HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-03/22/2006
James F. King, President
Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President
Peggy A. Dickerson
Dave Bergen
John Holzapfel
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
RECEIV.:D ,. j.&c1
/;2/oc,-.,om
MINUTES
C4~/Jft~~
Soulhvid Tc,v;n Clerk
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
6:30 PM
Present were: James King, President
Jill Doherty, Vice-President
Peggy Dickerson, Trustee
Dave Bergen, Trustee
John Holzapfel, Trustee
E. Brownell Johnston, Esq.
Assistant Town Attorney for Trustees
Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant
Heather Cusack, Environmental Technician
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 8:00 a.m.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to Approve,
TRUSTEE BERGEN Seconded. ALL AYES.
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 at 6:30 p.m.
WORK SESSION: 5:30 p.m.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY moved to Approve,
TRUSTEE DICKERSON Seconded. ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY moved to Approve minutes of December, 2005.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON Seconded. (ALL AYES except Trustee
Holzapfel abstained)
I. MONTHLY REPORT: For February, 2006. A check for
$5,436.64 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the
General Fund.
Board of Trustees
2
March 22, 2006
II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town
Clerk's Bulletin Board for review.
TRUSTEE KING: Welcome to our March meeting, 2006. I'd like
to introduce the Board first, Dave Bergen down on the far
left; Peggy Dickerson; Jill Doherty, myself, Lauren
Standish, our office manager; John Holzapfel; Brownell
Johnston, our legal advisor, and Heather, our environmental
technician.
Just a few things I'd like to say, I know a lot of
you are regulars here and you've heard this before, I don't
want to sound like a broken record. We're making some
changes to our code. We drafted changes to Chapter 97,
which is our wetland code, held public hearings, and enacted
it in 2004, made some minor revisions to it in 2005. Right
now we're drafting changes, it seems to be there was a rumor
floating around that we were going to make a lot of changes
to Chapter 97. If we are, it's news to me. There have been
no changes made, and I don't think there were any planned
changes to be made to Chapter 97. It might have been
Chapter 77 which we do have draft changes coming on that,
the shellfish code. I think there might have been some
confusion between 77 and 97. There's no plans to make draft
changes to 97. The previous Board, we worked very hard on
this, probably tuned it up a little bit but nothing
serious. We're drafting a new mooring code that's going to
be taking some time, and that's mostly it. Dave has been
very active trying to get some dredging projects done on the
bay. Dave, maybe you can tell them a little bit about that
because I think it's important.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have been working very closely with the
county. For those who aren't familiar with it, the county
has one dredging rig for the county, the hydraulic dredge,
certain creeks and estuaries that have been approved -- the
mouths of creeks and estuaries, not the entire creeks but
the inlets. We have been working very hard with them since
November, and they're currently on Little Creek. Little
Creek is the fourth creek they have done for the town of
Southold, which is pretty amazing if you think that that rig
has to take care of other towns also. We've gotten four
done with Little Creek. We are hoping because of our
limitations of April 1 st for the piping plovers which is
coming up rapidly, we're hoping to get another creek done.
We've made a lot of progress with that. We're also going
before the dredge screening committee to look at putting
into the system a couple other creeks that aren't currently
2
,
Board of Trustees
3
March 22, 2006
in the county system as creeks eligible for them to dredge.
It's got to go through the dredge screening committee first
at the county, and if the county approves that then the
county can good go forward and look at getting permits to do
those creeks. The Army Corps permit can take up to two
years to get an Army Corps permit. So it's not something if
we get permission today you're going to see a dredge over
there tomorrow, it could be a couple of years out. But we
need to plan for the future and serve the residents of
Southold with their needs of having the creeks open.
TRUSTEE KING: Thanks, Dave. Another issue that we have
been trying to address is road runoff projects, that's one
of the main sources of shellfish closures. Right now we
have two DEC permits in place, one project in Mattituck and
one in Cutchogue. We're pursuing that. And also have been
looking into the possibility of pump-out boat.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you want me to talk about that?
TRUSTEE KING: Sure.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We've also proposed to the Town Board
the possibility of getting a pump-out boat for the Town.
Dave and I have been working on getting some of the facts
and figures for that. Dave has done a lot of work looking
into specific types of boats and also matching grants. And
when we went to the Board two, three weeks ago they were
extremely supportive but wanted us to get more facts and
details. So that's what we're in the process of doing so,
we will continue to pursue that very actively with the hopes
of getting a Southold Town pump-out boat.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are very fortunate we have a couple
local marinas that are willing to help us with some of the
costs involved in that. So this is truly going to be a
partnership we feel between the community and the Town
getting this pump-out boat into operation.
TRUSTEE KING: Two other items, if you go on the North Road
Mattituck on Route 48, you notice a large project going on
at the head of the creek, it's a county project; that is the
worst site of pollution for Mattituck Creek. It's finally
getting fixed, it's been 10 years in the making, but it's
going to be a nice project getting done.
Also in Mattituck, Peterson's Marina has been
bought by the DEC. It's going eventually to be a public
ramp there, park land, some observation-type things for
students and kids, that whole area is being cleaned up.
I think we're making progress and I think we're
starting to pay attention to water quality and try to clean it
up. I think we're gaining. With that we'll start our
3
Board of Trustees
4
March 22, 2006
meeting. Thank you.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
Basilio Esposito SCTM#53-4-7
Nancy Bradley & Jeanine Murphy SCTM#103-13-5.4
James Orioli & Susan Magg Orioli SCTM#116-7-4
Mary DiGregorio SCTM#136-1-36
Manzi Homes SCTM#121-4-24
Emanuel Arturi SCTM#126-11-13
Nancy Carroll SCTM#90-1-21
John Xikis SCTM#44-1-13
A. Shelly Tupper SCTM#87-3-41
Belvedere Property Management, LLC SCTM#117 -8-19
David Bergen SCTM#119-1-2
Love Lane Acquisition Corp. SCTM#117-8-18
Shirley Kram SCTM#90-1-2
Richard DeMott SCTM#138-2-16
Susan & Louis Valente SCTM#126-11-4
Susan & Dennis Donlin SCTM#104-3-12
Estate of Eileen O. Goldner SCTM#56-5-22
Rosemary & Sebastian Avolese SCTM#111-14-24
John Corbley SCTM#104-7-3
Evan Akselrad SCTM#47-2-27
IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
1. ERNEST SCHNEIDER requests an Administrative Permit to
cut the phragmites to 1', as necessary, and light pruning
for a 3' to 4' path to the water. Located: 1015 Lakeside
Drive North, Southold. SCTM#90-4-5
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I went and looked at this, the phragmites
were not an issue, the pruning of a path to the water was for
a proposed dock that was going to be staked out, but upon
review it had not been staked out yet. So my suggestion is
that the applicant when he applies for the dock, at the same
time applies for the pathway to the dock and that we
consider them both together because there was nothing there
to show when we were down there where this path was going to
be. The only other thing the applicant asked me was with
regard to pruning, dead vines on the trees, which I had no
problem with; and he asked if it was okay to remove the hay
bales and silt screen that was put up for the construction
of the house, which that construction was finished a while
ago; that was not an issue.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Was the path going to go to the dock or
to the back?
4
Board of Trustees
5
March 22, 2006
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The path was going to go to the dock. What
he explained to me, he wanted a path from his driveway to
his dock, but he didn't know the location of the dock at
that point in time, so he didn't know where the path was
going to go. He was going to talk to his contractor to find
out where the best location was for that dock because he
didn't know where the deepest water was, where the best
location was.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is this the one we discussed about the
dock, the path going -- I'm questioning whether the path be
on this permit or --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I'm saying, I recommend removal
of that from this permit so this permit is limited to
cutting the phragmites as necessary to within one foot.
TRUSTEE KING: Is that a motion?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm sorry. I make a motion to approve this
with the change that's limited to cutting the phragmites to
one foot as necessary.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
2. FRANK SCAVONE requests an Administrative Permit
to trim the phragmites to 12" as necessary. Located: 430
West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM#103-13-3
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We all looked at this. I don't think we
had a problem with the trimming, but I believe there's a
planting plan that has to be put in first. So we'll
condition it on the replanting being done first.
TRUSTEE KING: The buffer area is planted up and restored.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. There's a buffer area that had
been quite a bit of cutting done. Is there anyone here to
speak to this? Okay. So I'm going to make a motion to
approve the request for an Administrative Permit to trim the
phragmites to 12" with the condition that -- is there a
planting plan? This is just the file for the cutting. This
just has where he's going to cut.
TRUSTEE KING: There was a little set of plans.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So we do have it?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll condition it to the planting plan
that has already been submitted and approved. The planting
must be done before the trimming of the phragmites.
MR. JOHNSTON: I'm unclear what the resolution is.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the
Administrative Permit on the condition that the planting be
planted per the planting plan prior to the phragmites being
5
Board of Trustees
6
March 22, 2006
cut.
MR. JOHNSTON: So you won't give the Administrative Permit
to the applicant for trimming the phragmites until you've
seen that they have done the planting, right?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
3. LILLIAN BALL requests an Administrative Permit to
cut the phragmites around Great Pond and maintenance trim
around the deck. Located: 2045 Lake Drive,
Southold. SCTM#59-5-4
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The maintenance trim would be the bushes
she has right in front of the deck leading down into the
pond. We looked at this, and I'm not sure what direction.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This was approved; this was not.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We had no problem with trimming the
phragmites to 12" on the south -- towards the south of the
property but not to the east, there's two pieces. So I make
a motion that we grant the Administrative Permit to cut
phragmites on the south side of the property and maintenance
trim the bushes in front of the deck.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES
MS. CUSACK: Jill, would you just mark it on the survey for
us?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would add that we inspect it in a year.
MR. JOHNSTON: Peggy, did you want to do that on the second
one in your motion, have something similar?
TRUSTEE KING: We should go out.
MR. JOHNSTON: David, did you want something similar to that
on the first one you did?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We should add that on to be consistent.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If we do that, are we adding it to our
inspections or are we adding it to --
TRUSTEE KING: What is going to be the process of how we do
it.
MR. JOHNSTON: It's an Administrative Permit so --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, but
if we do it and be consistent, is it going to add to our
inspection days or add to Heather's workload or what is it
going to add to?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we're going to have to do is put a
notation on the calendar for one year out to look at that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm saying, is it for the Board, is it
administrative?
6
Board of Trustees
7
March 22, 2006
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think it should be administrative myself,
that's myself feeling. I don't know that we need the full
Board to go out there and look at every one of these
properties. We can handle that within our own geographical
jurisdictions that we've talked about.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is this something we're going to do
consistently?
TRUSTEE KING: I think it's a good idea to check it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm not saying it's not, I'm just
looking at the logistics of it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's in the Chapter 97 with our permits.
We can add it under the compliance section of Chapter 97
because that's basically in there already, and then when it
comes up on the calendar --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It can also be added on the section on
the phragmites.
MR. JOHNSTON: You're going to put that in the permit, some
inspection, right?
TRUSTEE KING: Sure.
MR. JOHNSTON: Then you're going to reopen number 1 to do
that, right?
TRUSTEE KING: Go back to the number 1.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We finished with number 3. Let's make sure
we finished with 3. I'll make a motion to reopen Number 1,
Ernest Schneider, request for Administrative Permit.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'd like to amend that slightly to say that
we wish to come back in one year to review the property.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All the in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to reopen Frank
Scavone's request for Administrative Permit to trim
phragmites to 12 inches and amend it to a one-year
inspection be required.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
4. SANDRA KRAC & JUDITH PEREZ request an
Administrative Permit to install an 8' by 12' prefabricated
shed. Located: 490 Northfield Lane, Southold. SCTM#79-3-4.2
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I went out and looked at this. There was
no posting of notice of this hearing. There were also no
stakes. So it wasn't staked out at all. There was nobody
home that I could consult with. So I make a motion that
this be postponed -- tabled, I'm sorry. Make a motion it
7
Board of Trustees
8
March 22, 2006
be tabled.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES.
5. Ellen Roche on behalf of JAMES O'AOOARIO
requests an Administrative Permit to construct a new kitchen
addition to the existing dwelling. Located: 8960 Peconic
Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM#126-5-6
TRUSTEE KING: Jill and I both looked at this, didn't have a
problem with this. I recommend approval.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
6. Charles Farrell on behalf of PAUL KATZ requests
an Administrative Permit to construct a 4'6" by 10' foyer on
the east side of the existing dwelling. Located: 100 Mill
Road, Mattituck. SCTM#113-4-2
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm familiar with this house and the east
side in the landward side, the road side, and the whole
house is in front of all this. So it's a small, like I say
a foyer addition. I see no problem with this, there's
plenty of planting in this area. I move to approve this
Administrative Permit.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
V. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENOMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS:
1. PETER & GRACE GORMAN request an Amendment to
Permit #6110 to rotate the lower portion of the stairs so
that the foot of the stair is within 3' of the toe of the
bluff. Located: 440 Windward Road, Orient.
SCTM#14-2-30.6
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of
this application? This was just a change, I think it was
required by the DEC to the stairway. I don't think it's a
problem at all. I would make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
2. LORETTA HINOERLlNG requests an Amendment to
Permit 5778 to include the existing 9.3' plus/minus by 19.8'
plus/minus deck and to install a deck landward of the
bulkhead as a nonturf buffer. Located: 1325 Smith Drive
North, Southold. SCTM# 76-2-2.5
TRUSTEE KING: I looked at this in the office and spoke to
8
Board of Trustees
9
March 22, 2006
the applicant. The bulkhead was kind of a different shape
and she didn't have a nonturf buffer behind it like she was
supposed to, and I told her how to do it, and then she
wanted to know if she could have a deck over the nonturf
buffer, and I said, yes. So I would recommend approval.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
3. DEBRA LACHANCE requests an Amendment to Permit
5845 to include the renovation of the first floor with a 5'
by 16' extension onto the existing house, and as per plans
last revised February 23, 2006. Located: 630 Ruch Lane,
Southold. SCTM#52-2-26
TRUSTEE KING: I went out and looked at that too, Dave, it
was fairly small, it was really necessary to do. I didn't
have a problem with it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I went out there and agree. I'll make
a motion to approve it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did you want gutters on there?
TRUSTEE KING: It was a second story that we approved, and
they found so much rot and termite damage.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES
4. DAVID BERGEN requests an Amendment to Permit
4176 to repair the existing bulkhead and stairs.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I inspected this and it clearly is bowed
out, and is in need of repair before it totally blows out.
So I make a motion to approve this.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
MR. JOHNSTON: Can we do a roll call?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: Aye.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I've recuse myself from the beginning.
I already filed the necessary paperwork at Town Hall.
5. Docko, Inc. on behalf of BARBARA HOCH requests
an Amendment to Permit #5973 to include the partial
reconstruction of the seawall and then to re-face the
seawall with a concrete cap and steel sheet pile toe.
Located: Hedge Street, Fishers Island. SCTM#10-7-14
TRUSTEE KING: We've been out there a couple times looking
at that, I don't know if you remember, Peg. We stood on the
dock and looked at it, the cement wall deteriorating, well,
9
Board of Trustees
10
March 22, 2006
they found more, and there's a little more work they have to
do.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. The only thing I remember is
trying to keep a little of that marsh area.
TRUSTEE KING: Right. I think that is to the left of
that. I didn't have a problem with that and I'll recommend
approval.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I want to make a note that all the ones
that we have approved so far have either been exempt or
consistent with LWRP.
6. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of EVAN
AKSELRAD requests an Amendment to Permit 5904 to include
regrading and creation of a nonturf buffer area 25' by 100'
at seaward edge of property to be contained by the
installation of a 6" high concrete retaining wall and metal
landscape edging; plantings as illustrated on
plan. Located: 1355 Shore Drive, Greenport. SCTM#47-2-27
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I would recommend that we approve this.
And also add just to the general public that personally I
think it's a well done plan of how it should be done. And
it might be used as other people to look at how you can
build up a nonturf buffer.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: There's also a letter, I'm told from a
neighbor, I have been asked by my parents -- this is to be
read into the record.
"I have been asked by my parents Joseph and Barbara
Dai, located at 1465 Shore Drive, and my aunt and uncle
John and Marie Shack, located at 1265 Shore Drive, to send a
letter to your office to address some concerns we have
regarding the property my family sold to the petitioners and
that we are adjacent to in Greenport.
"We have both received letters showing the sketch of
the intention of the property owner to cut back the land and
level it off approximately 25 feet from the existing
bulkhead location toward the new house. Our concerns are
these: The drawings and letter make a reference to a 6"
retaining wall. As we read the drawings, it is uncertain
where this wall will be located. The slope to the bulkhead
over 25 feet would seem to be significantly more than 6
inches. Additionally, we could not determine what if
anything had been planned to accommodate a potentially
significant change in water flow when the grass has been
10
Board of Trustees
11
March 22, 2006
removed.
"We would ask that the Board of Trustees insure that
the permit require adequate retaining walls at both sides of
the subject property to retain the integrity of our
property.
"Finally, we're concerned that any significant
change in the existing slopes of the land would cause runoff
that could find its way to an area behind our bulkheads at
the corners of our property. We bring this to your
attention because in the 40 years we have lived on these
lots drainage has always been a concern and has impacted the
strength and longevity of the very expensive bulkheads.
"We request that the Trustees insure the leveling of
the property show where the runoff is going, and that it
does not drain to the corners of our property. This may
require installations of drains through the petitioner's
bulkhead to prevent the runoff from damaging our bulkhead.
"We would like to thank the Board of Trustees for
their time with this matter."
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: John, I just wanted to note that with
regard to the 6" high concrete, we had asked about that in
the field and the concrete wall will be approximately three
feet high but only sticking out of the ground six
inches. Just to clarify that.
MS. MESIANO: I have the sections that you asked for.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: When did that letter come into the office
that was just read?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It says March 21st.
MR. JOHNSTON: It was faxed.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yesterday.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It says March 21st, 1:13 p.m. I think
we discussed this and answered most of the concerns of this
letter. For the public, we have discussed this and most of
the concerns that this person has brought up are things we
brought up and we seemed to have thought we had very good
answers. So I recommend that we approve.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: Before we go any further, there's something I
have forgot. There's been a number of
postponements. Number 4, Nelson has been postponed; 5,
Julie Tsai has been postponed; 13, Jayamaha has been
postponed; 14, John Corbley has been postponed; 17, Esposito
has been postponed; 18, has been postponed; 19,20,21 have
been postponed.
