HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-04/19/2006
James F. King, President
Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President
Peggy A. Dickerson
Dave Bergen
John Holzapfel
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTH OLD
MINUTES
Wednesday, April 19, 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
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-6641
-
RECEIVCD 1-,fAd
102:osl7m
,rrjUN ) L2JfJ)
~.4 n~-t
SouIL~;& TL,;11 Clerk
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 at 8:00 a.m.
TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve,
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL Seconded. ALL AYES.
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 at 6:30 p.m.
WORK SESSION: 5:30 p.m.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY moved to Approve,
TRUSTEE DICKERSON Seconded. ALL AYES.
I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for
February, 2006, check for $8,590.40 was forwarded to the
Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
Board of Trustees
2
April 19, 2006
II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town
Clerk's Bulletin Board for review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
Lawrence Holfelder -- SCTM#126-11-1
Peter & Sonia Panagopoulos -- SCTM#30-2-70
George & Sandra Engelke -- SCTM#98-5-14.3
Anna Cooper -- SCTM#35-6-29
Sheila Patel -- SCTM#51-4-5.1
Breezy Shores Community, Inc. -- SCTM#53-5-12.5
Nicholas Bruno -- SCTM#76-1-2
Joseph Brittman -- SCTM#78-2-10
Edward & Adrienne Solomon -- SCTM#114-1-4
Margaret Reinhard -- SCTM#116-4-23
Charles & Lynn Hill -- SCTM#80-3-20
Steven E. Losquadro -- SCTM#117-6-33
Mary Raynor -- SCTM#116-4-21
Laughing Waters Property Owners Association -- SCTM#87-3-2.1 &60
Barbara & Joseph Isabella -- SCTM#107-7-6
Terry & Francis Triades -- SCTM#94-1-12.2
Thomas Perillo, Sr. -- SCTM#99-3-4.4
Peter & Arlene Manos -- SCTM#33-1-18
TRUSTEE KING: Good evening everyone, I apologize, we were a
little late getting going. But we had more people speaking
than we had planned. We like to give everybody an
opportunity to speak. I'd like to introduce the Board, we
have Dave Bergen, Peggy Dickerson, Jill Doherty, myself,
Lauren Standish is our office manager, John Holzapfel and
Brownell Johnston. Heather Cusack, our environmental
technician, and Don Wilder is CAC, Conservation Advisory
Council. There's not many people here, but we have been
busy the last few years. We totally rewrote the Wetland Code
and presently, this is a tough one, we're crafting a mooring
plan. It's going to take some time. Dave Bergen is kind of
the lead Trustee on that. We're also rewriting our
shellfish code, make some changes to that and bring it up to
date, and through these processes, our legal advisor
Brownell, I'd like to tell everybody he has been
volunteering his time. He's been to all these meetings,
he's guided us through all the legal ramifications, and he's
been a great asset. I'd just like to thank you, Brownell,
you're a great help to this team.
MR. JOHNSTON: It's a pleasure working with you and the
2
Board of Trustees
3
April 19, 2006
other four and Lauren and Heather.
TRUSTEE KING: That being said, let's get going with the
meeting. I'd like to get these meetings so we move along.
We're starting to go until 1 :00 in the morning, it's just
too much. We want people to participate; we want your
input, so keep it concise if you possibly can. Dave, you
have this statement, just to let folks know how we feel.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This statement was announced at a previous
meeting, so I'm just repeating it. The Trustees treat all
permit applications very seriously. Our goal is to obtain
as much information as possible pertaining to applications
prior to rendering decisions. Many applications come before
us for rulings each month, as such we need to run the
meeting in both an efficient and effective manner. A
statement has been included in the past which states that
presentations for applications are limited to five minutes,
yet our practice had been prior to January to allow
applicants and their representatives to address the Board
well beyond this time limit. This has resulted in meetings
running into the early morning hours when both the Trustees
and the applicants were exhausted. This process was not in
the best interest of either the applicants or the Trustees.
As such, effective in January, the Trustees meetings were to
be run according to published guidelines. Presentations
made by applicants or their representatives will be limited
to no more than five minutes. Every attempt will be made to
end the meeting prior to 12:00 midnight. Exceptions can be
made by the Trustee president or his or her designees.
Applicants are encouraged to devote appropriate attention to
their presentations prior to the meeting in an effort to
avoid any inconveniences as a result of this
practice. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Thanks, Dave.
IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
1. SANDRA KRAC & JUDITH PEREZ request an
Administrative Permit to install an 8' by 12' pre-fabricated
shed. Located: 490 Northfield Lane,
Southold. SCTM#79-3-4.2
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I went out and looked at this. It's
pretty straightforward. The shed is going on top of
railroad ties in the back yard. It's well past, or well
beyond or well away from the pond that's out there. The
only question they're going to have is how close to the
property line the Town code will allow it. As far as we're
3
Board of Trustees
4
April 19, 2006
concerned, I see no problem with this and will make a motion
to approve this.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in Favor? ALL AYES.
2. JENNIFER B. GOULD requests an Administrative
Permit to construct a single-story addition to the existing
dwelling, with removal of stoop deck and cellar
entrance. Located: 1820 a/ka/1825 Truman's Path, East
Marion. SCTM#31-13-3
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Everybody on the Board looked at these
plans, and I believe everybody on the Board didn't have a
problem with what we looked at last Wednesday. So if there
are no other comments from the Board, I will make a motion
to approve.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I also want to mention it is consistent
with LWRP. All in favor? ALL AYES.
3. JOSEPH l. TURCHIANO requests an Administrative
Permit to place a gazebo on the southwest corner of the
property, approximately 20 feet from the existing
bulkhead. Located: 450 Deep Hole Drive,
Mattituck. SCTM#115-12-5.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I went out there and where he wants to put
the gazebo is too close to the wetlands to the area, to the
neighboring wetlands. I suggested -- he's got like a tiered
property -- and I suggested for him to put it on the upper
tier on the other side. He didn't like that location.
However, he has not come into the Trustees' office to inform
us what he wants to do. So I make a motion that we could
approve a gazebo in the location that I suggested, which is
beyond 50 feet from the wetlands. And if he wants to do
something with it he can and if he doesn't he doesn't have
to.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
4. RONALD & EILEEN BREUER request an Administrative
Permit to revegetate the buffer area 50' by 36' in
accordance with the planting plan submitted and install a
shed 24' from the buffer area. Located: 100 Dean Drive,
Cutchogue. SCTM#116-4-3.1
TRUSTEE KING: This is an area that had been disturbed and
there was a recreational vehicle parked almost in the
wetland area that has been removed. And the disturbed area,
4
Board of Trustees
5
April 19, 2006
we have a planting plan it's going to be revegetated. Heather
reviewed the planting plan, everything seems to be in order.
I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
5. KAREN & ROLAND GRANT request an Administrative
Permit to remove dead and/or diseased limbs and branches
landward of top of the bank. Located: 1775 Indian Neck
Lane, Peconic. SCTM#86-5-9.1
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I went out and looked at this and there's
a whole lot of dead limbs that need to be just trimmed,
they're not looking to remove trees, they're looking to take
care of removing deceased and dead limbs. As such, I would
make a motion to approve this.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES.
6. Creative Environmental Design on behalf of DAVID
HOFFMAN requests an Administrative Permit for the removal
pruning of existing vegetation to provide for planting of
smaller plants to secure bluff from erosion and regrading of
turf area to direct runoff away from the bluff edge:
Located: 1230 Ruch Lane, Southold. SCTM#52-2-36
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We met with the applicant. He
redesigned some of the plans according to what we asked him.
