: 1800 Hyatt Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-50-1-4
Number 25, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of ALBERT & FRANCES
TROTTER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 1,440 sq. ft. two-story dwelling
with a 596 sq. ft. attached garage and a 699 sq. ft. wrap-around porch; install a 10'x210'
(2,100 sq. ft.) driveway along with a 3,063 sq. ft. parking area; a 360 sq. ft. walkway
between the parking area and the dwelling; install three drywells in order to contain roof
runoff, and in accordance with Chapter 236 of the Town Code-Stormwater Management;
and to install a septic system outside Trustee jurisdiction.
Located: 34460 Main Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-97-2-9.1
Number 26, En-Consultants on behalf of EVAN AKSELRAD &YASMINE ANAVI
requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace in-place approximately 37 linear feet
of existing timber bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead and backfill with approximately 15
cubic yards clean sand fill to be trucked in from an approved upland source; remove
and replace existing 4'x10' wood steps off bulkhead to beach with 4'x4' wood landing
and 3'x7' aluminum stairs; remove and replace existing 459 sq. ft. wood deck with
394 sq. ft. (17.5'x22.5') on-grade, semi-pervious masonry patio (stone set in sand with
gravel joints); install 2'x4' stone paver between proposed patio and wood landing; install
4' high wire mesh fence with gate; supplement existing vegetation on face of
embankment with native grasses and shrubs; establish and perpetually maintain a 10'
wide non-turf buffer along top of bank; remove non-native/invasive vegetation and
establish native plantings within approximately 1,650 sq. ft. area along northerly
property line; establish approximately 855 sq. ft. of native plantings along southerly
property line; and remove existing well, concrete cover, flag pole, split-rail fence, and
four(4) trees landward of bank.
Board of Trustees 4 March 20, 2019
Located: 9920 Nassau Point'Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-6-10
Number 27, GARY MANGUS & MIRIAM MEYERS request a Wetland Permit to install
a 3'x16' access ramp with railings using Thru-Flow decking built directly off existing
bulkhead; and install a 6'x20' floating dock supported by four(4) 8" diameter float
piles with bunks to maintain float above bottom.
Located: 1295 Island View Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-57-2-16
Number 28, Brooke Epperson on behalf of LYNN McMAHON, MARIE BASILE &
HENRY HINTZE requests a Wetland Permit for the existing two-story dwelling with
a 1,282sq.ft. footprint; existing attached 183 sq. ft. landward side screened in
sunroom; existing 437 sq. ft. seaward side wood deck with steps to ground; and
existing 51 sq.ft. Seaward steps; construct a proposed 577 sq. ft. addition to existing
second floor within the first floor footprint; construct a proposed 200 sq. ft. second-story
balcony over existing deck.
Located: 590 Brooks Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-1-15
Number 29, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of JAMES H. RICH III, LESLIE E. RICH & CRAIG
B. RICH requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace 120 linear feet of existing
bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead in-place; remove and replace 30 linear feet of
existing bulkhead return with new vinyl bulkhead return in-place; remove and replace 22
linear feet of existing groin with new vinyl groin in-place; install and perpetually maintain
a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead; construct a new
4'x45' fixed dock supported with 8" diameter piles and with thru-flow decking surface; a
3'x14"aluminum ramp; and a 6'x20' floating dock situated in an "L" configuration
supported with four (4) 10" diameter piles and cross bracing to hold the floating dock a
minimum of 30" off of bottom at all times.
Located: 1470 Hobart Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-3-2.1
Number 30, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of ROBYN ROMANO 2015 FAMILY TRUST
&JOSEPH P. ROMANO 2015 FAMILY TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to remove
the two existing retaining walls and associated steps and platforms; construct a 125
lineal foot lower vinyl retaining wall; construct a 125 lineal foot upper vinyl retaining wall;
construct a 40 lineal foot long westerly vinyl retaining wall return; construct a 42 lineal
foot long easterly vinyl retaining wall return; construct two (2) sets of 4' wide by 11' long
steps with cantilevered platform, one on the lower and one on the upper retaining walls;
and to construct an 8'x10' un-treated timber platform constructed on-grade between the
lower and upper levels.
Located: 1415 North Parish Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-71-1-14
Number 31, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of ALISON BYERS requests a
Wetland Permit to construct 400' of low profile rock revetment on west beach area to
match previously installed 230' section; fill void areas landward with excavated
materials; regrade areas and revegetate with Cape American beach grass; remove 155'
of existing rock revetment on south beach area and reconstruct in new configuration
west of present location; construct 22' of new vinyl bulkhead as a continuation of
existing sheet steel bulkhead's south return; fill void area landward and eegrade as
needed; construct beach access stairs consisting of landward ±3'wide by 4' long
sections of terracing steps leading down to a set of±3'x10' steps with handrails to
bottom of bluff; construct±3'x3'4" steps with handrails off bulkhead to beach; and to
mulch balance of walkway to top of bluff.
Located: 1033 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1 000-119=1-14.1 & 14.2
MS. CANTRELL: Can you stop fora moment. The recorder stopped working. It's
locked up right now. Just bear with me.
(After a brief pause, these proceedings continue as follows).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: At this time I would like to announce under Town Code Chapter
Board of Trustees 5 March 20, 2019
275-8(c), that the files were officially closed seven days ago, and submission of
paperwork after that date may result in a delay of the processing of the application.
At this time I would like to entertain a motion to have our next field inspection
Wednesday, April 10th, 2019, at 8:00 AM, in the town annex
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll entertain a motion to hold the next Trustee meeting
Wednesday, April 17, 2019, at 5:30 PM at the main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like a motion to hold the next work session Monday,
April 15th, 2019, at 4:30, at the town hall annex second floor, and on Wednesday,
April 17th, 2019, at 5:00 PM here at the main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: At this time I'll entertain a motion to approve the Minutes of the
February 13th, 2019, meeting.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for February 2019. A check for$6,751.83 was forwarded
to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review.
III. RESOLUTIONS OTHER:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one, RESOLVED, the Board of Trustees of the Town of
Southold, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, hereby declare itself
Lead Agency in regard to the application of ERIN E. ARGO.
Located: 1300 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue; SCTM# 1000-104-9-4.1
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
1' l
Board of Trustees 6 March 20, 2019
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next, number two, RESOLVED, the Board of Trustees of
the Town of Southold, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, hereby
declares itself Lead Agency in regard to the application of R. B. BURNHAM III;
Located: Right of Way off Peninsula Road, Fishers Island; SCTM# 1000-10-4-10.
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number three, RESOLVED, the Board of Trustees of the Town
of Southold, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, hereby declares
itself Lead Agency in regard to the application of DONALD W. YOUNG REV. TRUST
& KELLY C. YOUNG REV. TRUST;
Located: Off East End Road, Fishers Island; SCTM# 1000-3-2-2
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number four, RESOLVED, the Board of Trustees
of the Town of Southold, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
hereby declares itself Lead Agency in regard to the application of JAMES H. RICH III,
LESLIE E. RICH, & CRAIG B. RICH;
Located: 1470 Hobart Road, Southold; SCTM# 1000-64-3-2.1
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold
hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VIII Public
Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, March 20, 2019, are
classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and
are not subject to further review under SEQRA: Roman numeral IV,
State Environment Quality Reviews.
They are listed as follows:
Cynthia Walsh SCTM# 1000-139-1-4.2
Bim Strasberg &Alexandra Lewis SCTM# 1000-135-1-1
LCMG FINY, LLC, c/o Leslie Goss SCTM# 1000-2-1-14.1
Donald L. Cleveland, Jr. SCTM# 1000-9-8-6
Peter& Susan Honig SCTM# 1000-88-5-62
Peter& Susan Honig SCTM# 1000-88-5-62
George & Debra Coritsidis SCTM# 1000-89-2-5.1
David Hermer& Silvia Campo SCTM# 1000-111-9-4.2
Patricia Lowry & John Touhey SCTM# 1000-86-7-5.1
David & Diane Nelson SCTM# 1000-53-5-12.6
Kenneth & Heather Clausman SCTM# 1000-126-6-9.1
Board of Trustees 7 March 20, 2019
K MAC Reality, LLC SCTM# 1000-90-2-27
Thomas V. Perillo, Jr. & Christopher Perillo SCTM# 1000-145-2-17.4
Joseph & Maureen Coogan SCTM# 1000-70-4-48
Stephen & Heidi Distante SCTM# 1000-91-1-6
Frank & Christine Mangano SCTM# 1000-91-1-7
Evan Akselrad &Yasmine Anavi SCTM# 1000-118-6-1.0_____
And there was a typo, Erin E. Argo SCTM# 1000-104-9-4.1, should
be under Resolutions listed further in the agenda. So it's not
included, will not be included in this motion.
That's my resolution.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town
of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in
Section VIII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday,
March 20, 2019, are classified as Unlisted Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and
Regulations:
Donald W. Young Rev. Trust & Kelly C. Young Rev. Trust SCTM# 1000-3-2-2
Raimi Family Trust SCTM# 1000-22-2-2,
Alexandra Jones SCTM# 1000-118-2-9
Robert & Mary Kate DiGregorio SCTM# 1000-136-1-36
And Erin E. Argo SCTM# 1000-104-9-4.1
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO NEW
YORK STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT NYCCR PART 617:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next, under Item V, Environmental Declaration of
Significance pursuant to New York State Environmental Quality Review Act NYCCR
Part 617, number one,
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Michael A. Kimack on behalf of ERIN E. ARGO requests
a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x88' fixed dock with Thru-Flow decking and supported
by 12 sets of 8" diameter pressure treated-pilings; install a 3'x10' aluminum removable
ramp; and to install a 6'x20' floating dock using non-pressure treated decking with two
(2) sets of batter pilings, 8" diameter each piling.
Located: 1300 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-9-4.1
S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Trustees are familiar with this project having
visited the site on March 12, 2019, and having considered the plans for this proposed
project submitted by Michael A. Kimack dated October 31, 2018 at the Trustee's
March 18, 2019 work session; and,
Board of Trustees 8 March 20, 2019
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared itself
Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees classified the
application as an unlisted action pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, in reviewing project plans submitted by Michael A. Kimack dated October
31, 2018 and water depths, it has been determined by the Board of Trustees that all
potentially significant environmental concerns have been addressed as noted herein:
• Navigation: The proposed dock meets standards and does not extend beyond 1/3
across the water body. Depths for the dock terminus are within Town Trustees, New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation and United States Army Corps
of Engineers guidelines and there is no recognized Federal/New York State/Town
navigation channel in the-immediate vicinity of the proposed structure.
Scope: The proposed dock is comparable to docks on neighboring properties in an
area where docks historically are used for commercial and recreational purposes
Scope in relation to the riparian rights of shell fishers: The plan allows a
standard ramp to float design that will not impede access for those seeking shellfish
and crustacea in season.
• Scope in relation to view shed: The seaward end of the proposed dock will not
extend appreciably beyond existing docks. As such the perspective will not be
discernibly different from the existing view.
Environmental upkeep: The dock design projects a usual lifespan of 30 years with
limited pile replacement so as to minimize disturbance of the bottom.
THEREFORE, according to the foregoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees
Approve and Authorize the preparation of a Notice of Negative Declaration pursuant to "
SEQRA for the aforementioned project. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number two, DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Cole
Environmental on behalf of ALEXANDRA JONES requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a brick walk at grade; construct a proposed 4'x18' fixed wood dock with
thru-flow decking and a deck elevation of 6.0; a proposed 3.5'x14' metal hinged ramp;
and a proposed 8'x10' wood floating dock.
Located: 1230 Bayberry Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-2-9
S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL'SIGNIFICANCE:
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Trustees are familiar with this project having
visited the site on February 4, 2019, and having considered Nathan Taft Corwin III Land
Surveyor survey for this project last dated February 11, 2019, showing the proposed
dock and Robert H. Fox plan dated January 17th, 2019, showing water depths at the
Trustee's March 18, 2019 work session; and,
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared itself
Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees classified the
Board of Trustees 9 March 20, 2019
application as an unlisted action pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, in reviewing survey submitted by Nathan Taft Corwin III, Land Surveyor,
dated February 11, 2019, it has been determined by the Board of Trustees that all
potentially significant environmental concerns have been addressed as noted herein:
Navigation: The proposed dock meets standards and does not extend beyond 1/3
across the water body. Depths for the dock terminus are within Town Trustees, New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation and United States Army Corps
of Engineers guidelines and there is no recognized Federal/New York State/Town
navigation channel in the immediate.vicinity of the proposed structure.
• Scope: The proposed dock is comparable to docks on neighboring properties in an
area where docks historically are used for commercial and recreational purposes.
• Scope in relation to view sheds: The seaward end of the proposed dock will not
extend appreciably beyond existing docks. As such the perspective will not be
discernibly different from the existing view.
• Environmental upkeep: The dock design projects a usual lifespan of 30 years, with
limited pile replacement so as to minimize disturbance of the bottom.
THEREFORE, according to the foregoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees
Approve and Authorize the preparation of a Notice of Negative Declaration pursuant
to SEQRA for the aforementioned project. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number three, DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Docko, Inc. on
behalf of R. B. BURNHAM III requests a Wetland Permit to construct±66 linear feet of
4' wide fixed wood pile and timber pier of which ±48 linear feet is waterward of the
AHWL, including hand rails on each side, electric and water utilities; install a 3.5'x22'
hinged ramp to a 6'x20' float with,four(4) 8" diameter restraint piles.
Located: Right of Way off Peninsula Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-4-10
S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Trustees are familiar with this project having
visited the site on February 28, 2019, and having considered the plans for this proposed
project submitted by Docko, Inc., dated August 30, 2018 showing the proposed dock
and water depths at the Trustee's March 18, 2019 work session; and,
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared itself
Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees classified the
application as an unlisted action pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, in reviewing project plans submitted by Docko, Inc., dated August 30, 2018,
and water depths it has been determined by the Board of Trustees that all potentially
significant environmental concerns have been addressed as noted herein:
• Navigation: The proposed dock meets standards and does not extend beyond 1/3
across the water body. Depths for the dock terminus,are within Town Trustees, New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation and United States Army Corps
of Engineers guidelines and there is no recognized Federal/New York State/Town
Board of Trustees 10 March 20, 2019
navigation channel in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure.
• Scope: The proposed dock is comparable to docks on neighboring properties in an
area where docks historically are used for commercial and recreational purposes.
• Scope in relation to the riparian rights of shellfishers: The plan allows a standard
ramp to float design that will not impede access for those seeking shellfish and
crustacea in season.
• Scope in relation to view sheds: The seaward end of the proposed dock will not
extend appreciably beyond existing docks. As such the perspective will not be
discernibly different from the existing view.
• Environmental upkeep: The dock design projects a usual lifespan of 30 years, with
limited pile replacement so as to minimize disturbance of the bottom.
THEREFORE, according to the foregoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees
Approve and Authorize the preparation of a Notice of Negative Declaration pursuant to
SEQRA for the aforementioned project. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number four, DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Docko,
Inc. on behalf of DONALD W. YOUNG REV. TRUST & KELLY C. YOUNG
REV. TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to construct a ±160 linear foot long by
4-foot wide fixed wood pile and timber pier including railings on both sides, water,
and electrical utilities of which ±132 linear feet of the pier to be waterward of the
Apparent High Water Line; install an 8'x20' floating dock supported by four(4) piles
with associated 3.5'x24' hinged access ramp off of seaward most end of fixed pier;
and install three tie-off piles.
Located: Off East End Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-3-2-2
S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Trustees are familiar with this project having
visited the site on February 28, 2019, and having considered the plans for this
proposed project submitted by Docko Inc. Dated May 30, 2017, showing the proposed
dock and water depths at the Trustee's March 18, 2019 work session; and,
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared itself
Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees classified the
application as an unlisted action pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, in reviewing project plans submitted by Docko, Inc. dated May 30, 2017
and water depths it has been determined by the Board of Trustees that all potentially
significant environmental concerns have been addressed as noted herein:
• Navigation: The proposed dock meets standards and does not extend beyond 1/3
across the water body. Depths for the dock terminus are within Town Trustees, New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation and United States Army Corps
of Engineers guidelines and there is no recognized Federal/New York State/Town
navigation channel in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure.
Scope: The proposed dock is comparable to docks on neighboring properties in
an area where docks historically are used for commercial and recreational purposes.
Board of Trustees 11 March 20, 2019
• Scope in relation to the riparian rights of shell fishers: The plan allows a standard
ramp to float design that will not impede access for those seeking shellfish and
crustacea in season.
• Scope in relation to view sheds: The seaward end of the proposed dock will not
extend appreciably beyond existing docks.
As such the perspective will not be discernibly different from the existing view.
• Environmental upkeep:The dock design projects a usual lifespan of 30 years, with
limited pile replacement so as to minimize disturbance of the bottom.
THEREFORE, according to the foregoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees
Approve and Authorize the preparation of a Notice of Negative Declaration pursuant to
SEQRA for the aforementioned project. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number five, DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Jeffrey Patanjo on
behalf of JAMES H. RICH III, LESLIE E. RICH, &CRAIG B. RICH requests a Wetland
Permit to remove and replace 120 linear feet of existing bulkhead with new vinyl
bulkhead in-place; remove and replace 30 linear feet of existing bulkhead
return with new vinyl bulkhead return in-place; remove and replace 22 linear feet'of
existing groin with new vinyl groin in-place; install and perpetually maintain a 10' wide
non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead; construct a new 4'x45' fixed
dock supported with 8" diameter piles and with thru-flow decking surface; a 3'x14'
aluminum ramp; and a 6'x20' floating dock situated in an "L" configuration supported
with four(4) 10" diameter piles and cross bracing to hold the floating dock a minimum
of 30" off of bottom at all times.
Located: 1470 Hobart Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-3-2.1
S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Trustees are familiar with this project having
visited the site on February 4, 2019, and having considered the plans for this proposed
project submitted by Jeffrey Patanjo dated October 30, 2018, showing the proposed
dock and water depths at the Trustee's March 18, 2019 work session; and,
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared itself
Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees classified the
application as an unlisted action pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, in reviewing project plans submitted by Jeffrey Patanjo dated October
30, 2018, it has been determined by the Board of Trustees that all potentially significant
environmental concerns have been addressed as noted herein:
• Navigation: The proposed dock meets standards and does not extend beyond-1/3
across the water body. Depths for the dock terminus are within Town Trustees, New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation and United States Army Corps
of Engineers guidelines and there is no recognized Federal/New York State/Town
navigation channel in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure.
• Scope: The proposed dock is comparable in length to docks on neighboring
properties in an area where docks historically are used for commercial and recreational
Board of Trustees 12 March 20, 2019
purposes.
• Scope in relation to the riparian rights of shell fishers: The plan allows a standard
ramp to float design that will not impede access for those seeking shellfish and
crustacea in season.
• Scope in relation to view sheds: The seaward end of the proposed dock will not
extend appreciably beyond existing docks. As such the perspective will not be
discernibly different from the existing view.
• Environmental upkeep: The dock design projects a usual lifespan of 30 years, with
limited pile replacement so as to minimize disturbance of the bottom.
THEREFORE, according to the foregoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees
Approve and Authorize the preparation of a Notice of Negative Declaration pursuant to
SEQRA for the aforementioned project description of action. That is my motion.
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Roman numeral VI, Resolutions and administrative
permits. In order to simplify our meetings, the Board of Trustees regularly
groups together actions that are deemed similar or minor in nature.
Accordingly, I make a motion to approve as a group items one, two and three
under administrative permits. They are listed as follows:
Number one, Eugene J. Burger, Sr. on behalf of EUGENE C. BURGER, JR.
requests an Administrative Permit to install a 200' long by 18" high by 24" wide
stacked stone wall at south property line with drain pipe at base to drywells, and
install a 4'x16' basement entrance at grade.
Located: 2385 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-3-2
Number two, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of RENATO & CARLA
STARCIC requests an Administrative Permit to trim three trees over power lines;
one tree with branches over roof and top one tree (dead growth in upper part of tree).
Located: 205 Private Road #3, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-6-9
Number three, E. Lopez on behalf of D J MOORE 2009 RES. TRUST &
D J MOORE 2011 RES. TRUST requests an Administrative Permit to install ±510
feet of 6' high deer fence along both side yard property lines, ending at the top of the
bluff.
Located: 21075 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-4-17
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral VII, again, in order to simplify our
meeting, the Board of Trustees regularly groups together actions that are minor or
similar in nature. Accordingly, I make a motion to approve as group items one
through ten. They are listed as follows:
Number one, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of DAVID ECKERT requests a
One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#9002, as issued on April 19, 2017.