7. Catherine Mesiano on behalf of MARY S. ZUPA
11
Board of Trustees
12
March 22, 2006
requests an Amendment to Permit 5636 to revegetate the 12'
non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead, and to install access
stairs to the beach. Located: 580 Basin
Road. SCTM#81-1-16.7
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the original permit we requested gravel
as a nonturf buffer, however DEC would rather see plantings,
and Miss Mesiano gave us the proper plans showing the
plantings on the survey, the planting plan; and the access
stairs are from the top of the property down to the beach on
the landward side of the bulkhead with a small access steps
down to the beach.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Has Heather approved the planting plan?
MS. CUSACK: Yes, I did.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe she has. It seems to be all in
order and I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
8. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of MARY
DIGREGORIO requests an Amendment to Permit 6120 to construct
a 4' by 64' fixed timber dock, 3' by 14' ramp and a 6' by
20' floating dock. Located: 100 Oak Street, Cutchogue.
SCTM#136-1-36
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My only comment is that you discussed
the inconsistency of LWRP, and I wasn't there for that. So
is there anything I need to know?
TRUSTEE KING: This is one we spent a lot of time last time,
last go around. We're going to keep the pier line.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. We wanted to keep the pier line,
but as far as the LWRP inconsistency, what did you discuss
on Monday?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It was inconsistent as I recall, I don't
have it in front of me. One of the inconsistencies was
exactly that, that this dock would exceed the other docks
within the pier line.
MS. MOORE: If I could, before everybody makes a decision --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just trying to review it because I
remember prior to --
MS. MOORE: Yes. We were here before and we submitted the
dock permit that you granted. The DEC rejected it and said
that it will not be approved because it doesn't go out to
two and a half feet of water. Our original application was
to three, three and a half feet of water. You brought us
back, but I have an aerial that my client provided through
Google Earth, and you can see that it actually is consistent
with the line. That's the proposed dock right here, you had
12
Board of Trustees
13
March 22, 2006
us trying to be in line with the closest two docks, but you
can see that there's a cove. These are all the docks that
are in existence, and if you take the once equidistant,
which is really about the same protrusion out, that's where
we're well under the third into the creek. So we're not
protruding into the navigable waters of the creek, but we
have from one end to the other, we draw a straight line and
it is actually consistent with the balance --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If I can interrupt you, we noticed that
and we basically felt that we made it consistent with the
changes and the review that we have done.
MS. MOORE: Which means?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We're just bringing Peggy up to speed, she
threw her back out and wasn't at the meeting and so --
TRUSTEE KING: Wait a minute, that's a misconception
here. The line is drawn between the two adjacent docks,
that's called the pier line.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jim, on the LWRP it says the 84 foot
total length proposed dock ramp float extends beyond the
existing dock line.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you see what I'm saying, Peg?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I know, but what she's going
to say is that aerial indicate that the adjacent dock
structures along the western shoreline range from 67 to 71.
I'm saying he's agreeing with what you're saying.
TRUSTEE KING: My argument is the pier line is between the
two neighboring, not one down.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. I'm agreeing with you.
MS. MOORE: If you're on a cove, it's not actually
accurate.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But Mark Terry's also agreeing with our
observations, that the 84 feet total length extends beyond
the existing dock line or limit of dock protrusion within
the water body. Aerial photographs indicate that the
adjacent dock structures along the western shoreline range
from 67 to 71 feet, 84 feet total length is beyond that pier
line.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we're all in agreement except the
applicant.
MS. MOORE: Well, you're granting something the DEC will not
allow. That's not an appropriate permit.
TRUSTEE KING: What have now, Pat?
MS. MOORE: They don't have anything.
TRUSTEE KING: If they have a dock that stays inside their
pier line, doesn't that give them a lot more than they have
now?
13
Board of Trustees
14
March 22, 2006
MS. MOORE: No, they have to be able to have their boat come
in.
TRUSTEE KING: They have a dock they can bring a boat to.
MR. DIGREGORIO: The DEC won't grant that permit.
TRUSTEE KING: I find that hard to believe.
MS. MOORE: I can give you a copy of that letter. They say
if the dock doesn't go to two and a half feet, it will not
be approved. It's as simple as that.
MR. DIGREGORIO: The agreement we had come to the last
meeting --
TRUSTEE KING: Is it the dock or the float that's not going
to be approved?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The float won't be approved, the dock is
fine.
MS. MOORE: It says here the dock must be lengthened and/or
relocated to reach a minimum low water depth of two and a
half feet at the float mooring area.
TRUSTEE KING: At the float. You can tie a boat to a dock.
You don't have to have a float; that's what the DEC is
saying. They will not issue a permit for the float because
it's less than two and a half feet to the water. They're
not saying they won't give you the dock.
MS. MOORE: They're saying here the dock must be lengthened.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: To accommodate a float.
MS. MOORE: Are you going to give us a dock that's going to
go out to two and a half feet of water?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The float hits the bottom and causes the
problem. So they're saying you can't have a float in less
than two and a half feet. We're saying you can have a dock
out to that length.
MS. MOORE: To two and a half feet?
TRUSTEE KING: We gave you the dock and the float to the
pier line.
MS. MOORE: But the pier line you're creating is based on
the cove, you're not comparing apples to apples.
TRUSTEE KING: We're comparing docks to docks.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Right. We're looking at the two
adjacent docks and so is our --
MS. MOORE: I understand that but -- the two adjacent
because there's a whole line of docks and how they have been
created or developed in that cove and it all goes in line of
the --
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We have a different opinion.
MS. MOORE: I'm giving you an aerial that shows it.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: If the cove was this big you could have
a 200 foot dock according to your theory. You can tie the
14
Board of Trustees
15
March 22, 2006
boat at the end of the dock.
MS. MOORE: Would you agree to a fixed dock to the pier
line?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's exactly what we're trying to say.
I believe that I would as long as nothing protrudes out to
that. Jim, would we agree to a fixed dock to the pier line?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's exactly what we're trying to
say.
MS. MOORE: Will that get you into the water? We'll see if
the DEC accepts that. I don't know that's what they're
going to accept.
TRUSTEE KING: I know we have fought --
MS. MOORE: I know you have, but they're not cooperating.
TRUSTEE KING: They always insisted on four feet to a float.
We got them down to two and a half feet. You can have a
seasonal float. That's the stand they took. I think we did
a pretty good job of compromising with them.
MS. MOORE: You did a great job. Why they're not approving
this one, we're doing exactly what --
TRUSTEE KING: You have to understand our position. We
established this lines, and if we let one go out, the next
guy's going to come up.
MS. MOORE: Don't penalize the one guy.
TRUSTEE KING: He's not being penalized, he's being permitted
a dock.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Our plan that we gave them is to the
pier line.
MS. MOORE: We'll keep going back to the DEC and see if they
will go along with that. It took a year to get a response.
TRUSTEE KING: On this amendment, we should make the
amendment read that the ramp and float is to be removed from
the application and the dock extended, the fixed portion
extended to the pier line.
MS. MOORE: Right. Then I'll have Bob Fox draw it to the
pier line. The pier line between the two adjacent docks.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm going to make a motion to approve
the amendment to Permit 6120 on behalf of Mary DiGregorio to
remove the amendment for a ramp and float and instead to
have the fixed dock go out to the pier line, and that is the
pier line of the adjacent docks, to neighboring docks.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
MR. JOHNSTON: Pat, seeing that he's not the applicant, as
the agent for Mary, are you agreeing?
MS. MOORE: Yes, we're asking for the amendment.
TRUSTEE KING: That makes it consistent with the LWRP
15
Board of Trustees
16
March 22, 2006
line.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We're going to be more specific on the
pier line, that they are the docks to the south and north.
MS. MOORE: You guys write it and I have to have it drawn.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We have a second from John. All in
favor? ALL AYES.
9. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of THE ESTATE OF
EILEEN O. GOLDNER requests an Amendment to Permit 6160 to
construct a 12' by 25' deck and two sets of 6' by 9' steps
no less than 75 from the wetlands. Located: 435 Bay Home
Road, Southold. SCTM#56-5-22
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I went out and looked at this and I did not
have an issue with this. There is already a natural buffer
at the bulkhead and that's going to be maintained, plus a 50
foot nondisturbance. So I make a motion to approve this.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES.
10. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of ROSEMARY &
SEBASTIAN AVOLESE requests an Amendment to Permit 5829 to
reconfigure and relocate approved, upgraded sanitary system
from 68' to 80' from wetlands. Remove and replace in-place
approximately 87 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead
with vinyl bulkhead; remove and replace and raise by 18"
in-place existing 8' by 17' step-down platform; backfill
with approximately 15 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be
trucked in from an upland source; and revegetate disturbed
buffer area with native grasses and shrubs. Located: 4150
Wunneweta Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#111-14-24
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I looked at this, it was found consistent
with LWRP. If there's a representative from En-Consultants
here, I did have one question for you regarding this new
bulkheaded area, if there's going to be a nonturf buffer in
there because I didn't seem to see that, and this property
does slope down to the water there specifically so the
installation of a bulkhead you were going to have drainage
issues.
MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on
behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Avolese. Dave -- and Jim, I'm going
to rely on your and Peggy's recollection here -- this was a
property for which we obtained approvals for additions and a
new septic system, and as part of that permit, there was a
nondisturbance/nonfertilization buffer along the entire
waterfront imposed and that was on the site plan originally
approved. That work has not yet been undertaken, so the
16
Board of Trustees
17
March 22, 2006
buffer has not yet been established. So to try to account
for that in this bulkhead plan, we're basically indicating
that the disturbed area, which is really a cleared area now,
but the area that is disturbed back there that is supposed
to be maintained as a buffer will be vegetated and
established as the buffer. So there is a proposed buffer
there that was proposed as part of the upland renovation.
So one way or the other when this project is finished at
least that portion of the buffer will be established and the
balance of it will be established when they do the
renovation. So it's a long way to say yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Then I make a motion to approve this
application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Jim, can I group the next in order for a
little speed here?
TRUSTEE KING: Let's try it.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: What I'm going to do is take the next
four and do them all at once, if anybody has particular
points, but I don't think there will be.
11. En-Consultant, Inc. of behalf of BROADBLUE,
LLC requests the last One-Year Extension to Permit #5752, as
issued on April 30, 2003. Located: 230 Wiggins Lane,
Greenport. SCTM#35-4-25
12. STEPHEN BURNHAM requests a One-Year Extension
to Permit #5900, as issued on April 21,2004. Located:
Madeline Avenue, Fishers Island. SCTM#6-7-12
13. John Bertani Builder, Inc. on behalf of W.
BRUCE BOLLMAN requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #5901,
as issued on April 21,2004 and amended on December 21,
2005. Located: 1755 Truman's Path, East Marion.
SCTM#31-13-4
14. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of
RENE PONCET FITZPATRICK requests a One-Year Extension to
Permit #5919, as issued on May 26,2004. Located: 360
Wiggins Lane, Greenport. SCTM#35-4-28.3
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I offer those four up for approval.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES.
17
Board of Trustees
18
March 22, 2006
15. DOUGLAS & KELLY MYERS request a Transfer of
Permit #1739 from Marjorie L. Hegeman to Douglas & Kelly
Myers, as issued on October 11, 1983. Located: 1730 Deep
Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM#115-12-23.2
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I looked at that. I reviewed the file and
all the structures are still there, and there are pictures.
It still exists.
TRUSTEE KING: Everything looks all right. I'll make a
motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
16. JOHN P. DUMBLlS requests a Transfer of Permit
#1918 from Stanley Chase to John P. Dumblis as issued on
November 26,1984. Located: 1475 Point Pleasant Road,
Mattituck. SCTM#114-1-5.2
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve the Transfer.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE HOLZPAFEL: I'm going to once again group the next
three in trying to expedite a little bit.
17. Paul A. Caminiti, Esq. on behalf of PHILIP &
LORRAINE SABALJA requests a Transfer of Permit #1650 from
Anchor Lane, LLC to Philip and Lorraine Sabalja, as issued
on July 22,1983 and amended on January 19, 2005. Located:
1615 Anchor Lane, Southold. SCTM# 79-4-6.1
18. Rudolph Bruer, Esq. on behalf ofTHE ESTATE OF
JOHN SIMEONI requests a Transfer of Permit #523 from John
Simeoni to IVANKA ANDONOV, as issued on March 17,
1969. Located: 550 Jockey Creek Drive,
Southold. SCTM#70-5-10
19. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of JOSEPH
DISALVO requests a Transfer of Permit #6136 from Aspsia
Israfil & Vivian Lindermayer to Joseph DiSalvo, as issued on
May 18, 2005. Located: 17877 Soundview Avenue, Southold.
SCTM#51-1-14
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I make a motion to approve all three.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'm going to open Number 19 for one
moment for a correction.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
18
Board of Trustees
19
March 22, 2006
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: In terms of Joseph DiSalvo, the name
should read Leo Borio Realty, LLC care of Joseph DiSalvo; I
make a motion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES.
VI. RESOLUTIONS -- OTHER
1. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf
of CARLA STARCIC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
single-family dwelling and deck. Located: 205 Private Road
#3, Southold. SCTM# 70-6-9
TRUSTEE KING: This is a very extensive file, we closed the
hearing last month on it. There was a lot of controversy
over this in the neighborhood. It's like the last lot and I
guess most of the neighbors don't want to see it
developed. We did our best to try and come up with a
solution. It was deemed inconsistent with the LWRP because
of the setback. We handled some of that. The applicant
removed the proposed deck from the house. He removed access
on the north side of the property from the application; I
think we've done everything we can to mitigate any problems
with this. I think we need to put in a no disturbance area
as close to the house as we can get it. This is 75 feet.
By today's standards it's not a big house, it's 27' by 31'.
All that structure's been taken off. It's a fairly steep
hill going down to where that right of way is, so there
should be no disturbance on that hill at all. I think 25
feet off the house, seaward of the 25 foot mark would be a
nondisturbance area.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And have a staked hay bale line.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So there should be enough room for the
equipment.
TRUSTEE KING: I would recommend approval of this
application; there's to be gutters and leaders on the house
to dry wells to contain the roof runoff; there will be a no
disturbance area seaward of the eight foot contour; the deck
has been removed from the application; the lower driveway
has been removed from the application. We could permit a
four foot walkway down the hill to the dock .
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's reasonable.
MS. STANDISH: Walkway or path?
TRUSTEE KING: Four foot path. I think that's the best we
could do for this application?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the hay bales and silt fence on the
19
Board of Trustees
20
March 22, 2006
eight foot contour line.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, during construction.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, for that path that might need to be
naturally terraced with steps because it's very steep and
with just a path --
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, either that or we leave that off and
they can come in and apply after the house is done, if they
want to apply for a set of stairs.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't want to dictate to the owners
whether they want steps or --
TRUSTEE KING: Just leave it off.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It makes sense to leave it out. They
can amend.
TRUSTEE KING: They can apply for something down to the
nondisturbance area.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This has what we need.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve this
application. The deck has been removed, the access to the
north has been removed, with the underground garage; there
will be a line of staked hay bales and silt fence on the
eight foot contour, and from the eight foot contour seaward
there's to be a no disturbance area. And there is to be dry
wells and gutters and leaders to contain the roof runoff,
and all this will be on a new set of plans indicating all
these changes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE HOLZPAFEL: You want me to group these, 2, 3 and 4,
which are moorings?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
2. ROBERT PETERS requests a Mooring Permit in Town
Creek for a 20' boat, replacing Mooring #873. Access:
Private.
3. EDMUND WHITE requests a Mooring Permit in Narrow
River for a 22 boat, replacing Mooring #25. Access:
Public.
4. FRANK BENANTE requests a Mooring Permit in
Broadwaters Creek for a 19' boat replacing Mooring
#959. Access: Public.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'll make a motion to approve all three.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES
20
Board of Trustees
21
March 22, 2006
TRUSTEE KING: Make a motion to go off the regular meeting.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING
APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM
THE SUFFOLK TIMES. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ
PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.
PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF. FIVE (5)
MINUTES OR LESS IF POSSIBLE
COASTAL EROSION & WETLAND PERMITS
TRUSTEE KING: We're trying to move things along faster than
we used to. If you have any comments, try and keep them
concise.
1. JOHN XIKIS requests a Coastal Erosion Permit and
a Wetland Permit to place rocks seaward of the existing
bulkhead and construct a vinyl bulkhead and two rock
groins. Located: 55585 County Road 48,
Southold. SCTM#44-1-13.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: LWRP found this inconsistent. I don't see
anything from CAC. We went and looked at this one. This
was one where there was three or four properties there that
were damaged in a storm, about a month ago a nor'easter.
And they're requesting to repair the bulkhead using vinyl
bulkhead. And CAC noted disapproval of this. And the
CAC's issue was with the construction of two rock groins,
and I believe that was also one of the issues with the
LWRP. We also felt that we did not want to approve the rock
groins. We were in favor of the bulkhead work and putting
rocks armoring right in front of the bulkhead. Is there
anybody to speak in favor of this application?
MR. CORWIN: My name is David Corwin. One thing I'd like to
ask you is how did you come to the decision to say no to the
groins before the public hearing?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, I'm sorry, I correct myself then. We
have an issue with the groins as the CAC did and the LWRP
did.
MR. CORWIN: Thank you. Again, my name is David Corwin. I
am the owner of record together with et al of the parcel
known as 55835 County Road 48, Tax Map Number 1000-44-1-16.
21
Board of Trustees
22
March 22, 2006
Lot 16 is three lots east of Xikis. Lot 16 has been in my
family since the 1930s. The beach in that area has been
eroding at the rate of about one and a half to two feet per
year for about the last 35 years. What I recall is moderate
erosion was accelerated in the late 1960s when Irving Latham
rebuilt the groin at Mulford's Point in the area of Lots 1
and 2, west of the Xikis property.
I have profiles of the beach going back to around
1978 if they are of any interest. Of course, it doesn't
take a coastal engineer or an aerial photo interpreter to
see that there is severe erosion in the area.
The first question I'd like to raise is whether
valid permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
Southold Town Trustees were ever issued for the groins at
Mulford's Point, and if the groins at Mulford's Point were
constructed as per permit, assuming they were issued. I
believe the groins constructed at Mulford's Point accelerate
erosion to the east along Arshamomaque Beach.