I have a copy of the new ones. The baccharis is not going
to be cut; it says specifically will remain undisturbed. So
he followed along and did what we asked him to do and I make
a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES
7. Mark Schwartz, Architect on behalf of RICHARD &
JOYCE FRIEDLAND requests an Administrative Permit to add 5'
to the south side of the house and construct a new deck.
Located: 105 Fisherman's Beach Road, Cutchogue.
SCTM#111-1-42
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I went out and looked at this also. It's
a very simple addition of only five feet of the house and
then they'll bump the deck out five feet as it's 148 feet
from the water. It's a matter of reducing it down to a
little bit less than that, obviously five feet less from
that side. The house is closer to the water from the other
direction actually towards what's Haywaters Cove. The only
thing that I would ask -- and I will follow up on this -
5
Board of Trustees
6
April 19, 2006
they have on their survey here that the post and rail
fence there is going below the mean high tide mark, and I
will double check with the applicant to make sure that this
survey is -- if that's true, that the fence is adjusted
according to our code saying it has to be at least 10 feet
above mean high tide. Given that, I would make a motion to
approve this one.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES.
8. SOUTHOLD TOWN DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
requests an Administrative Permit to replace the broken
asphalt portion of the boat ramp with a 14' by 16' concrete
apron. Located: Bayview Avenue, Greenport.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have asked the DPW when they repair
these to run this by us so we can keep a little control on
it. This is a straightforward application. It clearly
needs repair, and I make a motion that we approve this.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
V. RESOLUTIONS - MOORINGS
1. LOIS LOCKWOOD requests a Mooring Permit in
Mattituck Creek for a 22' boat. Access: Private.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm familiar with this property it's on the
west side of the Mattituck Creek, and it's just south of
Mattituck Shipyard. I see no problem whatsoever, it's right
in front of the house. They're waterfront property owners.
I make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
2. FRANK & PATRICIA PERONE requests an
onshore/offshore stake in Arshamomaque Pond for a boat no
larger than 18'. Access: Private.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll recommend approval.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
3. JASON HAAS requests a Mooring Permit in Deep
Hole Creek for a 19' boat. Access: Private
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Don Desikowski and I inspected this and
feel there's room for more moorings in this area. He has
all the proper paperwork. The only thing is the boat is in
his brother's name. So I make a motion that we put the name
6
Board of Trustees
7
April 19, 2006
in Jason and Brian Haas, and I make that motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
VI. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONSITRANSFERS:
1. RICHARD DEMOTT requests an Amendment to Permit
682 to repair the existing 59' of bulkhead and 20' return
in-place using vinyl sheathing and create a nonturf buffer
landward of the bulkhead. Located: 5240 Skunk Lane,
Cutchogue. SCTM#138-2-14
TRUSTEE KING: There was a little misunderstanding here. By
code, if you have a permitted structure you can do ordinary
repairs to it; you don't need a permit or anything, it's
part of it. Like I said, there was a little
miscommunication and it was actually resheathing in front
with tongue and groove vinyl, so that requires an amendment
to the original permit. So other than that it's pretty
straightforward. It's a small bulkhead. And we're having a
nonturf buffer placed behind it. Are there any dimensions
on that buffer? I would say like a 15' nonturf buffer.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's a minimum width piece of property
there. It backs up to the road, so I would go for a minimum
size buffer because of that.
TRUSTEE KING: Well, make it 10' then, 10' nonturf
buffer. I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
2. JON KERBS requests an Amendment to Permit #1951
to modify the existing docking facility to consist of a 30'
by 3D" catwalk, an 8' by 30' ramp, a 67' by 4' floating
dock, and I believe he has a floating dock there, and
changing it to a catwalk, and a 48' by 4' floating dock with
6" pilings to support the existing catwalk. It's reducing
the overall float structure out there as per DEC
recommendations. Located: 440 Riley Avenue, Mattituck.
SCTM#143-5-10.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mr. Kerbs is here if any of the Board has
any questions. Basically he has the floating structures.
This is what he has now; this is the catwalk part, and this
is all float here, and what he wants to do is keep the
catwalk part, replace the float and then this is catwalk,
and then change the angle just a little bit. He wants to
make -- Mr. Kerbs, you want that five feet?
7
Board of Trustees
8
April 19, 2006
MR. KERBS: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 48' by 5'.
MR. KERBS: I'd like to have what the DEC asks for
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the drawing it says four, that's why we put
four in here.
MR. KERBS: This was my original permit from the Trustees
going back in the '80s; that's what I have now is a 67' by
4' floating dock and a 48' by 4' floating dock, what I want
to do is get rid of that 67' by 4' floating dock and make
that a catwalk. But then what the DEC had suggested is just
putting on this end here -- I think it's actually it was the
DEC's -- that's what the DEC wanted me to do. What this is
doing is that's getting rid of a 67' float and dock, but I
would like -- this used to be 4', and I'm redoing it, that's
why I'm going through this now. What was there on the end
float was 4' by 48' and the DEC said I could make it 5' by
48' and this little 4' by 4' would give me stability, and by
doing that whole thing I'm cutting down here 44 percent.
I'm talking taking out 240' of floating dock.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Sounds good.
MR. KERBS: I would ask, I'm still talking to the DEC, they
asked me to use 4' by 4' posts and I was talking to them,
and they suggested I use 4' by 4' floats, and I said the ice
will pull them out. It took three months for them to say
use an ice eater. Well, I went there today, and there's
only a foot of water. You just can't use a ice eater. So I
talked to one of the ladies there today who said you're
absolutely right; I'm going to talk to the engineer and
what we can do, that's not going to work. So I would like
to do what you guys suggested, 6" pilings, which is
fine. But I'll ask a question too, I've got right now,
three big pilings there, and something that crossed my mind
today, is there's about a 20' span between those pilings,
and I don't know if you could use beams that would span 20
foot, but if I could and it would be strong enough, then I
wouldn't have to go and put three new pilings in. It would
be more restrictive on me but just so I don't have to come
before you again. The DEC says every 8' two pilings. I'd
like to just leave the three and add two more, then I
wouldn't have to pull anything out.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The DEC is basing that on 4' by 4',
MR. KERBS: Even that they're looking at the span. I think
the most would be 10.
TRUSTEE KING: Then out stretch it out with the bigger
poles.
MR. KERBS: If I left what was there and then just put one
8
Board of Trustees
9
April 19, 2006
on the other side, the only disturbance I would do in the
whole creek would be putting three pilings in, but they
would be bigger, if you wouldn't mind if I came back to you.
TRUSTEE KING: That makes sense.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Why don't we approve this and if you get
the DEC, come back and we'll amend it.