Board of Trustees 13 March 20, 2019
Located: 1035Waterview Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-7-14
Number two, Patricia Moore; Esq. on behalf of JACK CIPRIANO requests the
Last One-Year Extension,to Wetland Permit#8830, as issued on June 22, 2016.
Located: 8150 Main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-5-23.6
Number three, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of MICHAEL & SUSAN CAVOUNIS
requests the Last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#8756, as issued on
March 23,'2016. - - — - --
Located: 3475 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-9
Number four, En-Consultants on behalf of MATTITUCK PROPERTY FAMILY TRUST
requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#8996, as issued on April 19, 2017,
and Amended on April 18, 2018.
Located: 520 Park Avenue Extension, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-8-28.4
Number five, En-Consultants on behalf of CYNTHIA WALSH requests a Transfer of
Wetland Permit#8858 from GCG Bayberry, LLC to Cynthia Walsh, as issued on
August 17, 2016. Located: 975 Westview Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-139-1-4.2
Number six, NANCY CARNEY requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#2258 from
James Small to Nancy Carney, as issued on February 27, 1987, and Amended
on January 23, 2003.
Located: 3100 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-17-14
Number seven, En-Consultants on behalf of PHILIP CAMMANN requests a Transfer
of Wetland Permit#7222 from Charles & Carolyn LoCastro to Philip Cammann, as
issued on December 16, 2009.
Located: 1500 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-12-21.3
(Previously 1475 & 1500 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck; SCTM# 1000-115-12-21.1 & 21.2).
Number eight, ELLEN L. HUFE requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#87 from Inez B.
& Carl E. Vail, as issued on November 30, 1959.
Located: 3195 Wells Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-9
Number nine, En-Consultants on behalf of RK3 ESTATES, LLC requests a Transfer of
Wetland Permit#9132 from Robert & Rita Reis Wieczorek to RK3 Estates, LLC, as
issued on December 13, 2017.
Located: 835 Tarpon Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-53-5-8
Number ten, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of PATRICK & DIANE
SEVERSON requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9092 to
remove existing fence and install new 48" high pool enclosure fencing with double
gates in new location on the east side of the property; relocate proposed fencing at
screen porch; and to construct a 4'x4' concrete slab on-grade at east side of property.
Located: 9202 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-73-2-3.1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: At this time I'll make a motion to go off our regularly scheduled
agenda and enter into the public hearing. Motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: En-Consultants on behalf of CYNTHIA WALSH requests an
Amendment to Wetland Permit#8858 to install two (2) 12" diameter tie-off pilings,
J
Board of Trustees 14 March 20, 2019
and connect dock to water and electricity.
Located: 975 Westview Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-139-1-4.2
The Trustees did a field inspection on,March 12th of this year and noted that this
was a straightforward field inspection that was done by Trustee Goldsmith. It is noted
that the application was straightforward with the addition of two extra pilings.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent on March 7th, 2019.
And on March 13th, the Conservation Advisory Council resolved unanimously to
support this application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MS. STEVENS: Kim Stevens, representing En-Consultants on behalf of Robert
Herrmann. I'm just turning in an affidavit.of posting and the proof of mailing. We have
nothing else to present, unless there are any questions.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ,Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing, number two, Patricia
Moore, Esq. on behalf of BIM STRASBERG &ALEXANDRA LEWIS
requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#9342 and Coastal
Erosion Management Permit#9342C to construct a new 50 linear
foot long wood retaining wall landward of bulkhead (6"x6"
vertical with 3'x10' timber lagging) secured by 25 ton helical
pile 5' on center; seaward of existing dwelling, construct a new
50-linear foot long sheet pile wall at elevation +39' secured by
25-ton helical piles 6' on center; and to restore the bluff and
fill depression with 200 cubic yards of clean fill.
Located: 21225 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-135-1-1
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak with.respect to this
application? .
MS. MOORE: Good evening. Patricia Moore on behalf of Bim
Strasberg and Alexandra Lewis.
As you know, we have a wetland permit, a coastal erosion permit
to replace the bulkhead, and since that time there has been
further destruction to the bulkhead and erosion of the bank. So
this work was recommended,to secure the bank and provide the
added protection for the home that is above. So, if you have
any questions, otherwise, we thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board discussed this file at our work
session and we have grave concerns about the installation of
sheet pile at the crest of the bluff. And based on our
experience with other settings in the Town, where it's created
J
Board of Trustees 15 March 20,-20,19
damage to adjoining properties, we probably want to engage
additional dialogue concerning construction, and possibly seek
an alternative plan that would not possibly put at risk other
properties, and also set about a commencement of steel sheathing
along the Sound bank as oppressive and we are very concerned it
would be, and approving this might be hazardous to the properties
and further neighboring property fail. I just wanted to let you know the
Board's concerns. Sorry, my apologies. ,
MS. MOORE: No, it's good to hear these things for the first
time. I did have the contractor at a work session. He explained
everything to you. He also had the drawings prepared by a
professional engineer and it was submitted to you a
month-and-a-half ago. My client has been waiting for this
hearing and they have been waiting to replace the bulkhead for
this work.
Your concerns are noted but we have given you professional
drawings to address them. My client will be very upset because
you are creating a hazardous condition. The contractor has to
replace the bulkhead, and,without this additional work, the
entire bank could cave in.
So what I would suggest is, if you want to, we could have an
engineer-on site while the work is being done, or even suggest
that the'Town engineer or even someone from your office as well,
to be there. This is not the type of work that would jeopardize
anyone else's property. In fact, on both sides of this property
there are retaining walls that keep the banks; on the east side
there are retaining walls and some that are a combination of
railroad ties. And as I recall, railroad ties. On the east side,
my memory is that the bulkhead is extremely high, so we are
matching up to try to get to the height of that bulkhead. But
it's still not as high as the adjacent property. So this work is crucial.
As I said, we have been waiting two months, and every storm my
client calls me really frantic because the house is maybe 25
feet from the top of the bluff, and from, when you identified
the crack in the bulkhead eight months ago, we immediately
undertook the process of having that bulkhead permit to replace.
This permit has also been approved by the DEC, so they do not
have concerns with respect to the impact on the bluff. It has to
be maintained and restored. So I would suggest some other method
than just saying we are concerned. We have a professional
engineer, it was not drawn up by just anybody. It was actually
certified by an engineer. The contractor is a very qualified
contractor that does most of their work on the south shore. So
it is really crucial where my client is going to be quite upset
because his house is really in jeopardy. This is, we should have
had a conversation about this prior to today. Because I was
expecting to have a permit and the contractor is ready to start.
Remember, this project is being'done at the same time as the
adjacent bulkhead, so we have to coordinate those projects.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The specific question relating to concerns
would be, a, an engineer's report detailing how the work could
Board of Trustees 16 March 20, 2019
commence so that it would not endanger the lateral support of
lands adjacent, and so it would not endanger, in other words we
have stamp signed plans from an engineer, but based on the
Board's experience, the concerns we have go to the lateral
support of lands and nearby structures, and the description of
the course of operations and how they,-the adjoining structures
and the bluff itself would be protected. And the Department of
Environmental Conservation issues wetland permits. We also have
to do these with respect to the coastal erosion hazard area
ordinance that relate to protecting the lateral support of lands
MR. HAGAN: If I could ask you to stop for a second. The audio is,
giving us a problem.
(After a brief pause, these proceedings continue as follows).
MR. HAGAN: Okay.
MS. MOORE: Give me a suggestion that is a practical suggestion.
I can't go get another engineer's support. That will be another
month's delay. In the meantime we can't replace the bulkhead
and what is going to happen is, I'm putting the town on notice,
.please-put this on the record, that we have a house that is in
jeopardy. I'm putting the town on notice, that at this point we
have submitted engineer plans, and if there is damage, I'll
leave it up to my clients and their insurance company. We have a
situation that has to be addressed, and waiting two months to
get this answer is just unacceptable. Particularly when I
submitted engineered drawings and there was no comment about
needing additional paperwork or even additional studies. As you
recall, you grant permits like this on a regular basis and there
has never, ever, ever been a request for engineering on the
lateral supports of adjacent properties. In fact, the reason
that we have to put this wall up is to protect the adjacent
properties. Their properties have an angle that when our bluff
caved in we have to match. That is why the design is the way it
is. We are matching the angle of the adjacent properties. So it
is crucial. It really is imperative that this permit be granted.
As I said, I'm willing to work with the Board on having an
engineer, someone monitor the project. But I can't engineer for
someone else. That's what'l rely on my professionals. This is
not one done by the contractor, not a drawing done by anybody
other than the PE who put his certification on it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's my understanding from advisement
From the Town Attorney that if there were damage, of course the
applicant would be responsible for that damage. So it would be
helpful to address the concerns on how the activity would take
place with respect to the lateral support of the lands during
the construction phase. Because while this Board has granted
permit approvals for steel sheet bulkheading in situations where
there has been severe erosion at the toe of the bluff, I can
only recall one other situation since 2010 that I'm aware of
where sheet pile or, you know, vinyl pile was driven at the
topographical crest of a bluff.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to reiterate what Trustee
Board of Trustees 17 March 20, 2019
t
Bredemeyer just said. In my time on the Trustee Board there has
only been one application, and to my knowledge, where the
construction involved vinyl sheets vibrated or driven into at
the top of the bluff. And in that case, concerns were voiced.
We were assured by the engineer at the time that there would be
no problems. In fact this happens to be the same contractor that__
you brought to the work session. And our concerns were valid.
There was complete failure of the foundation of the house, of
the applicant's house, and problems alongside. So I reject the
notion that we created this difficult situation here. There is a
difficult, dangerous situation and we are trying to make sure it
doesn't get worse.
MS. MOORE: I would put on the record, the contractor was at the
work session, he specifically addressed that issue, which is
incorrect. That particular property, the house had been storm
damaged. The foundation had been impacted by the storm damage.
So it was not the activity that caused the foundation failure.
It was the storm damage. It had already been failed. And that
was put on the record at that work session. So I'm placing it
on the record that there was a direct dispute to that, and you
are continuing to raise that as a reason that this particular
contractor somehow or other misrepresented the impact. I would
strongly dispute that. So. You don't tape work sessions, and
that issue came up and that issue was specifically addressed. So
to hear it today, I'll put on the record that was specifically
addressed and that the facts that you state are in fact
disputed. That was disputed at the work session.
That was a different project. I don't know anything about it.
But that was discussed and I want to make sure that we have a
record of that issue having been addressed. So I'm not here to
fight with the Board. I'm here really with a desperate
situation that my client is going to be, I mean he really has
been calling me.almost on a daily basis to find out if the
permit has been approved. Everyone is ready to start. And as I
said, the house is in a very close location to the top of the
bluff, and the bulkhead is in jeopardy. It bowed out at the last
storm, and thank goodness, the storms that we have had the past
two months that we have been waiting, have not further removed
that bulkhead. It has bowed out and it's not supporting the bank
right now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would like to just point out it was this
Board that pointed out you had a problem there eight months ago.
So we have certainly not created the situation here. So it was
eight months ago your client was not aware of the problem.
MS. MOORE: You are misunderstanding me.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just let me finish. Thank you. Your client was
not aware there was a problem and this Board pointed it out when
you applied for the steps. So..that's where we are now eight months
later.
MS. MOORE: And in that time we acted immediately. He got the
drawings, he got the engineer, he got the contractor. And all
Board of Trustees 18 March 20, 2019
that time has been spent getting the DEC permit, getting the
Trustees permit for the bulkhead. That Trustees permit for the
bulkhead was granted in November. Since then, we have been
working on this particular application, addressing it,
submitting it to you. The first time we submitted it to you,
you needed to talk to the contractor. We did it at a work
session. That was the December work session. This matter did
not--you needed drawings. The drawings came in a week later
than your deadline so it had to skip the January meeting. I
missed, it didn't get on the February meeting, and here we are
in March. So that whole time, my client has been waiting for
this permit in order to get started on the project. So I'm, I
urge you to, if we have to do some modifications or amendments
to it, we can do it after the fact when you, and you can talk to
the engineer, I'll bring the engineer in. But I need to get
this permit in place to at least protect the bluff while we are
working on the bulkhead. I mean I don't know what to do other
than go to court with just an emergency situation. I really
don't know what to do.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This Board has to do its due diligence with
respect to the concerns concerning the lateral support of lands,
and would you be able to get an engineering report from a
licensed engineer that would supplement the plans. We have to
discuss the operations for the site and engineering --
MS. MOORE: You are talking about operations like the project
sequencing?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sequencing, type of materials and how the
sheet pile will be installed. And discussions of any potential
downside and remediation that could be taking place should there
be any unforeseen consequences to the construction.
MS. MOORE: I mean, I can come in with whatever we can. A lot of
this work, as you know, when you have a compromised bank, has to
be addressed in the field. So again, that's why a lot of this
has to be hands-on. I'm certainly willing to bring the engineer
and have him discuss with you sequencing. I just can't delay
this project another month. I will do whatever is reasonable to
address your concerns. I really will. It's not in anyone's
interest, including my neighbor, which is joining in this
application, to be at all impacted by this project. This piece
of property is so narrow and the access to it is by way of the
adjacent property. As you know. So we are really constrained.
I think it has 60 feet or 50 feet. And again, it's being
coordinated with the neighbor for purposes of access and
construction.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We understand obviously the bulkhead
needs to be replaced. Would it be --the question is would it be to
the applicant's advantage and stability to go ahead with the
bulkhead construction and the timber retaining wall at the lower
side and to move ahead.
MS. MOORE: I don't like to engineer for--this is a design
change. Could.we consider then -- I know we need the timber
Board of Trustees 19 March 20, 2019
retaining walls. What we need above that, because -- if we pull
out the drawings -- hold on. There is a cross-section. Here we
go. So part of the problem is there is the timber, the toe wall,
I understand, that holds back the soil from then going down and
going into the Sound. The problem is that the slope, we have a
53% slope. So there has to be some way of protecting the top of
the bluff so it doesn't, it doesn't fill in the gap. You have
to maintain that 53% slope. That's why there is that, the sheet
piles that are proposed at the top. It's just common sense.
It's more common sense than engineering here. You have the top
that you can't allow it all to slump down and fill in the
crevice that has been created. So they are working their way
backwards. They have to protect. Now maybe there is a way of
adding additional, one additional retaining wall midway so that
you are protecting the slope so that it's -- maybe there is a
mitigation for the top of the bluff to midway before the first
toe wall. Again, this is engineering, so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How is the construction going to be done so
that we ensure there will be no lateral damage? What is the
method to ensure that?
MS. MOORE: The contractor had explained that to you at the work
session, if I remember correctly. He did talk about, before --
he has to build backwards. Maintaining the bank before, so
it, that it all doesn't push out.into the Long Island Sound. So
there is, I'm trying to remember specifically how he described
it. But there has to be some protection at the top to keep that
angle in place.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Didn't he say he was going to vibrate it in,
if I'm not mistaken? Which is our big concern. That's what he
said. That's what I objected to at the work session.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I believe he said that, yes.
MS. MOORE: He described that it's, you are pushing it in, you
are vibrating it in but not what you are thinking.
But the sand, it goes into the sand. It doesn't extend out
beyond the area that is going down. So again, you are not going
to, what you are thinking like (indicating).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I know what it is. I've done it. I know what it
is. It's fairly aggressive.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The 53 degree slope angle is the steepest the
Board has had in a set of plans in front of us, and of course 53
degrees running to lateral side of adjoining properties, I think
the top down view that we have signed by the engineer with more
descriptive of the whole project and how it takes place would
possibly allay some of our concerns. Particularly as to the
method of installation. It's the same contractor that performed
the work on this other parcel that we are aware of, and by at
least the members present at that time inspecting that job it
did appear, there appeared to be, not necessarily substantiated
fully, but neighboring foundations cracked. And it's our concern
that would be -- and we don't want to enlist problems with
structures. And there are concerns about how you would maintain
Board of Trustees 20 March 20, 2019
returns with the steep angles, how you would construct, what
kind of immediate measures could be taken. I think that's --
MS. MOORE: I mean, I don't know what to tell you. I can give
you, my concern again is to hold up for another month for
drawings and is there any way of getting this approved with an
amendment at the next meeting. I can put in an amendment to
this drawing that tries to -- and maybe bring the engineer in to
describe it. I can't engineer something that is already described.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We cannot design a project.
MS. MOORE: You are asking me as well and I can't either.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are asking concerns and possibly in
discussion with the engineer there would be an alternative to
the upper sheet pile that could be brought in for discussion.
And we can't, we neither can design nor can we --
MS. MOORE: No. I understand. My main objection is I have been
waiting two months and nobody spoke out about the discussion or
asking the engineer or asking for any further information. I
urge you, when you are dealing with waterfront structures that
are jeopardized, we all have to work together. You can't just
throw it at me at a hearing. Certainly my clients or anybody
else here can't be, can't address it at the hearing properly. We
have to know in advance.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board has been dealing with many
emergency situations which we try to be responsible to the utmost.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I have not heard anything here tonight that
was not discussed at work session with you and the contractor.
All our concerns were brought up, and not all of them now.
MS. MOORE: My understanding at that work session was he was
going to provide you professionally drawn engineered, stamped
drawings, to be able to justify the design that he was
proposing. And the Board at least verbally said that, fine, we
want a stamped engineered drawing because we don't, reading
between the lines, we don't trust you know what you are doing.
We want an engineer to certify it. Whether that was true or not
as far as him because of your prior experience, completely
unrelated to this, we went and got the PE drawn, somebody who is
certifying it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Additionally, we raised concerns about the soil
conditions there and the clay layer that is in the area, and the
potential for the sheathing to back up water and create a water
load on the bluff.
MS. MOORE: And we talked about weep holes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: He said it was sufficient.
MS. MOORE: No, he mentioned weep holes. We discussed weep holes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And we questioned that. So we reiterated some
concerns at that work session. So it's not brand new to you.
You are entitled to your opinion on things but I think, I want
to make sure that everyone understands that the damage to the
property that we reference was not storm related. The damage
occurred after the sheets were vibrated in. It's the one and
only instance I know of that sheets were vibrated in at the
Board of Trustees 21 March 20, 2019
top of the bluff. And the damage, we were called in for an
emergency repair to the foundation. They had catastrophic
failure, and it was not related to any storm. So again, you are
entitled to your opinion, but the facts will show otherwise.
t MS. MOORE: I'll rely on your statements. It's a different
property and we have a completely different situation here, so.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I think everybody on the Board is greatly
concerned of the vibrating mechanism to do the damage, more
damage to the bluff that already is, the bluff is in a
vulnerable state. There was some bluff sloughing. And there is
limited vegetation on the bluff. And basically taking a butter
knife and chopping it down with the, it's not good for the bluff.
MS. MOORE: I'm not a PE. If the PE recommends that is the
method, then that's what we operate.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: We discussed our concerns about it at the work
session,,I recall. And nothing, no other alternative has been
brought to our--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Could we get some requested information
we have the engineered drawing. Can we have a detailed --
MS. MOORE: Is the stenographer-- how soon would you have, even
as an unapproved,just so that we have all of the issues addressed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's my understanding we'll give you a
letter detailing --
MS. MOORE: You'll prepare'a letter? Okay. Fine.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We can draft a letter addressing our concerns
and give it to you. We'll draft a letter enumerating our
concerns and get it to you as quickly as we possibly can.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One last thing, there are other methods that
have been used even on the neighboring properties for this same
problem with similar slopes.
MS. MOORE: What were those methods?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Multiple bulkheading and multiple
interspaced terracing.
MS. MOORE: Right.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Which would alleviate some of the drainage
concerns and the vibration concerns, frankly.
MS. MOORE: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: For the record, the Conservation Advisory
Council does support this application with a ten-foot non-turf
buffer, and I guess we should also ask is there anyone else here
wishing to speak to the application?
(Negative response).
Seeing none.
MS. MOORE: We might be back to you with an emergency permit if
the whole bank comes down. I hope that you will address it then
because --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You know the Board's reputation and history
with responding to emergency situations. I think it's well-known.
MS. MOORE: I just don't want to be in that situation.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So we can state this is tabled at the
applicant's request.
Board of Trustees 22 March 20, 2019
MS. MOORE: No, not at the applicant's request.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We'll table at our request.
MS. MOORE: Fine.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to table this application
to address concerns of the Board that shall be enumerated in
communication with the attorney._
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits,
number one, Docko, Inc. on behalf of LCMG FINY, LLC, c/o LESLIE
GOSS requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to
retain and reconstruct±151 linear feet of existing 8'wide
fixed wood pier with handrails on each side, of which ±120
linear feet is waterward of the AHWL; install 32 new pier
support piles; maintain the landward most stone-filled timber
pier support crib; remove the outermost four(4) support crib
timbers; replace three (3) tie-off piles and install one (1) new
tie-off pile.