I would like to state at this point that I am not
opposed to the Xikis groins in principle. I would also like
to be on record that Mr. Tuthill contacted me for the use of
my property for access to the proposed project. I consented
with the understanding that it was for a backhoe to move
rock toe armor back against the existing bulkhead. The
scope of the project has increased. I am sure I can come to
an agreement with Xikis for the use of any access route.
Let me address the mechanism of littoral sand
transport in the area of Arshamomaque Beach. While the
average erosion rate along this beach is around 1.5 to two
feet per year, the erosion tends to come in catastrophic
events as a result of storms with an adverse set of
conditions that happen on an average of once every 10 years.
The sum total of sand transport along the beach is clearly
east to west. There is a tendency on the part of people,
even people with some knowledge of coastal engineering --
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Can you just rephrase the direction
you're saying -- I just want to make sure we're talking
about the same thing.
MR. CORWIN: West to east, thank you. I have heard there is
a tendency on the part of people, even people with some
knowledge of coastal engineering, to equate the mechanics of
sand transport in this area with sand transport on ocean
beaches. This is not a correct comparison. I have heard
more than one person with backgrounds of engineering or
marine construction say the sand comes back in the summer as
if the beach will build up by its own devices. This is not
22
Board of Trustees
23
March 22, 2006
the case. While a storm with favorable conditions will
bring some material back to the beach it never amounts to
more than 10 percent of the loss experienced in a storm like
the February 2006 storm. A good deal of the sand is being
pulled offshore and staying offshore. The only way to
stabilize the beach in this area is with a properly
constructed groin field and fill. Preferably the fill would
be pumped from the sound bottom some distance off the
existing beach where the majority of the beach material has
gone. Former Trustee Krupski advocated pumping sand from
offshore in situations like this, and when he made that
statement there was no descent on the part of the Town
Trustees. I'm going to assume you all advocate pumping sand
until I hear otherwise.
One concern I have with the proposed groins is that
they be properly constructed to be both semi-permanent and
be of a design that allows sand transport over the top and
around the end of the groins. Properly constructed groins
can both stabilize the beach and allow material transport
downstream. To properly construct a groin, they must be low
profile so that they fill and hold material while allowing
the normal stream of materials to flow downstream. I don't
see elevations on the drawing that I can follow.
If the proposed groins are constructed, the Detriech
groin will have to be dismantled to allow access along the
beach. One stipulation of any permit should be that the
Detriech groin be reconstructed so that it is effective
again. At present, the Detriech groin has little effect.
The Atwood groin is an example of a groin that appears to be
working properly. I believe the Detriech groin was
constructed sometime in the early '70s and the Atwood groin
in the early '80s. I have not studied these two groins
enough to form an opinion as to why one works and one does
not. The Detriech groin is older and does have smaller
rocks. Both groins were constructed by Latham.
I think one problem is the shifting nature of the beach. Low
profile rock groins in this area, in an area such as this
need periodic maintenance. The proposed Xikis groin should
be pre-filled to some extent. I am not prepared to say what
extent at this time because I do not understand the
elevations of the Xikis groin, and I have not had time to
study the question thoroughly.
To help stabilize this beach, a fifth groin should be
authorized at some point assuming the property owners are
willing to bear the burden of cost. A fifth groin should be
constructed in the vicinity of the Laskos property.
23
Board of Trustees
24
March 22, 2006
I want to emphasize that these groins should not be
looked at as permanent structures with no alterations. They
should be maintained and expanded or contracted as
conditions warrant. How should the cost of these structures
be born? I am not big on public monies going to protect
private property owners on the water. I don't think anyone
is except for property owners on the water and contractors.
When the cause of the problem is the tacit permission to
construct a structure or allowing a structure to be
constructed without thorough investigation of the
consequences, then I think the permitting agencies must bear
some of the cost. Clearly the United States Army Corps of
Engineers and the Southold Town Trustees helped to cause
this problem, either by issuing permits or standing by while
a barrier was constructed or by not insisting that an
improper construction be removed. Without serious work
now, the overdue hurricane -- and I'm referring to March 26,
2006 Newsday, there was an article if you read it -- the
overdue hurricane will come along and clean the beach out
and the structures perched along it. I watched the water
come almost to the road during Hurricane Carol, that was in
the 1950s, and that was when there was another 75 feet of
beach as a barrier. Suffolk County will eventually have to
do something to protect County Road 48. I wrote to them
about 10 years ago when a similar storm caused similar
damage. There was no response. There probably will not be
until it is a crisis situation. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you very much.
MR. CORWIN: Can I make one additional comment?
TRUSTEE KING: Mr. Corwin, in the future when you have an
extended narrative like this, could you please submit it in
advance in writing?
MR. CORWIN: I took too much time?
MR. JOHNSTON: It's easier if we can read it so we
understand it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else who would like to
speak regarding this application? If you could identify
yourself, and everybody, please limit your comments to no
more than five minutes.
MR. TUTHill: I'm Larry Tuthill, a professional engineer and
the one who more or less designed this bulkhead.
Essentially we want two permits, one an emergency permit to
put the rocks in front of the existing bulkhead until such
time as we would have the ability to get the other portions
of the permit done, and we would also like to use the rocks,
the quarry rocks that were on the property now in front of
24
Board of Trustees
25
March 22, 2006
the bulkhead, to move those and to protect the existing
bulkhead.
I don't think, I mean the Trustees have explained
their thoughts that they should remain there, but the
problem with that is since they have been put there by
Mr. Xikis many years ago and that they were excess rocks
just put out in front, I don't think the Town would want to
be responsible for their rocks. If anything should
happen. So, if they were back in Mr. Xikis's ownership, he
could put move them in front of his bulkhead.
The second thing is after the emergency repairs are
done get a contractor to come in and build a vinyl bulkhead
about seven feet in front of this or lower. The reasons for
this is that one, it would help break up the waves. The
vinyl as such would not take the stress without being
protected. And if we went the same height as the initial
bulkhead now, the amount of rock would be an immense amount
of rocks to place in front of this bulkhead. If we put it
out seven feet in front and then drop it, we accomplish two
or three things. One of them is to allow the public to walk
in front of the areas, in front of the bulkhead, if we
end up with a real steep bulkhead right in front or so, the
backwash or so will continue to erode the land further. If
we put something in front of that we will allow now to a
place frontal waves to dissipate.
A second thing with that or so the fishermen who
quite often in the middle of the night walk along that area
would be able to have access to go across the beach the full
length of it. The second one is the proposal for two
groins. Although there's a lot of information that that
beach is a very dynamic area and that the beach moves quite
readily, but throughout the Long Island -- I mean, Southold
Town, there are an immense amounts of groins, and for a
policy to be taken up saying, hey, no groins, that is not
within the Local Waterfront Revitalization item, in that the
first item is meant for those protection is the word
"groins" and we have to allow the groins to protect our
area. We cannot allow as a policy not to have groins. We
have used them and just recently I've gotten a permit to put
groins in. And to all of a sudden to complain that we're
stopping to not allow groins should not be a policy. The
length may be critical to affect some areas, but we should
have something in there that groins should be allowed. What
we design for is not for what normally happens; it's
designed for events throughout. The state has built groins
in the various areas in Southold town. There are three
25
Board of Trustees
26
March 22, 2006
groins to protect on the sound to protect Dan Pond, they're
buried now, but you can't see them but in the hurricane of
'38 it was afraid that it would break through Dan Pond in
Orient to Plum Island so there are three groins built there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Excuse me, if we could limit the comments
to the application. If you could please limit the comments
to this application rather than talking about other groins
in other areas of South old town. We've already exceeded the
five minutes by a lot. So let's concentrate on this
application.
MR. TUTHILL: Two more groins by South old Soundview
restau rant. But the reason for it is to protect against the
easterly storms. You have easterly storms, when they do the
most amount of damage the wind is in a critical area from
the east, and this will stop that flow from the east during
these easterly storms. This is where this happened just
recently is an easterly storm came in there and took out the
beach. And with groins there they will come in and protect
that flow of water.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Anybody else like to comment on
this application?
MS. DIETRICH: Nicole Dietrich. These are pictures of the
properties to the east of Mr. Xikis. This is actually
Dave Corwin's property. That is the road right there. This
is the four foot drop. You have about say about 10 feet
between the road and where the erosion took place. This is
Dave Corwin's shack. There's about four feet from the
bottom of his shack to where the sand is now. If Mr. Xikis
puts up these groins, the sand is just going to keep going.
This is a hill. There was five extra feet to that hill, now
it's a good eight foot drop. This is the corner of my
house. My property against Dave Corwin's. That's not even
high tide and it's five feet past my bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Which direction is this located?
MS. DIETRICH: That house is Mr. Xikis. I'm two houses east
of Mr. Xikis. These rocks are my groin that Dave Corwin
said you had to go over to get to Xikis. This is the
Laskos, east of Dave Corwin. That line right there that's
how much sand we have lost this winter alone, and we
continue to lose every year, about a foot and a
half. That's not -- this shows you Xikis's bulkhead right
here. That's not even high tide, and if he puts that
extending thing, not the groin, the extra bulkhead, where
are people going to walk? High tide or low tide because low
26
Board of Trustees
27
March 22, 2006
tide is only five feet from there. This is the house six
houses down. They have no basement. Their living room is
literally, when the high tide comes up, water is underneath
their living room.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have been there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm going to read this letter for the
record to the Board of Trustees, it's dated March 22nd. "As
the owner of the property two houses east of Mr. Xikis it's
my concern that the work he proposes will endanger the
property to the east. Structures such as Mr. Xikis propose
threaten the eastern shoreline of this fragile cove. The
Town of Southold should be concerned with protecting the
entire shoreline not allowing work to commence which will
prove disastrous to others. Very truly Virginia Detriech."
(Discussion.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else who would like to
speak?
MS. GOUVEIA: My name is Joanne Gouveia, 55408 Route 48 in
Southold, and I live two houses away from Mr. Xikis, but I
live on the west side. I can understand and I appreciate
the situation on the other side, but we on the other hand
have a major, major situation, and I know that you as
Trustees have been out to our location. I am actually here
because Maria Katsageorgis and myself got slammed with this
storm. Maria Katsageorgis has no bulkhead left and we have
a tooth there that's very, very dangerous to my property,
and I can't tell you, I was there for the storm, we live
there full time. I was never so scared in my life as to see
what had happened when that storm took that wall, and I
understand why Mr. Xikis wants to help protect his own
property, but that groin will also help protect the other
properties to the west of him, and I almost think they need
another groin to help protect them. We need to protect
that cove there, that cove is in really bad condition. We
have lost huge amounts of beach, and it's really scary.
Thirteen years ago, the property to the west of Mr.
Cavalucci's property at the time, you were all there or
whoever was a Trustee at the time, the water went back to
the foundation and cracked my bulkhead as well. Cost us
many thousands of dollars to repair the bulkhead. We had
only lived there for a month and a half when it
happened. It was absolutely heartbreaking. Now we're on
round two, 12, 13 years later, and we've got a very similar
situation. We have a tragedy next door to us that is just
horrible. These people have lost their entire bulkhead.
They have lost all their fill. The water is back. I thank
27
Board of Trustees
28
March 22, 2006
you for allowing us to put the rock in front of the
bulkhead, the toe to hold everything, but we need some
serious concentration on groin activity or some kind of
activity to make all of us a little safer in that cove,
including the young lady that just spoke, east of her and
somewhere in between myself and Mr. Xikis's property, and to
help her further up. It's horrible and it's very scary.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
MS. GOUVEIA: Thank you also for allowing me to speak and
I'm speaking also on behalf of the Katsigeorgises who are
in traffic and are 100 miles away trying to get here so they
can speak also.
MS. GRlllOS: My name is Debbie Grillos. We own the
property just east of Mr. Xikis. So again, I understand
what everyone is saying about protecting themselves, but
we're afraid that these rock groins are going to make it
more difficult on us and make the beach erosion worse. I
mean, we're in between Mr. Xikis and the Detriechs. Like
she's saying, the beach is disappearing. When there's high
tide there's no place to walk at all. We're concerned that
the erosion is going to get worse with the groins. If the
interest is in protecting the cove, then you're pushing it
off on the people further east -- not you, but it's like
pushing the problem further down. Oh, we'll let those
people worry about it. Since we're right next to it, we're
afraid we're going to get the worst of it. There was a
letter we sent last week that should be there. Basically
says it a little better than what I said just now.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is a letter here, and I'll be glad to
read it into the record. "Dear Mr. King, we are the owners
of 55705 North Road, Southold, which is adjacent to the
property requesting the permit under the above-referenced
number. We are writing in protest to the proposed 50 foot
rock groin which is being proposed perpendicular to the
bulkhead adjacent to our property.
"We have owned our property since 1976 and have been
witness to other similar groins being installed along the
beach. The result is always the same: The beach on one
side of the groin is preserved at the expense of the beach
on the other side. While the erosion of the beach on one
side of the groin is retarded, the erosion on the other side
of the groin is accelerated.
"We have no objection to the building of the
bulkhead along the beach as proposed, but the groin would
result in a rapid erosion of beach behind our own house.
There are better ways to decrease the effects of severe
28
Board of Trustees
29
March 22, 2006
storm on this north-facing beach that's going to be placed.
An underwater berm parallel to the beach approximately 75
feet from the shoreline.
"Please take our protests under consideration before
approving the above-mentioned groin. Please inform us of
any decision made in this regard. If you need any further
information, please feel free to contact us. Yours Truly,
Lenny Grillos and Debbie Grillos." Yes, sir?
MR. CHARNUS: Hi, my name is Clem Charnus, and I'm here with
Mr. Xikis. I guess you've been down there and saw the
situation?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have been down there several times.
MR. CHARNUS: I went down there the other day. I
work for John from time to time. I see more poles are
breaking off and that thing is bulging out more and more.
There's going to be all kinds of debate going on but
something's got to be fixed there pretty fast. I don't know
if there's a slow track and a fast track or what's going to
happen here, but something's got to be done soon or that
bulkhead is going to fall in.
I don't know how it could be approached, but I'm
just worried another storm's going to come, and there are
going to be big problems there, real big for everybody.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. We do have an emergency permit
process, and as a matter of fact, that was used with the
property I believe two or three doors up from this one, I
think it was last month or two months ago. Came before
us.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Last month.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Last month. So we do have an emergency
permitting process here.
MR. CHARNUS: If this is going to get tough we have to
stabilize there. That property goes, the other one goes too.
Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Are there any other comments?
MR. SCHLECT: My name is Tom Schlect. My folks live about a
thousand feet east of there, and I'm not here to say do it
or not do it, but take a look at Agawam's jetty. Last year
there was no jetty there, completely covered with sand, and
it's not an exacting science as you folks know. So
whatever you do, just take care of everybody, that's really
what I'm here for. Because like Dave said, I've been there
since '64 and that beach there was 50, 60 feet deep when
T eeves owned it, and it was just a sliver then before they
built a home there. Then you put those baskets there with
the rocks instead of rocks, if they put rocks there
29
Board of Trustees
30
March 22, 2006
initially probably the sand would go in and out instead of
just hitting the bulkhead and heading directly out and
probably building some form of sand bar there. I fish
there. There's no rock there anymore on the bottom; it's
all covered with sand. So the sand on that beach is all out
on a bar there. So that's it. Good luck.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Comments from the Board about
this project?
TRUSTEE KING: I think we need to look at the whole area
there rather than just one little --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Want to get a consultant in to look at
the overall area with all the problems they're talking
about?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I do think there's a practical issue of
doing something for the house.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right, do an immediate, an emergency --
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: My sense is that the bulkhead is fine
with rocks in front of it, and I mean, if you want to take
that right now and use that as a practical thing, and then
the rest can be segmented off or not approved at this time
and it can be amended.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think what I would like to propose here
is we agree that this is a drastic situation and that we
consider approval of the repair of that bulkhead in-place
with vinyl, and the armoring of that bulkhead with rocks and
that we would approve at this time. And then have
discussions with -- there's a consultant from the state, New
York coming down meeting with us this Friday morning on
several issues and we could address the other issues with
him then. That way the immediate relief granted with the
bulkhead situation and the armoring of the rocks. If there
are no other comments --
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The applicant might not accept.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know but I also saw a hand coming up in
the back, I don't want to leave anybody out here. What I
would like to hear from the applicant, if the applicant
wishes to amend his permit as we have discussed, to be able
to as an emergency permit right now address the bulkhead and
the rocks, the armoring, with bringing in rock -- not removing
the rocks that are out in the water.
MR. CHARNUS: Are we looking to stabilize the existing
bulkhead and get some rocks?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Stabilize the existing bulkhead immediately
and bring in rocks to armor that, not to move the rocks that
are offshore now in, but to bring in new rocks.
MR. CHARNUS: Then after we get past that first step --
30
Board of Trustees
31
March 22, 2006
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. With access being right there on
the property to do that.
MR. XIKIS: I would like to repair the existing bulkheads
plus put stones to save it now because ready to go.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't have a problem with that.
MR. XIKIS: Cost me hundreds dollars and hundreds dollars, I
can't make it. Existing bulkhead to fix plus put
stones. That is I think save for a while?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you could identify yourself your name.
MR. XIKIS: John Xikis.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The gentleman.
MR. GRlllOS: My name is Andrew Grillos, I'm the father of
this. We bought the property 1974 next to Mr. Xikis. I
have no objection to fix the existing bulkhead. I like to
know the rocks that he's going to bring, how many feet into
the water? How much it's going to extend over my property?
Because if he extends over like two, three feet over, then
he protect his property and destroy ours.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It can't be in front of your
property. He can only act in front of his property.
MR. GRlllOS: The waves go east, I'm east of him.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: They call them terminal end.
TRUSTEE GRlllOS: The waves go always east. I might not
speak clear English, but I know how the ocean goes and the
water always work east.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: John, there's a name for that where you
turn the ends in and curve them?
MR. COSTEllO: Returns. But he's not going to have
distance. You can't get an adequate return in. He's going
to butt up against the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can it be angled?
MR. COSTEllO: He can bevel, reduce the angle.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You had a comment?