MR. KERBS: I'd rather that for two reasons, one thing I
don't disturb the creek and the other thing is it saves me
from putting a whole bunch of pilings in, I only put in
three. And what it is is there's not a real silt in there,
years back I used to take 25 foot pieces of pipe and push
them into mud the whole way, there's nothing there. So if I
have pilings that are staying, I don't want to touch
them.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you want to start with 3' by 25'
catwalk, 6" pilings instead of 4", and then 4' by 67'
catwalk 3' by 10' ramp, 4' by 4' extension leading to a 5'
by 48' --
MR. KERBS: Yes, just as the DEC asked for except for the
pilings.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. I'll make a motion to approve as
DEC requests, I'll read, starting with a 3' by 25' catwalk,
leading to a 4' by 67' catwalk, which is replacing the
current floating docks there, to a 3' by 10' ramp with a 4'
by 4' extension that's kind of overlapping so the ramp can
go on that to a 5' by 48' float using 6" pilings. And he
can come back for an amendment to rearrange the pilings if
he has to.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
3. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of LAUGHING
WATERS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION requests an
Amendment to Permit 6228 to authorize the replacement within 10.5" of one
approximate 18 linear feet section of timber bulkhead with
vinyl bulkhead, rather than res heath it on the landward side
as originally proposed: Located: 555 & 2360 Minnehaha
Boulevard, Southold. SCTM#87-3-2.1 and 60.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: After some site visit and a phone call
to Rob, we solved the problem, we understood what was
happening and I would make a motion to approve the
application.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES.
4. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of BARBARA &
9
Board of Trustees
10
April 19, 2006
JOSEPH ISABELLA requests an Amendment to Permit 6222 for the
installation of an upgraded sanitary system. Located: 1855
Westview Drive, Mattituck. SCTM#107-7-6
TRUSTEE KING: I looked at this. Rob, I just had a couple
questions on the plan.
MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann, En-Consultants, for the
applicants.
TRUSTEE KING: Are these new cesspools east of the house?
If you look --
MR. HERMANN: Yes. There's an existing septic tank and pool
really to the south of the house, and there's a new tank and
two cesspools proposed farther landward.
TRUSTEE KING: That's what I thought when I was there.
TRUSTEE KING: That's basically out of our jurisdiction.
MR. HERMANN: It basically is, but since the lines had to be
dug from the house to the tank, and you issued a permit for
the original work anyway, we'd rather be safe than sorry.
TRUSTEE KING: That clarifies that. This is an improvement.
I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
5. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf
of STEVEN E. LOSQUADRO requests an Amendment to Permit #6279
to allow for the placement of 982 cubic yards of fill for
the septic system, and the front portion of the lot.
Located: 1150 Fanning Road, New Suffolk. SCTM#117-6-33
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is a project that we originally
permitted conditional upon some changes on the east side of
the property. And I am concerned because before this came
to our attention tonight, they started work on this without
permission on what they're asking for an amendment, moving a
septic system. They started digging that. There was a stop
work order and a citation issued. I know that the work they
did do there as they dug they hit water, and that water did
not dissipate over several days. I went and looked at
this. There was standing water there. They ran into the
same problem when they did the foundation for the house. I
know the CAC discussed this and they have some concerns with
this also, and I guess I have a real problem with this one
right now.
TRUSTEE KING: I do too.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We don't have to approve this amendment
tonight.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. We should wait for the court.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree, I think since this has been cited
10
Board of Trustees
11
April 19, 2006
by the bay constable that really it could be at this point
we have to wait until the decision is made by the court
regarding the citation. Brownell, is that something --
MR. JOHNSTON: That's a procedural thing that you've done in
the past.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is not a public hearing, but I do
want to allow you a chance to speak, but if you could make
your comments brief.
MR. JOHNSTON: David, I misheard what you had to say, the
court normally waits for us to give them a recommendation.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, but we normally wait to do any kind
of approval --
MR. JOHNSTON: Until the violation is resolved.
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk
Environmental Consulting. Just briefly, you issued a permit
for the construction of the single-family residence and the
construction of the septic system, that's the first thing
that's important to know. The second thing that's important
to know is that there is no stop work order. The third
thing that's important to know is that this man was ticketed
by John Desinkowski for installation of a septic system
without a Trustee permit, which is completely false, I think
it will be thrown out. The fourth thing to know, which I
think is important, is the installation of the septic system
is done pursuant to a permit issued by the Health
Department and that permit requires as do, I'm going to say
10 out of 10, an excavation inspection. So I do Health
Department work all the time, I know Mr. Hermann does and
they all state excavation required. Now my understanding is
upon excavation the Health Department made them backfill
with clean sand, which is a proper thing to do when you're
building a septic system. The dirt that you're looking is
the dirt that's stripped from the septic area so that sand
can be backfilled so that septic system can be properly
sited on the lot. So there's no other way to do this other
than the way it's done. Now, obviously there's someone down
there complaining,
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our problem with this, with this amendment
that we looked at this week, the location of the septic
system has changed. So it's the location of the septic,
yes, it was approved with the previous permit, the septic
was but under a different location, it was further in the
corner.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bruce, I have the plan here, if you would
like to step up and take a look you can see exactly what the
problem is.
11
Board of Trustees
12
April 19, 2006
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Wasn't there fill brought in?
MR. ANDERSON: There has to be.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is the original plan that was
presented to us. Right in here is where they have dug, so
they have moved it over.
MR. ANDERSON: From where?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: These plans were submitted, that were
approved with permit, out of here you can see it's offset
from the corner of the house and it's now --
MR. ANDERSON: I see what you're saying.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This field has been moved over here, and
it's easy to tell because all you got to do is go out there and look where
they dug the hole.
MR. ANDERSON: You're saying the septic system was slid
closer to the wetlands?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. The whole septic system was
moved farther to the east. They haven't planted it in the
ground yet, but that's where they haven't dug the hole.
MR. ANDERSON: Why not simply grant the permit amendment under
the condition that the septic system be installed as
originally applied for, same location.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We didn't have that in front of us. We
went down and looked --
MR. ANDERSON: A hole.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You're right. A hole has been dug, the
work was stopped by the bay constable.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Was there also fill brought in?
MR. ANDERSON: My understanding was they had to excavate
underneath there was boggy soil, so they removed that to
bring sand in there.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So again, that's not in the permit.
MR. ANDERSON: But it's on my request for the amendment.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But it's already been done.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The work was done prior to us approving
it.
MR. ANDERSON: I understand that, but you have to understand
the mechanics of this --
MR. JOHNSTON: They dug it without a permit.
MR. ANDERSON: Listen to me because this will happen
constantly, because you will see excavation stamps that are
placed on every Health Department permit for a septic system
that you also regulate, and that call is made in the field
by the Health Department employee. So when the Health
Department employee says I want you to strip away the soil
and backfill with clean sand, that's what you do and that's
one of these things that will always be because that's how
12
Board of Trustees
13
April 19, 2006
you install a septic system.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And that happens 10 out of 10 times?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Whenever they build a cesspool, they
have to --
MR. ANDERSON: If they encounter unsuitable soil, upon
inspection --
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: You're saying that's 10 out of 10 times?
MR. ANDERSON: You'll see an excavation stamp on the map on
any Health Department permit.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Bringing in new fill? That's the
question I'm asking.
MR. ANDERSON: The answer is you won't see it on the
approval, the call is made in the field at the time the
Health Inspector arrives.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I built three houses and every one of
the houses never had any fill put in.
MR. ANDERSON: You probably had good soil.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Absolutely, and I think that's the case
in many cases.
MR. ANDERSON: If you go back and look at your Health
Department permit when you built those three houses, you
will see that there was a stamp on there requiring an
inspection at excavation. And it just so happened at the
houses that you built, you probably had good sandy soil,
this one didn't. That's all we're talking about. So as a
housekeeping measure, we put in a permit to account for that
fill. So I think it's been done properly.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It appeared to us that the land by the
road was at least a foot or two higher than it was all
across the front of the property, that was our concern, and
the cesspool was moved and there was no permit for any of
that.