Located: 3773 Clay Point Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-2-1-14.1
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies are the
proposed action is prohibited in the near shore area pursuant to Chapter 111 Coastal
Erosion Hazard Area, and is not removable. And also the occurrence of eel grass is
documented in the area where the dock structure is proposed. He also further says in
the event the action is approved it is recommended that a vegetated buffer be
established to mitigate the local impact from the dock structure to public surface waters
and bottom lands.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an inspection, therefore no
recommendation was made.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on February 28th, noting it was
straightforward, but potential for need to appeal under Chapter 111.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application?
MR. NIELSON: I'm Keith Nielson, with Docko, Inc., and I prepared
the application documents before you.
This project is to rebuild a fixed wood pile timber crib supported pier.
MR. HAGAN: If I can ask to you wait for a second.
(After a brief pause, these proceedings continue as follows).
MR. NIELSON: It's to rebuild this longstanding fixed wood pile
timber crib supported pier. This is a 1956 structure and
predates all of the existing state and local regulatory
programs, and predates the US Army Corps of Engineers
grandfather permit issued in 1968. The structure is in need of
repair, as you saw in the field visit. The timber cribbing is
coming apart at the bottom. And there are a couple of options as
far as the public access along the shoreline, to modify the pier
structure so that it could be raised and allow the passage of
personnel or the public at large walking along the beach.
I would point out that this is, we have no problem
Board of Trustees 23 March 20, 2019
complying with the technicalities of public access, but in fact
the beach is very difficult to walk on because its compilation is
of stones of different,sizes. It's difficult to walk on for most
people. So we had a meeting with the DEC today, that had been, r
along with a meeting in addition to the concerns that you have
public access, the DEC actually said that they would like to
rebuild the bottom of the timber cribs in order to make sure
that the stone does not sprawl out on to bottom sediments,
creating any kind of impact on the eel grass beds that are
around the pier. Or, remove the timber cribs and remove the
stone fill from, at least the portion of the stone fill so the
remaining stone fill is not likely to fall out onto the eel
grass. We are not objecting to either one of those
recommendations. It will require modified plans and as we will
Pe initiating the response to the DEC concerns immediately. 1
I'm here to answer any questions you might all have. I believe any
concerns that have been raised can be addressed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: My recollection is the Board members
performed a field inspection, we did not see eel grass under the
dock structure.
MR. NIELSON: That is true. It was not under the structure.
That's correct. It was up to the south side of the pier out
toward the west end. As noted in our plans. And that was
confirmed again this last summer. Again, we don't have a problem
with modifying the timber cribs to remove the damage potential
of fallen stone.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Did the DEC engage you in any discussion
concerning possibly thru-flow decking in the area that would
match up with the eel grass on either side to allow it to
possibly flourish under the dock structure?
MR. NIELSON: They did not. But I believe that that was a
condition of the permit that the applicant would go ahead and
put in the thru-flow decking.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak to
this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Since this would have to go out for revised
plans to accommodate the DEC concerns, it would be a question it
might be an opportunity to increase the eel grass in this
location with thru-flow, understanding there would be design
issues you might want to'discuss with the owner or DEC because
the corridors of high energy requires a very high energy wave
area, and whether it would be prudent to have thru-flow go
over the total expanse or a portion of it. We can't, it's just a
concern that possibly could be addressed with some a beneficial
protection of the eel grass and allow it to flourish. I just put
that out there.
MR. NIELSON: I would point out that most of the eel grass that
is in the vicinity of the pier comes closest to the pier on the
Board of Trustees 24 March 20, 2019
south side. And so the thru-flow decking would not really be
affecting that. On the other hand, I believe that the eel grass
probably would grow in greater abundance under the pier if there
was thru-flow.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Eel grass does tend to move. So ideally it
would move into the area underneath the pier, which would be
beneficial for everyone.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All right, so I'll make a motion to table the
hearing for new plans.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Docko, Inc. on behalf of DONALD W. YOUNG
REV. TRUST & KELLY C. YOUNG REV. TRUST requests a Wetland
Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a±160 linear foot
long by 4 foot wide fixed wood pile and timber pier including railings
on both sides, water, and electrical utilities of which ±132
linear feet of the pier to be waterward of the Apparent High
Water Line; install an 8'x20' floating dock supported by four
(4) piles with associated 3.5'x24' hinged access ramp off of
seaward most end of fixed pier; and install three tie-off piles.
Located: Off East End Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-3-2-2
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. He
cited concerns about a lot of activity in this area may include
open timber piles or other similar open work support with
surface area of less than 200-square,feet which are removed in
the Fall of each year. The proposed action is prohibited in the
near shore area pursuant to Chapter 111 Coastal Erosion Hazard
Area as it is not removable. He also mentioned eel grass beds
and their sensitivity, including light issues, and he noted in
the event the action is approved it is recommended a vegetative
buffer be established to mitigate the local impacts of the dock
structure to public surface waters and bottom lands.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an
inspection therefore no recommendation was made.
The Trustees most recently reviewed this file inhouse on
the 28th and noted that they thought about holding it for
review. And the DEC permit which would help mitigate the well
end and eel grass concerns.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application?
MR. NIELSON: Again, Keith Nielson, from-Docko, Inc. We had the
opportunity to meet with the Trustees on the site and walk
through the location and orientation of this dock facility. The
layout, as you notice, is not a standard pier layout because
it's got a dog leg in it about two-thirds of the way out, and
the reason for that is in our efforts to find the most suitable
location for a dock at this site, in view of the eel grass area
that was included on our original survey of ten years ago, and
confirmed in recent'years, there is an area where eel grass has
not historically grown in the time that we have been documenting
Board of Trustees 25 March 20, 2019
it for this site. And in research with historical records on the
island, it appears that the reason for this is that the dock
site was,the site of a pier that was full length crib supported
pier built in the 1920s. And part of the reason for the
assortment of stone in the area of the proposed dock
construction is that we are following the old crib pier
structure. We have met several times with the DEC in order to
provide enough supportive information for them to make their
decision. And we don't object to waiting for the DEC to rule on
this dock permit. With our meeting today, we went over the
increased usage of through-flow decking, the pier itself '
incorporating through-flow decking into the floating dock, and
the elevation of the dock which you have probably noted from the
application drawings is quite high. It's eight-and-a-half feet.
In order to allow shading impact of the pier to be minimized
both on the tidal wetlands and on the bottom, on the benthos
sediments, so that in the event eel grass ever could grow in
here it would get adequate sunlight from the east in the morning
and the west in the afternoon. And with the addition of
through-flow decking the full length of the pier it would get a
lot more light transmissivity would be gained. If there are any
other questions I would be happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: First of all, I want to clarify for the record,
I mis-spoke earlier. There were three Trustees present on the
28th of February for the field inspection. I had said it was an
inhouse inspection.
The other thought is would your client-consider just a
fixed pier, given the adverse affects that float presents to
eel grass?
I know you are making your best effort to have the float and not
impact the eel grass, but the fact is that floats do kill eel
grass. You'll see a perfect rectangle beneath the area of the
float where it just can't grow into or gets killed off. Is there
any possibility there?
MR. NIELSON: Yes, there is. We had this discussion before, but
have informed Mr. Young that we are in a sensitive environmental
area and in order to make the best of that and still provide for
some of the other performance characteristics that are necessary
for a dock in order to have the water deep enough that a boat
will not be disrupting the bottom sediments during operations or
damage the boat, we have to get out to a certain depth. And the
DEC standard is generally to get us out to four feet. And we
have done that with this application. And Mr. Young has
indicated that if it takes a fixed pier to get approved, then he
would concede that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Also with respect to the Board having to
address the inconsistency of the LWRP, the addition of the
thru-flow over lands that are, you know, capable of growing
eel grass, helps the Board address concerns of the LWRP
coordinator.
MR. NIELSON: The DEC requested the thru-flow over the
- i
Board of Trustees '26 March 20, 2019
wetlands as well, and you'll notice that the location of the
pier, the reason it originates where it does is because that is
the area where the tidal wetlands is the least. In red. Across
the beach. And that was intentional but that is also what led to
requiring the dog leg.
--- I would be happy to answer any other-questions you-might ---- --have.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak?
MR. FINNEGAN: Good evening. Martin Finnegan, Finnegan, Twomey,
Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubin & Quartararo. I'm here on behalf of
the neighboring land owners Nick and Anne Noyse and Jerry
Berger.
And at the outset, I was a little surprised to see a SEQRA
declaration this evening prior to public hearing. And
particularly to see it was based on rather broader-based
findings. I feel there is information on the record beyond just
the first glance of the application. This is a critical
environmental area. Clearly the Board is well aware of the eel
grass meadow there. And clearly it is inconsistent with the LWRP.
And it seems to me -- and I'm joined here by Chip Voorhis from
Nelson, Pope &Voorhis. He'll get up here in a second and just
review the science of all this. But I think that perhaps that
resolution could be reconsidered. My'client's primary concern
clearly is the impact'that this proposed dock, which is a very
large dock, the impact it will have the on the eel grass beds
and also on the overall impact on the residences in the cove.
There are no other docks in this area of the cove. There are
some remote docks. But I would submit to you that, contrary to
your finding, that this is the largest structure anywhere in the
vicinity. So I mean we are talking about allowing construction
of a very large structure in a critical environmental area, and
one of the last eel grass beds that exist in the state. So I
think it requires some pretty serious scrutiny. And I understand
that there is the suggestion that we have found a spot to
squeeze this thing in there, where there'is no eel grass. But
eel grass can grow and I think that is something that has to be
considered. But I'll stop. I want to address a couple of other
things in the code. But I'll let Chip come up and make his
presentation first.
MR. VOORHIS: Good evening, everyone. Chip Voorhis of Nelson,
Pope &Voorhis. I'm a certified environmental professional and
certified planner, and have been involved with environmental
protection and water resources on Long Island for about 40
years. I did submit a report to you dated November 30th. I hope
you do have that in your file. I'm really just going,to
summarize that. Much of what Martin has said comes from that
documentation.
I think that you know, you have done your field
inspections, this is basically a cove on the north side of
Fishers Island. The area is designated a significant coastal
fish and wildlife habitat, and of course the eel grass which has
Board of Trustees 27 March 20, 2019
been talked about on this as well as the previous application.
The beds that are in the Chockomount Cove are extensive and
really extensive in terms of the entire state, because eel grass
has been on the decline for many years. So this shows the map
that designates it as significant coastal fish and wildlife
habitat. This is-a map that shows the additional,—actually-it's
the same thing. Just, there is also a statewide sea grass map
that surveys this area, and of course the area we are talking
about is under the dark green, which has been identified as
significant area for sea grass currents. I think it's probably
the PDF. I tried to get it up as a Power Point, and I couldn't.
This just shows the site location and the eel grass surveys that
were done more recently for the US Fish and Wildlife Service in
Long Island Sound, which included this area, and of course the
area that is encircled in green is a significant area for
expansive eel grass based on the up-to-date surveys.
The proposed dock is in an area at the back of the cove.
It's in an area of shallower water. There are depth soundings on
the project plans, and you can see there are no other docks in
the immediate area. The only other docks are really farther out
into the more open waters, which tend to be less sensitive in
terms of eel grass. So there is a local concern. Eel grass is
classified as an essential fish habitat for, and habitat areas
for, of particular concerns by NOAH. It provides refuge, food
resources, nursery grounds for commercial and recreationally
harvested species. And over time, eel grass beds have gone from
about 200,000 acres to about 22,000 acres, or a loss of 178,000
acres in the state since 1930 up to surveys in 2006. A lot of
this is due to stress, boating docks, hardened structures,
hardened shore lines, and the other things that affect those
concerns. So obvious it provides support for finfish, crabs,
snails, scallops and other aquatic species that thrive in these
areas. This is the proposed project. The southern portion of
the floating pier based on this contour is really, these areas
are very shallow. Three to four feet. And so there is concern
about scarring of the eel grass beds, operation of boats, the
impact that can occur. The project has been described, and you
are familiar with it. This shows it on an aerial photograph,
with certainly some evidence of eel grass. And there is a
little triangle here that represents a buoy that will relate to
some photographs that were taken last summer that will give you
a reference point. So that buoy is right here. There are stands
of eel grass that would be at the outer stretches of the
floating pier. But the entire area, this is looking toward the
southeast, back toward shore with the house in the background.
This is a reference, again where the dock is, where that buoy
is, which is right here. And, you know, as you look out, there
are many areas of eel grass that were occurring in this
particular location just last summer. So this just shows, this
is shallower water certainly, but depending on the type of
vessel that is being operated, the draft of the vessel, draft of
Board of Trustees 28 March 20, 2019
the engines, propellers and so forth, there can be impacts as a
result of physical damage. It can also result'in changes to
temperature and light penetration that was talked about in terms
of the flow-through decking. And all of this impacts species
that are important in those areas as well as just the stand of
eel grass. So we believe that fragmentation of eel grass due to
that scarring is a potential impact that at this point has not
been adequately addressed. It also limits potential to grow in
suitable habitat where eel grass is not present, and that is
what has been discussed when we looked for those areas to fill
in and become more thriving occurrences of eel grass. This is
already established and it should be able to thrive but,have
difficulty with these stressors to have been known to cause
impacts. That covers all the items.
So in summary, we believe that there is a potential impact
to sensitive eel grass beds. We believe that additional
inventory work is warranted to fully document the location of
eel grass beds. We feel that additional analysis of potential
impacts is warranted based on that inventory and based on the
impacts that appear to be obvious. And that modification of the
project is warranted to mitigate and fully address the
potential for these impacts.
So that concludes my remarks. You do have my full report
from November 30th. That has references that also includes an
additional letter from a firm that'also looked at this, WBL &
Associates. And that's part of the record. So there is concerns
it needs to be addressed. Thank you.
MR. FINNEGAN: This'concept of an updated survey or renewed
survey is one of the points I wanted to make. It seems that we
found the spot that there is clearly evidence here that the eel
grass beds are thriving, that they could continue to grow, and
the concern is that_introducing this very large structure into a
cove that is pretty much pristine at this point, could have a
potentially devastating impact on the eel grass meadow there. It
is a very important issue on Fishers Island. As you may be
aware, they have their own commission that they have established
to protect and review and find ways to deal with the ongoing
threats to the eel grass meadows.
So I think at this point clearly as the champions of the
environment in our Town, should find that compelling. I do want
to just talk about the wetland permit criteria and just briefly
direct your attention to some of the provisions in Chapter 275
that we feel
THE SECRETARY: Hold on for a second, please. The tape stopped
again.
(After a brief pause, these proceedings continue as follows).
MR. FINNEGAN: (Continuing) so these provisions, which I know
you are aware of. But for the record I just want to say these
provisions would require you to heavily scrutinize'if not deny
this application. Section 275-11(a)(7) which speaks to your
discretion to apply more stringent requirements and either deny
Board of Trustees 29 March 20, 2019
operations proposed in critical environmental areas with respect
to the dock location and length. Section 275-11(c) states no
dock shall be erected or extended if in the opinion of the
Trustees such structure would adversely affect wetland areas.
That may not be your opinion but I think it's something you
should consider here based on the evidence presented.
The regulations for the placement and configuration of
docks require that the proposed dock be consistent with other
docks in the cove. There are no other docks in this particular
area of the cove, the inner cove, and I would submit to you that
even in contrast to the outer docks, that this is a larger
structure. Certainly not consistent in its configuration.
And with respect to the specific concerns raised by my
clients as to the eel grass and overall impacts, the code
mandates that this Board consider whether the dock will have any
harmful affects, including whether the dock will result in the
destruction or prevent the growth of eel grass, which is
expressly in the code, and whether the dock will adversely
affect views and view sheds and vistas. So it's our position
that there is no question that we are talking about a
substantial eel grass meadow in this cove. A current survey is
critical to your review here to have information that you can
rely on. Not a 10-year old survey that has been checked out.
There is photographs, there is evidence, that this is a
thriving, growing eel grass bed. And that there should be
current surveys that, in-water surveys, that can really give you
a clear read on what exactly is there before this moves forward.
As for the view shed, right now, there is nothing there. I mean
it's a pristine view, as I said. So introducing what would be a
verylarge structure right in the middle of the inner cove
there, is going to have an unquestionable impact on what is
right now an unblemished view shed.
So I would ask that you keep these code provisions in mind
as you conduct your analysis of this application that I submit
to you if you do, I think that they might compel you to
significantly alter the proposed design, if not deny this
application.
I just want to mention there were written comments
submitted directly by my clients. I just wanted to confirm that
you did receive them and they are part of your record.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have them. Thank you. They are in the file.
MR. FINNEGAN: Thank you, very much, for your time. I
appreciate it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to direct a question to Mr.
Voorhis. You mention that eel grass has been in decline for
many years. I would like, wonder if you could, for the purposes
of the Board's analysis, to list briefly for me, and I mean
briefly, two or three factors most responsible for Zostera
decline in New York State and waters greater than a depth of
four feet.
Board of Trustees 30 March 20, 2019
MR. VOORHIS: I believe it would be related to light penetration.
I believe it would be related to, less so, due to scarring
certainly, if it's greater than four feet in depth. I think
scouring can have an impact on those beds. And essentially,
potentially, fishing activities such as dredging for scallops or
other shellfish or finfish, could potentially impact those beds.
As you get to shallower areas which this dock would pass
through, physical scouring, as well as scarring from boat
activity, and then more so light penetration and temperature
variation would have an impact on those shallower areas.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you.
MR. VOORHIS: Thank you.
MR. NIELSON: Am I allowed to say anything at this point?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Of course.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Yes, we welcome your comments.
MR. NIELSON: Well, first of all, as in the case of the previous
application, we are, I know we are going to be undertaking some
modifications to this application to meet the suggestions from
the DEC based on our meeting today. One of which is utilizing
removable decking. One of which is putting in the light
transmissive or more light transmissive open-grate decking. And
we have already addressed the height issue. We probably will be
addressing the float design or the potential of not using a
float, as we discussed. But there are some other things I'm not
going to get into a dispute with, some of the things that have
been said tonight, but even in the photographs that were shown,
there are six other docks in Chockomount Cove, between Correnti (sic),
Spurdell (sic), the one that is proposed here, Penrand (sic) next door, Gene
Calhoun, and the old Firestone dock down the way, and almost all
of them are visible from the site that has been referenced here,
subjecting to this dock.
The other thing is the reason for a dock going out, the
proposal going out as far as it is, is to keep it in water that
will be deep enough so as to prevent and/or at least avoid to a
significant extent the scarring that was referenced. We tried to
be sensitive to these issues in the layout that we put together
and the reference to permit surveys and so on. The first permit
survey was ten years ago. We have updated the surveys with
routine evaluations twice in the last two years. So at this "
point, if you all would be agreeable to this, I would like to
table this until the next meeting when I can hopefully have some
resolution to DEC suggestions and we can move forward at that
time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any other comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
I would just like to note that having worked for five years in
eel grass restoration, that I would strongly suggest the fixed
pier. And hearing the applicant's request, I make a motion to
Board of Trustees 31 March 20, 2019
table this application to next month.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
-- TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number three, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
on behalf of RAIMI FAMILY TRUST requests a Wetland Permit and a
Coastal Erosion Permit to remove 29 linear feet of concrete
retaining wall installed at the base of an existing bluff;
remove remnants of existing stairway to the beach; construct a
new set of bluff stairs consisting of'a 3'x4' upper platform
with the descending 3'x13' steps to a 3'x6' landing with
descending 3'x7' steps to a 10'x10' platform, with descending
3'x9' steps to a 3'x6' platform with a 3'x10' descending steps
to the beach; construct a 53' long wood retaining wall with an
8.5' return; and to re-vegetate all disturbed areas (t750sq.ft.)
With beach grass 1' on center.
Located: 1455 Aquaview Drive, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-22-2-2
On March 12th, 2019, of the Trustees visited this site with
all Trustees present, with notes that the plans show good
restoration and stabilization of the Long Island Sound bluff.
On March 7th the LWRP found this proposal to be consistent.
On March 13th, the Conservation Advisory Council resolved
to support this application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting.
For starters, I apologize, this is not nearly as interesting as
the last presentation. But this property has a history, and what
prompted this application was there was originally a house
cottage that was actually built halfway down the bluff. And
that cottage was removed. And as part of trying to get all of
this bluff stable, we went out and hired an engineer, Joe
Fischetti, who is with us today, and who can walk you through
any questions you may have as to the thought process that went
into restoring this bluff. We moved the steps over so that it's
off the property line, at the suggestion of your clerk. I'm not
sure that's an actual requirement, but it's probably a good idea
so these steps are moved off the property line. The original
steps actually cross the,property line to the neighboring
property owner. The application addresses that. There is a
removal of a lower concrete block wall which, from our
standpoint, is not doing much and is unnecessary. We would
retain the uppermost concrete walls because they are functional
and there is no reason to cause additional disturbance to that
bluff.