MS. DIETRICH: I think I was understanding that the
gentleman's coming out on Friday to meet with you from the
state; does that mean that you're really going to take a
serious look at this cove?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We're looking for --
MS. DIETRICH: These are all my neighbors. Everybody's got
a whole situation going on there, and we just need to get
something going there where we need to get a little bit
corrected, and if somebody can give us the professional
advice we need, that's what we're looking for.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We want to start researching this and take
a hard look at this.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We're going to ask the state to give a
31
Board of Trustees
32
March 22, 2006
recommendation for someone like a coastal engineer that can
look at this professionally and has more expertise than we
do to give us a recommendation or direction. So we're going
to take the maps we have and share that with them on Friday.
MS. DIETRICH: Would you bring them out there and show them
the damage that's been done?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: They're quite familiar with the area.
They have been down here for 20 years, and they're familiar
with the whole coast.
MS. DIETRICH: I know, but I don't think they're familiar
with the wreck.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have quite an agenda.
MR. GRlllOS: Can I add something? The only thing to save
the cove only a parallel wall, not in groin. You won't save
it by put in groin.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I have heard is the applicant has
agreed to us issuing a permit to repair the bulkhead
in-kind/in-place with vinyl sheathing, armor the front of
that bulkhead, and if necessary, bevel the rocks in on
either end.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the rock to be brought in
from an upland source. We do not want to see the rock
removed from out in the sound brought into the property.
MR. COSTEllO: Can I make one comment? You know there are
services that are available to this Board, and Peggy made a
comment, you need the experts in this field. Mr. Hamilton
is not an expert in all coastal erosion matters. Albany has
many coastal erosion --
MR. JOHNSTON: That's who is coming down. Steve Resler
of the DOS and the coastal erosion guys are coming down.
MR. COSTEllO: Corps of Engineers have several that will
meet with a public entity. They won't meet with a private
entity, but they certainly would meet with a public entity
to help solve some of these problems.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's who we're meeting with.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: At this point I'd like to close the public
hearing.
MR. CORWIN: Friday, what time? Is it an open meeting?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's 8:00 a.m.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Doesn't mean you can talk. It's not a
public hearing. But obviously --
MR. CORWIN: I understand that but if I want to listen, what
time and where?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 8:00 a.m. Town Hall Annex.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I make a motion to close the public
hearing.
32
Board of Trustees
33
March 22, 2006
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I make the motion that we grant a regular
permit to repair the bulkhead with vinyl sheathing
in-kind/in-place to allow the armoring of that bulkhead with
rocks brought in from an upland source beveled at the
corners of the property, and the access for this is from
Mr. Xikis's property -- take out in-kind, that the vinyl
sheathing is going in-place on the bulkheading.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES.
2. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of KEVIN &
SUSAN FERREL requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion
Permit to restore the damaged bluff by placing 1,600 cubic
yards of bank run sand on the face of the bluff. Stabilization
of the restored area will be implemented by terracing and
planting with approved beach grasses.
Located: 130 Lloyd's Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#99-3-4.6
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak on this application?
MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the
applicant.
At the last hearing there was a number of concerns
about the number of issues involved. I think we have
rectified the first issue in that the homeowner's association
has granted its approval of the Ferrels conducting this
activity on the property owned by the homeowner's
association. So we've taken care of that. There was
concern expressed by some of the neighbors with the extent
of the work to be done. We have spent a lot of time with
Mr. Ferrel's consultant and the professionals who will be
conducting the activity. We have heard what the
neighbors have had to say, and we have tried to take a very
conservative approach and cut back the extent to which we
are going to attempt to try to stabilize that bluff. So at
this point we are amending our request and asking for the
Board to give us an approval to use approximately 500 cubic
yards of fill, and we're going to try to concentrate on the
easterly corner of the failed section of the bluff, that's
been identified as the area that was most be impacted by the
slide. There's a smaller section over towards the westerly
side that we believe can be stabilized by placing some fill
with a jute matting with a particular type of seed mixture
that's been used successfully to stabilize these types of
areas.
33
Board of Trustees
34
March 22, 2006
I have a list that gives the specifications and the
quantities and so on for the Trustees so that can you use
these numbers, I just have to make one revision, so you can
use these numbers because we're hoping that you will take
action on this this evening. We understand that one of the
neighbors has requested a postponement, but we don't know
for what purpose, what postponing would serve. We have
identified that there is a problem. We're offering a plan
to the Board.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Does your plan include the terracing?
MS. MESIANO: Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So the amendment is still including that
terracing?
MS. MESIANO: Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So we have no diagram of it, just a
narrative.
MS. MESIANO: We have given the Board a typical
cross-section of the terracing. It's a simple structure,
it's not a railroad type of retaining wall.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My question is how your new amendment is
different from the last is basically the cubic yards of
fill?
MS. MESIANO: The area we're going to attempt to restore is
being reduced.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We're doing this same plan in a smaller
area?
MS. MESIANO: The area if you were standing at the
property.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is it on a survey?
MS. MESIANO: We haven't committed to that yet because we're
still trying to discuss with the Board to come to a
solution. So what I'm trying to offer you is that --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So the easterly corner there's no
quantifiable --
MS. MESIANO: Basically this section in here is the worst of
it.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's the only part that's going to be
terraced?
MS. MESIANO: This is where when the land slid, that's
where it settled. So we're looking to give some
fortification under that. Conduct the activity below it in
order to fortify this area, and then build up the area above
it, and that would be limited to basically this area. The
surveyor, I had him work it out, if we limit it to this
general area, it's a roughly 30' by 80' area with an average
depth of approximately three feet. There's a small section
34
Board of Trustees
35
March 22, 2006
over here that I mentioned that we'd like to try to stabilize
with some fill, the jute mat and the seed mix that's on
there.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The border here between the property,
what's there?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Or what's going to be there?
MS. MESIANO: We're going to have to --
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I can understand terracing this way, but
what about the border with the neighbor?
MS. MESIANO: I'm sorry, I'm not intending to show that
that's terracing, the terracing itself will be parallel to
the bluff.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Understood. But if you fill all this
in, this is going to be much higher than the neighbor's
property, and what's holding it that way?
MR. FERREL: I'm Kevin Ferrel, I'm the owner. The
assumption is when they do pour some fill to build up this
area here, there will be some that will go over to our
neighbor's property. Their condition is far, far worse than
ours. The benefit to our neighbor is that when there's
collapse again -- they've already admitted it collapsed four
times -- when it collapses again, it's going to be drastic.
Having a little sand down there and a little base is going
to help them.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But when it goes again, don't you think
it's going to take from here?
MR. FERREL: Hopefully not because if we don't do anything,
when there's collapse again it's going to take this. One of
the other things Cathy was saying is that we're going to
concentrate here and in this area. There will probably
still be terracing again to a certain extent. This portion
here, we're hoping to get away with a little fill or maybe
just using the jute with the mixture.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Mr. Ferrel, did you get this letter?
MR. FERREL: Yes, I did and I've had correspondence with
him.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So did you consider what our Board and
this recommendation was to hold this back and do more of a
grade?
MR. FERREL: First of all in answer to Mr. Connell's letter,
he had proposed leaving it just not using terracing. It's
been proven that terracing can work. He also proposed
cutting back 4' to 6'.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: He disagrees with that; is that what
you're saying, disagrees with terracing?
MR. FERREL: He disagrees with terracing. I've submitted
35
Board of Trustees
36
March 22, 2006
letters, exchanged his questions, I've asked him different
proposals which he has responded to but in a rather vague
way. He suggested cutting back 4' to 6'. If we were to cut
back 4' to 6' feet on the western portion of our property, I
don't know that would really be a problem, and if that's all
it was, that's probably what we would do. Cutting back 4'
to 6' on the eastern portion of the property is like a drop
in the Pacific ocean, it's not going to help. To help
create a more stable angle, we would have to cut back 15 to
20 feet in order to (inaudible).
I would also like to comment that your own CAC
endorsed our original proposal which we have amended now.
TRUSTEE KING: There's two properties to the west. They're
both terraced and they're both failed.
MR. FERREL: Let's talk about the reason they failed, which
I am told was incorrectly constructed. The other one I
understand was some other circumstances that helped add to
their blow-out. There are other terraces along the beach
that are working magnificently. We're not talking about
terracing all the way down to the bulkhead, we're talking 15
feet out from the edge of my property, the worst case, maybe
20 feet.
TRUSTEE KING: Are you going to do anything with the lip?
MR. FERREL: Excuse me?
TRUSTEE KING: Are you trying to pull that back, regrade a
little bit?
MR. FERREL: When you say pull it back, I'm sorry.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It drops very quickly.
TRUSTEE KING: What Mr. Connell suggested as far as pulling
that back and regrading that.
MR. FERREL: It will be regraded some. But once we push it
down, go with 4' to 6', we'll never get it back. So the
idea is to try to do this on a least invasive way to see if
it works, see how the sand settles, see how we can build up
the angle of repose, where can we just go with jute matting,
where do we have to go with terracing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm a little confused. The area's the
same, what is the preference between the terracing and the
jute matting?
MR. FERREL: The area is not the same.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's more severe?
MR. FERREL: On the west side.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You're saying this is terraced because
of its severity?
MR. FERREL: You need to add fill, more stabilized so the
roots will grow. On the western side maybe there will be a
36
Board of Trustees
37
March 22, 2006
little terracing going across it, maybe staggered based on
where it ends because it's not natural as drastic. The hope
is maybe in some of those areas on the west side we could
just go with jute and with the remediation mix, and we can
get away with that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Could you do both terracing and jute?
MR. FERREL: We were told if you're going to go with fill,
the jute does not work properly, you need terracing. If
you're going to go with a minimal amount of fill but mostly
with virgin soil, the jute will help.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Who said that?
MR. FERREL: The consultants we talked to regarding
proposals to build the bulkhead, build the terracing, do the
jute work, we've got four or five different proposals.
Unfortunately --
MR. JOHNSTON: Could you give us a proposal?
MR. FERREL: Peter Sterling, Gatz Landscaping, Peter
Sterling of Plantings by the Sea, as well as Gatz
Landscaping.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Jim, also, this is a new plan. It's a
whole new ball game here.
MS. MESIANO: It's a reduced proposal from what we came
with.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That and they have cut this project down
to about a 10th. That's fine, but I don't know what it
is. You draw a line on a piece of paper, to me that doesn't
say anything to me. I'd like to go out and look at it. And
if that's the proposal you're putting in front of the Board
now -- I mean, this is tonight that could have been a week
ago.
MS. MESIANO: If I could have gotten it to you a week ago, I
would have, but I'm dealing with other people, and it's
outside of my --
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's the same thing with us. We don't
want to make judgments in one minute.
MR. FERREL: The only change from when we made the original
proposal, which was last month, is that we reduced the
volume of sand trying to be conservative, and also based
upon our hopes that we can do this minimal work and
succeed. The bottom line to it all is I'm dealing with the
planting season as well. We need to get this going as soon
as we can.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Say we approve this and it fails.
MR. FERREL: I spent money and lost it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And then what are you going to do, come
back to us for what?
37
Board of Trustees
38
March 22, 2006
MR. FERREL: I don't know if there's any other recourse.
MS. MESIANO: I don't know how we can answer that.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I would like to see the neighbor's line
again.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would like to see it again. Do you have
a problem if we look at it in April?
MR. FERREL: Just that we are delayed. The proposal and the
best time they told us was in April into May.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Our next meeting is the middle of
April.
TRUSTEE KING: I would like to see exactly where the
terracing is going to go.
MR. FERREL: And we should have the contractors and
everything lined up to start within a few days after the
next meeting? It just doesn't happen that way. The
contractor's Peter Sterling of Plantings by the Sea as well
as Gatz have all said they would have to judge where they
put the terracing based upon how the sand has settled and
then decide whether they take it a little further or not.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you dump the sand in and let it settle,
and then --
MS. MESIANO: You put some sand, let it settle down, then
contain it at a lower level, and work your way up. It's not
an exact science. We're not looking to infringe on the
Capolino's property. We're trying to preserve this corner
to the extent --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And you start at the top with that
process?
MS. MESIANO: The sand would be dumped over the side with
the smallest piece of equipment you can use to transport it.
That's another consideration, the Ferrels just had a new
pool put in last year, and we want to minimize any
vibrations for damage to the pool, the foundation. So the
smallest equipment possible to transport the dirt into the
back and the dirt is then dumped over the edge and --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the first terrace?
TRUSTEE HOLZPAFEL: At the bottom.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, that's what I'm asking, thank you.
MS. MESIANO: Because the angle of repose, as you know, is
ideally 45 degrees --
TRUSTEE KING: I think we should table this.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we should too. I just want to ask
if there's anyone else here tonight who wishes to speak,
because I think there are people who came to speak.
MR. MCGREEVEY: My name is Ron McGreevey. I'm Mr. Ferrel's
neighbor to the west. With the exception of a 20 foot
38
Board of Trustees
39
March 22, 2006
gully, which is common land between our properties, I'm
concerned about erosion. Mr. Ferrel, I'm glad he reduced it
to 500 from 1,600 because that was a tremendous amount of
dirt. He could have buried my house. It's still in the
plans, terracing 6' to 8' high. There's two pieces of
property on our association, which only has six sound front
properties, five are bulkheaded, one is not, and that
application I think is going to be coming in.
I want to show you a couple of pictures (handing).
This is the two projects Jim was talking about. One was
done with top soil and the other was done with bank run
sand. This is what you get. These two and a quarter inch
pipes bend like wet spaghetti and it pours all over the
place. Now you would recommend that Mr. Ferrel go to the
Department of Agriculture, which he did. And they don't
recommend any of his proposals. The matting they said
doesn't work; none of it works. I was a member of the
Southold Town Erosion Task Force a few years back. One
thing we learned there, once the bluffs are gone, they're
gone. You can put all the dirt you want on top of them you
want, it doesn't bind. It's glacial fill, and it only
exists on three places on the face of the Earth.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mr. McGreevey, do you have anything from
that Task Force that is documented?
MR. MCGREEVEY: I have books all over.
TRUSTEE KING: Can you identify which property is which and
when these photos were taken?
MR. MCGREEVEY: This was taken a few months ago, this was
taken a year ago.
TRUSTEE KING: That's Mahalios?
MR. MCGREEVEY: Yes. This was Fox. This was put in, Gatz
put it in. They dumped tons of topsoil and they hydroseeded
it.
MR. JOHNSTON: Would you mind writing that so we'll put it
in the record?
MR. MCGREEVEY: Yes. I have to go home and I can call the
Trustees.
Mr. Ferrel says he's trying to make a 45 degree
slope; the slope he has is 45 degrees. It goes down a short
distance, 45 degrees, and then it goes to 33, then to 30.
That's a perfectly natural slope. Mr. Ferrel asked me to
what to do, and he asked a neighbor Virginia Meyer a couple
doors down, the same thing plant. You put Rosa Rugosa, you
put bayberry, all the appropriate things, not seed. Seed
doesn't work. And that plan was from Chuck Hamilton. He
39
Board of Trustees
40
March 22, 2006
told me to do that 20 years ago, and I did it, perfect.
don't think --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That was our suggestion.
MR. MCGREEVEY: And I don't think any of this is required.
When you look at this, look at it from up on the top and
from the bottom, big difference when you look at both
angles. You get a bigger picture of what's going
on. Everything is vague, 6' to 8'. This is terracing 4'
and this is 6'. They're proposing 6' to 8', no indication
of where it's going to be. They got approval from my
association, but each member was told, Mr. Ferrel went
around door to door, that he was only putting it 12 inches
high, that's it. Big difference 12 inches to 8 feet.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else that hasn't spoken
yet?
MR. HYNES: Good evening Members of the Board, my name is
Doug Hynes, H-Y-N-E-S, I'm with a company called Design
Development. We are architects and site engineers and
construction managers, and we were asked to appear tonight
by Dr. and Mrs. Cappolino, the property owners immediately
to the east. They have owned that property since '81, it's
now their principal residence.
From some of the discussion that I have heard
tonight I think one of the two things I had hoped to
accomplish here tonight may be in the process of being
accomplished. The Cappolinos very much wanted an
opportunity to return to New York, they're coming back in 10
days to have a firsthand look at the situation, and to get
some additional professional input as to what, if anything,
they should be doing vis-a-vis this application which is
changing as we speak. And what they might be constrained to
do with respect to their own property.
I know you're aware of the Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Council recommendations; the
Cappolinos tend to agree with what they're reading there,
but they would like an opportunity with a professional and
some contractors to take a closer look at it.
As far as I know, the DEC is going to be brought
into this process. I don't know how quickly they can move;
they have never done anything for our firm before two to
four months. But I believe there is time in this process to
get a little more involved with Catherine's firm and with
the neighbors. I did reach out to Catherine about a week or
10 days ago, and then again yesterday, and finally had a
chance to talk to her about the 1,600 foot cubic yard
proposal. It's changed somewhat. I believe I understand
40
Board of Trustees
41
March 22, 2006
what the changes are, but I think in fairness we should have
an opportunity to review that in greater detail with the
professionals, in the hope that maybe there is a joint
solution here that we could come back to the Board for your
decision.
So the other request that we had is simply to hold
the hearing record open to your next meeting so the
Cappolinos could get a little more involved. Thank you very
much.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Next?
MS. MCGREEVEY: Hi, Doris McGreevey, and I'm the neighbor to
the west. Between Mr. Ferrel's property and my property
there's a walkway, and I don't think anybody really
addressed that, but it's sort of like a right of way or
walkway for the community residents to access the beach.
And I understand that Mr. Ferrel said that he is still
intending to put cribbing or terracing on the westerly side
in some fashion with jute. My concern is the pitch, in
other words, the return of all this because if that
collapses or slides because of it being built up and being
pitched, we have a community then who can't use our stairs
and our access way to the beach. So if in all the plan, I
hope that you would consider some way when all this gets
resolved, that we could have an assurance that we still will
be able to get to the beach and everyone is having the
benefit of the beach, and what they have -- all community
persons have as a right. So I request that when you review
it, to remember that maybe perhaps returns or some kind of
assurance so we can enjoy it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Certainly. I'd like to recommend that
since I think it is the feeling of the Board for this to be
tabled, and we want to make sure that everybody has an
opportunity when we go out for inspection April 12th, be
there, make any comments. Do we want to see if the DEC
wants to meet us there? Would Chuck want to add it to the
list?