MR. ANDERSON: Your site plan shows you the grade that was
approved anyway.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But you're coming in for more fill.
MR. ANDERSON: As a result of having to put the sand
underneath the septic.
TRUSTEE KING: Bruce, was any material taken off site?
MR. ANDERSON: I don't think so.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: There are piles of top soil, there are
three of them around.
MR. ANDERSON: We're talking about taking the soil and the
septic, stripping it away and backfilling with sand, that's
what we're talking about. So that the septic system
operates properly. Now, if the fellow puts the cement
13
Board of Trustees
14
April 19, 2006
system in the wrong place, that's a different animal.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Now the septic system was going to be
elevated, I take it?
MR. ANDERSON: The septic system was always 8.1 feet, that's
what your grades show on the site plan that you approved on
January 18th.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It's still going to be 8?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, in order to get the separation of
groundwater, yes. First floor elevation of the house is at
10.
TRUSTEE KING: I recollect that lot being, the elevation of
that lot, the entire lot is much lower than it is now, a lot
of fill must have been brought in there, and I don't
remember any request for fill to be brought in.
MR. ANDERSON: We put in that request to clarify but the
result of the fill is the result --
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Bruce, the fill was brought in, will you
agree with that?
MR. ANDERSON: This is what you approved.
MR. JOHNSTON: Bruce, what was your answer to John's
question?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Bruce, was fill brought in?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
MR. JOHNSTON: Do you know approximately how much?
MR. ANDERSON: No, I don't. We put in our application 982.
TRUSTEE KING: Previous to this?
MR. ANDERSON: No, we did not. But it did show in the
elevation that was approved.
TRUSTEE KING: How did the elevation of that lot get raised
by so much? I'm talking about the lot, not the septic
system.
MR. ANDERSON: This is the front area here. You asked us to
grade back from the phragmites, which was done, and what
you're seeing is some grading around the house, and you're
seeing the raising of the grade in the septic area, which is
required by proper design septic because you don't want to
put the septic system in groundwater.
TRUSTEE KING: Bruce, I guess some phantom came in there and
raised the whole lot two feet.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's our problem.
TRUSTEE KING: That's what I see, that lot was about two
feet lower than the paved highway, now it's flush with it;
how did that happen?
MR. ANDERSON: If you're going to properly --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Where is the permit to do it?
MR. ANDERSON: I put that in as an amendment.
14
Board of Trustees
15
April 19, 2006
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The work was done prior to the amendment
being ruled on.
MR. ANDERSON: As a result of the Health Department
inspection.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All you had to do is say you wouldn't
proceed until you get a permit from the Trustees.
MR. ANDERSON: Alii have to do? I'm not a contractor. I
am trying to explain to you what happened. With that having
happened, we put in the amendment. There was never a stop
work order, and he's being charged with installing a septic
system without Trustee permit.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Not a septic system.
MR. ANDERSON: That's what the ticket says, what's what the
appearance ticket says that's going to be thrown out.
MR. JOHNSTON: Then they will issue another one.
MR. ANDERSON: He can issue all he wants but the point is to
resolve this through this process and I think we've done
that. Why would we not approve it is the question?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The amendment being applied for strictly
has to do with the placement of fill?
MR. ANDERSON: That's correct.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Not movement of septic?
MR. ANDERSON: I have no knowledge of that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But the septic field, while it hasn't been
installed, the hole that was dug for it is not in the
location as per the plans that had been approved with the
original permit. The two surveys had two different
locations.
MR. ANDERSON: But they're very close, you're talking about
the guy with a backhoe here. You're talking five or six
feet, on a fellow with a backhoe that's not a big
difference who is removing fill so that permeable material
is replaced.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Then everybody can build a house five or
six feet away. You're saying five feet is nothing; to us
it's very important.
MR. ANDERSON: We're talking about an excavation of an area
so it can be backfilled with sand.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It's not clear to us, that's the
problem, Bruce.
MR. ANDERSON: We made the application.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: After the fact is what we're trying to
say.
MR. ANDERSON: We were alerted that there was a problem with
fill, so we made the application.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to make a motion that the
15
Board of Trustees
16
April 19, 2006
application be tabled until after the court date so we can
see what the court does.
MR. JOHNSTON: You don't have to.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The court date is May 19th.
MS. STANDISH: The court waits for us.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Right. But we can do something in
between.
MR. JOHNSTON: Why don't you just table it until the next
meeting?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would amend my motion that we table this
until the next meeting.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The next meeting is the 17th, the court
date is the 19th.
MR. JOHNSTON: Don't tie it to the court date.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I amend my motion that this be tabled until the
next meeting.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: If you're going to move the cesspool,
you might want to bring in new diagrams showing where
they're going to be. If you're not going to move them,
fine.
MR. HERMANN: John, sometimes when I'm up here, John
Costello -- for the record, Rob Hermann, I have no interest
in this application other than watching two people talk past
each other. What Bruce is saying is what happens on these
applications is that the Health Department requires an
excavation. It isn't going to necessarily be the case that
you are going to need to bring in fill, they just need to
check in the field whether that will in fact be the case.
Once the contractor has dug a hole and they have encountered
unsuitable soil, they are required, while the Health
Department inspector is there in order to get an approval,
to take that material out and immediately bring in clean
sand and fill a hole. Otherwise, you would have a giant
hole in the yard. This Board probably doesn't see an
amendment that often because in most cases, nobody would
come back to the Board and say, oh, by the way, we had to
bring in X number of yards of fill to put in the hole, so
you would never see it. But here there was a citation
issued. But in my experience when these citations are
issued, the court just sends the applicant back here to
resolve the issue with you, which is what Bruce has
done. So if you table this, again, it's no bearing in my
life, but the court's just going to say, you have to go back
to the Trustees. So you're going to be sitting here having
16
Board of Trustees
17
April 19, 2006
this exact same conversation next month. Bruce is going to
say everything he said tonight and nothing is going to
change. The Health Department required the removal of
unsuitable soil and the trucking in of fill to fill that
hole. So if there's a problem with the cesspools moving or
some other fill to raise the lot, that's another issue, but
if your focus is only on this issue, there's nothing the
Board is going to accomplish by putting this off.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Rob, our problem -- and I think I'm
speaking for everybody -- is that we saw that the land
across the whole front of the property had been raised a
substantial amount, which appears to us as fill.
MR. HERMANN: Which is a different story. I just want to
address so you understand through an uninterested party the
issue of the fill in the hole.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That I can deal with, I understand the --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is an opportunity now for discussions
over the next month between ourselves and the
representatives for Losquadro to see if we can resolve this
for a meeting that is scheduled for prior to the court
date.
MR. ANDERSON: What are we resolving?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: At this point there's been a motion made
and approved, and I say we move on.
6. Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of PAT &
BART JOHNSON request an Amendment to Permit #6201 to
demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new dwelling
75' from the concrete wall, rather than 66' as originally
approved. Located: 860 Bayview Drive, East Marion.
SCTM#37-5-7
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is moving the house farther away
from the shoreline. This won't be anything but an
improvement. I make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: We had some postponements I should have let
everyone know at the beginning. Number 4, Kevin and Susan
Ferrell has been postponed until May; 11, George and Sandra
Engelke has been postponed; 17, Manzi Homes; 18, Don
Jayamaha; 19 has been postponed; 20 and 21 have been
postponed. If there's anybody here that sat through them
already, I'm sorry, I apologize. We will take a five minute
break now.