I don't have anything more to say, but if you do have
questions as to the structural components of this, our engineer
is here'tonight and of course I'm here to answer any questions
you may have.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Sounds good. Thank you. Anybody else
here that wishes to speak to this application?
Board of Trustees 32 March 20, 2019
(Negative response).
Are there any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
I make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
___TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to approve the application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you;very much.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Docko, Inc. on behalf of R. B. BURNHAM III
requests a Wetland Permit to construct±66 linear feet of 4'
wide fixed wood pile and timber pier of which ±48 linear feet is
waterward of the AHWL, including hand rails on each side,
electric and water utilities; install a 3.5'x22' hinged ramp to
a 6'x20'float with four (4) 8" diameter restraint piles.
Located: Right of Way off Peninsula Road, Fishers Island.
SCTM# 1000-10-4-10
The Trustees, John Bredemeyer, myself and Greg Williams, did
a field inspection on the site on February 28th of this year,
and noted there was some clearing on the property. To be
discussed at work session. And dock application itself appears
straightforward.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council did not do a site
visitation and therefore no recommendation was made.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. NIELSON: Good evening, Keith Nielson, from Docko, Inc. And
I prepared the application documents for you tonight. And based
on the site visit we amended the application documents to show
the full extent of clearing that was done on the site.
What had happened was there was a profusion of Japanese
knotweed on the site and the landscaper didn't realize that
there was a permit requirement to remove that Japanese knotweed.
The site had been cleared of the knotweed. The roots had been
grubbed out, and then certain other plants that are now shown on
sheet two of the application drawing as well as a removable
surface-mounted drip irrigation system, which is receiving water
from the owner's house which is across the street, was installed
to preserve-landscaping through the fall and winter.
That notwithstanding, the drawings have been modified and
now show the extent of that clearing, and we had a meeting with
the landscaper to make sure that won't happen again. And the
pier is fairly straightforward. The pier, ramp and float meets
all the criteria and regulations, and we respectively request
Board of Trustees 33 March 20, 2019
your approval. If there are any questions I would be happy to
address them.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, with the addition of plans received March 12th, 2019,
showing the planting plan.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing, number two, J.M.O.
Environmental Consulting on behalf of DONALD L. CLEVELAND, JR.
requests a Wetland Permit to remove all remains of existing old
dock; construct a 4'x55' fixed dock; and install two (2) tie-off piles.
Located: 1305 Winthrop Drive, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-9-8-6.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not have the
opportunity to make an inspection, therefore there is no
recommendation.
Trustee Pres. Mike Domino, myself and Trustee Williams
inspected the site on February 28th. We met in the field with
representatives of the Fishers Island Ferry Company who reviewed
the project plans and questioned us concerning safe navigability
with the harbor ferry.
The Trustees file includes communications with the US
Department of the Navy, concerning the, to address concerns,that
might exist by the US Navy on the adjoining property for which
they did address the clerk of the Trustees, that we do not have
any concerns regarding the project, and they appreciated the
opportunity to comment.
The LWRP coordinator has deemed this to be consistent
whereas his position is that Fishers Island, the needs for
water-dependent travel exists, and his determination of
consistency, he did specifically request though that the Board
consider the installation of thou-flow decking because there
is some eel grass that exists in the harbor, a point that I can
personally attest to because I have seen it on occasion. The
ferry has a habit of treating pretty roughly and it ends up
coming up in the ferry boil. And that there be no CCA materials.
And the one concern is, I believe the Board has a concern, too, that
the pier line be honored but that the vessel docking be
restricted to be within the pier line, so there be no portion of
the vessel seaward of the line between the two neighboring docks.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application?
MR. JUST: Good evening. Glenn Just, from JMO Environmental
Board of Trustees 34 March 20, 2019
Consulting. I have to apologize, it was my own overlook not to
put in the thru-flow, which we do for all our docks. So we'll
include that.,I sent over, after talking to the clerk during the
week that, after hearing about the discussion with the ferry
folks, that the dock, the plans do show the seaward end of the
dock is 228 feet from the ferry terminal. So we have all been
on that ferry many times where they had to turn around down that
end, and I don't think it would be in the way whatsoever.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's my understanding, one of the other
Trustees can correct me if I'm wrong, we did discuss it with the
ferry company and they realize if it's in the pier line of the
neighboring docks and did not pose a problem, then of course we
did want to honor the needs of the United States Navy. So we
were careful to communicate with them.
MR. JUST: As far as docking of the vessel, the plans show_ the
two tie-off piles would be on I guess the south side of the
fixed pier, so that's where the boat would be laid up. It would
be laid up at the seaward end of the dock.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
'TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, hearing none, anyone else wish to
speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Seeing no one else stepping forward, I would make a motion to
close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this
application as submitted with the stipulation that the
through-flow decking be provided. I guess we may need an amended
plan to show through-flow decking. I guess we won't be able to
do a final approval until we get a full set of plans.
MR. JUST: Is it subject to?
MR. HAGAN: No.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, we can't do that.
(Perusing). It doesn't change the structure. Is that okay then?,
MR. HAGAN: Approve with condition.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So I move to approve with the condition of
thru-flow decking and the stipulation that no part of the vessel shall be
seaward of the pier line. That's my motion
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number three, En-Consultants on behalf of
PETER & SUSAN HONIG requests a Wetland Permit to remove and
replace in-place approximately 100 linear feet of timber
bulkhead and backfill with approximately 25 cubic yards of clean
sandy fill to be trucked in from an approved upland source;
Board of Trustees 35 March 20, 2019
construct a 4'x6' landing and 4'x6' steps to beach in place of
existing landing and steps to be removed; and to establish and
perpetually maintain a 10'wide non-turf buffer along the
landward side of the new bulkhead.
Located: 745 Watersedge Way, Southold. SCTM# 1000-88-5-62
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
is that a wetland permit for the hundred-linear feet of timber
bulkhead landing and steps were not found in Town records.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application with the non-turf vegetated buffer and hinged
retractable stairs parallel to the bulkhead.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on March 12th,
noting that it was a straightforward replacement of an existing
bulkhead.
Is anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. STEVENS: Kim Stevens from En-Consultants.
I just want to address the fact that the LWRP coordinator stated
it was inconsistent because of the bulkhead. I want to point out
that the bulkhead predates 1977 which is prior to when the
Trustees would have issued a permit for a bulkhead on the bay.
And in reference to the Conservation Advisory Council, the
hinged stairs we are proposing with stairs that are parallel to
the bulkhead and we believe hinged stairs would be destroyed
during a storm, and we are proposing the ten-foot wide non-turf
buffer. We believe just as on the two adjacent properties, we
believe that it should be sand or gravel. And that's it. If you
have any other questions, the.contractor is here also.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: With those stairs, were they built to be
built in a way you could remove them if a storm is approaching,
with bolts or something?
MR. HOCKER: John Hocker, Latham Sand & Gravel. Removable bolts,
sure.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the stipulation that the stairs are removable and thereby
granting this permit will bring it into consistency with the
LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE,BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number four, Samuels & Steelman Architects on
Board of Trustees 36 March 20, 2019
behalf of PETER & SUSAN HONIG requests a Wetland Permit to
demolish existing 348 sq. ft. garage and construct new 483 sq. ft.
garage in same location as existing; construct s 22 linear foot
long retaining wall landward of garage; install an additional
490 sq. ft. of driveway for garage access; install 190 sq. ft. of
new on-grade bluestone pavers along the seaward side of new
garage; and to install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain
garage roof and driveway runoff.
Located: 745 Watersedge Way, Southold. SCTM# 1000-88-5-62
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports this application
as long as there are gutters and leaders to drywells, which they
do.
The Board of Trustees visited this site on the 12th of
March and noted that it looked okay as submitted.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. STEELMAN: Nancy Steelman, Samuels & Steelman Architects here
if you have any questions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
We found this to be fairly straightforward and with containing
the runoff, it helps a lot with the project. So, thank you.
MS. STEELMAN: You're welcome.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Hearing none, I make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number five, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
on behalf of GEORGE & DEBRA CORITSIDIS requests a Wetland Permit
to demolish and remove existing dock and construct a new dock
consisting of a 4'x54' catwalk; a 3'x15' ramp; and a 6'x20'
floating dock secured by two (2) double-pile 8" diameter
dolphins; and with water and electricity extended to the dock.
Located: 265 Orchard Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-89-2-5.1
The Trustees visited the site on March 12th, 2019. All
Trustees were present. With notes essentially this is an in-kind
replacement. Suggests thru-flow over entirety of wetlands on
structure.
The LWRP coordinator-- it appears to be a typo. He has
noted it's inconsistent. But there are no inconsistencies
listed. So I'm going to assume'he.found this to be consistent.
He made that determination on March 12th, 2019. After the
inconsistency he states, number one, the dock to be replaced is
Board of Trustees 37 March 20, 2019
a permitted structure. Wetland permit 759 amended. Number two,
the modifications proposed are not significant. And a five-foot
further seaward projection will occur.
On March 13th, the Conservation Advisory Council resolved
to support this application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak to this application_?_
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
for the applicant. This is a replacement of what is already
there and brought up to code in that the, it was, the original
dock was a floating "T,"which is something we don't usually do.
So I don't really have anything further to add other than this
would resemble a more modern typical dock size, that we have
sufficient water. Also we would have no, we are not specifying
the decking material but I can assure you we would have no
objection to installing thru-flow on the fixed portion of the
dock. We would probably do the entire fixed portion, because
it's just good material. We would actually prefer it at this
point. But it's not specified in our plans. So certainly I
would agree to do that. I don't have anything further to add.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Anybody else here that wishes to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
I make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to approve the application
with the stipulation that thru-flow decking be used on the
entirety of the catwalk
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number six, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of MURRAY & MAXINE GAYLORD requests a Wetland Permit to
replace existing timber sheathed bulkhead with a new vinyl
sheathed bulkhead in-place measuring ±156.5' in overall length
including a ±30.5' seaward return at westerly terminus, and is
to consist of vinyl sheathing secured by 6"x6" @ 2 tiers timber
waters, 4"x6" timber clamps, ±8" diameter timber pilings, and a
backing system comprised of±8" diameter timber dead-men and 8"
diameter lay-logs.
Located: 765 Beachwood Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-116-4-20.1
The Trustees did a field inspection of this site on January
8th, 2019. And at that time said the application is
straightforward. The bulkhead was in very poor condition near
the channel. And we needed a new disturbance zone on the plans.
On March 12th, 2019, we received a new set of plans
Board of Trustees 38 March 20, 2019
submitted as per that request.
The LWRP found this application to be exempt.
And the Conservation Advisory Council on January 9th,
unanimously resolved to support this application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
for the applicant. I believe we complied with your request. I
don't have anything further to add. I can tell you we did the
buffer and it's exactly as previously required and the plan
provisions that you requested are on the survey before you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no questions or comments, I make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make may a motion to approve this application
as submitted, with new plans.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number seven, Patricia
Moore, Esq. on behalf of DROUZAS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORP.
requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built 42'x60.3' two-story
dwelling with as-built 16.5'x21.5' deck attached to the seaward
side of the dwelling; for the relocation of drywells to contain
roof runoff, to be in accordance with Chapter 236 of the Town
Code Stormwater Runoff; forthe as-built 7,342.91 sq. ft.
gravel driveway; as-built addition of 10 cubic yards of clean
fill to grade driveway'and parking area; and for a 4'wide mulch
path through the Non-Disturbance area to the water. Located:
54120 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-52-2-20.1
This project has been deemed to be both consistent and
inconsistent with the LWRP insofar as the relocation of drywells
and construction of a four-foot wide path to the water is consistent.
The project has been deemed to be inconsistent with policy
standard 6.3 in that the records indicate that there are
as-built structures that do not have the benefit of a Trustee
permit.
The Conservation Advisory Council has supported the
application with gutters and leaders to drywells and a 25-foot
vegetated buffer.
The Board of Trustees met onsite with Ms. Moore, and I
believe that was December 5th, 2018. At that time, because of
the driveway which had been constructed with base aggregate,
there were concerns it might not meet the Town drainage code.
We discussed the need for the Town engineer to review the
Board of Trustees 39 March 20, 2019
drainage for the house and driveway on the seaward side of the
dwelling, and we discussed and requested the need to have a
split rail fence to delineate the non-disturbance buffer area to
preclude accidental cutting of it. And I see a file note here,
and I did search the file. I do not see an engineer report,
unless I otherwise missed it. But there was a file note on field
inspection date of February, I guess it was a subsequent date
which would we are waiting for engineer report to review at the
work session.
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr. Drouzas. Mr. Drouzas
and Mrs. Drouzas are both here.
At the work session and post our field inspection, I did
have the plans updated. I did'provide a permeable gravel
driveway detail so there would be no question that the driveway,
which it is, it was a construction driveway. It just became more
impacted due to the construction, but that gravel driveway is
going to be replaced with the permeable driveway, the way it's
being spec'd on the plans that I submitted on February 14th. So
there is a detail on those plans. Generally, the Town engineer
has no issue with you as far as providing appropriate drainage
and permeable standards so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would encourage you though to get an
engineer and review of the Town engineering department, because
members of this Board and as some of us that have outdated and
mistaken notions as to what is adequate for drainage, and it is
an engineering matter not a Trustee matter.
MS. MOORE: Okay,, I'll get this plan to the Town engineer as
well. It's been now two months. So I'm trying to remember if he
looked at this particular plan or not. I just don't recall, to
be honest. I did give you a letter with plan to identify all the
permit history that is with respect to this property. The house
was constructed with a building permit, with Trustees permit.
The discrepancy was with a deck that had originally been on one
of the plans to be on the side of the house. It was ultimately
moved to the rear of the house. But the reason that I'm giving
you the overlay is so that you can see that the permit history
and the location of the house and the approvals that have been
granted over the years. So much so that the 2007 permit, which
is the one that shows the larger house and a protrusion beyond
the existing deck, the extension of the deck, you can see that
the proximity of that outline is much closer to it. And really
we are just talking about that freshwater wetland that is just a
little ponding area that is being fed by the drainage of
neighboring structures. Our setbacks have consistently been
greater than 100 feet from the tidal wetland of Hashamomuck, and
it's been this area of freshwater wetland, this pocket that has
been, as I said, fed by the adjacent neighbors that don't have
any drainage structures. They are draining into this area and
creating a freshwater ponding area.
So my goal was to show you that, again, that the existing
house is much closer to the road, and that is why there was a
Board of Trustees 40 March 20, 2019
misunderstanding by the applicant that he thought that there was
certainly enough room. He should have been sent by the Building
Department when they sought the deck there to come in and have
the permit amended. And nobody realized that until the very end
when he went for a C of O and certificate of compliance. And
since then we have been working on getting that certificate of
compliance and providing additional mitigation by the fence that
was installed. And the drainage, there was additional drainage
provided, based on the my client's experience 40, 50 years of
construction experience, but it has been verified by the
engineer that stamped the plans.
Again, I'll give it to the Town engineer. So far he didn't
object to the original design, and as far as where the ultimate
location was, I know I met with him at one point, but I don't
think he saw the gravel permeable driveway design. That was done
more for your purposes so that you could see that when the
driveway is put in, it would be made to meet permeable
standards.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Would it be possible then that
in requesting the review of the Engineering Department that you
detail the removal of the existing RCA?
MS. MOORE: Well, we did do that. That's what that side, if you
see the design, it's the permeable gravel driveway detail. That
is for the purposes of just the area that is on the seaward side
of the house, so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Understood. But if you have the RCA there
now, it's a matter of just a brief description in a covering
letter with plans and specifications that the engineering
department could just review to, you know, review and discuss
land disposal of the RCA,just to make it a little more
understandable for both engineering department and us.
MS. MOORE: That's fine. Why don't you just repeat what you want
meto --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In other words, discussion of operations to,
remove the RCA and that the engineering department review the
driveway as planned. It meets current town standards. Because I
know they had changed it and there is a broad ignorance I know
on this Trustee on what constitutes permeable.
MS. MOORE: Okay. Remove RCA and replace area with permeable.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With the engineer's letter that we request.
MS. MOORE: With this design, okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And that would fill out and that would flush
out, if you will, our prior request. And might I ask that we
close the hearing for that and then put the details in your
letter of February 12th under review for the Board, for us to
make a determination. But before I do that, I want to allow the
opportunity for anyone else who wishes to speak to this
application.
(No response).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We'll table it to keep it open for the
engineer's report. And we can keep it open, the Board can review
Board of Trustees 41 March 20, 2019
your lengthy description of activities on the property that are
also detailed in the survey that shows a permitting history.
MS. MOORE: Exactly. That's fine. I need the time to go to the
town engineer, so. But I would hope that based on my
description, really, the only thing we are talking about here is
the deck that is elevated ten feet above grade. So everything
else has a permit. We, I think the description is inaccurate as
far as as-built as built because the house has the permit. We
are only discussing the relocated deck, so.
MR. HAGAN: Can you please wait a moment. The tape stopped again.
(After a brief pause, these proceedings continue as follows).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to
the application?
(No response).
Any additional questions or comments from the Board members?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I definitely have some concerns about the deck.
You know, I know it was built without Board approval and it's a
little larger and closer to the freshwater wetlands than I think
we would have allowed if your client did come to us prior.
MS. MOORE: I don't know, that's kind of retroactive. I can only
see what permits have been approved. And, as I said, that's why
I gave you the overlay. Because this house has been approved
closer than what this deck, the location of this deck. So to say
that it would not have been approved had it been reviewed as an
amendment, I think that the fact that we have 100 feet back
from, more than 100 feet. We have 160 feet from the tidal
wetlands, and we are only dealing with the setback from that,
again, that little freshwater wetland, which I'll remind you, and
for the record, this property is an acre in size. It is adjacent to
about ten or 15 lots in the area that are less than 10,000
square feet. So in relation to the community and to the impact
on the environment, Mr. and Mrs. Drouzas have designed and
improved the property at much less than the code would have
allowed. This property is what is the remnants of the Ruch Lane
community. I have seen the history of this that, when Ruch, Mr.
Ruch developed,Ruch Lane, this was an extra parcel that was
owned by the Ruch's. So it goes back that far. And I would
remind the Board also that when he bought the property, he
bought with a letter of non jurisdiction. So had he known that
there was this issue, he may not have, if we are goingto go
back and Monday morning quarterback, he may not have bought this
property because he had been told that there was a little pocket
of wetlands that was going to interfere with his construction.
I think he did a pretty good job to maintain the buffers. You
added a 25 foot non-disturbance buffer around the freshwater
wetland that has never been touched, that is in place. And the
deck is about 75 feet from that freshwater wetland. So I think
you may have opposed it but honestly as a majority of the Board,
you have approved projects that are so much closer to the
wetlands and, um, this property, you have added additional
conditions which is the fence, and the, you know,just making
Board of Trustees 42 March 20, 2019
sure the permeable driveway is a permeable driveway. We have
no problem with that. It's this family built this house, and I
watched them build it. Day in and day out. A gentleman who is
not young, I apologize, you are not old but you are not young.
He's 83. According to his wife. And I saw him out there
swinging a hammer. He built this house all on his own. Timber by
timber. So he would really like to enjoy this property, finish
the overall plan, the landscaping, just enjoy this property, and
not have to continue this process any further. So I would
really respectfully ask that the Board consider, you know, all
of the factors including the impact on the environment, which is
absolutely no impact on the environment here. As you can see,
it would be very nice if the homes to the west would address
their drainage. That would be much more of a mitigation to the
environment than what has been done on this property. But
they're neighbors, and we are glad they are there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else wish to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion that we table this application
for the receipt of the town engineer's report on the project,
and the Board will review the detailed record of your letter
that relates to the plans of February 14th that you submitted
concerning the prior activities on the property.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number eight, Patricia Moore, Esq.
on behalf of DAVID HERMER &SILVIA CAMPO requests a
Wetland Permit for the existing 3,519 sq. ft. dwelling that
includes an as-built 1,400 sq. ft. landward addition; existing
913 sq. ft. wood deck along the sides and seaward side of
dwelling with 78 sq. ft. of stairs to ground; existing second-story
addition over existing first floor; existing 5.6' diameter fire pit
seaward of dwelling; existing 27.1' and 31' landscaping retaining
walls; existing A/C units, generator and concrete slabs; propose
to resurface existing 913 sq. ft. decking; lower existing 8'x8' hot
tub into ground 18" in-place to make even with deck; relocate
existing 54 sq. ft. wood steps from deck to ground on northeast
side of dwelling landward of existing location, new steps being
4'x14' and facing front yard; proposed 8'x16' pergola on top of
existing deck on seaward side; install drywells to contain roof
runoff for parking area and pickle ball court, and in accordance
to Chapter 236 of the Town Code-Stormwater Management; on
south side of dwelling existing 10'x10' covered entrance and existing
landscape retaining walls running landward consisting of
15'x78'x15'x10 linear feet, then running south 75' to covered
entrance, and retaining walls connecting to additional landscape
retaining walls beyond 100' from bluff; on landward side of
dwelling, existing gravel parking area and 30 linear feet of
Board of Trustees 43 March 20, 2019
retaining walls connecting to additional 100' linear of feet -
retaining walls; existing sanitary system to remain, retaining
walls, relocated driveway, walkways, landscaping, regrading ±600
cubic yards clean fill, and 1,500 sq. ft. pickle ball court all
landward of 100'from top of bluff; install buried propane tank
and relocate generator and generator slab from north side of
dwelling to landward of addition; for the existing 100.48 linear
foot long wooden bulkhead; replace existing low-landscape
lighting fixtures and additional low landscape lighting fixtures
to trees, flag pole and top of bluff; and to install and
perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the
landward edge of the top of bluff.