TRUSTEE KING: I'll be talking to him, I'll add it to the
agenda.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And since we are going to be out there
again, do you still want to respond?
MR. FERREL: Yes, I would like to. First of all, I
appreciate what Mrs. McGreevey has said. And in
conversations with her son, who is the secretary of our
association, he and I discussed it along with the president,
and it was pointed out --
AUDIENCE MEMBER: He's the treasurer.
41
Board of Trustees
42
March 22, 2006
MR. FERREL: Excuse me, did you vote with the association?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you could limit your comments to the
Board, please.
MR. FERREL: Excuse me, I'm sorry. The level of work will
be probably 15, 20, 30 feet from the end of my property,
which is leading down to the area Mrs. McGreevey is talking
about. No work is going to go in that area. It doesn't
need it.
Regarding Mr. Hynes, thank you for coming, I
appreciate it. But the fact of the matter is to address
concerns and plans that we are trying to implement seems a
little ironic considering that the Cappolinos have already
admitted in a letter to you that they have had four
collapses. They have done nothing. This last collapse
brought down some of mine. It's a fact; it's in records.
Last but not least, the Cappolinos, who are so
concerned about the condition of the bluff it's been bad for
many, many years, all I've heard they have done is rolled up
newspaper and thrown it over the cliff. That doesn't do
anything. So when I tried to do something all of a sudden
they're very concerned. If they were concerned, they should
have done something sooner.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Again, I thank you. I think the feeling
of the Board is to table this application to be looked at
April 12th. We're going to see if we can get a new
perspective on the new plans.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Seriously, have a plan so we have
something to look at so we know what we're inspecting.
MR. FERREL: It's the same plan that we just concentrated
on.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: This plan is a typical -- it says
typical it doesn't say plan. It doesn't say
what levels you're going to put anything at. None of that
is specific. it's a typical plan. I'd like to know where
it's going to be. Are there lines going back along the
sides tying this in?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: John, you want this information on a
diagram.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But also, that plan is no longer what
they're going to do. So just put a plan together, you want
to do, where you're going to put the things. It will make
our job and your job easier.
MS. MESIANO: I would just like to reiterate if I may, that
there needs to be a little latitude because you can't say
with all certainty that an exact point is where the first
retaining --
42
Board of Trustees
43
March 22, 2006
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But is there one retaining wall or is
there seven?
MS. MESIANO: There will be a series of terracing working up
the face of the bluff.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I looked and you drew one line on it
saying this is where it's going to be.
MS. MESIANO: I was trying to delineate it.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I understand, that's why we want a plan.
MS. MESIANO: I understand that. It was just for
illustration purposes, but my point is we can give you as
close an approximation and try to be as specific as we can,
but the point I'm trying to make is in situations like
this you can't be 100 percent specific because you're
dealing with the site conditions as the project progresses.
I just you're asking for --
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: No. We're very flexible when we have
something to work with. I just don't feel comfortable.
MR. HYNES: In the interest of trying to come up with a
solution, if we could get a copy of whatever the
professionals or the contractors or the Ferrels come up with
a couple of days or a week or so before the 12th, if that's
your inspection date, that would be helpful for us to look
at. We had a conversation yesterday with these folks, they
were talking 1,600 cubic yards, and that's what I came here
to talk about. I understand there's been a change, but it
probably would be helpful if we had that information on hand
since the neighbor being charged with some contribution to
the problem, trying to see where things about the lay of the
land to try and keep the water off the Ferrel property onto
ours and perhaps could be addressed as well.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Call the office and find out when the plan
is and you're more than welcome to look at it. There is
still a motion on the floor.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'll second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MR. MCGREEVEY: I just wanted to say I've been on this beach
since 1950 observing this stretch of beach. Anything that
goes on on that beach I have known about through the years.
Mr. Ferrel has a very small problem; you plant on it, it's
gone. All those bluffs there had nothing after the storms
of the early '90s. There wasn't a blade of grass, there was
nothing, and they've all come back pretty well.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Before we go on, Jim, I'm going to have
to excuse myself. I slipped a disk the other day and I've
been on my back for two days. I apologize, but I'm going to
43
Board of Trustees
44
March 22, 2006
head out.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Do we need three votes for Gardiner's
Bay? Only because I think we have two people who are not
voting on it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, I think it's just me.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Dave, are you voting on Gardiner's Bay?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, I went out with you, I saw it.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All right, fine, I'm sorry. Feel
better.
(Whereupon, Trustee Dickerson left the hearing room
at 9:00 p.m.)
3. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of CAROLYN & JOSEPH
FERRARA requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit
to construct a fixed timber dock consisting of a 4' by 12'
inclined ramp; 4' by 84' fixed timber catwalk; 3' by 14'
hinged ramp; and 6' by 20' float secured by two 8" diameter
pilings. Dock is to be constructed of untreated lumber and
ram and float shall be removed and reinstalled seasonally.
Located: 2170 Maple Lane, East Marion. SCTM#38-8-1
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
Ferraras. As the Board knows, this hearing was opened last
month. It was tabled as I recall for the purpose of
obtaining the consistency determination for the Planning
Board for the LWRP. So unless the Board has any further
questions about any elements of the application, we don't
have anything to add.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. Anyone to speak against this
application? We looked at this, the Board has really
discouraged people with docks on the bay since I've been on
the Board, that's 10 years now. This is kind of an
exceptional location. It's right next door to a docking
facility that dwarfs this. I think it's modest myself. It
was deemed to be inconsistent with the LWRP, I know that.
Rob, one of the concerns I think was public access.
MR. HERMANN: This was an issue I actually raised at the
last hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: With a set of stairs on either side?
MR. HERMANN: Yes. And we've done that before. Originally
when we had shown this, we tried to limit the structure just
assuming pedestrians could access around the dock, but I
think it would force them to do that through a beach grass
area, which would be less desirable. So what we would
propose is to add to the structure stairs perpendicular to
44
Board of Trustees
45
March 22, 2006
the landward side of the catwalk that would provide access
up and over the dock if it wasn't accessed around the
landward end of it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Would you like to add a fencing so people
don't walk out on to the docks; are they just going over and
not go over; would that be necessary?
MR. HERMANN: No.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I was thinking you were inviting them to
go on the dock.
TRUSTEE KING: They know what the stairs are there for.
MR. JOHNSTON: Are you worried about that?
MR. HERMANN: I don't think so. As we discussed at the
hearing, these people know it's a private dock.
TRUSTEE KING: One of the concerns was an additional dock
for private use was going to impact the visual quality of
the area. Like I say, there's three very large structures
just to the east of it. I can't see how this is going to
impact the visual looks of the area. It's not a pristine
undeveloped beach area.
MR. HERMANN: That was our presentation in the LWRP
application. And it was interesting because I looked at
Mark's report and his assessment basically said that the
addition of a dock will impair visual access of the area and
therefore render it inconsistent with the L WRP. If the
Board actually extends that philosophy, then any dock at any
location anywhere in the Town will always be inconsistent
with the LWRP. In other words, there has to be some ability
on the Planning Board's part to discriminate between a dock
that is being proposed in a virgin shoreline that really
would impact it. And this Board has seen and objected to
similar docks where you're proposing a structure where no
other structures exist. And there I think an argument could
be made that it would impact the visual aesthetic.
I think here we submitted an aerial for the record
that shows that this would be a very small dock relative to
a series of genuinely humongous dock facilities that are
designed for multiple moorings. So I don't think the
Planning Board could make a tenable argument here that this
dock would impair visual access, and we stated that in our
application for the record.
TRUSTEE KING: Like I said, we have strongly discouraged
docks in the bay. I think it's an exception.
MR. HERMANN: Which is why we put it to you.
TRUSTEE KING: On the seasonality of it --
MR. HERMANN: The ramp and float would come out and you
talked about a time frame on that.
45
Board of Trustees
46
March 22, 2006
TRUSTEE KING: April 1st put it in, take it out in November
1st.
MR. HERMANN: We discussed that was acceptable.
TRUSTEE KING: Any Board comments?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I think we covered it last month.
MR. JOHNSTON: How would you monitor that, taking out?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The way all the rest of the applications
are monitored.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bay constables.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Those conditions are on hundreds of
applications.
TRUSTEE KING: And the float would be stored in the upland
area. If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to
close the hearing.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application
with the stipulation it's seasonal in the water April 1 st,
out of the water November 1 st, and it would be a set of
stairs on either side for public access. And I think it's
in here it's nontreated material. It's been shown there's
no submerged aquatic vegetation in that area. So that's not
a concern.
MR. HERMANN: And we would give you a revised plan to
reflect the stairs and the seasonality of the dock. We would
add it to the plan itself so it would be on the plan and in
the permit so you can enforce it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: With that being said, do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All if in favor? ALL AYES.
WETLAND PERMITS
1. RICHARD DEMOTT requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 4' by 44' fixed open walkway, 4' by 16' hinged
ramp, and 6' by 20' floating dock, and two 2-pile dolphins
to secure to the floating dock. Located: 5380 Skunk Lane,
Cutchogue. SCTM#128-2-16
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. DEMOTT: I'm Richard Demott, 5275 Skunk Lane. I don't
hear and don't talk well, could I have my daughter talk?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Absolutely. Make your comments very brief.
46
Board of Trustees
47
March 22, 2006
MS. DUSSAULT: Patricia Dussault, D-U-S-S-A-U-L-T, daughter
of Richard Demott. We had a tough couple of years, we'll be
honest with you. We applied for a permit which we forwarded
to you, which was approved to go through. The company that
we hired to get this done for us requested the final payment
saying it was approved at a Town meeting. And that was all
that we heard after paying the money. We never got the
permit from the company, no work was ever done. In the
meantime, my mother has passed on. My grandfather has
passed on. My father has moved next door and the land is up
for sale right now, and we're looking to reput in this
permit to put this floating dock back in with this catwalk
that's already been prior approved. It has expired
tremendously. So we resubmitted to you the same proposal
that we had. There's been no changes to the property
itself. We did get a call today, and we understand that we
can't make it out of CCA, so we will make it out of whatever
is requested of it for the wood that is needed. We were
told that CCA is not needed.
As far as will it hinder the look of the area, no. We
took digital photos also if you need to see them of the
surrounding area and the proposed area that we're talking
about, and it's miniscule compared to some of the catwalks
and docks that are out there. So we just ask that the
permit that we previously had is all that we're asking for
again. We have DEC which expires April of 2007, and to
avoid having to go through all those permits again. We're
asking that you grant us at least a year to get this done or
at least just this season.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The last time you put it in front of the
Board of Trustees, did they vote on it?
MS. DUSSAULT: Yes. It was in the packet. We got the
approval, we got the notice, we paid the $696.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And it just ran out before you did it?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: January 6, 2000. And we have a copy of
the DEC permit in here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would
like to speak on behalf of this application? The CAC,
Conservation Advisory Council voted for approval of this as
long as no treated lumber is used. The problem -- the
challenge we have is the LWRP was incomplete that was
submitted, so there was not able to be an appropriate or
complete LWRP assessment. It says here all the questions
were not answered on the application. So, I'm afraid until
we get a determination from the LWRP, we have to table this,
it's a technicality.
47
Board of Trustees
48
March 22, 2006
MS. DUSSAULT: We came down today on the call of Heather,
and my father revisited and filled out the proper
information that he had to fill out.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. And it has to go now to Mr. Terry
of the Planning Board, and he has to do the assessment of that. The
Trustees don't do an assessment of the LWRP.
So with that in mind, I would first off recommend we
close the public hearing because I think we're going to have
to table this application.
TRUSTEE KING: Just table it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. I recommend that we table this
application until we have the assessment from the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KING: This doesn't look to me to be problematic.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is just a technicality. The Board
didn't have any issues with this when they looked at it at all.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'll second that motion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES.
2. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of
ANDREW WILLS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a set of
steps onto a 4' by 36' fixed dock ending with a 32" by 18'
seasonal dock secured by two seasonal 2.5' galvanized pipe
piles. Located: 1675 Bayview Avenue,
Southold. SCTM#52-5-8.1
TRUSTEE KING: We're reopening this hearing that we had last
month because the plans were changed a little bit. Do you
want to explain, John, what you did?
MR. COSTELLO: It was the recommendation of Mr. Bergen that
we reduce the dock, we reduced it 20 feet, and it was his
recommendation that we reduce it an additional 10'. The
overall length of the fixed dock is reduced an additional
10', and the owner of the property asked me if it would be
possible to revegetate some of the wetlands area around the
barren area near the dock. I said, if you're going to do
that I would recommend that you elevate the dock slightly;
don't put it down near the beach level because it would be
difficult at that stage. So we combined the 16 foot ramp
area with the 20 foot dock, and made it a 36 foot
length. But the overall length is reduced to 10 feet that
the Board approved last week. The dock was also last time,
it was reconfigured an "L" configuration instead of straight
out, which the Board approved. In order to get the ramp in
the center of the dock, I tried to lengthen the dock of the
ramp by two feet because it's going to be on one end of the
dock for flotation purposes; that's not a problem either.
What I did tonight before coming to this meeting, I reduced
48
Board of Trustees
49
March 22, 2006
the ramp if necessary, in order to obtain the final
approval, I reduced it and hooked it to the side of the
float and added additional flotation to the dock. So there
is a 16 foot ramp. I changed the description, and I have a
modified plan, and I put a two degree angle on the inshore
16 foot length. If the Board wishes that -- two degrees --
then I renamed it as a ramp. If the Board wants those
drawings, I have copies here. It will be the same approved
description that was approved two weeks ago contingent upon
getting a drawing.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: John, just as a question, how did you
get the stability of putting that on one edge?
MR. COSTEllO: You have to add additional floatation anyway
on the float.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Does it stay level with the additional?
MR. COSTEllO: Yes.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So you just build deeper down. Because
that's come up last month or something, someone was saying
they couldn't put the ramp off center because of floatation.
TRUSTEE KING: This was found inconsistent with the lWRP.
Conservation Advisory Council approved it. I think there
are other docks in the area.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There's no vegetation where he's putting
the dock. To be stored upland, not on the grasses.
TRUSTEE KING: And the visual quality, that area is fairly
developed.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Okay, I don't have a problem with it.
just thought we had to cover it. Go on, skip it.
TRUSTEE KING: So it's basically the same thing just a
little minor changes. Any other comments? Anybody opposed
to this? I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? All AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: I make a motion to approve the application
with the new plans.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? All AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: It's all seasonal, John, all the other
conditions are the same.
3. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of
GARDINER'S BAY ESTATES HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION requests a
Wetland Permit to remove existing floats from Dock "A" and
relocate as part of new Dock "B". Install 6' by 30'
floating dock and reuse two (2) existing pilings. Dock "B"
construct a 4' by 30" fixed dock with a 42" by 12' ramp onto
49
Board of Trustees
50
March 22, 2006
relocated floats from Dock "A" continuing onto new 5' by 28'
floating dock, ending with 2-4' by 20' floats perpendicular,
and install four (4) new pilings. located: Fox Island,
Gardiner's Bay Estates, East Marion. SCTM#37-4-18
TRUSTEE KING: That's the old description.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's the old description. Do we have
new?
MS. STANDISH: Did we get any new plans though?
MR. COSTEllO: You've had new.
TRUSTEE KING: That's the old description.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For the record, I recuse myself and the
proper paperwork has been submitted.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'm going to reread, what I read before
was inaccurate. Basically it's relocating float
configuration four 3' by 20' floats, one 15' by 18' float,
two existing pilings, and it will canter out about 30 degree
angle from the fixed portion. We have our own comments.
John, our comments it's a public -- let me mention it to you
first, so then we can talk about the whole thing. Our
comments was simply the shaded area that you have for the
new part, we would like that part to mirror the other two
fingers. Instead of being a bigger structure, it would just
continue the exact same structure, one more bay, I guess you
would say, of the dock; that was our consideration. I just
throw that out to you before everybody speaks about it.
MR. COSTEllO: First of all, the association is totally
opposed to that for one reason. It doesn't meet any of
their needs, absolutely eliminates their needs. The purpose
of this whole addition to the dock is to provide basically
two new slips so that they could eliminate two moorings that
they manage in that creek. This was designed with the help
of Mr. Hamilton from the DEC. He wanted the dinghies that
were ruining some of the wetland areas to be accommodated,
not on the wetlands or the island but on the eight foot wide
dock.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: On the dock itself?
MR. COSTEllO: On the dock itself.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So you're using it as a platform?
MR. COSTEllO: For dinghies. He wants it out of the
wetlands, and to revegetate as shown on the plans, there's
an area of no vegetation there because they access all the
dinghies through it. Our original proposal asks for two
docks, building one in the unvegetated area. Again, the DEC
said that there is no way that they're going to allow two
docks on Fox Island, which is privately owned, the bottom is
privately owned.
50
Board of Trustees
51
March 22, 2006
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Our impression of it was that the
dinghies were going in the water. That wasn't clear, that's
why there was some confusion as to the issue.
MR. COSTEllO: If the Board went to the site they probably
saw dinghies in that direct area right now.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We're saying here is that 8' by 20' is
not a normal permitted function that the Trustees generally
give out.
MR. COSTEllO: I know. But certainly the Trustees is the
Board of Appeals where exceptions can be made. The other
reasons is to try to revegetate that intertidal marsh
area.
TRUSTEE KING: Why can't the dinghies be kept in the water
tied to the floats?
MR. COSTEllO: They store them there most of the year. This
dock is not a seasonable dock, this is staying. They invert
them and they tie them on the dock. They're tied to the
trees; did you see them there?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. We saw there were several dinghies up
on the beach.
MR. COSTEllO: Basically they service the moorings, they
reduced the mooring areas because of the navigational
concerns. They reduced it to 13 over a period of time, and
now they're trying to accommodate inside these fingers two
additional slips, and they also have a rule that they have
their own in-house rules in this Gardiner's Bay, that no
boat can be over 25 feet. And they're trying to accommodate
a good number of members.
TRUSTEE KING: My feeling as to what we wanted to see
would be sufficient.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I feel a little different in that I've
seen that function in other places and it works, and it gets
them out of the water, and it works.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You mean the function of an eight foot?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Yes, I'm thinking of Orient. They have
a platform that's 10 or 12 foot wide and they keep all the
boats up on it and it's a yacht club so it's functioning in
a different way, but this is a community. So I'm --
TRUSTEE KING: Downsize it to 6' by 20'.