(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
TRUSTEE KING: I'd like to make a motion to go off the
17
Board of Trustees
18
April 19, 2006
regular hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: These are the public hearings section of our
meeting. Please keep your comments brief, if you can. We
want your input and we want to listen to you, but we don't
want to go on forever.
VII. 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
1. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of TERRY &
FRANCIS TRIADES requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal
Erosion Permit to construct approximately 120 linear feet of
timber retaining wall and backfill blown-out face with
approximately 2,000 cubic yards of clean sand to be obtained
partially from recovered blowout material and partially
trucked in from an upland source and replanted with beach
grass, Rugosa Rose and Bayberry. Located: 2505 Soundview
Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM#94-1-12.2
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody here to speak on behalf
of this application?
MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicants.
This is a project that the Board reviewed back in
1998. Jim, I think you may be the only Board member that
was a signature on that permit at this point. The project
was never undertaken. It was supposed to have been
undertaken shortly after the Mally retaining wall was
constructed to its east, a project for which this Board also
issued a permit.
There has been continued toe scour, and a loss of
some of the gabion material that the Board in 1998 had
originally requested act as the toe armor for this
structure, and during the severe rains last fall, there was
also significant top-down slough off of material that you can
see came down and over the top of the bulkhead to the east,
18
Board of Trustees
19
April 19, 2006
and between the scour from the bottom and the runoff from
the top, there is a definitive swale that sort of looks like
a meteor hit this site that overlaps on to the Mally
property to the east. So what has been proposed, although
the structure now will be further landward of what the
Board had originally approved, is a retaining wall to seal
the gap between the two adjoining structures to the east and
west, to refill the entire area that has been blown out, and
then to plant it with beach grass, Bayberry and Rosa Rugosa.
Because of the partial overlap onto the Mally property to the
east, we obtained consent from Ingrid Mally, who I don't know
if she or Bob Fondorfer are here tonight, but they have been
active proponents to get this done as they have been pushing
for the Triadeses to do this for seven or eight years. They had
expected them to do it after they completed their project a
long time ago.
The only other structural or design difference from
what the Board approved previously is that the structure
would now extend onto that easterly property to tie into the
face of the Mally wall, which did not go up to the mutually
shared property line. You can see the return extends back
to the property line on an angle, but the face does not come
up to the property line. So, again, there is overlap there
now, hence the request for the longer structure, and the
need for the Mally authorization letter, which was prepared,
signed and submitted, should be in your file.
If the Board has any questions, I had corresponded
previously with Heather about this, who mentioned also the
idea of implementing some sort of a nonturf buffer at the
top of the bluff. I would agree that would be a good idea
in terms of mitigating over the long term some of the
problem that would occur from top-down run off. This is one
of these sites in Mattituck where you get a one-two punch of
the toe scour at the bottom you have clay subsurface layers
here, and when you get that kind of rain that we had last
October for nine days or whatever it was, the turf does not
absorb the water the way a more natural area would where
there would be shrubs with root systems that would hold the
material and at some point you get so much water that sits
on that clay level, it actually blows out the bluff and you
have a combination of both things happening here. One is a
little bit more spectacular and a little bit more of an
evulsive event, the other is a little more chronic and
occurs over a long period of time. If the Board has any
questions, I'm happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The pictures here show that there
19
Board of Trustees
20
April 19, 2006
was a gabion down there at the bottom, or appears to have
been.
MR. HERMANN: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was part of something
previously permitted?
MR. HERMANN: There is a concrete wall and gabion
structure behind it that seemed to be constructed on both
parcels in the past, and it's been eight years, but I think
we explored this with the Board last time, and I don't think
there was ever records of any permits on it, but the Board
felt at the time that since it was there and they would
otherwise probably request toe armor to just build the
retaining wall landward of the gabion structure, and let the
gabion act as toe armor as opposed to taking all that
material away, and then trucking in new material from the
outside just to accomplish the same purpose. Some of that
material has been torn up in the past eight years from the
bottom up corrosive action of the sound, so I don't know
what the Board's pleasure is going to be on that.
Because the Triadeses still have a valid DEC permit
for this that we're modifying for the extension, we've tried
to keep everything much the same as the DEC and this Board
approved previously, but if there are changes in design that
you think would be smarter or a better idea now given a
number of years have passed, we certainly would consider
them. And I know the idea that the nonturf buffer at the
top and toe armor at the wall are both things the Board
wants to see and I think they're good ideas. As I said, we
can certainly work with those ideas and amend the plans
accordingly. I don't have any problem with them. We just
wanted to approach them sort of keeping things as much the
same as possible.
MR. HERMANN: You can do three things, David; you can ask
for the gabion material and that concrete wall be completely
removed and bring in new capstone tow armor; you can ask for
that material to be left there and have capstone tow armor
come in just to shore it up, or you can just leave it alone
as was indicated on the prior permit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand. I don't have a problem
with using that if it's going to be useful material for you to help
defray the costs and get the job done. It's just that I'm looking
at the pictures here, and so what you're asking for is a bulkhead,
either the material that's there that was a gabion and
concrete, whether it was a wall or whatever, has to be moved
out so the bulkhead can go from one side to the other, or
the bulkhead's got to go inside of it so that it actually
20
Board of Trustees
21
April 19, 2006
goes from return to return.
MR. HERMANN: Correct, that's what it would be. I don't
think there's an implementation problem on the construction
site in terms of putting that wall in. All that fill
material that's coming down has to be moved. That wasn't a
problem previously, but again, that was from the blow-out
from the rains, has nothing to do with the toe scour. It's
Figure 3 I think shows it most clearly from the pictures
that were submitted. If you look in Figure 2, what I
honestly can't recall is the section of gabion in the
section of bulkhead to the west, I don't know if that was
always there or if that got physically shifted from the
Triadeses' site to the west.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The whole thing just shifted?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. How were you planning to have access to this
site to do this work down here?
MR. HERMANN: Through Bailey Beach Road.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Rob, the way the application stands now
are you armoring the bulkhead at all or just putting it
beyond?
MR. HERMANN: Just--
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Willing to armor it. I do think it says
that on the code, that any bulkhead on the sound should be
toe armored. I know what your feelings were eight years
ago, but I didn't know what they were now in terms of using
that gabion material. If you don't have a problem with it,
we'll supplement it, if you would like to see it removed
from the -- I think we should put the buffer and the
toe armoring, and you can use the materials that are there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else who would like to
speak on behalf of this application? Is there anybody that
would like to speak?
TRUSTEE KING: Is there any kind of plan that shows the area
where the plantings are going to be done?
MR. HERMANN: Yes. There's both on the plan view and the
cross view, those areas are indicated and there are specs in
terms of size, densities and species, which is just the
standard fare for that area.
MR. JOHNSTON: For the record were those reviewed by
Heather?
MS. CUSACK: Yes, it's here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The LWRP found this to be consistent. The
CAC requested that this application be tabled pending a
recommendation from an engineer. We had also discussed
the opportunity for an engineer to come in and -- correct me
if I'm wrong, any Members of the Board -- what we were
21
Board of Trustees
22
April 19, 2006
concerned with is what to do with the top -- not the bottom,
but what to do with the top, because what's happened is
this has blown out to such an extent as you mentioned
and we saw, it actually concaves under there. If you walk
out to that turf, you would collapse. I'd also strongly
recommend somebody put some barricades up there
because I almost did.