Located: 3675 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-9-4.2
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
is the distance from the structure to the top of the bluff is
not provided and should be required to comply with Chapter 275.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application. `
The Trustees-conducted a field inspection on March 12th.
Notes in the file, did not know where the septic was located.
Noted all lighting must be Dark Skies compliant and no
irrigation seaward side of house.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. MOORE: I have the architect here so if there are any
technical questions I would be happy to present them to him to
answer.
The LWRP makes you laugh sometimes because its inconsistent
because of its location to the top of the bluff. Well, this is
an existing house that was constructed in the '80s and it was
before there was jurisdiction to review top of bluff. So the
house itself is being renovated. All the additions are on the,
99%-of the work on this house is all being done on the landward
side of the house. In order to, because of the code changes that
have brought the Trustees jurisdiction over, regarding the
structures, we have submitted an application for all existing
structures, but all these existing structures predate the
Trustees'jurisdiction. So.there are only two issues that I
have to go to the Zoning Board for and I'll be back after that,
which are two retaining walls that are perpendicular to the top
of the bluff. And the platforms for, the existing platforms for
the steps down the bank. But aside from that, everything here is
existing, and we ask that the Board grant us a Trustees permit
for the very long description of all the existing structures
that are on this property. We included also, because there are
attached to the house, structures that are actually more than
'100 feet from the top of the bluff. So I just included
everything for simplicity. But a lot of this is really out of
jurisdiction, so. If you have specific questions.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: To address the LWRP, can either you
or the architect state for the record the distance from the top of
Board of Trustees 44 March 20, 2019
bluff?
MR. LEONARD: Shawn Leonard, the architect.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The seaward structure to the top of bluff.
MS. MOORE: Eyeballing it, but I'll have him confirm. The
shortest side on the south side is about 30 feet. And on the
north side is probably around 40 feet. So in that range. But
we'll double check.
MR. LEONARD: I apologize. I thought there was a survey that
actually had that distance written on here somewhere.
(Perusing). Top of bluff is 35 feet.
MS. MOORE: 35 at its closest point. It's about another ten maybe
on this end.
MR. LEONARD: On the other end, the northern end is 40 feet.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. I just want to know. There is
lot on this project but, like you said, it's all within the existing
footprint or landward of what is existing. The only other
question was with some of the landscape lighting it said
something about lighting trees and everything, but obviously all
the lighting will have to be Dark Skies compliant.
Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak regarding
this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comment from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
noting that all lighting has to be Dark Skies compliant and
noting that they said, for the record, the distance to the top
of the bluff, thereby bringing it into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We'll take a five-minute break.
(After a five-minute recess, these proceedings continue as follows).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay, we are back on the record.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number nine, Stacey Bishop on behalf of
FORDHAM HOUSE LLC, c/o DENIS BOUBOULIS requests a Wetland
Permit to install a ±1,167 sq. ft. on-grade paver patio along the seaward
side of the dwelling; extend existing westerly 15' long by 10' high by 12"
thick concrete and stone veneer retaining wall an additional 35' seaward
for a total length of 50' beginning at the left rear corner of existing
dwelling; at seaward end of westerly retaining wall, install a 28' long,
varying height concrete and stone veneer retaining wall parallel with the
dwelling; along easterly side of property, extend existing 3' high natural
stone retaining wall an additional ±45' seaward; approximately 15'
seaward of proposed 28' long parallel retaining wall, install a ±3' high
Board of Trustees 45 March 20, 2019
by±45' long retaining wall situated approximately 1' landward of
established 50' wide non-disturbance buffer; and to install a generator
pad, generator, and buried gas tank for the generator.
Located: 5205 The Long Way, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-21-5-11
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. And
this has been read into the record before but it was two years
ago so I'll read it again. The proposed action does not comply
with the 1975 filed covenants and restrictions, liber number
79696274, placed on the lot within the subdivision known as
Pebble Beach Farm, prohibits construction of any part of the
dwelling northerly of approximately 100-foot bluff setback line
unless approved by the Town of Southold. The text of the bluff
included below. Number ten, an owner of a waterfront lot facing
on Long Island Sound shall not construct any part of the
dwelling nor the labor approximately one-hundred foot bluff
setback line shown on the file map unless approved by the Town
of Southold. The patio, retaining walls, generator and buried
gas tank would be located within the 100-foot bluff setback
close to the top of the bluff and coastal erosion hazard area. A
50-foot wide non-disturbance buffer is recommended as
consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support
the application. The Conservation Advisory Council does not
support the application because the existing topography does not
create a hazard and the setbacks may be achievable.
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 12th of
March. The wall section was built without a permit to be
removed. Speaking to the most recent section that was built.
Subsequent to the removal, look forward to work with applicant
on permitting. -
And just to add to this, for the record, the Board has a
lengthy history with this property. And there are many sheets
of inspections. We have been there roughly ten times.
Okay, is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MS. MOORE: Yes, Patricia Moore, on behalf of the owner. I also
have Joe Fischetti here with me to address the drainage issue
and the wall, the necessity for the wall. I have given you, I
gave you a portion of the Pebble Beach Farms subdivision map.
And you can see from the subdivision map that it has a rear yard
setback. That rear yard setback is for the house.
The LWRP coordinator misunderstands or misreads the 1975
map in that the regulations this map created a rear yard for the
structure which in fact the structure does conform with the rear
yard line. The patio is proposed on-grade and the retaining
walls and the drainage structures that are required are
generally, not their landscape features. It's not associated
with the 1975 requirements for the construction standards. So
he's mis-applying the covenants with respect to this property.
The house does conform to the C&R's and that is not an issue.
The house is completed. The problem we,have right now is that
once the house is completed now he has to deal with drainage and
Board of Trustees 46 March 20, 2019
the design and the location of the improvements to make the
property stable. And that is where we are today. I think the
building permit was issued in 2014, so this house had a long
history. It's a very difficult property. It was very complex
property, as you can see from just the subdivision map alone. It
sits right adjacent to the open space. But what it doesn't show
is the, on the filed map, it doesn't show the topography of that
area. The open space is an open space because it's a large
swale, natural swale, that's where the stairs and the access
path goes. All the water drains toward that natural swale. And
my client's house sits right between the runoff that is
occurring and is in between the upland properties. You can see
all the homes that have been developed to the east of this
property are fully developed with a lot of hard structures. The
house next door, there is a house, there is a, I think there is
a pool house, there is a pool, there is a very large patio.
There is a lot of structure right next door. And in fact when
that house was being constructed, at some point there was some
trespassing occurring and they were taking some soil from this
property. So there is, this property has needed a lot of
remediation, and that's where we are today.
So I'm going to turn to Joe because I would like to
address, I know your preference is either remove the retaining
walls, but there is a very important reason why we should not do
that, and that's why Joe is here.
MR. FISCHETTI: Good evening. Joe Fischetti for the client. I
have been involved with the job. At the beginning I designed
the sanitary system. But recently, the rear of this property, as
you have been there many times, has a 25% grade in the back. I
mean that is very, very difficult to stabilize. Any water runoff
on that property would either have to be terraced or some method
to stop the runoff at 25%. There is no way you are just going to
put grass down there.
The ability to, and I have done this before on many sites,
is to, the use of a retaining wall assists in differentiating
between a use area and a protected area. I have done this a
number of times on wetlands and it surprises me that people have
horizontal buffers, 100-foot horizontal buffer from wetlands.
Where if you put a retaining wall up five feet, that is an
amazing buffer because now you are differentiating between areas
that are going to be used and utilized by the family and
differentiated between an area that wants to be protected.
Having that vertical buffer is as good as having a 100-foot
buffer. So having the retaining walls there solves two problems.
It differentiates between the useable area of that backyard, it
will confine the backyard to what is there, and it will protect
the environmental area. And secondly it solves the problem of
drainage. If those retaining walls are not there, I don't think
there is anything they will put in there that will stop the
drainage from going into that adjacent property to the east
without it. Basically putting terracing in the back yard, it
Board of Trustees 47 March 20, 2019
stops the use of anything in that backyard. So I think the need
for a retaining wall is a positive in this particular case
because it will keep that, it will keep the area being used by the
owners in a confined area in the back of their yards,.and leave
the natural,open area by itself.
MS. MOORE: I also want to put on the record, Stacey was
explaining to me and I wanted to make sure we have it on the
record. During construction she had actually installed two silt
fences during the construction. The water runoff here is so
strong that it destroyed two barriers that she put up and she
puts up the silt fence, and they did not hold up. I think we
want to point out that.the clay, the subsoil conditions on the
map, we had that--
MR. FISCHETTI: Sandy, clay and loam, which,is not very pervious.
,Most of the runoff will be surface runoff in that backyard
because of the clay. I think the retaining walls that are
designed and proposed here would be a positive. I'm not sure why
that other retaining wall, I think she put that retaining wall
--the one that is constructed without the --this one (indicating).
MS. MOORE: That's why we are here because there is a portion
that was showing on the Trustees permit that is shown in dark on
the survey. So there was a small portion that had a permit. And
then the portion that was built without coming in to amend the
permit, it's not finishedAt's only this far. The horizontal
or the one that is perpendicular to the top of the bank is not
built yet. That has not been built. So, I mean there is really
-not a lot to say here. We have to maintain the drainage. The
property is going to be landscaped. That is kind of we are here
because the structures have to be put in, and then it's, there
is going to be landscaping all along from the open space, all
you are going to see is vegetation along that side. And then you
have the non-disturbance area that is intact that has not been
touched, so.
MR. FISCHETTI: Are there any questions?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Part of the problem, Pat, you mentioned the
silt fence that was knocked down twice. If the backyard had
never been worked like this, this would never have been an
issue. So we are here to fix an issue that was created that
should have never been created. I want that on the record.
MR. FISCHETTI: Under construction.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is not under construction. This is
attempted backyard construction without•a permit. So we went
there --
MS. MOORE: I can't change your mind because you have been
saying that all along. I appreciate that. But understand that there is,
if you look at the map itself, you have a 100-foot setback. That
is the rear yard before you touch the, you create, excuse me,
you have the house and then you have the created area that is
with a non-disturbance. You have a 50-foot non-disturbance area,
which has maintained. That has not changed from day one. The
silt fence was placed at the 50-foot non-disturbance area in
Board of Trustees 48 March 20, 2019
anticipation there would be some backyard. You are at the end of
construction. They are ready for a C of O. You know, and at that
point you are working on the rear yard. So it's an activity that
commonly occurs during construction and it is the area again
that is the 50-foot non-disturbance has not been disturbed. So
now we just need permits to address the retaining walls at a
point where we need them.
There is a dark line on the drawing, the dark dotted line
is the 50 foot.
Are you seeing something that is inconsistent?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any other comments from the Board
here?
MS. MOORE: Mr. Domino, is there something --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: If you could present, since you have it in front
of you?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm holding the, what I believe is the most
recent set of plans, which was November 15th, 2018.
MS. MOORE: Let me look. It went back and forth to where the
propane tank was going to go. So I don't think I have the one.
The right one.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: What is your question?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So looking at the plans which were delineated
in 2008, the top of the bluff curves around following the grade
which looks, I believe it's 52 feet, but it's a little unclear.
Might be 50-foot elevation. But that comes around right into
the generator. So everything to the west of that would be
bluff. So the whole backyard is a bluff. It's, where they are
trying to create a backyard is essentially a bluff.
MS. MOORE:-Well, I would dispute that. The bluff, the top of the
bluff was identified on multiple surveys that were submitted to
the Board and part of the permit process. So the top of the
bluff, I mean you have existing topos and you have-the crest of
the bluff that was identified in December 2nd, 2008. Everyone
has been going with that identifier since the day that the permit --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: December 2nd, 2008. That's what I'm looking at.
MS. MOORE: Okay, you are look at the same as mine
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was delineated by En-Consultants, which
Shows, aside from the existing conditions that were torn apart by
the construction of the wall, without permits, it shows that the
whole backyard is not a bluff. I mean that's where the Board has
issue with this proposal. I mean I can only read what the survey
shows me, and that's the only way to read the survey. So there
is no room for argument there. I mean that's what it says on the
survey. It's pretty straightforward
MS. MOORE: I think there is -- okay. What you have is the bank.
Because you have sloping banks. You have the top of the bluff,
which is the, this being the top of the bluff, right?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: 25%, doesn't that constitute a bluff?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This says top of upper bluff and then you can
follow that contour around. Do you want to show me what you have?
MS. MOORE: This is one, it probably hasn't changed.
Board of Trustees 49 March 20, 2019
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So it says top of upper bluff here. This is the
same plan that I have. And that follows around and curves into
here. And then so the whole property slopes this way. So this is
the top of the upper bluff, and you follow the contour lines. It
can't change. Does it change somewhere that I'm not seeing?
MS. MOORE: Yes, what does this say? This line here. What is
that line?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That says coastal erosion line. That's what
you pointed to.
MS. MOORE: Sorry. This one here. I'm reading, right here. This
is the top of the bluff according to --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So this says crest of bluff.
MS. MOORE: Well, what is a crest? The top.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But the top of upper bluff is here. And comes
into the property. So then the high point--
MR. FISCHETTI: The subdivision map specifically gives you a
setback from the crest'of the bluff. Which is the edge of the
crest.
MS. MOORE: We are living with.a subdivision map that was
approved, and that's how the whole plan was designed, so.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: You said it was a 25% slope, correct?
MR. FISCHETTI: The backyard is actually 25%, yes. The house was
built on a 25% slope.
MS. MOORE: We are living with a permit that was issued from,
since 2014, on a map that was mapped since 2007, and a
subdivision map that was approved in the 70's so.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: For a house, correct? Not for those
retaining walls and everything we are talking about in the back.
MS. MOORE: Well, it has to be reasonable. You have to be able to
live in the house. This plan has a rear yard, a very modest rear
yard but there is a rear yard.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I don't believe we are complaining about the
house. The house is built and you can live in the house.
MS. MOORE: And you are telling us we are going to step into the
house and then just'see a bank? I don't think so, I think I'll
be in court over that with my client.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: If you built on a bluff, you are constrained
by the property.
And when we first went there years ago, on the first couple
of inspections, that area that is now all non-vegetated was
vegetated. So there was no erosion issue at that time. It was
the furtherance of the construction in the rear that caused all
these issues. And the construction of structures that were not
permitted, that when we met with the people in the field, we
told them would cause issues, they built it without a permit and
now we are trying to deal with the issues they created on their
own.
MS. MOORE: No, the reason for the walls is the drainage was
affecting this property, and what they were trying to do is
protect both the property and prevent any storm water from going
beyond the property line and into the open space.
Board of Trustees 50 March 20, 2019
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: My recollection with Stacey Bishop meeting
in field, the purpose of the wall was to create a backyard.
MS. MOORE: It does both, of course.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: She specifically said that at the prior, to '
create a flat backyard.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: She specifically said for a flat area for the
children to play in.
MS. MOORE: But that's common sense, wouldn't it be, whether or
not that was the intent or not.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This Board is not here for flat backyards.
That's not the purpose of this Board. So regardless of any
survey that we have, we are here to uphold the Town code, which
is still active and current to date. So that's the constraints
we are working with here. So I personally think, and the rest of
the Board can certainly chime in on their thoughts on this, but
it might be most appropriate to meet with you in the field and
try to straighten this out and maybe come up with a plan that
would work within legality of the code. Because we did have u
several meetings with the prior expediter, and as you can see we
have an extensive pile of plans here and all this going back and
forth is very complicated. It might make sense to go meet with
you in the field and go over the plans. I don't know if the rest
of the Board would agree with that.
MS. MOORE: No, we are here to solve the problem. What we can't
do is --we have to provide some living space for a family. You
can't just, it's not, this is, again, it's a large piece of
property. There is a lot of buffer. And we'll try to come up
with a compromise. But you can't step out of the house and see
a bank. That is just, that's impractical.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A quick question. We believe that, on the
number of inspections when we were there, the drywells on the west
side had filled in with sand, and there is a question whether or not
they are under review or have been reviewed by the Town
Engineering Department. There again, they look, the Board's
impression was those were constructed near the edge of a bluff.
The bluff line ends on the old subdivision map right at the
property line with the common area, and by all appearances in
the field and observation for the fact that the association
built a beautiful revetting garden along it, the bluff goes '
essentially right up to the street line. And we are looking at
drywells that have been put on what is potentially unstable
soils right next to the retaining wall. From an engineering
standpoint, is that a proper location for drywells? Is it in
fact undermining the retaining wall? Was the retaining wall
built with sufficient footings to handle the load, particularly
with depending on the nature of the soils downstream of that,
the soils are going to get loaded. You have a big wall face
there that will pick up additional rainfall with dripping rain
coming off the Sound from the westerly. So there is a lot of
questions on the drywell situation so close to a bluff. To my
mind. I'm not an engineer.
Board of Trustees 51 March 20, 2019
MS. MOORE: Well, you have to keep water on site so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It managed to fill them both up with
top soil and sandy loam.
MS. MOORE: Well, if you don't have stabilization on the rest of
the property, then obviously they are going to silt. And that's
been the problem. That's why they would like, if the dry-wells
get cleaned out and they become functional, but they'll continue
to fill if we don't have a solution for the rest of the
property. So it is an overall comprehensive plan.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If we would be able to meet out in the
field and possibly have an opportunity to have'Mr. Fischetti pass the
time with the engineering department, and see whether or not --
MR. FISCHETTI: I didn't design any of this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I understand. Clearly. To find out the
status of whether they can be rejuvenated, they have to be
explained, and same thing with the construction of the retaining
wall which popped up without a permit, whether or not it's
properly designed and has proper footings.
MS. MOORE: Well, for that I have photographs to show that it's
properly designed with footings, so.
MR. HAGAN: Can you hold on one second. We have to wait. It's a
tape recorder issue.
(After a brief pause, these proceedings continue as follows).
MS. MOORE: Okay, we'll plan for the April 10th field inspection
and we'll coordinate a time that you guys are going to be in
East Marion.
MR. FISCHETTI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I do have something I would like to say as
well. In meeting in the field with Stacey Bishop, she mentioned
creating a yard area for the children and grandchildren to play.
I would point out that property is adjacent to the property
owners association which has a large ample field for children
and grandchildren to play in. So, you know, to try and disturb
the bluff and, you know, create environmental issues --
MS. MOORE: Well, we are going to dispute that. We don't have a
bluff here. That's issue one. And issue two is, associations
don't generally like everybody's kids and grandkids to be
playing on the association property. It's a common access for
everybody to go down to the beach. I think there has to be some
reasonable rear yard for any family to enjoy. This is a
relatively very small rear yard.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: On a unique piece of property.
MS. MOORE: On a very unique piece of property. There are
situations where people have built decks. You can keep the grade
but you build a deck out and live on the deck. So the
alternative is putting a deck in the rear, but now you are, now
are we are in conflict with the covenant because that would be
considered a structure. So patios on grade are not considered
structures. That is not a problem. But we want to build
something more substantial.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Are retaining walls considered a structure?
Board of Trustees 52 March 20, 2019
MS. MOORE: Generally, no. Remember 75 --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So is there anyone else here that wishes to
speak to this application?
MS. MOORE: Well, they want us gone.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: One more comment. Because there-- -
appears to be some difference of opinion emerging from the dialogue
here concerning whether it's a bank or a bluff, that would be an
analysis by Mr. Fischetti when he does the engineering review
with respect to the drywells and have that run past the Town
Engineering Department.