MR. COSTELLO: If you put a dinghy long ways on the dock,
that's going to leave you maybe if you're lucky, 18 inches
to walk by it. Certainly wouldn't be my recommendation. I
was just afraid to draw it as 10, which was the
recommendation of the DEC.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Are there comments from anybody else in
the audience pro or con?
51
Board of Trustees
52
March 22, 2006
MR. COSTEllO: There is no eel grass to speak of in this
immediate area. I'm sure the Board noticed that. It's a
lot of siltation. There is spartina alterna flora along the
shoreline on this island.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is very unusual. It's kind of like
some other unusual applications that we have had.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Have you gone before DEC yet and gotten
their permit?
MR. COSTEllO: I told them it was going to have
some difficulties getting it approved here. Mr. Hamilton
went into the field with me and assisted designing it. But--
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So he's aware of this design.
MR. COSTEllO: Yes, I could probably get it very easily
because half of it is his sketch.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What John has brought up tonight to me puts
a different light on it from what it was before for myself.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'm going to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? All AYES
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'm going to make a motion to approve
the dock, proposed revegetation, two new pilings, 8' by 20'
floats as in the most recent plan. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? Aye.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: Nay.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That doesn't carry. There's only three
members here, and I don't think it's a majority. I think it
has to be a majority of the total Board.
MR. COSTEllO: I'll let them come and make their own
applications before you. There's 140 members in that
association.
TRUSTEE KING: If they could shorten that connector and have
two 6 by 20s I wouldn't have a problem.
MR. COSTEllO: I respect your opinion, but it's not going to
please the association.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm not here just to please, I'm sorry.
MR. COSTEllO: Environmentally, if you tell me one thing
environmentally, what is it doing?
TRUSTEE KING: It's really just it's larger than what we
have been approving right along, for starters.
MR. COSTEllO: So it's precedent?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. The only place we've ever approved an
8' by 20' float is Fisher's Island. Nothing here that I can
remember in the bay.
MR. COSTEllO: I can remember others but that was before
52
Board of Trustees
53
March 22, 2006
your time. If it's the precedent setting issue.
TRUSTEE KING: That's one of them for me, and I know the
previous Board was strongly against any addition there, so
I think that's a big consideration. Also because I worked
with those people for two terms. It's also in the code.
There's no floats allowed bigger than 6' by 20'.
6. Young and Young on behalf of NANCY CARROL
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a front porch,
one-car garage and second floor over existing dwelling, and
renovate and alter existing first floor within existing
footprint. Located: 350 West Lake Drive, Southold.
SCTM#90-1-21.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anyone to speak in favor of the
application?
MR. TAST: My name is Robert Tast, I'm with Young and Young,
400 Ostrander Avenue in Riverhead. I'm here on behalf of
Nancy Carroll. Nancy plans to or would like to put a second
floor addition on her existing house, add a front porch and
a garage, and a rear deck. All of these items have been
previously submitted on applications and there's been a
continuing application and permit from the Trustees, #5481,
last amended in February of last year. Basically we
understand time has run out on that, and it's been continued
once before, so we're here again and there's been basically
no change since our last February 16, 2005 permit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak?
I do not see any recommendations from the CAC here. The
LWRP found this inconsistent. The reasons for their
inconsistency one is because it doesn't set the minimum
setback of 100 feet. They had an issue regarding a nonturf
buffer and request of a nonturf buffer, and request if the
relocated driveway could be constructed of a pervious
material. We looked at it and were also wondering about the
nonturf buffer as well as dry wells and down spouts that
have to be added to this. So would you be willing to add
dry wells down spouts to the house?
MR. TAST: Yes, we will. And I believe the latest
site plan that you have shows that, if not, I have
copies here, 10 foot nonturf buffer and dry wells.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I do see dry wells here, you're absolutely
right. You do have the buffer on here, and the driveway,
would you be willing to make that pervious material?
MR. TAST: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments? If not I'll
make a motion to close the hearing.
53
Board of Trustees
54
March 22, 2006
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Motion to approve the application of Young
and Young on behalf of Nancy Carroll as written with the
addition of as per the plans showing the dry wells and
buffer, nonturf buffer, and the addition here of a pervious
driveway.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES
MS. CUSACK: Dave, how big is that nonturf buffer?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Ten foot.
7. Fairweather-Brown Design on behalf of NANCY
BRADLEY & JEANINE MURPHY requests a Wetland Permit to
construct additions and renovations to the existing
single-family dwelling. Located: 550 West Creek Avenue,
Cutchogue. SCTM#103-13-5.4
MS. MARTIN: Amy Martin of Fairweather-Brown Design,
205 Bay Avenue, Greenport on behalf of Nancy Bradley
and Jeanine Murphy.
To keep it short, we're basically asking -- we're doing
a proposed additions and renovations for the house.
The house is currently nonconforming at 65 feet
from the nearest point of the wetlands, although I'm
not sure if that's phragmites or actual wetlands. And the
proposal is after the additions and renovations would bring
us 57.5 feet from that same line. The first addition has a
footprint that is kept within the 22 foot deck that is
currently there, and there is a second addition behind that
of an 11' by 11' adjoining on the west side. Then there is
a wraparound deck and a hot tub on the west side. And all
other alterations are within the current footprint of the
second story addition.
The property where the additions are proposed is
currently covered either by deck or is a lawn area as
created by the previous owners. There is no clearing
involved. Natural plantings if required will be added. All
roof runoff now is not directed towards dry wells, and
anything new that we will make sure that the whole structure
would go to -- roof runoff would go to dry wells by either
French drains or gutters, and everything would be above the
28 foot contour. We have applied to the Health Department
and the DEC on this matter.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are you relocating the septic?
MS. MARTIN: Yes. The septic is now partially in their
lawn and partially in Debra Doty, the neighbor's lawn.
54
Board of Trustees
55
March 22, 2006
Debra would like the one on her property to be removed: the
other we might use as possibly as one of the dry wells as
the down slope part of the French drains off the deck. The
proposed new septic system is on the street side of the
house.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Out of our jurisdiction
MS. MARTIN: And being there's public water in the area
there are no problems.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. The only other thing we noticed is
we measured and we come up with 50 feet from the deck to the
wetlands, which is still in an acceptable range. I just
wanted to note that. the Local Waterfront Revitalization,
LWRP found it inconsistent of course because it's within 100
feet. And they would like to see hay bales, silt fence
during construction, and the buffer area that's existing to
stay as is. They're looking for a more draught tolerant
landscaping to minimize irrigation and fertilizer
applications, and the gutters, the down spouts. So we feel
that's all been mitigated in here and answered.
MS. MARTIN: They basically have no interest in changing the
plantings unless it's required. Everything will stay as is.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure it's a nice, vegetated area there.
MS. MARTIN: Low key, low maintenance, very natural.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments?
MS. DOTY: I'm Debra Doty, I live to the south of this
property. I think you all know me from prior experiences.
This house -- their house has been here since the mid '30s.
There's a photograph of it in the '30s. So they are
restricted by that location. They're very close to the
wetlands. The land cuts back and I really have no objection
to what they're doing. I am delighted they're relocating
the septic. My only request is, and there's another
neighbor in the room, and we both feel that we would like to
have any lighting restricted to the land and the house
itself and not into the wetlands because some people have
been installing lights in buffer zones.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know if that falls under--
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, is there anything in the plans for
lighting in the wetland area?
MS. DOTY: My understanding in Chapter 97 there are only two
forms of lighting that's allowed. One on a bulkhead and one
on a dock. In water or on a bulkhead area, and they're only
allowed to be on in active use. And Nancy knows me well
enough to know I'm just expressing some concern and concern
of the neighbors that the lights somehow get where they're
not supposed to be.
55
Board of Trustees
56
March 22, 2006
MS. MARTIN: The property owner has just informed me they
have no interest in putting lights anywhere that would be
offensive.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let's be specific, you're not going to put
any lights in the buffer zone?
MS. MARTIN: Right.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comment?
MS. WICKHAM: Good evening, my name is Abigail Wickham, and
I also live nearby. I have absolutely no objection to them
renovating the house. But it is a very dark creek and I
would like to reiterate, if the Trustees could condition any
approval on lighting, not just out on the bulkhead or in the
buffer area, but lighting from the house shining into the
wetlands. I think it's something that you do need to
address on a more regular basis, and I would appreciate that
you do that, but I do think it's an issue that you need to
address.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. The only thing we have is what
we added in Chapter 97, Lighting: Any and all lights
associated with docks, floats or poles must be directed on
the subject structure and not out into the adjacent wetlands,
waterway or property. Lights shall not be on unless the
dock is in active use. That is Chapter 97.
MS. DOTY: There's 12 and 2, then there's one in retaining
walls.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If that's what you say, I believe you.
Any other comments? I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve the application
for Nancy Bradley and Jeanine Murphy for a Wetland Permit to
construct additions and renovations to the existing
single-family dwelling with during construction a row of hay
bales at the 22 foot contour line and also subject to new
surveys showing dry wells, and gutters and leaders and show
where you will put the French drains on the drawing, and if
you know where the septic is at that point you can show
that; we know it's out of our jurisdiction, but we'd like it
on the plans. And as per plan by Fairweather-Brown dated
January 18, 2006.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
8. Alpha Consulting on behalf of A. SHELLEY
TUPPER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 6'
access ramp leading to a 4' by 27' catwalk with a 3' by 15'
56
Board of Trustees
57
March 22, 2006
hinged ramp and a 6' by 20' floating dock secured by three
float piles. Located: 3050 Minnehaha Boulevard,
Southold. SCTM#87 -3-41
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this
application? Conservation Advisory Council did not make an
inspection therefore no recommendation was made by them.
think it's been found inconsistent with the LWRP. I think
one of the concerns there were no neighboring docks, but
there are neighboring docks, I think the review is based on
an old aerial photo I believe it was prior to other docks
being constructed here because there are docks in the area.
This is really a modest proposal for this area.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Did they have a question about material?
TRUSTEE KING: No, but we can make sure it's untreated.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And isn't this the one we recommended
the grating?
TRUSTEE KING: We recommended the grating too, because the
next door neighbor has that grated dock, it's really nice.
The length will not impede navigation, there's plenty of
room. It's not an obstruction to navigation. As far as
preserving open space, the area is already developed. I
think this is a little misleading. Are there any comments
at all? Any Board comments? I'll make a motion to close
the hearing.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve this application
for this dock. It's to be constructed of untreated
material, the decking, and we would suggest that the new
grated system, but it doesn't have to be that it's up to the
owner, as long as it's untreated decking material.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
9. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf
of BELVEDERE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC requests a Wetland
Permit to install a sanitary system, plus/minus 141' of
concrete retaining wall, truck in plus/minus 25' of clean
sand for the sanitary system, and to connect to public water
main. Located: First Street, New Suffolk. SCTM#117-8-19.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this
application?
MR. JUST: Good evening, Glen Just with J. M. O.
Consulting. I'm here to answer any questions the Board or
public might have, and I have also placed a letter in the
file earlier today that I have Mr. Martin Reeve, who is a
57
Board of Trustees
58
March 22, 2006
project engineer from Barrett, Bonacci and Banwheel, in case
there's any technical questions.
Would you like me to give a little background on
this project?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Glen, did you get any feedback?
MR. JUST: I'll give you a little of the background. In the
year 2000 we applied for an application to build a private
ferry terminal, that's what the property's zoned as. That's
the small building that you see there. The building was
supposed to be 48' by 28'; it ended up being 38' by 28', a
little smaller, and to redo the bulkheading and the docks at
the site. We have done one-third of the bulkheading. We
have just received an approval to do the second two-thirds,
that permit had expired; they're going to start that in the
next couple of weeks. And the only reason that the sanitary
system was never installed at the office building at the
time it was approved in 2000 was that we couldn't obtain
Suffolk County Health Department approval because there's no
potable water in the area. Since that time Suffolk County
Water Authority has brought water down to the site, and now
we can hook up to it. Again, that's the reason we're here
now. We couldn't get approval before. We now have an
application pending with the Health Department for that
sanitary system. The system has changed slightly since our
original approval. I have copies of the revised plans. The
system consists of four pools and a septic tank. The pools
actually leach, as you know, a septic tank is a sealed unit.
What the Health Department had Mr. Reeve do is to realign --
just note that the changes the tank now has been realigned
97 or 87 feet away from the high tide line. That's the only
part of the system that doesn't leach. Basically what the
Health Department had us do was flip around, before a
leaching pool had been in that location and the leaching
pools are all located more than 100 feet away from --
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So all of them are out of our
jurisdiction?
MR. JUST: I'm not trying to point that out, but they are.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So it's only the holding tank that's
there.
MR. JUST: Only the holding tank would be within the 100
foot setback.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The question we had and the point we
wanted to talk about was there's a drainpipe that's on the
public road that's very close, and this is elevated above
that.
MR. JUST: I don't recall seeing a drainpipe there, John, in
58
Board of Trustees
59
March 22, 2006
2000.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's not a pipe.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Not a drainpipe it's a --
MR. JUST: Catch basin.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Not a drainpipe, a catch basin, I
misspoke.
MR. REEVE: Good evening, I'm Martin Reeve with Barratt,
Bonacci. There is a drain in the street right in front of
where the retaining wall will be. The work will be
limited to the property, it won't affect the drain at all.
I know there was some concern about flooding.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Because you'll get a foot and a half or
two feet of water down there sometimes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because the drain doesn't take care of the problem.
MR. REEVE: We looked at that problem back in 2000 and
there's really no where on the street to install a drainage
structure because groundwater is so high, there's just so much
capacity.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But do we have a problem with that water
infiltrating up into the cesspools?
MR. REEVE: No. Because the cesspools would be more than two feet above
expected high water.
TRUSTEE KING: Could it go the other way; could it go from
the cesspools into that road drain?
MR. REEVE: The retaining wall will force drainage to be
vertical to stay within the property and go straight down.
TRUSTEE KING: One of the concerns that was brought up is if
that drain in the road gets contaminated, what usually
happens when that road gets flooded, the Town comes
down and pumps it into the bay.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Will that create a negative pressure?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We're not in favor of what the Town is
doing, let's make that very clear.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is on our priority list for storm
water ru noff.
MR. REEVE: I don't think it will affect it. There's enough
separation. There will be about 20 feet between the
leaching pool and the drain, if not more.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: How far down does that wall go?
MR. REEVE: Wall, probably about 18 inches to two feet below
grade.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's all. Then the cesspools are two
feet above that?
MR. REEVE: The bottom of the cesspools will be two feet
above high water that's at a minimum.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The flooding there is fairly
59
Board of Trustees
60
March 22, 2006
substantial.
TRUSTEE KING: That's a problem.
MR. REEVE: But the flooding is not caused by the property.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: No, no, no, but it's there and it's not
Going to saturate the soil.
MR. JUST: We had addressed the flooding in 2000 whereas
there was going to be drainage going down just on the west
side of the boat ramp there, but we were turned down by
the DEe because of direct discharge. There wasn't enough
places to put separation tanks.
MR. REEVE: And that retaining wall, it's a waterproof
retaining wall on the property side of the wall. It's
waterproof on the inside, on the property side of the wall.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But it's open to the bottom so if
there's water pressure --
MR. REEVE: I think water would tend to migrate up and down,
not to side to side, I think the wall would stop that.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I don't know enough about that, but if
you have a wall here and five feet of water on this side of
the wall, and there's nothing underneath it, there's a
positive pressure pushing down, and it's going to release on
it on the other side.
TRUSTEE KING: It's going to seek its own level.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It's going to seek its own level. So if
you put a wall here and there's four feet of water on one
side and nothing on the other, we're just afraid it might
come back up in there, and that's a real concern. And it's
still out of our jurisdiction. You understand what we're
trying to say, we can't tell you what to do. But we felt
there was a real problem with this. The one suggestion we
had and we just threw it out, would you go for a container,
a pump-out?
MR. REEVE: The Health Department doesn't allow that.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: At all?
MR. REEVE: They don't allow alternative systems.
MR. JUST: We've looked into the dry system. The
Health Department wears blinders. It's a criteria that's
in their guide books, they won't even entertain it.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That has been approved. There's one in
South Harbor Road, brand new -- 10 years ago -- house, she put it
in there and fought the county. There has been this
precedent for it happening.
MR. JUST: We did look into that. And the other thing to
note too is how often the bathroom would be used. The
building itself is used if guests happen to be coming out to
the island, if they're waiting for a boat, it's inclement
60
Board of Trustees
61
March 22, 2006
weather, they'll run inside the office, if they have to use
the john as they have driven in from out of town. If there
are boat captains that are on duty couple of days a week, so
it's a place for them to go, but otherwise the building
would be barely used except for storage, you know, what it
is right now.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The bottom line is, we don't have
jurisdiction over it.
MR. JUST: I think Legends is getting tired of seeing people
walking down the road and using his bathroom.
TRUSTEE KING: Could the road drain be moved?
MR. JUST: We saw something in the Suffolk Times a couple of
weeks ago, Jim, where if I'm not mistaken they're saying a
lot of problems are caused by people with sump pumps on 24
hours a day.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We've stopped that since then. It's a
complicated problem. We're trying to work on it and figure
out different systems; there's going to have to have
drainage up.
TRUSTEE KING: It's a horrible situation.
MR. JUST: That was a big issue when we went to the Planning
Board for a private terminal at the ZBA. We've mentioned
this time and time and time again.
TRUSTEE KING: It's north further too. I remember when I
first got on the Board I went down there on a rainy day, and
here's the Town pumping out another one.
MR. REEVE: You need to raise the road.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's a matter of water coming from above
down to that location from up Jackson Street, up New Suffolk
Avenue and coming down there. That's the problem, and the
problem exists along Second Avenue also. I know there's a
lot of residents in New Suffolk still sitting here, you've
made it through the evening here, believe me, we are very
concerned about that, but that is not the fault of this
stru ctu re.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's going to have to be a series of catch
basins and drains throughout the whole thing. Hopefully
through the Storm Water Runoff Committee we accomplish.