MR. HERMANN: That area, I think that would basically be
resolved. I don't know what an engineer would have to do
with that, that's really from a landscape planning
perspective, but that would certainly be sliced and that
turf would be completely removed, and whether it's 15 feet
or whatever, all of that turf would have to be cut and
removed and replanted.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Just to ask this again, I may have
missed it. What prevents this from doing the same thing?
What prevents it from sliding in the next downpour since
these are not mature plants?
MR. HERMANN: Ultimately good luck. I mean that's part
of I think Heather's point in terms of doing some sort of
nonturf plantings at the top because that's the only thing
that can help prevent it. When you create -- and I know
the Board has struggled with this for years with properties
all across here, now your code has changed to help you
deal with it -- when these lots are clear cut and you
remove the shrubs and the vines and the trees, you're
taking out these massive root systems and you're just
bringing in top soil and putting down grass, which has
a very minimal root system and doesn't hold water
very well. So the only way to correct that is to try to
roll that back to some extent to replace that turf back with
material that can absorb the water number one, and hold the
soil number two. But Peggy, if all this work were done say
next fall and we had a hurricane or some sort of storm that
hit this the wrong way, you would lose it. But they don't
have any choice, that's sort of the peril of living there.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I've seen this plan done with some sort
of mesh work, is that something that helps?
MR. HERMANN: It is and there are all sorts of products now.
There's core, which is coconut fiber, blankets, straw
blankets, it depends on the landscape contractor.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But does that help?
MR. HERMANN: It does help, especially if it's hydroseeded
in addition to this. We're showing beach grass being
planted, but sometimes I know Peter Sterling will do a
hydroseeding of rye or some sort of cool season turf grass
22
Board of Trustees
23
April 19, 2006
that will come up right away, and sort of hold the material
in place to allow the larger specimens to take
hold. Unfortunately, and I've heard this discussed in the
Ferrell application, it comes down to a choice of landscape
contractors; if it's somebody that's looking to save money
and a crappy job is done, it's not going to work. But if a
good landscape contractor is hired and they do it the right
way, which is how we design it, then it should work. But
you're right, if you had another evulsive event, potentially
you could lose it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: See, one of the questions I had as to
whether or not maybe a consultant would be good in this case
is, I'm not sure if just what you're applying for is the
best way to go, in other words, bringing in fill and filling
in this gully; or if somebody would say from an engineering
perspective the best thing to do is to cut back the lip, do
that, plus bring the lip back a certain number of feet, and
do a nonturf buffer so you can take care of the drainage
issue that's critical. That was the question we had looking
at it is whether or not that lip's got to come back a number
of feet.
MR. HERMANN: Well, I don't think you need an outside
consultant to figure that out. If part of this project were
to be modified to put in a nonturf buffer, part of that
crest would have to be shaved back and I can't tell you off
the cuff how many feet because once they start bringing in
fill, some of that material is going to slough itself, it
always does. You're dealing with a lot of earthen material
and once you are it will tend to move in a way that strikes
a stable angle of repose. But if it doesn't, I
understand what you're saying is part of it is to actually
slice that top of off, and let that material act as part of
your fill material. And if you want to see that here, I
don't see a problem with it because it's going to happen
anyway. That lip isn't going to hold on once that material
is brought on, it's going to slough, it has to.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Question is I don't know how much of that
is going to happen, but we don't have the answer.
MR. HERMANN: You can get a $500 an hour engineer to tell
you, and it won't be quite right once they do the work.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments from the
Board?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: This is just an informational question,
when we were up at another spot down a little bit there were
dry wells maybe 10 feet off the edge of the bluff, first
time I've seen that, and there was a hole, you know, with pipe
23
Board of Trustees
24
April 19, 2006
going down, and it carried the water it appears --
MR. HERMANN: Not helping the situation.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That was just a question. Moving the
water further back the pressure isn't as much?
MR. HERMANN: All they're doing -- I mean I'm not a
geologist and I don't know the make-up of the subsurface
soils of this area enough, but I've been around it enough to
know in Mattituck that you do get those areas where you have
a clay layer, and it saturates. And if you're pumping water
in a dry well right on down onto that layer that much
faster, and going to saturate that much faster and it's
going to blowout. It's not a good idea to have dry wells
that close.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Question from Don from the CAC perspective
here given what's been discussed, would you be comfortable
with what we've talked about, that it could be that some of
that lip is going to go and letting that happen as it naturally would?
MR. WilDER: As much as I know, it sounds like a good
plan. What I was thinking of is there a body of knowledge
out there of best practices for bluffs? I don't know if
it's out there or not.
TRUSTEE KING: Don't clear to the edge and plant sod.
MR. HERMANN: NSRC actually has booklets that they put out.
We have them in our office. They talk about all these very
things. It's not rocket science. All the ideas that
Heather's mentioned and you've mentioned, it's all sort of
the typical, in what he's saying the body of knowledge,
they're sort of the rules of thumb. And sometimes we come
in from a design end and do that, and other times we get
feedback and see who wants what. It's just more efficient.
But everything you're bringing up, I mean, it's right, if
it's done properly that's the way it should be done, and I
don't think there are problems.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. If there's nothing else, I'd like to
make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? All AYES.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'd like to make a motion to approve
the application of En-Consultants on behalf of Terry and
Francis Triades with the following stipulations here: First
off, as far as the armoring goes at the bottom of the
bulkhead, that you have permission to use what was there and
then supplement it with armoring as needed; that there is a
nonturf buffer at the top of 15 feet; and I'd also like to
recommend that mesh be used in conjunction with the
plantings to help with the stabilization of that bluff while
24
Board of Trustees
25
April 19, 2006
the plants become mature and the root systems become
mature.
MR. HERMANN: Put it in, Lauren, as erosion control matting
and that will cover it because I don't know what specific
material they would use.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Included in the motion is the planting plan
is adhered to as submitted. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES.
2. En-Consultants on behalf of THOMAS PERILLO, SR.
requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to
construct approximately 114 linear feet of vinyl retaining
wall to be armored with 1-3 ton stone armor; place
approximately 200 cubic yards of clean sand fill on bluff
face landward of retaining wall; and plant bluff face with
cape American Beach Grass 12" on center and Rugosa Rose and
Bayberry (two gallon, 3' on center). Located: 360 Lloyd's
Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#99-3-4.4
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann from En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant. Pretty similar project to the one we just
discussed here. There is a plantings plan in place for the
bluff face. Here we have proposed 1 to 3 ton stone toe
armor as we just discussed on the prior application. I need
to submit for the record a letter from the Honeysuckles
Hills Property Owner's Association giving the applicants
authorization to work in this area. On the record, I'd like
to thank the association, Ron and Peter McGreevey were very
helpful in expediting, if you will, getting letter so we
could be heard tonight.
Again, it's pretty straightforward as far as these
projects go on the sound because again, you've got a
situation where you have adjacent existing structures on
both sides, and this project would seal the gap in
between. We did get a comment back from the DEC that would
appear to indicate that the project is approvable, but they
are asking for the structure to be moved several feet
landward so that it ties into the landward end of each
return. Now, Jim, it creates a slight angle, which I know
you're not always that fond of.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Did they give you a reason, Rob?
TRUSTEE KING: I looked at this with Mr. Hamilton before we
25
Board of Trustees
26
April 19, 2006
had our field inspection.