MR. FISCHETTI: If we can, yes. If we have the time to do that.
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone else wish to speak or any other
comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would just like to point out the definition of
a bank and bluff is specifically stated in Town Code.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. All right, hearing no other
comments, I make a motion to table this application for a
meeting in the field with the applicant.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number ten, Nida Chesonis Lee on behalf of
PATRICIA LOWRY&JOHN TOUHEY requests a Wetland Permit to
Remove existing 11'x16' deck landward of bulkhead and construct new
12'x22' deck in same location.
Located: 6970 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-7-5.1
On 3/18/2019, a site visit was completed by Trustee
Williams noting the project seemed straightforward.
On March 7th, 2019, the LWRP found this to be inconsistent,
noting the proposed deck is located in a FEMA VE flood zone.
Structures constructed these areas are vulnerable to repeated
loss and damage and could become dangerous debris during and
following storm events.
On March 13th the Conservation Advisory Council supports
the application with condition the size of the deck does not
exceed 200-square foot. And noting a loose boat on the beach be
removed.
Is there anybody here who wishes to speak to this application?
MS. CHESONIS LEE: Nida Chesonis Lee on behalf of Patricia Lowry
and John Touhey. I'm submitting an affidavit of posting and
proof of mailing. And I'm here to answer any questions.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Sure. At work session we discussed the
proposed size of the deck exceeding the 200-square foot maximum
allowed in town and also we noted that the new deck is not in
the same location but it is moved substantially further seaward.
And those are two concerns that we have. J
MS. CHESONIS LEE: It was located closer so that it was outside,
just outside of 20 feet of the property line. And could you
Board of Trustees 53 March 20, 2019
explain your concerns when it comes to the storms versus the
deck that is there currently?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Sure. Again, this is coming from the LWRP
coordinator, and anything located in a FEMA VE zone is always a
concern for public safety. In a storm, that is an area with quite
a bit of fetch. If the wave action were to-break the deck-loose
it could send pieces of the deck flying, possibly through
neighboring homes.
MS. CHESONIS LEE: The deck that is there currently, that was built
by not this property owner, is elevated, and the number of feet, I
don't know the height of it, it has several steps leading up to
it. And what we are proposing is just a platform that is low
and one step up on the existing deck has because there are steps
leading up to it and it's elevated, it does have a railing
around it and built in bench. And because ours would be a
platform, that would be no railing, no bench, and just flat.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: There is something in the code with regard to
the 200-square foot. Would the applicant consider reducing the
size of the deck to a maximum 200-square feet?
MS. CHESONIS LEE: We would consider that.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Would you also consider keeping no further
seaward than the current deck?
MS. CHESONIS LEE: I'll review that with the owner.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: At this point, you may want to consider
tabling the application to address those issues with the
property owner, and submit new plans.
MS. CHESONIS LEE: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: One thing we have seen and ask the
applicants consider in the past--
MR. HAGAN: Hold on. The recorder has stopped.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: We apologize for the inconvenience, please
bear with us.
(After a brief pause; these proceedings continue as follows).
MR. HAGAN: All right, we are recording now.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In order to address the inconsistencies or
concerns of the LWRP coordinator where there is replacing an
existing deck which has some functionality, one thing we can
help bring it into consistency, we've done it in the past in
high velocity zones, is to request that all of the fittings and
Ticos be stainless steel in areas that are wave prone on Long
Island Sound where we have a coastal erosion hazard area, which
this is not. We will sometimes make that a recommendation and it
increases the lifespan of the structure because the galvanic
action of using conventional fittings with salt tend to eat them
up quickly and that makes the structure more prone to get in
the seaway and being debris in the bay during a severe storm
event.
MS. CHESONIS LEE: All right.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: At this point I'll make a motion to table the
application at the applicant's request.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
Board of Trustees 54 March 20, 2019
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number eleven, Frank Uellendahl, RA on behalf of
DAVID & DIANE NELSON requests a Wetland Permit for the existing
28'4" x 187' one-story cottage; existing attached 4.6'x5.6'
enclosed outdoor shower to be temporarily removed and replaced
in-place; remove and replace existing locust and concrete
footing with as per code minimum 3' deep, +/-18-12" diameter
concrete footings; raise cottage up +/-2' to code compliant FEMA
requirements; construct roof alteration with dormer; replace
existing windows; and replace existing entrance steps with new
3'x8.4' entry platform with 4'wide steps to ground.
Located: 65490 Route 25, Breezy Shores Cottage#24, Greenport.
SCTM# 1000-53-5-12.6
The Trustees did a field inspection,on March 12th. All
Trustees were in attendance. The field notes state it's
straightforward and essentially rebuilding within the same
footprint.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council on March 13th voted
unanimously to support this application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. UELLENDAHL: My name is Frank Uellendahl on behalf of the
applicant. If there are any additional questions I would be
happy to answer them. But this is one of those cottages
residents now start raising them up because we do have a.flood
plain problem, and I was working five years ago on cottage
number 25, and we basically did the same procedure. We lifted
the cottage up, put in a new foundation and new floor system,
and made it code compliant. That's exactly what we are doing
here, too.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The LWRP coordinator noted that the
structure will be raised to meet Chapter 148 of the flood damage
protection, and that's the basis for his consistency.
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comments, I move to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I move to approve this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. UELLENDAHL: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number 12,
Twin Fork Landscape Contracting on behalf of KENNETH &
Board of Trustees 55 March 20, 2019
HEATHER CLAUSIVIAN requests a Wetland Permit to install
1 to 2-ton boulders ±10' landward of bulkhead with a set of stone
steps to water; continue boulder wall along westerly side yard landward
to dwelling with stone steps in side yard; install ±60 cubic yards
of clean fill in area between dwelling and new boulder wall;
install a 12'x40' permeable paver patio in eastern side yard; a
Bilco door to the east to be removed and foundation closed as
required and to install and perpetually maintain a 10' wide
non-turf buffer area along the landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 2995 Sigsbee Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-126-6-9.1
This project has been deemed to be inconsistent with the
Town's LWRP. The LWRP coordinator considers the plans are
insufficient. The current grade and fill of the elevations are
not provided, and the patio on premises is not shown. There is
concern of the LWRP coordinator that 60-cubic yards may adversely
impact the adjacent properties. It is recommended that the
non-turf buffer be vegetated with salt tolerant vegetation.
The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the
application based on the observation of heavily dense beach
grass. The proposed project may not be productive and could have
negative impact on the adjacent properties. The Conservation
Advisory Council recommends alternatives.
The Board of Trustees, all members present, performed an
inspection last week and discussed it further at our work
session on Monday evening. And the Board specifically was
requesting whether the path to the beach was actually going to
be in stairs. There were concerns as enumerated by the LWRP
coordinator and Conservation Advisory Council concerning adverse
impacts of any drainage impacting the neighbors. The Board noted
that the neighbor to the west had an approximate of a 15-foot
non-turf buffer. And this seemingly also addressed the matching,
that buffer, non-turf buffer, would also tend to protect the
American beach grass that was enumerated by the Conservation,
Advisory Council. And the Trustees also noted that we wanted to
have side elevations so that questions concerning the 60-cubic
yards of fill that was also enumerated by the Conservation
Advisory Council and the LWRP coordinator could be discerned so
we could make sure we are not creating a disadvantage or runoff
to the neighbors.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. FABB: John Fabb, Twin Fork Landscape Contracting on behalf
of Ken Clausman. We are going to propose that the way obviously
you guys have made a site visit over to the property, that to
the west southwest corner of the property, elevation falls off
pretty dramatically in that corner. That's why we are proposing
using all permeable retaining materials, indigenous boulders on
the outside of the non-turf buffer. If you want to pull it back
15 foot we have no objections to that whatsoever. We are very
conscious of the American beach grass that is there now. By
doing this corner, and the elevation that we had shown, the
major part of the elevation is that southwest corner. Basically
Board of Trustees 56 March 20, 2019
those boulders will run into grade and then return landward so
we don't have an adverse effect with the properties to the west.
Especially because there is a quite an elevation difference
between those homes when they were constructed back in the
'60's. So that is why we propose returning the structure to the
----west-- --- - - - - - -
west so that we can level off that area-and then-can they-can ---
stop the erosion from running down the backyard as it is now.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It sounds like you are articulating the
possibilities of a plan that would address all our concerns up
there. It sounds like a plan with the elevation and possibly a
recalculation of the fill and expanding the non-turf area 15
feet, that would seem to address our concerns.
Are there any additional questions from the Board on that?
(Negative response).
Seems like an issue with the volume of fill, the side elevations
to make sure you are not disadvantaging your neighbors, and a
plan to show that with a 15-foot non-turf buffer.
MR. FABB: So you are looking to, we are going to delineate the
non-turf buffer back to 15 foot.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: To match of the neighbors.
MR. FABB: To match the neighbors across, okay. Any other
objections on it?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to show the southwest elevation change.
I think similar to what you did on the seaward side.
MR. FABB: Right. The boulder cross section. So that basically
would be the elevation returning the west because it drops off
there. So that corner would go, then run to the east, run into
grade, then run down that western property line to the fence,
which I believe is the neighbor's fence so we would be inside
the property line on that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You'can detail that on the plans so you
an show the run where it goes back to the land and elevation and
cross-section at another point so as you go from the east to the
west, basically so we have something to, you know, determine
that it's all going to come together in that fashion.
MR. FABB: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional questions or concerns
of the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
At this time I would like to make a motion to table this
application to enable the applicant to submit detailed drawings
to the matters we just discussed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 13, Cole Environmental on behalf of
ALEXANDRA JONES requests a Wetland Permit to construct a brick
walk at grade; construct a proposed 4'x18' fixed wood dock with
Board of Trustees 57 March 20, 2019
thru-flow decking and a deck elevation of 6.0; a proposed
3.5'x14' metal hinged ramp; and a proposed 8'x10' wood floating dock.
Located: 1230 Bayberry Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-2-9
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent and consistent. The
inconsistency, although it is not expected that the proposed
dock will impair navigation, the area where the dock is proposed _
to be located is only accessible by a very narrow channel and
the bridge restricts navigability to the east of the proposed
dock. A representative vessel has not been discussed in the
paperwork or identified on the plans. Then he also, whether
adequate facilities are available to boat owners and/or
operators for fueling, discharge of waste and rubbish,
electrical service and water service.
And he found it consistent, the brick walk is consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees conducted the most recent field inspection
back on February 4th, as well as reviewing this inhouse.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. COLE: Yes. Dennis Cole for the applicant. Basically, this
case was heard at the last Trustees hearing. We adjourned at
that point and I attended a work session with the Board whereby
we discussed the possibility of or recommendation of not
allowing the seaward side of the boat to extend past the seaward
edge of the float. And that was agreeable by the owner, and
we'll stipulate to that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I was remiss. I forgot to mention there was
a letter in the file here dated March 7th from Patricia Moore,
with some of the objections that we discussed at the work
session. One of the objections, like you just mentioned, was a
15-foot setback off the property line. And again, we discussed
the seaward end of the dock will be landward of that 15 feet and
the vessel that will be docked there will also be landward of
the 15 feet so nothing infringes on that--
MR. COLE: Exactly.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
MS. MOORE: Good evening, Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr. Wolpin
who is the adjacent property'owner. It seems impossible to meet
the water depth in the way it's being described. I don't see a
plan, I don't know if it's been redrawn, but the water depth is
a foot or less. It seemed the only area that was two-and-a-half
feet was the area that was within the 15-foot setback. And so
has this been drawn, has anything been provided?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We do have plans dated February 11th, 2019,
as well as a Robert Fox hydrographical study dated January 17th,
2019. We also met with Mr. Cole in the field and where the
floating dock is to be located has sufficient water depth as
depicted by his survey as well as Robert Fox's survey.
MS. MOORE: Sorry, maybe I was not clear. We submitted a February
Board of Trustees 58 March 20, 2019
15th revised survey that showed that the proposed boat is within
the 15-foot setback and I gave you a letter with that. I believe
that you were just discussing the plan and that somehow or other
they were going to, the owners were going to provide an area
where the boat would be docked that would not be within the 15
feet. And that is what I -- it seems impossible given the water
depth there, so I didn't know if that had been, this modification had
been drawn.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: What we discussed was the dock staying
in its current location with the vessel docked to the west side. So
obviously with the bow toward the shore, with the stern of the
boat no further seaward than the end of the floating dock. So
therefore the boat and the dock would be more than 15 feet off
the property line.
MS. MOORE: Has anybody tried to draw this so it actually works?
Because it just, based on my visual, and I'm usually pretty good
at visuals, it's just impossible. I mean, you are going to have
point one, the bow of the boat. I understand the engine on the
2.5 depth, but the boat, depending on the length of the boat is
going to be encroaching onto the shoreline where it's .10 to .1.
I just don't see it feasible.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Cole, can you address what is the
size of the boat that is proposed for this location?
MR. COLE:,At this point there is not a boat, so she does
kayaking, and at this point does not have a motorized boat. I
did draw a sketch showing -- I can show the Board. To show you
there is basically like a 12 foot, 12, 15 foot. And you still
have minus one there from where the bow is.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: What's the dimensions of that,floating dock?
MR. COLE: 8x10.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So where the vessel would be located on the
side, it has an eight-foot span?
MR. COLE: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: For a 12-foot boat, roundabout.
MR. COLE: It could even be a little longer, 15 feet long, it
still wouldn't matter.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have a question. During field inspection
you were wearing your chest waders. The dock had been staked by
the surveyor.
MR. COLE: Right.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We almost saw him swimming. There is a lot
of water depth there. It's a pretty good distance.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: He was not at the furthest most point either.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Correct. He would have filled his waders.
MS. MOORE: I don't know if it was low tide, high tide. You
know, it's the marine surveyors do it. I mean Bob Fox is an
extremely accurate surveyor, so I don't know the conditions and
what tides were in place when he was out in the water, so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was low tide. It was visually low tide on
a day that had relatively low tides, from our experience in
prior inspections to getting there.
Board of Trustees 59 March 20, 2019
MS. MOORE: Is the drawing going to be submitted? Is something
going to be submitted at this point?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know that I need to see a drawing of a
boat.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't either.
MS. MOORE: How are you going to enforce this, by covenant?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's a permit, it's a stipulation of the
permit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's at the discretion of the Board to make it
a condition of the permit if we so choose.
MS. MOORE: Put it this way, you'll end up having my client be
the watchdog to how somebody is operating a boat there because
of the restrictions there. So.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That would be a first.
MS. MOORE: I'm certain. It's just a very impractical location
for this float and there has been a reason why there has been no
dock and float proposed there. It has been, it's a very
difficult property and Mr. Wolpin, the neighbors, are opposed
to this. So they would state their opposition to the plan as
it's been revised with a boat on its side. I don't see piles of
where the boat would be tied off. You would have to tie off this
boat somewhere.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, because it's a float still. So you are
using it the same way as you use as a float anywhere else. It's
just a different shape than a normal dock.
MR. MOORE: So it would be facing the land.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. As opposed to being on the seaward
end that could infringe on the 15 foot setback, he's putting it on
the west end. Southwest end. So then the bow would be toward
the shore and would not impede navigation, would not be within
the 15-foot setback. And there is sufficient water depth as
depicted on Robert Fox's survey here January 17th, 2019.
MS. MOORE: I show, yes, two-and-a-half feet is the edge of that
float. That's the requirement:After that, we have .1 and .4. So
it drops, apparently there is a drop off which is that
two-and-a-half feet but then it goes up quite a bit. So I think
he's going to be disappointed, the owner will be disappointed
that the boat is going to be a very restricted little boat, so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It will have more water than your client, I can
say that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Judging by Robert Fox' survey where the
current float is .8 feet on the --
MS. MOORE: True. But the water depth there are also 2.6 and 3.2
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: 2.6 and where this is there is three feet.
MS. MOORE: Well, I'll tell my client to come in and get an
extension of his dock so it goes out further.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here wishing to speak regarding
this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Board of Trustees 60 March 20, 2019
I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition that whatever vessel is tied up to the
floating dock does not extend any further seaward than the
seaward edge of the floating dock.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 15, Michael Kimack on behalf of ERIN E.
ARGO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x88' fixed dock
with Thru-Flow decking and supported by 12 sets of 8" diameter
pressure treated pilings; install a 3'x10' aluminum removable
ramp; and to install a 6'x20' floating dock using non-pressure
treated decking with two (2) sets of batter pilings, 8" diameter
each piling. Located: 1300 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#
1000-104-9-4.1
The LWRP coordinator wrote a lengthy review of this dock,
and I'll go through it and note a few different points for the
applicant. The applicant failed to protect that the action meets
the following requirements 275-11, construction operation
standards. The dock is expected to reach public use in the area for
water-dependent activities. 275 requires determination of length
of the dock must include the dimensions of vessel. The
dimensions of the vessel not specified. The dock structure is
proposed in shallow water. The draft of a representative vessel
has not been provided. The operation areas of shallow water can
cause turbidity, losses of submerged vegetation and damage the
bottom land. Furthermore the dock is proposed in a New York
State Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife habitat area. Such
requirements may include but are not limited to shortening or
reducing the size of structures, or increasing the width of
non-disturbance buffers. The dock will not significantly impact
the emergent wetland vegetation due to the use of thru-flow
decking. The occurrence of sea grass is not known. The
importance of viewsheds and vistas in the area. Continued
construction of dock structures within significant fish and
wildlife habitat and critical environmental area will affect the
public use of the area and degrade the ecological quality of
area. Also, discuss the common contaminates associated with
docks and wood preservatives. Discuss the waste facilities. No
facilities are proposed to discuss. The applicant presently
enjoys the water body use proximity and opportunity of a
mooring. Due to shallow water depth and environmental
sensitivity of the area, a seasonal mooring,would be more
appropriate. In the event this action is approved, it is
recommended that a significant non-disturbance buffer be
established to mitigate the local impact from the dock structure
Board of Trustees 61 March 20, 2019
to public surface and bottom lands. And floats that are required
be chocked and removed in the winter months.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees visited the site on the 12th of March. Noted
that it may be a little far off the pier line, otherwise it's a-
straightforward dock application.
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicants, who are
present this evening. I was with you when we did the on site
investigation. Just a few things to address the LWRP. The length
of the boat is designated on there. The beam is 7.3 and'the
length is 18 feet. Also, I did the soundings out there and there
was not any grasses or so where the soundings were done, for the
most part. The dock is situated in a rather somewhat unique
situation. To the west is kind of like a man-made bulkheaded
extension of the land, and to the east is that natural spit of
land that comes out. And the dock runs right down the middle of
it, primarily. It is extended out some way but in order to hit
that 30", two-and-a-half to three foot which is under the
floating dock, and then under the proposed boat would be three,
three-and-a-half feet. The way the soundings run there is
because of the spit of land it's kind of a west to east where it
builds up and fills up. That's why the dock itself was turned,to
be parallel to that line. It doesn't interfere with the sea
grass or doesn't interfere with anything to the east of that
spit over there. And the walkway to it and the vegetation on
both sides are going to be undisturbed. It's pretty much to get
to the dock, which is the top of the bank, not the bluff. It's
all basically sand there to the water, and from there out. The
area itself is a fair amount of docks around it. Basically. And
to enjoy this particular area, my clients do have boats, so they
would like to be able to have that level of enjoyment that the
dock provides. And mooring would not be able to provide that
same -- in order to get out to have a boat moored out that distance
to get to it, without having a fixed dock in place would be a
hardship in this situation. It doesn't interfere because of the
spit of land, the uniqueness of that spit of land, the overall
fixed dock and the floating dock is about 110 feet from its
point of starting at the top of the bank to the furthest point
on the dock itself. Which is about five to six feet beyond that
spit of land. So it is well within the 33% or one-third that
the Board of Trustees has, but more importantly, DEC sets it at
25%. So we when we put it together I always look at it from
that perspective. I disagree with the LWRP in terms of having
any kind of impact on any of the wetland vegetation. Having
trudged out there, I know there is mud but no grasses, that I
saw, that this would interfere with. Are there any questions of
me or my client?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just off the bat, I mean I know there is no sea
grass present and you have already given us the size of the
vessel planned,to be at the dock. This is a lengthy LWRP report
Board of Trustees 62 March 20, 2019
on this that is found inconsistent. Do you think your applicant
would consider maybe a non-disturbance buffer on the property
that might help us mitigate his concerns?And where would it be?
MR. KIMACK: The non-disturbance would be landward of the top of
the, what you are saying, landward where the beginning of the
fixed dock is at the top of the bank.