MR. REEVE: So something that they did in the Village of
Patchogue, they raised Smith Street. I think they raised
the entire road up and installed drainage and it works.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's one theory, but in that corner of
water where does it all go? It's not all going to go in the
drain. It's a complicated mess that hopefully we can work
out.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It isn't environmentally a problem for
61
Board of Trustees
62
March 22, 2006
us.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? I'll make a motion to
close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application
based on the new plans that moves the system out of our
jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
10. J.M.O. Environmental consulting, Inc. on behalf
of EMANUEL ARTURI requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct
in-place approximately 178' of timber bulkhead utilizing
vinyl sheathing and to backfill the structure with
approximately 50 cubic yards of clean sand to be trucked in
from an upland site. Located: 7600 Peconic Bay Boulevard,
Laurel. SCTM#126-11-13
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The LWRP is it consistent. Glen, we had a
question, we saw up above the rocks they have a clearing; we
saw three properties in the same area, maybe I'm confusing
MR. JUST: I don't think there's any rocks. The water's
right up to the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KING: Stone retaining walls up on the wall.
MR. JUST: There's a wooden retaining wall.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They have a split-rail fence. So it's
on the landward side of the split-rail fence.
TRUSTEE KING: No, this is the other one.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: These two properties were pretty much the
same, same driveway, same house. CAC did not make an
inspection. Glen, is there any way during construction,
there's very little remains of groins, can they be taken out
during construction?
MR. JUST: I know exactly what you're talking about. Put it
on the permit.
TRUSTEE KING: Just the remnants of a groin, while
they're there they might as well take them out.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments from anybody? From the
Board? I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the
application of Emanuel Arturi as applied for with the
condition that during construction they remove the remnants
of the old groin that is hardly there.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
62
Board of Trustees
63
March 22, 2006
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
11. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of LOVE LANE
ACQUISITION CORP. requests a Wetland Permit to replace 305
feet (A-B-C) and 139 feet (C-D-E-F) of bulkhead with new
bulkhead in-place, provide clean fill between existing
bulkhead and new bulkhead, repair/replace 747' of walkways,
construct 218' of new walkways along bulkhead,
repair/replace 218' of decks, raise bulkhead A-B on north
side 1 foot, remove approximately 800 cubic yards of clean
fill and store on site during construction, remove unclean
fill and replace with clean fill and place 160 cubic yards
of clean fill between new and old bulkhead: Located: 650
First Street, New Suffolk. SCTM#117-8-18.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anyone here to speak on this
application?
MS. MOORE: Hello, we're all here. You've been at the site
many times I know with respect to this project, you've seen
it once. We've revised it some to satisfy some historic
problems over there, in particular the bulkhead over by
Captain Marty's side, and then you were out there on the
site with Michael. So rather than stay later tonight, I'll
defer to any questions you might have.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Question regarding the wood bulkhead on the
south side of the rock revetment?
MS. MOORE: Handwritten?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct.
MS. MOORE: There was an old wood bulkhead there. It's
still functioning and what we were trying to do is show
everything that's on site on the property
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't believe that's a functioning
bulkhead at this time.
MR. RAYNOR: Michael Raynor. Actually it is. If you go out
there at low tide it drops down four feet, and it's holding
back the rocks and whatever concrete is left. I can take
photos of it if you want.
TRUSTEE KING: Are there any plans of doing anything with
that now?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No.
MS. MOORE: No. But we wanted to show everything that was
on there.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm thinking down the road if they want to do
something, if you can't see it and it's low, you may want to
replace that with a low sill bulkhead rather than a full
bulkhead.
63
Board of Trustees
64
March 22, 2006
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. But that's something you would
have to come back to us anyway.
MS. MOORE: If he has any money left.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There's a lot of metal and stuff in there,
when you're cleaning up the area getting ready to repair the
other bulkhead, is there any way you can take some of that --
MR. RAYNOR: That will all be removed and put back with
clean fill.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the south side of the rock.
MS. MOORE: Where it says wood bulkhead?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, in those rocks there's metal pieces
and stuff.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Between the launching ramp and the bulkhead
we were just describing.
MR. RAYNOR: When it comes time to do work there, yes, I'd
be willing to do that, but as of right now --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You're going to leave it alone.
MR. RAYNOR: It's fragile to say the least.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just figured I'd ask.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The bulkhead, as we understand it, is going
to be subject to new surveys, but you're saying it's going
to be in-place?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And that makes it exempt from the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's why that's important to note that.
Were there any other comments from anybody?
MR. BAKER: My name is Jim Baker. I live in New Suffolk.
Tonight I represent the New Suffolk Waterfront Committee,
and this letter is to the Board of Trustees from that
committee regarding this application.
"We have reviewed the application submitted by Love
Lane Acquisition Corporation, the applicant, for the
referenced work. We have also taken into account the
applicant's previous application to the Trustees and the
Planning Board for approval to construct permanent boat
storage racks and other related site improvements at their
shipyard. The primary reason we're addressing you today
involves the relationship between these two projects.
"While it is true the original site plans submitted
for the boat racks project did not specifically include the
maintenance and repair work described in the Trustee
application before you now, this work must certainly be
included in the larger scope of that application.
"As lead agent for the environmental review of the
permanent boat storage rack project the Town Planning Board
hired an environmental consultant. The consultant
64
Board of Trustees
65
March 22, 2006
identified deficiencies in the information presented in the
application and the environmental assessment form. This
report was transmitted to the applicant on July 22, 2005 for
their review and response. As of Tuesday exactly eight
months later, the Planning Board has neither received the
applicant's response to this study nor has gotten a
reasonable explanation for their delay.
"Our position is the Trustees must have the
environmental information requested by the Planning Board
for the overall proposal to develop the site before
determining whether to approve the applicant's request to
conduct maintenance repair and new construction on the site.
"Although the referenced work is described as being
primarily maintenance, repair, to the bulkheads and
associated decking, there is some new construction
described, namely 218 square feet of walkways to be added
along the bulkhead and bulkhead A-B on the north side of the
property to be raised one foot. While it's fairly clear
from the drawing where the bulkhead raising is to be
located, it's not clear at all where the new walkways will
be added. The drawings must be revised to explicitly show
location of the proposed construction superimposed over
preexisting conditions.
"Further, the purpose of the new construction,
raised bulkheading and additional walkways should be stated
on the revised drawing. Although the applicant claims this
work is being driven by damage from this winter's storms,
firsthand observations over the past few years suggest the
primary reason these bulkheads and walkways need attention
is due to chronic lack of repair and maintenance since the applicant
assumed ownership in 1994. This calls into the question the
urgency the applicant is claiming. We feel adequate
time should be allowed to integrate the assessment
of this environmentally sensitive maintenance repair
work in the context of the larger storage rack project.
"Although this project is being presented as a
routine maintenance and repair project, the historical and
industrial uses of this site indicate the potential of heavy
metals and other soil contaminants to leach into the water
during this bulkhead work. If not properly managed, this
project also carries with it a high risk of allowing
sediments entry into Cutchogue Harbor due to the extreme
sensitivity of the Peconic Estuary and in particular this
specific land-water interface the potentially adverse
impacts of this proposal must be evaluated and mitigated.
"We are aware that the Trustees and the Planning
65
Board of Trustees
66
March 22, 2006
Board have required environmental mitigation measures such
as the construction of boat wash down areas as part of the
request for marinas for approvals for site improvements. We
are concerned that this proposal for replacement in-kind and
new construction, however minor, is an attempt to segment
environmental and permit reviews for the larger site
development proposal.
"In light of the above, the New Suffolk Waterfront
Committee respectfully suggests that the Trustees do the
following: (A) Provide a written justification as to why
this project should be exempted from the environmental
review process of the larger boat rack storage project and
related improvements to the site. (B) Ask the applicant
for revised drawings that more clearly show the proposed
actions superimposed on preexisting site conditions, such
revisions to include but not limited to: (1) Showing from
where on the site the 800 cubic yards of fill will be
removed; (2) Defining where this fill would be stored during
construction until it is either reused or removed from the
site; and (3) Indicating how the fill would be protected
from storm water runoff in order to prevent contaminants
within the fill from seeping into the surface waters of the
bay. (4) Describing the purpose of raising the bulkhead on
the north side of the property and the purpose of the
additional walkways. (5) Providing details of how
storm water runoff will be retained on the site during all
phases of construction and in accordance with New York State
Storm Water Management regulations. And (6) Showing the
locations of proposed walkways and bulkhead reconstruction
superimposed on the preexisting conditions. And finally,
determine if any of this work requires coordination with the
Army Corps of Engineers.
"In closing, we appreciate the opportunity to
participate in the public review of this permit process, and
we hope the Trustees will address our concerns in a fair and
timely manner. Accordingly, we ask that the public hearing
for this project be held open for the above-noted
information has been submitted for public review and
comment. Sincerely, Diana Schwacker, President."
And copies went to Town Supervisor and Members of
the Board, Town Attorney, Acting Director Planning Office,
Chair of the Planning Board, and Environmental Permit Review
New York State, and Coastal Resources Division, New York
State. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Anybody else like to address?
MS. ROBBINS: Joan Robbins, 16995 Main Street, New
66
Board of Trustees
67
March 22, 2006
Suffolk. I'm going to read a letter that I helped prepare
stating concerns from a group of New Suffolk residents.
"We reviewed the application submitted by Love Lane
Acquisition Corporation for the matter under review here.
We have taken into account the applicant's previous
application to the Trustees and the Planning Board for
approval to construct boat storage racks at their shipyard.
"The primary reason we are addressing you today
involves the relationship of these two projects. It appears
to us that by submitting the referenced project, the
applicants are breaking their larger project, the boat racks
into smaller pieces and attempting to gain approval for their
larger project in a piecemeal fashion. We believe this
approach is illegal.
"Although the work is primarily maintenance and
repair of existing bulkheads and associated decking, there
is some construction involved, namely 218 square feet of
walkways to be added along bulkhead. This new work as well
as some maintenance and repair is directly related to the
boat racks project, which could not proceed with the
bulkheads and the decking in their current state of
disrepair.
"Although the applicants claim this work is driven
by damage from this winter's storms, we know from our
firsthand observations, the primary reason these bulkheads
and decks now need attention is due to the applicant's
chronic lack of repair and maintenance over the past several
years.
"Managing the interface between land and sea
especially where there is development such as marinas is key
to natural resource protection" -- which is your province --
"The great number of laws and regulations protecting this
interface is evidence of its importance. Correctly designed
bulkheads and associated structures provide barriers that
protect the sea, in this case the estuary, from impacts due
to runoff of storm drainage, silt and soil and hazardous
materials.
"The applicant's failure to maintain
this barrier over the past 11 plus years of ownership and
demonstrates that they have not accepted their stewardship
responsibilities over the natural resources they're charged
with protecting. The applicant's proposal to use their land
for three-tier boat rack storage further demonstrates their
lack of consideration for the intent and the letter for the
town's LWRP.
"The applicant's past performance must be a
67
Board of Trustees
68
March 22, 2006
consideration when considering the current application. We
concur that this current maintenance and repair project is
necessary, except for the 218 square feet of new walkways to
protect the environment. However, we do not consider this
to be in any way furthering the cause and justification of
the boat racks project as currently presented to the Town
for approval. In fact, we consider the need for the project
and your review to represent in itself one of the main
reasons why the larger boat rack storage project should not
be approved."
I have a very brief letter of my own, which I will
hand in. "Board of Trustees, I have questions concerning
the ownership of the property under review. It was acquired
by public auction/foreclosure, August 15,1994 by Love Lane
Acquisition Corporation an entity incorporated June 16,
1994. The present application before the Trustees is in
name of this entity. However, the application for a boat
rack proposal, still pending with the Planning Board, for
the same property was submitted December 22, 2004 in the
name of Matt-a-Mar by the Bay, LLC, an entity incorporated
September 24, 2004. The application for the same proposal
to the Building Department, December 17, 2004, was in the
name of Love Lane Acquisition Corp. Although the notice of
disapproval, January 4, 2005, was addressed to Matt-a-Mar By
the Bay. I would like to know, and I believe we in
the community should be informed, one, which
corporation owns the property; two, what is the nature of
the relationship between the two corporations; and three,
the identity of the principals of both corporations.
I would like to add that I am in full concurrence
addressed to you by the New Suffolk Waterfront Committee.
Thank you for your time and your patience."
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
MR. JOHNSTON: Could I ask you to repeat the sentence about
what you said was illegal? When you were reading your first
letter.
MS. ROBBINS: "It appears to us that by submitting the
referenced project, the one you have before you, the
applicants are breaking their larger project of the boat
racks into smaller pieces or segments in attempting to gain
approval for their larger project in a piecemeal fashion."
And that's what we believe is illegal.
MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, sir.
MR. SIMON: Michael Simon, 17130 Main Street, New
Suffolk. I will try not to repeat points that have been
68
Board of Trustees
69
March 22, 2006
made. I am in concurrence with virtually alii have heard
from people in the back row, and I just would review a few
points.
There is a concern, as we have heard, a historical
concern since my family and I came to New Suffolk 17, 18
years ago, the waterfront, the future of the waterfront was
an issue. It has sadly needed attention. That has been
acknowledged. In the LWRP report, it was an activity that
was spawned by the 1992 to 1994 Task Force, U.S.-U.K.
Stewardship Task Force and then further elaborated during
the Hamlet Stakeholders meetings during the last couple of
years, and there's been a consistency in this. There have
been drawings, provisions, drawings by Thomas C.
Samuels. So people have been concerned. And the interest
of the community has been, as long as I have been here, not
to leave things the way it were, but to develop it in ways
which are consistent with the history, with the 1839 grant
from the state of New York, and for the continual use of
this as waterfront activity. And we have more recently,
after a series of observations of plans, a marina, there's a
condominium plan years ago there was an attempt to expand
the marina, and then beginning of the end of 2004, the plan
for the boat racks.
Since then, some of us have been monitoring the
process pretty closely, the application, the question, which
would be the lead agency, which is the Planning Board and
the efforts and commissioning NPV as consultants, the eight
month delay that has been pointed out with regard to the
response to that proposal having to do with whether there
had to be a positive dec or not involving more elaborate
SEQRA evaluations. So this has been going on and waiting.
When some of us saw the legal notice in the paper a
few weeks ago, I think some of us responded -- I at least --
this is kind of constructive. This is good news because
everybody knows that those bulkheads need to be improved and
over the years there's been deterioration. It's rather
ironic that there is this sense of urgency that suddenly the
damage of this past winter, which was, after all, a rather
mild winter, has led to this, but why not. It's a
good idea, it certainly improves the whole project. But
then, of course, we realized the question of segmentation,
which we referred to did come up and there are a broader set
of issues. There are a broader set of issues and that
this is part of a larger project. And whatever happens to
that waterfront has got to include the kind of proposal that
69
Board of Trustees
70
March 22, 2006
is made. And none of us oppose the kinds of changes that
are proposed under this condition. But the call for a
keeping open for the hearing to respond to study some of the
questions raised in the letter read by Jim Baker seem to be
extremely important. Is there going to be any
possibility -- this is a point made by one of our neighbors,
also another member of the stakeholder's committee, Jerry
Schultheis, that whether the investment that this project
will take will perhaps help to provide some kind of
momentum, perhaps an argument for economic hardship
given the investment to provide forward momentum to the
development of a larger project, which is still fairly
controversial, and which I realize is not in the domain of the
Trustees, but there are overlap issues.
What example, I believe it says in I think it's
Article -- it's Chapter 97 that has to do with split-rail
fences along waterfront property. Well the split-rail fence
along this property happens to be more than 100 feet from
the waterfront. However, if you go and look at First Street
where those split-rail fences would presumably occur what
exists are among the ugliest pieces of concrete blocks that
you could imagine in any place, especially in a scenic,
historic, waterfront village. So this is one large project,
which is certainly of interest to all of us including the
applicants.
So, I pray that the Trustees will think long and
hard before deciding whether to close the hearing and to
approve these, by themselves, excellent changes. So again,
I ask that the hearing be kept open.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Anybody else like to comment?
Yes.
MS. WICKHAM: Good evening. My name is Abigail Wickham of
Wickham, Bressler. At the risk of keeping you awake this
evening, I am appearing tonight on behalf of the New Suffolk
Waterfront Committee, who has asked me to summarize their
position, and I think they have stated it quite clearly. We
do believe that before the Trustees can act on the
application a careful consideration of a number of points is
required, and quite frankly, I don't know that you have the
information necessary at this point to make a determination
tonight.
The first question, as you have heard, is
segmentation, that's been pretty fully explored. But it is
not something that is permitted under SEQRA nor the Town
code, and it very well may be affect the LWRP assessment.
The project involves not only restoration but also
70
Board of Trustees
71
March 22, 2006
new construction and that construction specifically is
addition of additional decking and walkways and the raising
of the bulkhead level. Those items directly pertain to the
upland area where the larger project before the Town is
contemplated. Since there is an outstanding SEQRA process
underway, we think the additional work contemplated tonight
should be incorporated into that study. The Trustees worked
very closely with the Planning Board at the inception of the
boat rack application, and we would expect that that would
continue.
The second question is the scope of the permit
requested and I think that's where we're having some
confusion. It's not clear what additional fill will be
required as a result of raising the bulkhead and how the
grade of the property will be changed. We are not aware
that elevations drawings have been submitted on this aspect
of the project, and when you start talking about some of the
things they're considering, this could be a major,
major aspect of this application.
We would also like to call your attention to certain
historical questions regarding the existence of some of the
dock structures shown on the plan. We have an
original Young and Young survey dated September of
1987, and a Van Tuyl survey dated March of
1986, and we note several variations between those surveys
and the current plan, most notably the floating dock off the
end of the restaurant, which was formerly a fixed dock in a
different location and configuration, a different and
smaller deck area around the restaurant, and different docks
extending from the marina bulkhead.
Regarding the replacement of the bulkhead, the plan
calls for a new bulkhead to be located one and a half feet
seaward of the existing bulkhead. Is this sufficient to exempt
it from the LWRP if it's not exactly in the same place? Will
this increase in the area of a foot and a half over the entire
length be able to be used by the applicant as additional
square footage on its site plan application? And will that
increase the building area? That would directly affect the
SEQRA process and we think that should be looked into.