MR. HERMANN: It was Chuck who looked at this?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, it was Chuck. We went out there
together, and he said he wanted it from the landward end of
the return.
MR. HERMANN: That's the letter we got. If you're on board
with that, I've already discussed that with Mr. Perillo and
he's fine with that. There is not going to be as much fill
proposed on this project. We have to come back a certain
distance as you see on the cross view. We are coming up a
certain portion of the bluff face. It's an area that's
stripped of vegetation; it hasn't really been collapsed as
catastrophically as some of these other sites. So I know
that some of the neighbors have been after Tom to do this
for a long time, and he's almost waited too long but not
quite. So we would be happy to change the plan. If they
will make the DEC and the Town happy.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments on this application?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What about mesh fabric?
MR. HERMANN: There is a planting plan. And I'll start
noting on the plans that some sort of erosion control
matting will be used.
TRUSTEE KING: This is a much smaller area.
MR. HERMANN: It may not be necessary, but as I say, if you
get a good landscape contractor to do it, they would
probably use it anyway, and usually DEC's permit conditions
typically allow for the use of that even if it's not called
out in the plans.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? Yes, sir?
MR. MCGREEVEY: Yes, Jim. Ron McGreevey, I'm the neighbor
to the east of Mr. Perillo, and I'd like to see this
thing approved because I've had my fingers crossed for years
that it didn't get hit because it acts like a venturi, it
sucks everything out. Getting back to the geotech
everybody's talking about, the bluffs just bulge out
underneath it, you can look on the beach and see that, that's
all.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. Any other comments? I'll make a
notion 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 that the bulkhead is moved landward,
and it connects to the landward end of the return to the
east and to the west, and it's to be armored with stone.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
26
Board of Trustees
27
April 19, 2006
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
3. Costello Marine Contracting, Corp. on behalf of
SHEILA PATEL requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion
Permit to add additional 6' by 6' upper stringer to existing
bulkhead. Face exterior surface of bulkhead with
one-quarter HDPE sheets. Bolster entire bulkhead, 146.5'
with 1-2 ton rocks to prevent toe scour and minimize beach
loss in the future. Located: 19965 Soundview Avenue,
Southold. SCTM#51-4-5.1
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anyone here to speak in favor
of this application?
MR. COSTELLO: George Costello, Sr. representing Mrs.
Patel. This is similar to an application that was before
you, the Board in 2001. And that was about an eighth of a
mile east of this location and the homeowners were Karacosta
and Ciatellis. It was granted permission to bolster those
two bulkheads with rock and my access was from offshore, and
this is a similar situation.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anybody else who would like to
speak for or against? Does the Board have any comments?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only question I had from the site visit
was how was access going to be gained.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And he just said by offshore.
MR. COSTELLO: Unfortunately offshore.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So the rocks will be brought on a barge
and off-loaded?
MR. COSTELLO: Right.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'll make a motion to approve the
application of Sheila Patel as I read earlier.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just want to mention the past two are
consistent with LWRP.
WETLAND PERMITS
1. RICHARD DEMOTT requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 4' by 44' fixed open walkway, 4' by 16' hinged
ramp, and a 6' by 20' floating dock, and two 2-pile dolphins
to secure the floating dock. Located: 5380 Skunk Lane,
Cutchogue. SCTM#138-2-16
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This was a permit that we opened the
27
Board of Trustees
28
April 19, 2006
hearing and then tabled it last month. Is there anybody
here to speak on behalf of this application? Is there
anybody here to speak on that application? If not, the
question the Board had last month on the reason it was
tabled was we did not have an LWRP submitted. We do have an
LWRP recommendation of it being inconsistent. I'm quickly
looking at their reasoning here. All the standard issues
that they have. It looks like one is doesn't
enhance the visual quality of the area, placement of this
dock, and the feeling was that the visual quality of the
resources will be impaired. Need for the dock is
unsubstantiated. It's in a creek, a critical environmental
area; it's a long document so stand by. Those are the main
issues. In summary, the proposed action is within a
significant fish habitat. The construction methods and
timber have not been identified; and the application does
not propose mitigation to the areas impacted through the
construction of dock using best management practices. If
there are no other comments I make a motion to close the
public hearing.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would make a motion to approve this
application as submitted, and it does have on the plans CCA
posts, it doesn't have any other CCA here, so just
confirming there is no other CCA used other than the
posts.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought when we were out in the field we
noted that this dock was shorter than the existing docks,
and it's much smaller in scale than the other existing.
TRUSTEE KING: As you go south they get smaller.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct.
TRUSTEE KING: I think the water depth gets less as you go
south.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And this wasn't even going out as far as
the ones to the south.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is that area spartina could be planted
around there?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, his property wasn't, it's the
property next door that you walk down.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That area is pretty well vegetated as I
recall. These are winter time pictures so it's hard to
tell, but you see a lot matted down, which would indicate
that spartina's there, it's just matted down because it
hasn't grown yet for this year. Here are those two stakes.
28
Board of Trustees
29
April 19, 2006
Is there a Second to my motion?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES.
2. PETER & SONIA PANAGOPOULOS request a Wetland
Permit to construct a retaining wall 25' from the top of the
bluff. Located: 1310 The Strand, East
Marion. SCTM#30-2-70
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. PANAGOPOULOS: If you have any questions.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe that the Building Department
requests them to do some sort of wall. We all went out and
looked at this, and we agreed that something needs to be
done. We also would like to see along that wall a French
drain --
MR. PANAGOPOULOS: Peter Panagopoulos. I spoke to Heather
about it. It's not finished the house, so --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In constructing the wall, we would like to
see on your side of the property along the wall a French
drain.
MR. PANAGOPOULOS: In other words, a dry well?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No we'd like to see the dry wells for the
house and the roof runoff for the house.
MR. PANAGOPOULOS: Right, due to the construction.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You haven't done that yet? Okay.
A French drain you dig the earth along that wall and you
fill it back in with certain materials.
MR. PANAGOPOULOS: A valley like?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, and you fill it back in with certain
materials.
MR. PANAGOPOULOS: Right. You see the sketch from the
Department of Buildings, the engineer drew that and it was a
question at the time it was supposed to be along the
residence, but then the Department of Buildings wanted to go
farther, so they do have that, that's in the plan.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you plan on doing the French drain
along that wall?
MR. PANAGOPOULOS: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the dry wells?
MR. PANAGOPOULOS: Yes. The dry wells are going to be
mostly for the roof, the gutters tie them altogether.
MRS. PANAGOPOULOS: That's not our final grading, we haven't
done it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right.
MRS. PANAGOPOULOS: Once it's done my engineer is going to
29
Board of Trustees
30
April 19, 2006
do a final analysis of his own to make sure there is no
runoff, but we are not done, that's why the gutters aren't
up.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's fine. We just want to make sure
it's in the plans and in addition to the dry wells
containing the roof runoff, we would like to see the French
drain along that wall to contain all the water. The whole
property slopes that way, and we feel it would be better
drainage if that is done from the property.
MR. PANAGOPOULOS: Yes, using the plan that was submitted
with the Department of Buildings.
MRS. PANAGOPOULOS: It's not in the survey.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: What you added to the building, we're
going to add to our permit.
MR. PANAGOPOULOS: Would you like me to get a copy to give
to you?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MR. PANAGOPOULOS: It shows only along the residence, but it
will continue because the same line on the border line, but
it will continue then since we have to go farther, it will
go the same way.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We can write it in the permit and that's
it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else to
speak for or against this application?