- -------- - - ----- -- - - ------------- --- ----- - - -- ----- - -- -
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. He has a large amount of property there
that is essentially non-disturbance area already. It's just
not, you know, on that --
MR. KIMACK: I don't see that as an issue. We walked down that
walk pathway and we had Baccharus on one side, going all the way
down. We are aware of that situation. There is no intention on
the part of my client to do anything. I don't see that as a
particular issue as non-disturbance.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Obviously you could not do anything there
anyway, so it might make sense to put it on paper to satisfy the
LWRP coordinator.
MR. KIMACK: If you want to make it a condition that the existing
vegetation west and east, what distance back from the top of
that little bank would you consider to be reasonable?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean I don't know if the Board has any
feelings on this. It's something I thought of looking at the
plans and reading through the report. But I mean there is a
large amount of area there that could not be used for lawn
anyway, so I don't know if you want to come back to us with plans
depicting that.
MR. KIMACK: If you look at the survey, primarily, there would be
no intention, it's somewhat of a question that caught me a
little off guard in a sense, be the way this is done, they
understand their vegetation except for the walkway going down to
where the proposed dock would be, there is no intention to
disturb any of that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We appreciate the intentions, but I think --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The reason I'm asking is because we do have
such a, it's very lengthy and I think that is the simplest way
to respond to his demand and essentially move forward with the
application.
MR. KIMACK: I could suggest we have a non-disturbance buffer
from the top of the bank of 50 feet. I mean that would cover,
all of that basically is vegetation we can't touch anyway.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's exactly my point.
MR. KIMACK: It's Baccharus and sea grass. We couldn't touch it.
And there would be no intention to do anything with that anyway.
In essence all it is -- luckily they cut a walkway through that
now so nothing else has to be disturbed in order to have egress
and ingress to the dock. I would suggest 50 foot.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That sounds very reasonable.
MR. KIMACK: Because it's easy to do because it is simply not
going to be touched.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's exactly why I thought of it. So,
unfortunately, we would need new plans for that.
Board of Trustees 63 March 20, 2019
MR. KIMACK: Come on guys, you let the other guy get through.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's not really changing the scope of the
property. When you are talking about decking as opposed to wood
versus through thru-flow. But I think it's the easiest way to satisfy the
lengthy report here, so.
MR. KIMACK: I mean, I would recommend you could condition it
basically 50 feet back from the top of the sandy bank would be
non-vegetated as a condition on it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I don't believe we are allowed to condition
things.
MR. HAGAN: You would need another plan.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We need to see it delineated on the plan.
MR. KIMACK: I think I have enough room. I'm looking at my
survey. I have 50 feet on my scale.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can go look at the vegetation and come to
'us with something depicting where it ends there.
MR. KIMACK: 50 feet would not be an issue for the most part
because that whole string over there is at least 100 feet or so.
From where it begins walking, from the clearing we walked until
it opens up where that little stretch of sea grass is before you
get to the beach. So 50 foot would not be an issue. But I'll
take a look, basically, I may have to extend the survey a little
bit primarily to pick that end up. And if that would be the only
condition to satisfy the LWRP. I know it's satisfactory to my
client simply because they didn't intend nor could they under
today's environmental conditions to touch it anyway.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay.
MR. KIMACK: Any other questions or concerns?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other questions from the Board?
MR. KIMACK: Other than you are about to table it over to next
month.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are bound by the code there.
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
MR. KIMACK: My client just wanted to know if in fact that would
be the only condition you were looking to that if we met that
condition on the drawing that that would satisfy the Board in
terms of the LWRP's concerns.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We obviously can't, we can't say that prior to.
We can't make a decision ahead of a decision. That's a good way
to put it. But as it stands now that would make me happy. So.
MR. KIMACK: It would satisfy the Board in terms of overall
concerns and satisfy the LWRP. And as far as the other concerns,
the LWRP had, I think we have addressed some of them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We worked through those.
MR. KIMACK: We worked through those, primarily. I'm somewhat
surprised, because the dock was not go to be in conflict with
any of the vegetated situations they were addressing. So on that
note we'll come back. I'll get the amendment to do a
non-disturbance buffer, which is easy to do, and I'll bring it
back and resubmit the plans.
Board of Trustees 64 March 20, 2019
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I'll make a motion to table this
application for new plans depicting a non-disturbance buffer
roughly 50 feet.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 16, Swim King Pools on behalf of
K MAC REALITY, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to install a 16'x32'
in-ground swimming pool with 12" coping; a 4'x8' precast drywell
for pool backwash; pool equipment area; and pool enclosure
fencing.
Located: 405 Cedar Point Drive West, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-2-27
On March 12, 2019, The Trustees completed the site visit
with all Trustees present, noting the location of the pool to be
okay: Pool equipment location okay. Noting we would need a
definition of trees to be removed.
On March7th, 2019, the LWRP coordinator found this
proposed action to be consistent.
On March 13th, the Conservation Advisory Council resolved
to support the application.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. PRANZO: Luke Pranzo from Swim King Pools for the applicant..
We did file with the New York State DEC as well. And we are just
awaiting their permit, their fresh water wetland permit with
some minor modifications to the site plan that was sent to them.
So we are working with them as well.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: One note I have is that on the Trustees
inspection we did note a drywell there that had standing water
in the drywell. Very much between where the pool and the hot tub
is, the proposed pool and hot tub currently is. And the town
engineer recommended filling that drywell with sand to above the
standing water line, so that there is not water just sitting in
the drywell.
MR. PRANZO: Sure, no objections.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: And then most likely we would want the trees
to be removed to be marked and an area Trustee to approve that
prior to any tree removal.
MR. PRANZO: Yes. I think it's just a couple of small trees in
the rear of the property that would have to be removed to keep
the pool in that location.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anybody else here that wishes to
speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
MR. HAGAN: Wait a second. The recorder has stopped again.
(After a brief pause, these proceedings continue as follows).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
Board of Trustees 65 March 20, 2019
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to approve the application
with the condition that trees to be removed will be flagged and
approved by the area Trustee prior to tree removal.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. PRANZO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 17, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. On
behalf of ROBERT & MARY KATE DIGREGORIO requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a 4'x87' fixed catwalk with a 3'x16'
seasonal aluminum ramp onto a 6'x20' seasonal floating dock
situated in an "L" configuration; install four 8" diameter float
anchor pilings; proposed floating dock to be chocked 1' off
bottom at mean low water; install a 3' wide crossover catwalk
stairway; and construct a 4'x8' platform and 3'x8' steps
landward of masonry wall.
Located: 1000 Oak Street, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-136-1-36
The most recent Trustees inspection of this was on March
12th, inhouse. The notes mention that the new plans submitted
and received March 4th, 2019, comport with the prior work
session discussion with Costello Marine. The new plans reflect a
request to move to a fixed dock rather than floating dock with
float, dock to float with chocks.
The LWRP coordinator found the initial application to be
inconsistent. Noted that the new configuration addresses those
inconsistencies. The fixed dock will not interfere with the
public use of the waterway in terms of fishing. It will honor
the pier line and will not extend further than adjacent existing
docks.
The Conservation Advisory Council on December 5th resolved
to support the application.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, on behalf of the applicant. I have
no comments, just if there are any questions.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I want to be clear about one thing, Mr.
Costello. It does look now as if because of the new "L"
configuration, where the vessel will be is greater than 2.7 feet
of water at mean low tide.
MR. COSTELLO: Right.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All right. Any other questions or comments
from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, for working with us in a situation
where we didn't have enough water, to come up with a solution
that was appropriate for the area.
MR. COSTELLO: Fair enough. Thanks, guys.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other comments or questions?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
Board of Trustees 66 March 20, 2019
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I make a motion to approve this application noting that the new
fixed dock addresses all the inconsistencies that were noted on
the previous floating dock as amended and set forth in the March
4th plans, received March 4th, 2019 from Costello Marine.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number 18, in fact is
the application of Jeff Patanjo on behalf of J.M.O.
Environmental Consulting on behalf of CHARLES & BRENDA GRIMES
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 15'x24' bluestone patio
on sand; stepping stone paths; 4'x6' steps; a 4'x158' fixed dock
utilizing "Thru-Flow" decking; a 3'x12' ramp; and a 6'x20' float
secured by two (2) piles.
Located: 4145 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-12.6
This is reflecting a request for an amendment, requesting
to amend the previous permit application by virtue of a set of,
plans received in the Trustee office December 4th, 2018, having
been dated by the applicant on December 1st, 2018, for a
four-foot wide by 87-foot long fixed pier with a 30"wide by
14-foot long aluminum ramp to an 8'x15' long floating dock with
untreated decking supported with four ten-inch diameter CCA
piles and cross braces to hold float a minimum of 30 inches off
the bottom at all times.
This application has been determined to be both
inconsistent and consistent. The LWRP report is in the file.
Which I believe we have previously summarized.
I have the LWRP review with it being inconsistent with respect
to the policy standards for docks and, for the original dock, that
was the 4x158' indicating that it didn't have the development,
didn't enhance community character, didn't enhance the visual
quality and protect scenic resources. It didn't preserve
existing vegetation and establish indigenous vegetation.
Policy Six, to protect and restore the quality and function of
the Town of Southold ecosystems. That, policy 6.2, protect
and restore significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats. The
proposed action results in a net loss of tidal and marine
wetlands identified within the New York State Significant
Coastal Fish and Wildlife habitat. The applicant does not
discuss the potential for habitat destruction or significant
impairment as defined by this policy. 6.3 is to protect and
restore tidal and freshwater wetlands in order to comply with
the statutory requirements, regulatory requirements of the Town
of Southold Town Board of Trustees and regulations for Andros
Patent for public trust lands. Comply with the Trustee
regulations and recommendations as set forth in Trustee permits.
The applicant has not demonstrated that the following dock
Board of Trustees 67 March 20, 2019
standards pursuant to --does not, has not demonstrated the
following dock standards pursuant to 275-11 construction and
operation standards have been met. And the discussion concerning
whether the dock will impair navigation is a new application
amended as a little different. Will the dock unduly interfere
with the public use of waterways for swimming, boating,
shell fishing, water skiing and other water-dependent uses.
Whether the dock will unduly interfere with the transit of the
public along the public beaches or foreshore. Will the dock
significantly impair use of or value of waterfront property. And the
proposed action is located within the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation critical environmental area, in New
York State significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat and
part of the Peconic Estuary program criteria habitat. Use and
need of the dock i's undefined. Representative vessel has not been
identified. The installation of proposed structures, vessels or
power boat traffic in shallow areas with less than 2.3 to 2.5
engine VD low water depth at dock terminus, the following
negative impacts may occur from the vessel. The resuspension of
bottom sediments and turbidity, impacts to the benthic species
and erosion of shorelines. Construction of dock may also result
in an increase of turbidity in the water column affecting
submerged aquatic vegetation and shellfish. To further the
above policy and reduce turbidity in the event the proposed
action is approved, turbidity controls are recommended. And
whether the dock will cause habitat fragmentation and loss of
significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats, the area where
the dock is proposed is vegetated with Spartina alterniflora in
an area of high quality lower and upper marsh. The application
does not discuss potential impacts to Richmond Creek. The
application does not discuss the cumulative impacts to Richmond
Creek. The application does not assess or discuss whether adequate
facilities are available to a potential vessel. And to preserve,
Policy 9.3, to preserve the public interest in and use of lands
and waters held in public trust by the state and the Town of
Southold. Policy 9.4, assure public access to public trust lands
and navigable waters. The applicant currently enjoys access to
public waterways on the subject property and Wells Road, and
located approximately 669 feet to the west. Private dock
structures extending to public trust lands and waters. Obstruct
public use of navigable waters, public anchoring and other
public use in the area where the dock is located. And it does
not meet this policy.
In some instances a dock may force small paddle craft into
a dangerous situation of entering the channel or open water
utilized by larger power boats. Private docks constructed too
close to existing public or private docks impede navigation.
There is a discussion to the extent that it interferes
with commercial navigation. Minimum necessary access for public
waters. Traditional use of the waters include free and unobstructed
access to the near shore commercial uses and recreation by the
Board of Trustees 68 March 20, 2019
public dock structures impede public use where located. And
alternatives to long piers and docks include use of dinghy to
reach moored boats and mooring in nearby areas. Potential
impacts to natural resources are not thoroughly discussed in the
application. Accordingly that's why he deems the dock structure
itself inconsistent. And the portion that is considered
consistent with respect to the dock is a 12x30' access path.
That's a brief summary of the LWRP.
Is there anyone here to speak to the application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. I would
be happy to answer any questions you have.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one, what kind of vessel does the
applicant envision for this site/application?
MR. PATANJO: As I understand, the applicant would like an
eight-and-a-half foot wide by 24-foot long center console
fishing boat.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: How much water does that draw?
MR. PATANJO: That's 18 inches of draft.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: 18-inches of draft. Interesting.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Can you get me those dimensions again, please?
MR. PATANJO: Eight-and-a-half by 24.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Does that particular boat have an engine?
MR. PATANJO: Outboard.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Do you really think it has an 18-inch draft?
MR. PATANJO: Correct.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: With or without the outboard down?
MR. PATANJO: 18 inches. With the outboard down. Is that not
correct?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Not in my experience.
MR. PATANJO: I'm going by my experience. What do you think as
far as, and maybe I'm mistaken. The applicant is not here,
unfortunately. My understanding of that type of vessel with a
200 horsepower outboard, it's about 18 inches of draft.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is that below the --
MR. PATANJO: Below the water line.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I have a 23-foot center console and I can tell
you, with a 200 horsepower motor, and it's a good deal more than
18 inches.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have an 18-foot aluminum boat with a 30
horsepower and it pushes probably 13 or 14 probably.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: 18 below the keel.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 18 inches below the keel.
MR. PATANJO: Below the keel? I don't know what the keel is. I'm sorry, I don't
understand boats.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The bottom of the boat.
MR. PATANJO: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: From the W"to the water line, 18 inches.
But then you have that outboard when it's tilted down extends
much lower that the W" of the hull.
MR. PATANJO: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The shorthand is that size boat in that
Board of Trustees 69 March 20, 2019
location, the prop is going to be on the bottom. It will scour
the bottom.
I have another point. This is, this shows the tidal cycle
at a nearby water body in Southold. The high and low tides. All
right. We know there are two cycles a day, high and low tide,
okay? Your application shows a minimum of 30 inches of
separation from the bottom for a chock float at all times.
Assuming standard float construction, and at this point it may
vary, maybe 18 inches or 24 inches for the depth of the float.
That, and assuming, say mean value of 18 inches of water depth,
that means it will be 36 inches of separation from the top of
the float to the surface of the water for greater than 12 hours
of the day. And I propose that that is an unsafe configuration.
It is going to make it virtually impossible for someone who is a
young person such as myself, to get in and out of a vessel; that
what is more suitable for that location would be something
like a small, a kayak or small canoe. It's simply not safe. My
question, if there is a question, my question is how do you
intend to address that?
MR. PATANJO: I can understand what you are saying. And you are
talking about the separation distance if you have a fixed dock.
The original proposal --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: No. I'm talking about your proposed floating dock
that is according to page two of your plans shows a minimum 30
inches of separation at all times.
MR. PATANJO: Yes. So the application proposed before you is a
floating dock chocked by, with four piles, with chocks across it
that maintains a float separation distance which is regulated by
New York State DEC of 30 inches of water, of 30 inches of
separation between mean low water or mean high water, how be it,
between the bottom of the creek and the bottom of the floating
dock. So the proposed application represents the separation of
30 inches. That's where the chocks are going to be installed.
The proposed plan, the floating dock, will be held off of the
bottom at 30 inches at all times. The applicant has proposed to
maintain that 30 inches in perpetuity of the dock. That is what
is being proposed.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: You didn't understand my question. I'm going to
refer you again to your plans. We understand that your plans show that
you will maintain 30 inches of separation between the bottom and
the chock float at all times.
MR. PATANJO: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Your plan also shows that at mean low water
you'll-have 16 inches of water there. I was generous in giving
you 18. So my numbers are skewed more in my direction. My
question. The situation, using your diagram, is this. That when
there is 16 inches of water off the bottom, there will be at
least 38 inches separation from the water to the top of the
chocked float.
MR. PATANJO: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: My question is how do you address that
Board of Trustees 70 March 20, 2019
safety-wise, getting in and out of a vessel?
MR. PATANJO: I understand what you are saying. At the past
hearing we had for this application and other applications, the
suggestion by the Board of Trustees was to have a fixed dock.
Okay? So the fixed dock that was suggested by the Board of
Trustees for applications like this was to have a fixed dock
slightly above the high water elevation. Which would be, in
reality, the same elevation as this floating dock, which would
be chocked up. This floating dock albeit, it's chocked up. At
low tide it's going to be in the air. Which would be the elevation
of high tide.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can I piggyback off that?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Can I just ask one other question. So this
application is for a floating dock.
MR. PATANJO: Right.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes-or no, is a fixed dock then more stable and
safer in this, at the same water depth and elevations?
MR. PATANJO: It depends on the tide. I'll say no. Because
tidally, tidally, no, it's not. Because tidally, if you are at a
low tide situation, this dock will be floating. This dock will
go up and down.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: A fixed dock with steps down will be inherently
safer than a chocked dock that is 38 inches separated from the
water. Yes or no?
MR. PATANJO: I can't explain that right now but I'm going to say
no.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Do you have any idea how long a proposed
chocked floating dock would be out of the water in a 24 hour
period?
MR. PATANJO: I don't have that information.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: In other words, when it's out of the water,
do you know the distance from the top of the deck of the
proposed floating dock to the water itself?
MR. PATANJO: I do not have that information.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to piggy back off of the point that
Trustee Goldsmith was making. On a 24-hour tidal cycle, the dock
will most likely spend the majority of the time as a fixed dock
anyway.
MR. PATANJO: Do you have confirmation for the elevation wise?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm asking you for that.
MR. PATANJO: I do not have that information
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sort of a timeline on that.
MR. PATANJO: I do not have that information.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The DEC previously denied a floating dock in
this location. And this is a similar location, and probably for
much of the same reasoning that we have concerns for this. So
it's a question of, you know, it's been a longstanding problem
with a number of areas including the DEC has concerns. And how
would you address these.
MR. PATANJO: As I understand, the US Army Corps of Engineers has
Board of Trustees 71 March 20, 2019
no objection to the application, and they have a 30-day period
for comments by any other environmental agencies such as DEC as well
as New York State Department of State and Town of Southold
Trustees. I don't believe any comments have been received by the
US Army Corps of Engineers, so they are okay with the application
as of now. New York State DEC has received the application. I
don't believe they have any comments either. So, as I
understand, at this point, they don't have any comments. We do
not have a New York State DEC approval. We do not have a US
Army Corps of Engineers approval this application.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Were you aware that previously the DEC denied
a float at this particular property?
MR. PATANJO: I'm not aware of that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you convey a purpose for a floating dock on
chocks versus a fixed pier with a lower platform and steps?
MR. PATANJO: The purpose of a floating dock is to --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In this situation, on chocks, with a very low,
you know, no water underneath.
MR. PATANJO: As I understand in past applications, it's been a
standard of approval by the Board of Trustees to approve, as
well as the New York State DEC, to approve applications such as
this, with the same water depth of applications for a floating
dock which is chocked. Albeit, it may be 14 inches, it may be 18
inches, it may be 24 inches of water depth. New York State DEC
requirements for a floating dock are you need to chock a
floating dock off 30 inches of separation between the bottom of
the creek at mean low, bottom of the creek, whatever it is. It
doesn't matter on water depth. The bottom of the creek is 30
inches of water of separation between the bottom of the floating
dock and the floating dock. That is the application. That's
what we applied for. That is the standard of the New York State
DEC. That is in their written requirements. The Town of Southold
Trustees does not have any written requirements at this moment
for separation distance between floating dock and chocking.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So that didn't actually answer my question that
I posed but I'll come back to that in a second. Because, I mean, we kind
of tangented there. But -- so, for a standard floating dock, would you
say we have insufficient water depth for a standard floating dock at this
location?
MR. PATANJO: Standard floating dock for DEC requirements, we
have perfect water depth.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Without chocks. Standard floating docks.
MR. PATANJO: Well, in accordance with the Town of Southold
Trustees requirements and Chapter 275, we have perfect water
depth. There is no requirements for water depth for a floating dock
in the Town of Southold, in the Town of Southold Trustees.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would disagree with that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Have you calculated the slope from the proposed
catwalk down to the float suspended 30 inches minimum off the
bottom, the slope of the ramp?
MR. PATANJO: I have not calculated the slope. But is there a
Board of Trustees 72 March 20, 2019
requirement on slope distances? Do we need to meet ADA
requirements?
MR. HAGAN: Stop for a moment. We have to fix the tape.
(After a brief pause, these proceedings continue as follows).