On the specifics of the map as was mentioned before,
it's unclear where the additional repair is to be done,
where the additional walkways are to be located, where the
fill is exactly going to be placed and how it's going to be
placed. By some reference by Heather today about the deck
area being for drainage, and if it's drainage I think that
needs to be explored, maybe I just misunderstood her. And if
71
Board of Trustees
72
March 22, 2006
the contractor is removing fill, that doesn't meet
Department of Environmental Conservation standards, we do
have concerns about how that would impact the overall the
environmental concerns as well as the scope of the project
could be dramatically expanded if they find fill that's
contaminated.
So again, we ask that you look at this very
carefully and make sure all the questions are answered
before you do, as Mr. Simon indicated, address this much
needed application. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Would anybody else like to
comment?
MS. MOORE: Briefly, the Board has had this application
since it was submitted in February of this year, but prior
to that we had submitted the plan, and you had an
opportunity to look at it. We did revise it based on your
recommendations.
With regard to where exactly the structures are
versus what the plans show, you actually went on site. The
drawings reflect what's there, and then it's obvious what is
going to be replaced. You took a great deal of time at the
site inspection, at least two site inspections, because I do
recall from conversations with Jill and I know that Michael
did relate to me the time you spent with him going over the
application, so it's very clear what is existing and how
it's going to be repaired or replaced.
With regard to the additional 218 square feet,
that's the size of about a shed, and the wood walkway is
merely going what is on top of the area landward of the
bulkhead, which is with rock, so as to provide additional
drainage and better dealing environmental concerns that this
Board had expressed during one of the site inspections. So
the new walkways, as you know, is really covering over what
is some mitigation for some historic drainage problems in
that area, which you guys were dealing Belvedere just moments
ago.
It's interesting the comments I'm hearing, they
complain and complain and make record after record how
deplorable condition of this property is. Michael Raynor and
Love Lane Acquisition Corp., the owner of the property,
they're taking the major investment in making sure that this
property is protected, that the structures are maintained,
and now there's complaint that we're doing it. It's very
obvious we will never make this community happy. We are
doing what we need to do to preserve the value and protect
the property.
72
Board of Trustees
73
March 22, 2006
With respect to environmental issues that you
consider all throughout, we are replacing permitted
bulkhead, either grandfathered because there are multiple
permits in your files, grandfathered permits that go way
back. The historic use of this shipyard is well documented
as well. We are replacing in-place -- in-kind in that we're
taking the wood that you do not like to see there, that is
not environmentally appropriate, and we're replacing it with
vinyl. So with respect to the location, Michael tells me we
actually have to remove the old bulkhead and put in the new
bulkhead. So it is going in place, it's not wrapping it,
it's replacing it. This project stands alone. It is a
maintenance. It is a replacement and repair of existing,
permitted structures, grandfathered structures. The boat
storage racks were considered site plan issues. I don't
recall if they considered it an expansion, but certainly
there's been storage on the site, that's clear. But that is
a different application with extensive review that we
anticipate will be here before this Board. We have to
maintain the property, and there has been additional
deterioration due to the storms, the 40 days and 40 nights
of rain that we had. You know from the applications you've
had that this particular winter, while it was a mild one,
did experience extreme amounts of water and rain problems.
So the Board is very familiar with this application. The
opposition is doing what the opposition always wants to do,
which is delay and interfere with the preservation of this
property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. I'll try to address
some of the questions or issues and then I have a couple
questions. Before I do that, first off, the CAC did
consider this and they approved the project with the
condition no treated lumber is used, and we're using vinyl.
The LWRP did do a review of the removal and backfill of the
bulkhead, and they found that it was consistent. They have
a couple of recommendations, one I'll get to in a second.
The opportunity to use a turbidity screen out in the harbor
to prevent anything from floating out into Peconic Bay,
that was one. The other one, which is connected to a
question I have is you don't have on the map where the
temporary spoil site is going to be. And I was wondering
where that was going to be located if it's on site here, if
you were planning on taking it off site because I believe --
MS. MOORE: The property's large enough, it can be anywhere on
this property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If it's over 100 feet, it's out of our
73
Board of Trustees
74
March 22, 2006
jurisdiction. They noted on the LWRP if it was within 100
feet to make sure there's hay bales around it to contain.
There was a question, I've heard about the new walkway, and
I think this is part of which you connected with a
conversation earlier with Heather, that's an area that we
had looked at for a nonturf buffer, and the request was if a
walkway could go over that and still serve as the buffer
area; as a matter of fact, we approved that earlier tonight
with another application, so that is something that people
have seen we already approved that tonight.
There was a question that I heard about raising the
bulkhead one foot over on the north side, that was requested
actually by the Trustees, and just so the people that are
here that spoke that live in New Suffolk, the Trustees were
concerned to see if Love Lane Corporation was willing to
incorporate into this raising the bulkhead a foot to
possibly mitigate the flooding issues that occur in the
First Street area when you have those severe nor'easters and
the water breaches up over there between Captain Marty's and
what's now a one-story frame garage on that side. I think
people live down in New Suffolk now that water and severe
nor'easters does breach that area, so we were the ones who
recommended that that be raised by a foot to help mitigate
the possibility of flooding to New Suffolk.
We have a request of the applicant if they would be
willing to put a dry well to the west of the concrete path
that's adjacent to the boat launching area to help collect
storm water there, so it doesn't go on down the concrete ramp
and into the water. It's to help eliminate or reduce the
amount of water.
MR. RAYNOR: Which concrete path?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The concrete path adjacent to the launching
ramp area where the travel pit is, on the plan here it shows
a concrete slab there. We're saying just to the west of
there, if you would like to come up and look at the plans.
MS. MOORE: In between the concrete pad and the revetment?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: One of the issues I've heard in the
comments is the connections between the projects, I'm
referring to as projects, one being the boat ramp is one
project and this being a separate project -- those are my
words, not yours -- we have discussed it with a couple
Board Members, unless, please somebody, speak up if
you disagree, they are two separate projects. The boat ramp
issue, that's another project that's being reviewed right now,
that is not connected to this particular project that we have before us
tonight.
74
Board of Trustees
75
March 22, 2006
The other thing I do want to disclose is that I,
myself do rent a boat slip but not on the property here
being decided or being considered tonight, I do rent a boat
slip from the corporation. So I want to disclose that
publicly so nobody comes back at me afterwards about not
disclosing that, that's all. Were there any other issues
that anybody up here on the Board had or anything I forgot
to address with comments we heard tonight?
TRUSTEE KING: Some of the rubbish material behind the
bulkhead, that's going to be disposed of and taken off site?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct, and that's where the clean fill
was going back in.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We took a careful look at the survey, we
looked at aerial maps and actually counted each piling on
the aerial map and each piling on the survey to make sure
the survey was accurate, and we didn't find any
discrepancies.
MS. WICKHAM: I want to clarify, I don't know if Mrs. Moore
misunderstood, but I do not believe there are any complaints
on behalf of New Suffolk Waterfront Committee. We are
asking for specificity and in that regard, am I to
understand that there will not be a raising of the grade
on the property, just raising of the bulkhead?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Along that one wall on that side. I just want to
make that clear, it's just the one area where the bulkhead
is being raised.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What was explained to us is the amount of
cubic yards they might not need that much to refill. We
want them to take out all that debris that's in there and
put clean up fill in. They might not need that much clean
fill.
MS. WICKHAM: Talking about an area behind the existing
bulkhead?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct.
MS. WICKHAM: Is that area specified anywhere? There's
nothing on the map that says how deep they can go landward
or just how big an area. That's why I said, we don't
understand where the scope of this project could be, where
the new decking is going to be. You've been out there
you've seen it.
MS. MOORE: Do you want me to point it out?
MS. WICKHAM: No, I think it should be noted on the map.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is the decking on there now?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, I was just about to ask about that.
MS. WICKHAM: Those were questions.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: With the fill, we asked, I think
75
Board of Trustees
76
March 22, 2006
I even asked the question at the time, they wanted to take
out the bad fill, and they don't know how much is really
there. I understand the indeterminacy there, but part of
it deals with the fact they don't know how much tar and
asphalt.
MS. WICKHAM: If they dig up 10 feet, and it's still there.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But they're limited by how much fill
they can put in, so that much fill is not a lot. It's
already washed out a considerable amount. So I think your
fears are a little --
MS. WICKHAM: Is it an 800 cubic yard limitation? I'm not
clear on what the limitation is.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: 800.
MS. WICKHAM: If it were more they had have to come back?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct.
MS. WICKHAM: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I do want some clarification from the
applicant here, in the area that's marked from C to 0 on the
plan, this is where the new walkway is going on the buffer
area you have stairs going down, that's going to remain at
the level it has been at; you're not raising that up to what
I would call parking lot level?
MR. RAYNOR: No.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So we could draw in there on the plan that
is going to be the decking you're requesting. Why don't you
come up here while I draw it on here. Is this where you're
talking about putting a new walkway?
MR. RAYNOR: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: In your final plans make sure you indicate
that.
MS. MOORE: We're not raising the height of the bulkhead,
that's the only way you would be able to bring the bulkhead
and the property to the same level.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was one of the things I was trying to
determine.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments?
MR. BAKER: Jim Baker again, New Suffolk. One comment, I'm
a civil engineer and environmental engineer, I'm not
licensed in the state. As Gail said, we're just concerned,
this is supposed to be an engineering drawing, it's supposed
to describe how the applicant is going to execute your
requirements in the state and county and town, whatever
requirements they are to protect the environment. Very,
very wishy-washy, there was little or no substance in my
mind to explain to me as an engineer how this is going to be
done, and also, importantly, once construction begins, for
76
Board of Trustees
77
March 22, 2006
example, what tools are there to go back and assure that the
applicant is doing the right thing unless you have a set of
plans and specs. Like putting that pile of material they
take out. Okay, it's going to be behind the 100 feet so
it's out of your jurisdiction, but I'm very concerned, as
you mentioned, with the flooding we have in New Suffolk,
suppose we have that pile there, the hay bales are between
there and sea, but we get a storm and the runoff starts
going the other way down to Lake New Suffolk, and then it
gets pumped into the sea. These are the kind of issues we
have with this proposal. I mean, granted, I will be as an
engineer admit, these bulkheads need to be maintained and
repaired, I won't argue with that. It's just a damn poor
job of describing what they're going to do and don't provide
the tools to follow up to make sure you're getting the kind
of job you want when you're projecting the
environment. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
MR. RAYNOR: If it helps, I'll be more than happy to talk it
over for any rain runoff for any soil.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If no other comments, I'll make a motion
to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I make a motion to approve the application
of Patricia Moore on behalf of Love Lane Acquisition as
described with the conditions that a dry well is installed
as we showed on the plans and you'll submit new plans,
obviously, showing these, but the dry well, the new walkway
is shown in the area that we specified, and that the spoil
is going to be moved and stored outside of our jurisdiction
no more than 100 feet away from any waterway or wetland
area, and contaminated material moved offsite and also would
you consider using a silt screen at the entrance of the
harbor area to help prevent any debris going out into
Peconic Bay in the bulkheading part of this. All subject to
new plans.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES.
12. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of SHIRLEY
KRAM requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed open
walkway 4' by 50', and float 6' by 15' parallel to the fixed
dock; install two piles or metal pipes to secure float, construct
wood launching ramp 6' by 23' with a 6' by 4' platform at
landward end. Construct 10' by 12' gazebo or storage shed;
77
Board of Trustees
78
March 22, 2006
clear upland vegetation as necessary for access to
structures for off-street parking. Located: 1275 West
Cedar Point Drive, Southold. SCTM#90-1-2
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The description I read is a little
different than on the agenda, it's been updated. We all
were at the site. The CAC did not inspect, so therefore,
no comments. And LWRP found it inconsistent, which
we talked about in the field and made
some changes. The setbacks were one of the things.
MR. FITZGERALD: The gazebo or shed 25 feet back from the
end of the dock and the parking area, 20' by 20', is
shown. The 25 feet is the figure you gave me.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And there's one comment here from LWRP
that I don't understand, it says swimming pool and related
structures. Because he has that highlighted, but --
MS. CUSACK: He took it out of the code, it says swimming
pool and related structures have to be 50 feet --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, it's in bold, so I didn't know,
right. We talked about the ramp next to it and how we felt
we didn't need to have that size ramp there. I see that's
still --
MR. FITZGERALD: The discussion was about the width as I
recall, and I asked the applicant's son to measure the dolly
they use for the Sunfish, and the outside dimension of the
wheels is 4'4".
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So, what are you proposing that be?
MR. FITZGERALD: Six feet, which seems reasonable given the
width of the boat, which is somewhat more than that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What were you proposing material for that
ramp, to build that?
MR. FITZGERALD: I don't know. I would presume
that marine plywood be --
TRUSTEE KING: If we allow that, it should be the new grated
system, kept low and the stuff will grow up toward --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let me ask you this, would it work, would
it suffice if instead of installing a ramp, you just clear
the area like you said about 6', she said about 4'4", so
next to the dock about 6' of extra clearing so they could
just wheel it down there; is there any need for the ramp?
MR. FITZGERALD: That would be the best way of doing it, but
the bank at that point is at least 18 inches high.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Maybe we could use the new material that's
out that you could put down and the growth could still grow
through it.
MR. FITZGERALD: That's a good idea.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's a hard surface, but yet you still
78
Board of Trustees
79
March 22, 2006
have the growth. It's not going to get out of control
because you're going to be using it. I think we would
rather see something like that.
MR. FITZGERALD: I think I would too, it seems more practical.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Here are hand-drawn new plans in red.
MR. FITZGERALD: I wasn't able to get the real map done by
the map guy in time, so I did that and unless you have some
changes, if you could act on it contingent upon the new map
being that way in black instead of red?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure.
TRUSTEE KING: What was the proposed height of this ramp?
MR. FITZGERALD: You mean height above grade? It would be
at grade. The flat part up top just four feet would be at
grade and it would go down, straight down from there.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just thinking DEC, I'd like to see it
up off the ground a foot.
MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. But there's got to be a way to get
the wheels up.
TRUSTEE KING: Just have a little ramp up to it out of that
grated material, and that would allow some vegetation to
grow under it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And to use that material. Are there any
other comments from the Board? I make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion approve the application of
Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of Shirley Kram for a
fixed open walkway 4' by 30'; hinged ramp 3' by 14';
floating dock 6' by 20'; install two piles or metal pipes to
secure float; construct a launching ramp approximately one
foot high made of a fiberglass or some other or aluminum
grating system that the vegetation could grow through, and
that would be approximately a 6' by 14' ramp with a 6' by 4'
platform at landward end, and to construct a 10' by 12'
gazebo 25 feet back from the landward edge of the dock, and
a 20' by 20' area for off-street parking all subject to
revised plans showing all that.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
15. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of SUSAN & LOUIS
VALENTE requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace
in-place approximately 114 linear feet of existing timber
bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead; backfill with approximately 50
cubic yards of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland
79
Board of Trustees
80
March 22, 2006
source; and remove and replace in-place existing plus/minus
3' by plus/minus 28' set of platforms and steps. Located:
6800 (aka 6730) Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
SCTM#126-11-4
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this?
MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicants. If the Board has any questions, I'd be happy to
answer them.
TRUSTEE KING: The only question I had, Rob, is why is it
such an odd-ball shaped structure?
MR. HERMANN: I don't know. I have from 1976 it's exactly
the same. It's always been this way, and I don't know why.
But to try and straighten it, you'd have to fill some of
that bay front. It looks like on the tax map too. But to
try to straighten it, you'd have to try to fill some of that
bay front, which --
TRUSTEE KING: I know, Jill and I talked about it, I said
wouldn't it be nice if we could go from this corner to that
corner, and then we said, no way will they let him fill that
intertidal zone. We didn't have any problem with it. It's
a straightforward replacement. It's consistent with the
policies of LWRP. It's addressing the backfilling with 50
cubic yards of sand that's consistent. If there's no other
comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application
as presented.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
16. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of SUSAN &
DENNIS DONLIN requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing
dock and construct in same location a fixed timber dock,
consisting of a 4' by 12' inclined ramp, 4' by 20' fixed
catwalk, 3' by 14' hinged ramp, and 6' by 20' "T" float
secured by two 6" diameter pilings.
Located: 8417 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM#104-3-12
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We had no problem with it, I believe. It
was exempt from the LWRP and the CAC had no comment
because they did not get a chance to inspect it. Is there
any comment from anybody?
MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann on behalf of the
applicants. Lauren, I think we included in the application
the dock existing has Permit #1659. It was a grandfathered
permit issued to Mr. Kron, K-R-O-N, and it was assigned a
80
Board of Trustees
81
March 22, 2006
dock number. I don't know if there's some continuity
between that and the new dock, if there's something that
needs to be done with that number. I just wanted to make it
part of the record in case that was relevant to the Board.
MS. STANDISH: It gets a new number.
MR. HERMANN: My only question as I need to make it worth
having at stayed this long, the applicant contacted me
yesterday and asked whether the Board would have any
objection to slightly offsetting the "T" float in one
direction or in order to make it more of an "L" shaped?
TRUSTEE KING: Oh, no, it would be better if it went to the
left, facing the water, it would be better if it went to the
left, because there's another dock on the right that looks
like it might be close.
MR. HERMANN: Is that something you would actually want me
to show on a plan or if he just offsets it, do you care? I
think he wants to put a kayak or something on the inside of
it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We were also concerned his property line
extends down.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We were kind of thinking the same thing
too.
MR. HERMANN: If we were going to do it and show it to the
north --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
MR. HERMANN: Don't make any changes now, approve it as is.
If he wants to pursue it we'd have to come back to you and
the DEC to come back. I just wanted to make sure if we
wanted to come back, if you said no way, I wouldn't bother.
So leave it as is for now, and just know that we may come
back for a very minor shift. You can approve the plan, but
you can have the condition that if the applicant chooses to
create an "L" dock to the north, the approval will be
conditioned upon submission of revised plans.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That way you don't need an amendment.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments? I make a motion to
close the hearing.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion of En-Consultants, Inc.
on behalf of Dennis and Susan Donlin for the Wetland Permit
as written and with the option that if the applicant feels
the float should be moved to the north into an "L" shape
that it would be subject to new plans in the file to the
office.
81
Board of Trustees
82
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
MS. STANDISH: It's the north you said?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Make a motion to adjourn the meeting.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES
(Time ended: 11 :10 p.m.)
March 22, 2006
RECEIVED 4- rf<-4'd
/~. 05 Pi'll
JUN 2 2 2006
~al~
82