MR. HAGAN: Okay, we can go back on the record.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So I just want to ask--
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Can I go first?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: In response to Chapter 275.11-(c)(2)(a)(4), all
docks and gangways on such docks shall provide a safe pedestrian
surface at all times. So you need to demonstrate the slope is at
proper elevations, properly scaled to demonstrate to this Board
that that ramp is going to be safe.
MR. PATANJO: The proposed floating dock as proposed by the
applicant would be a typical aluminum dock—aluminum gangway and/or
ramp which is going to be an aluminum float, aluminum ramp which has
a safe, how do I say it, a—a, it's a safe walking surface that would allow
safe passage down to the floating dock. If the Trustees would like to tell
me an actual slope or scope of ramp that is acceptable, we can propose,
that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I want to circle back to this before we get too
far away from it, because I asked earlier and never got an
answer from you. Can you convey to me a reason that a floating
dock, which is spending most of its 24-hour time period dry and
on chocks is a better option than a fixed pier with thru-flow
decking.
MR. PATANJO: Well, I would think, and I own a boat, but my boat
is on a floating dock. I would say in my experiences a floating
dock, whether you have it during high tide and it's tied off and
it's floating around, or you have it at low tide, it's tied up
tighter to the dock. The best application for a boat is to have
it tied to a floating dock. It rises and lowers with the tide.
It's safer. If you have a fixed dock, if you have a fixed dock, it is,
the boat is always going to be contingent on the tide. You have
periods of time with a floating dock that the boat is going to
be right next to your dock. You will walk right into it, you'll
be safe. You'll have periods of time during this dock that is
fixed. In this application, it's going to fixed, it will be
held off of, will be held higher than the tide: Which that
height is going to be the same thing as proposed by in past
applications, not necessarily by this application, but in past
applications, as proposed by the Board at a fixed elevation, it's
going to be at one fixed elevation. You'll be up here. In this
elevation. So the tide goes down, the dock is still up here. If
you have a fixed dock, the dock will be floating down, it will
be lower. It's just•a safer application to this.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Can you explain to me how a boat with
an 18-inch draft will not damage the bottom of 16 inches of water
at low tide?
MR. PATANJO: I can't explain that.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Keep in mind, that's 18-inches of draft dry.
Board of Trustees 73 March 20, 2019
There's no fuel, no coolers of beer, no life preservers, no people,
no fishing rods.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This is not a question. I would like to point
out your reasoning, or so-called response to Trustee Krupski's
question, you still didn't answer the question. Essentially the
chocked float is a fixed dock. So it's going to be fixed at this
elevation and the tide will move up and down and it will have a
separation that will be, by your own words, will be unsafe.
MR. PATANJO: I don't believe that's my own words. It's going to
be fixed at low tide. At high tide, it's going to be floating.
And at mid high tide it will be floating.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Not correct. It's not going to be fixed at just
low tide. It will be fixed for the majority of the day.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I do have a question, if I may. You are
talking about a float that is chocked up. The vessel that you
described probably has somewhat in the ballpark of three foot of
free board, so as the tide goes down and the float and tide go
down, at some point the dock will stop and the boat will
continue to sink, and the rub rail, as the boat flares out, that
rub rail will get caught on the dock. How does the applicant
propose to mitigate that situation?
MR. PATANJO: They would actually have rubber bumpers, which is
typical in the boating industry, to hold the float, the dock—the proposed
boat off of the float.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: But the typical bumper on that would be ten to
12 inches width, and as the "V" comes up, that void, that the
bumper doesn't cover that void, so most likely the rub rail of
that vessel would get caught on the flat edge of that dock. One,
possibly, depending on the weight of the vessel, damaging the
chock or again tipping the vessel. You just have, I wouldn't
say it because you don't have enough water. You have 12 to 16
inches of water. But it just, that would be a concern of mine.
As a boat owner with a very similar size, you know, my boat does have
a pretty deep "V," it looks like they are looking at a sport fish
boat, which has a deep W." So my concern is the rub rail
getting caught on the dock, unless you'll have either whips or--
MR. PATANJO: I would say maybe they'll install whips, but the
same question would go to any previous application that was
approved by the Board of Trustees.for a dock in the similar
situation. How do they deal with the situation of separating the
dote (sic). Dote? That's not a word. The boat from the float.
How is that approved in previous applications?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think we covered a lot of ground here
and I think we covered a lot of issues concerning particular vessel
use and concerns from the bottom. There is a lot to take in.
There is large LWRP report. And I think it would be wise that we
would close the hearing and have some time to review the
voluminous report to provide an opportunity for the applicant to
address any of the -- okay. So, we can close the hearing. We
have large volume of information. We'll then review our files,
and then schedule a subsequent meeting to make a determination.
Board of Trustees 74 March 20, 2019
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I have something I would like to add before
that motion gets made.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll withdraw my motion.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Based on reviewing this and discussions today
I think it would make sense to get an updated LWRP based on the
significant different plans from the original design. So we
would like to get a new LWRP report based on the current application.
MR. PATANJO: Question. SEQRA determination. You guys were
determined as lead agency. Has a determination been made on
SEQRA?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There has been a prior determination with
regard to SEQRA for this application. That review is still -- as
this is an amendment of the previous application, that decision
is still binding at this time. However, it's up for review.
MR. PATANJO: What is the lead time for SEQRA reviews?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To be determined. The lead time for the SEQRA
review is in the statute and we have already determined what the
SEQRA determination is for this application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time I think we do have a large
amount of information here. We can go over the file and additional
information and the issues that were raised at tonight's hearing. I make
a motion to close this hearing and review the materials, take it under
consideration for the next time, for a meeting scheduled, to make a
determination.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 19 Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
THOMAS V. PERILLO, JR. & CHRISTOPHER PERILLO requests a
Wetland Permit to remove the existing block wall and install 100
linear feet of rock revetment consisting of 4-5 ton lower course stone
and 2-3 ton upper course stone placed in an interlocking manner,
landward of the Mean High Water line; and to install and
perpetually maintain a 10'wide non-turf buffer along the
landward edge of the rock revetment.
Located: 1400 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
SCTM# 1000-145-2-17.4
The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an
inspection however reviewed the plans and supports the
application with a ten-foot non-turf vegetated buffer.
The Trustees conducted an inspection on March 12th, noting
that this project is a straightforward revetment project, that
ties into the neighbors to the east and west. And it's the same
project as already approved for the neighbor's property. It's
just a continuation of one long revetment.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. Happy to
answer any questions you may have.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
Board of Trustees 75 March 20, 2019
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comment from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).'
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 20, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of JOSEPH
& MAUREEN COOGAN requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing
5'x42' fixed dock and construct a 5'x30' fixed dock in same
location as existing; re-install existing 30"x14' aluminum ramp;
re-install existing 6'x20' floating dock situated in an "I" configuration;
install two double 10" diameter pile clusters to support floating dock;
and install a total of four(4) double 10" diameter pile clusters to be utilized
as tie-off piles.
Located: 1875 Calves Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-48
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application and noted they would like to see through-flow
decking and a vegetated non-turf buffer.
The Trustees visited this site on March 12th and noted that
the dock was honoring the pier line with the same location as
the old float and vessel.
Is there anyone here to speak regarding this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. Again, as
discussed, it is a remove and replace existing float, just with
a different configuration. The pier line has not been modified.
We do have a DEC permit and as well as New York State Department '
of State and Army Corps of Engineers permit for the application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you removing and replacing the fixed dock?
MR. PATANJO: Yes, the fixed dock will be removed and replaced
with a new application -- new fixed dock. It will be shortened
length. The fixed dock will be shortened with a new ramp and the
floating dock will be just spun. That's all.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So basically to bring it up to code and current
compliance, can we go to thru-flow on that?
MR. PATANJO: Thru-flow, I'll say won't be required in that
application due to the fact there is zero wetlands there. The
existing dock, which is permitted right now, does not have
thru-flow. We are actually reducing, there is no thru-flow
on the existing dock. I'm looking at it,right now. No
thru-flow on the existing dock existing. We just had a
bulkhead permit issued the bulkhead has since been installed as
you saw on your site inspection. It's a sand bottom. There is
Board of Trustees 76 March 20, 2019
zero wetlands, zero wetlands within the area. It's a sand-bottom.
There is no chance of wetland growing in that area. So I would say
we are proposing to keep it as a non-treated decking surface.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why is there no chance of wetland growing
there? Just curious.,
MR. PATANJO: Just based on the area. Wetlands and -- maybe John
Bredemeyer can help me out here. The wetlands don't only grow
where they are established currently.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The historic issue with the fetch problem
there is because the prior issue of not being able to pre-fill the
groins to protect Town and Jockey Creek. But I can actually see
on the map you are seeing areas of Spartina. Sometimes they are
hiding in the edges or on the lower side or leeward side of the
existing bulkheads. And actually in front of some areas. So it's,
I think it may be in flux. Thru-flow would not hurt and it
might provide an opportunity if the grass is settled in there
naturally.
MR. PATANJO: I can understand the fact that it would not hurt.
The majority of this dock is over the new fixed pier section.
There is a section, it's 30-foot long. If the Board is amenable
to approval of this application, we can propose a thru-flow
decking on the seaward terminus of the 30-foot of deck.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So you are talking about the fixed pier?
MR. PATANJO: Yes, sir.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So from the end of the new bulkhead area
to the end of the dock. You would be open to thru-flow?
MR. PATANJO: Correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Are you replacing the pilings and everything?
MR. PATANJO: Yes, sir. It's a full, new reconstruction.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, being that it's a full reconstruction, would
you bring it up to today's dock standards which is a four-foot
wide width as opposed to the five-foot wide that is proposed?
MR. PATANJO: Well, you know, the existing dock is five-foot wide
as proposed, which is actually permitted. And the applicant
would like to maintain the five-foot wide as permitted as in
place. We are okay with going with the five-foot wide as it is
and would modify the application to allow for a permeable
decking, which is thru-flow decking. Which would mitigate the
question of just allowing the sunlight through to the bottom.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: If I'm not mistaken, knowing this area very
well,'it's a pre-existing non-conforming dock that has been
forever and a day, correct?
MR. PATANJO: I disagree. Because this dock was recently
permitted, and I believe Angela from Greenport Docks has a
recent resubmission on this dock for the floating dock as well
as the new dock. It was recently approved. So it was recently
approved by the Board of Trustees, I would say within the past
year-and-a-half, two years. This new application comes before
you because of the fact of we redid the bulkhead, several months
ago, say six, seven months ago, we did the bulkhead. This new
Board of Trustees 77 March 20, 2019
application is for the replacement of the existing float, the
relocation of the float, and the restoration of the existing
dock. It's to make a stable environment. It's to, so you can a
have a new dock in a new location configuration that is approved
by, recommended by the landowner, as well as and in combination
with what you are requesting, is fixed, thru-flow decking. So_
the application does not include thru-flow decking. We are
okay with going with through-flow decking on the 30 foot
portion. Which would help with wetlands and will help with
benthic life.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any thoughts from the Board on the
width of the dock before we move forward?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: My opinion is if you are just replacing the
pilings and replacing the entire dock, you should bring it up to
today's standards. Which is the four foot. That's my thoughts.
That's not an inconvenience if you are replacing everything
anyway, you can make it four-foot wide.
MR. PATANJO: So if the piling are in acceptable condition, we'll
leave the pilings and we'll remove and replace the girders and
stringers and decking, if that's okay with the Board.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would your client consider going down to four
foot?
MR. PATANJO: I believe it's pre-existing and I believe my client
would like to maintain the,pre-existing which was pre-approved
by the Board of Trustees
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right. I had to ask.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This may be a practical issue, the current
state of the art in thru-flow is -- does it come in five
foot? It comes in four and three. It's something to look into.
MR. PATANJO: We'll make it work.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If it ends up being a problem, you can come
back for an amendment. So, all right, so we would need new plans
for the thru-flow. No, we don't. I believe we cleared that
up tonight. I apologize. All right, is there anyone else here who
wishes to comment on this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no one else, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I make a motion to approve this application
with the stipulation that thru-flow decking is used.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make sure you write that down so you remember
it.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of STEPHEN & HEIDI
DISTANTE requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing northerly
timber bulkhead and returns, and install 30 linear feet of new
Board of Trustees 78 March 20, 2019
vinyl bulkhead with an 8 linear foot vinyl return and a 16
linear foot vinyl return in-place with a raised height of 18";
remove existing southerly timber bulkhead and returns, and
install 46 linear feet of new vinyl bulkhead with two (2) 16
linear foot long vinyl bulkhead returns in-place with a raised
height of 18"; and to install and perpetually maintain a 10'
wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of both bulkheads.
Located: 260 Sunset Way, Southold. SCTM# 1000-91-1-6
On 3/12/19, all Trustees visited the site. All said the
application looks okay. Maybe only 12 inches higher.
The LWRP coordinator found this application to be
consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council supports the
application as submitted.
Is there anybody here who wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. I would
be happy to answer any questions you have.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Any,questions or concerns from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I believe we felt that the 18-inches was a
little high for this application. Would you consider going to 12?
MR. PATANJO: Sure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I believe it didn't match up with the
neighboring property that well, going up to 18, and 12 would
alleviate that issue.
MR. PATANJO: What application are we on, 260 or 370?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: 260.
MR. PATANJO: Okay. The neighboring property is 370. We are
trying to implement a rise in bulkhead heights, which has been
the standard of the industry. DEC is approving and I have
permits for both of these applicants.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I know DEC always goes up to 18. 1 can
appreciate that.
MR. PATANJO: They go 18. 18's the word.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just think for this specific site that 12
would be more appropriate.
MR. PATANJO: Is there a reason why you think 12 over 18 would be
different?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there a letter in the file on one of
these jobs?
MR. PATANJO: I have DEC permits for both of these applications,
this and the following application, which approved 18 inches of
rise in the bulkhead height. The rise in bulkhead heights on
these applications makes sense to me going 18 inches. The rising
tides have definitely impacted society in the waterfront
communities. There is no, in my opinion, in my professional
opinion, there is no reason to deny that difference of six
inches of height for a raise of a bulkhead when it doesn't
change any environmental impact to the surrounding community.
It only protects the properties better. I have done 22 bulkheads
in the Village of Amityville. I did five bulkheads in the
Board of Trustees 79 March 20, 2019
Village of Babylon. It's all waterfront communities. We raised
the elevation 4.9, which is the standard in, it's the 100-year
flood elevation. Elevation 4.9.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is a letter in the file. I'm not sure
which one.
MR. PATANJO: Is it 4.9?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With respect to the notion of, we understand
that in the name of coastal resiliency and climate change, but
by the same token, in some cases, low-lying communities such as
New Suffolk and Orient, you provide that additional resiliency
and you have overtopping tides, street floods and water can
never leave and a whole bunch of other issues, and failed
sanitary systems for a longer period of time because the
flooding is not alleviated when you bring water up and over it.
So there is a lot of discussion going forward. But in this case
we have a letter in the file with a neighbor's concerns.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I don't see a letter in the file.
MR. PATANJO: My clients are going to raise their bulkheads, 260
and 370, they'll raise the bulkheads. Which adds to the
resiliency to the community. If every, every other land owner raises
their bulkheads, we'll have complete resiliency for the
community. So they are the initiative of this resiliency efforts.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So the point, Mike --the point Trustee
Bredemeyer was making, which I think is well taken. Not every
property in the community is bulkheaded. Actually very few are.
So the water, the tide, as you know rises and will go around
them like it go did with the jetties in New Orleans. So what
happened there, was the water got set, and Trustee Bredemeyer was
making this point, I'm just giving you an example, was making
this point, that the water gets trapped behind them like a
swimming pool and doesn't drain. And that creates a huge amount
of problems long-term. And this is a very low-lying neighborhood.
I can appreciate the homeowners trying to protect their
properties, but there has to be a little give and take on that,
and I think the 12 inches is more appropriate for that location.
But I'm just one Trustee.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: No, two. If we raise the bulkhead 18 inches,
it will be higher than the house itself.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I have to support both Trustee Goldsmith and
Trustee Krupski on the comment. You are entitled to your
opinion.'You are entitled to your professional opinion. But the
facts are if you only raise one of these properties 18 inches,
the water will go around it and it doesn't provide any
resiliency for the community. It would only occur if you did the
entire area. That's one point. Again, the house, I was going to,
are you going to raise the house? Because if you raise the
bulkhead 18 inches it will be higher than the house. We didn't
have a level there, but we took the opportunity to back off and
eyeball it from the side, and I believe the Trustees will
support me and say that this would be, if not exactly level with
the house, greater than the house. And therefore provide more
Board of Trustees 80 March 20, 2019
problems than it will solve.
MR. PATANJO: Agreed. I'll raise the bulkhead 12 inches. Make
that a condition of the permit requirements. Approved.
MR. HAGAN: We need a new plan.
MR. PATANJO: Why do we need a new plan?Why didn't we need a new
plan on the last one? _
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On the current plan does it show a side profile
with the elevation or can we just change the description? No,
we have it down here.
TRUSTEE PATANJO: I have a DEC approval right here approving 18 inch
maximum. Can the permit approval be modified, outlined in lieu
of 18 inches maximum as provided on the associated drawings in
lieu of 18 inches maximum height above existing bulkhead to
maximum of 12 inches above existing bulkhead?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: There are note on the plans. I see it says 18
maximum, but this note says 18 inches above the existing. So
that is the issue for us. We cannot accept it. Subject to
submission new plans. It has to be the correct plans.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Jeff, based on --
MR. HAGAN: Just wait a second.
(After a brief pause, these proceedings continue as follows).
MR. HAGAN: Okay.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Mr. Patanjo, based on the discussion would you
be willing to table the application for the submission of new
plans to the 12 inches?
MR. PATANJO: No, I want you to issue an approval based on 12
inches of height with an approval based on 12 inches maximum.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Unfortunately, we are not able to do that.
MR. PATANJO: Okay. This is a small revision. This is a
straightforward application. I presented an 18-inch above
existing height for my application for the bulkhead. I agreed to,
at this public hearing, I agreed to maintaining 12 inches
maximum above existing elevation, which was represented to me as
approvable. Why are we going to have revised plans and changing
this application process?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The Town Attorney has instructed, the Town
Attorney instructs us, we can no longer approve an application
subject to the submission of new plans. Therefore, understanding
that 12 inches is acceptable to us and you, and is in line with
what the Trustees are requesting, we still cannot approve.
Subject to new plans. We have to wait until those plans are
before us and we have to act on the plans that are before us.
It's a conundrum, but that's-where we are at.
MR. PATANJO: I'm going to say you need to change the application
process before the Board because this is, this is not something
that is conducive to normal life for applicants.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Please contact the head Town Attorney on that
and relay your comments. I've said that before to multiple
expediters, including you, and you should contact him. I'm not
saying I disagree with you, so.
MR. PATANJO: Absolutely. So where do we lie right now?
Board of Trustees 81 March 20, 2019
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Well, option one is you can say you don't want
to table and we can vote on the application as it's submitted,
or you can request to table and at that point in time submit new
plans depicting 12-inch raised, which would then be discussed at
next month's meeting.
MR. PATANJO: Table the application, please.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to table this application at
the applicant's request.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 22, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of FRANK &
CHRISTINE MANGANO request a Wetland Permit to remove existing
timber bulkhead and associated returns, and install 87 linear
feet of new vinyl bulkhead, a new northerly 20 linear foot vinyl
return and a new southerly 6 linear foot vinyl return in-place
with a raised height of 18"; and to install and perpetually
maintain a 6' wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of
the bulkhead.
Located: 370 Sunset Way, Southold. SCTM# 1000-91-1-7
The Trustees did a field inspection on March 12th and
essentially the notes are disregard the request to reduce the
non-turf buffer to six feet, and the bulkhead does not need to
be 18 inches higher. 12 inches might do.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved on February 6th
to support the application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. I would
want to agree with a 12-inch raised height on the bulkhead and I
would like to table the application in lieu of revised plans
representing 12-inches of raised height, which is one change of
dimension on my plans.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I believe we had an issue with the buffer on
this one, which is easily correctible.
On the plans there is, you are asking for a six-foot wide
non-turf buffer, which is, I believe because the pool goes into
the buffer area, however, the pool structure landward of the
fence is not turf. So it should just be struck across as a ten-foot
wide non-turf buffer.
MR. PATANJO: Okay. Ten-foot wide non-turf buffer. Approved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Just to make it clear that we understand each
other, what we are requesting here, because if it comes back
with plans that don't reflect that, you'll lose another month.
Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to table this
hearing.
Board of Trustees 82 March 20, 2019
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO:All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
0
Michael J. Domino, President
Board of Trustees
i