MS. CUSACK: Jill, just one thing that to keep the buffer
along the top of the bluff.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, okay, thank you. LWRP finds this
consistent and CAC approval with the condition to construct
retaining wall 25 feet -- the wall and final grade are
designed to contain all the runoff, which that's what we
were just discussing. Any other comments from the Board?
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
THE TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve the request to
construct a retaining wall 25 feet from the top of the bluff
25' from the top of the bluff along the east side of the
property with a French drain along that wall, and to also to
note that the gutters and leaders will be put into a dry
well as they complete the project.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the buffer, there's a nice buffer you
have on the property and we'd like to keep that 25' nonturf
buffer, no disturbance, no pulling out. We just like to
mention that and make sure.
30
Board of Trustees
31
April 19, 2006
MR. PANAGOPOULOS: Right, if I maybe may ask one question,
my neighbor which is how this all started because all lots
west of my property, they are all sloping down, it's natural
grass was planted, and there's no problem, you know, just
it's worse now. There was changes apparently from someone
at the time, the person today that complains and I had to
put the wall along -
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can I just interrupt you, first, let's
finish this motion. Do I have a second on that motion?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, go ahead.
MR. PANAGOPOULOS: The gentleman complain this
is how started the whole wall, it's pitching towards my property,
which actually from the residence to the border line
I have only 10 feet, and he's pitching me because
he have changed elevations at the time he
bought the property next to it between my residence
and his. So this way nobody will build there. Now
he's pitching about 90 feet of water right onto
where our retaining wall will be. Now, is there anything
that I could do or because I asked the inspector, and he
just didn't want to touch it or comment on that?
MRS. PANAGOPOULOS: We have a letter from the engineer
verifying that, by the way.
MR. PANAGOPOULOS: He's pitching 90 feet of water which
eventually is going to go into my basement because I'm only
10 feet away from his fence.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you're saying that that one's pitching
back towards you?
MR. PANAGOPOULOS: He's pitching 90 feet of water.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the west side?
MR. PANAGOPOULOS: No, the east side. That all slopes down
this way and there's no problem, but I was forced to put a
wall there, but my question is that he's pitching 90
feet of water towards my property.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So the east side he's coming down.
MR. PANAGOPOULOS: Right. From the east side of my
residence but he's east.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Have you talked to him about this?
MR. PANAGOPOULOS: No. We started with a lot of problems in
the beginning. First he wanted to buy me out, then he was
complaining about a container that we had for tools; he
collected signatures and the problem continues, that's why I
want to do the wall, and I'm hoping that will stop there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think this will alleviate some of the
31
Board of Trustees
32
April 19, 2006
problem.
MRS. PANAGOPOULOS: The question my engineer had had, this
isn't our final grading, so we might have to end up
eventually having to redo everything.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then you come back to us for an
amendment.
MRS. PANAGOPOULOS: It's a very costly project, even though
it looks like it's finished.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, we could tell that you weren't done.
MRS. PANAGOPOULOS: And my engineer wrote a letter and
stated that once we were done there will not be any
runoff. It's kind of building -- we're doing the icing on
the cake, my engineer said, before you put the cake in, and
we're doing it. We just don't want to go to the trouble of
going to attorneys. It's kind of strange that we have to
go through this process, and in reality my engineer also
wrote that he is actually going towards us. And when I did
ask the Building Department, they said it's too bad because
he already did his house already. So do we have to hire
attorneys?
MR. PANAGOPOULOS: I want to thank you very much for your
time.
3. CHARLES & LYNN HILL request a Wetland Permit to
construct a 6' by 26' addition on the north side of the
dwelling, 6' by 26' deck, and a 26' by 20' detached garage
on the south side of property. Located: 655 Lake Drive,
Southold. SCTM#80-3-20.
TRUSTEE KING: Anyone here to comment on this application?
We all looked at this, this was down on Reydon Shores, little
house, pretty straightforward, small addition which is
unusual today. It is consistent with the LWRP. So, if
there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing. CAC recommended approval and they want a condition
nonturf buffer landward of the bulkhead. I discussed that
with the applicant and I told them usually when they replace
the bulkhead that's when we make them do a nonturf, and he
expects to do that within a year or two. I hate to force
them to do it, and then have to redo it. Any other
comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
32
Board of Trustees
33
April 19, 2006
4. MARY RAYNOR requests a Wetland Permit to
renovate the first and second floors of the existing
dwelling within the existing footprint. Located: 575
Beachwood Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#116-4-21
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak on behalf of this application?
MRS. RAYNOR: Mary Raynor, I have the affidavits.
I didn't get the cards back but on the cover letter I
sent with the application, I gave a little explanation
saying that that was a summer home since 1950 and
we wanted to renovate it and make it our year
round home. We're in the process of going before the Board
of Appeals. We've already moved in the west side two feet
to allow more room between ourselves and our neighbor. And
we voluntarily cut off the front part of the deck closest to
the water so we could have a little deck outside of our
kitchen. And I guess that's alii have to say. If you have
any questions, I'd be more than happy to try to answer
them.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I looked at this, Mary, and I was very
happy with the plans especially that you did shorten that
front deck a little bit. Is there anyone else here who
would like to speak for or against this application?
MS. HANDS: I would like to speak for it also. I have seen
Mary's plans, and they're beautiful, and we're looking
forward to being neighbors. Dolores Hands, neighbor to the
east.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There's also a couple of letters in here
To Whom it may Concern, the first one says that you have
been outstanding members in our small but very significant
beach community, and there's one from -- they're all
good. In favor of . . . They will add to the beauty of our
lovely community, very nice. I'll make a motion to close
the hearing.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Conservation Advisory Council also
approves, consistent with the LWRP. Again, I just wanted to
compliment the shortening of the only area that was anywhere
near 100 feet, it's the deck which is going to be shortened.
I would like for hay bales to be -- is that bayberries along
the front by the deck?
MRS. RAYNOR: Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Just a line of hay bales, I think the
neighbor three houses to the east had that when they did
their construction, and gutters and dry wells. I will make
33
Board of Trustees
34
April 19, 2006
a motion to approve the Wetland Permit to renovate the first
and second floors of the existing dwelling within the
existing footprint, that gutters and dry wells be added, and
also I want to make a comment that this house is consistent
with the adjourning neighbors. They're all right in line
with one another. And that hay bales be placed along the
bayberry line on the seaward side of the house.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
5. Swim King Pools on behalf of JAMES ORIOLl &
SUSAN MAGG ORIOLl requests a Wetland Permit to install a 20'
by 40' in-ground swimming pool. Located: 495 Hall's Creek
Drive, Mattituck. SCTM#116-7-4
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I should point out before we start that
survey has been changed. The project has been slightly
changed upon our recommendations. It was moved 10 feet
closer to the house further from the wetlands and that
diagram is now in our records. Is there anyone who wishes
to speak for or against this application?
MR. ARNOFF: Harvey Arnott, 206 Roanoke Avenue, Riverhead,
New York on behalf of the applicant. Good evening, I've
given Mr. King a letter from the DEC just for your
informational purposes. As you know, there was a violation
involving some removal of trees. DEC has issued a warning
letter saying just don't do it again. They're not taking
any action in regard to that, and I thought that the Board
should be aware that it's a closed issue as far as the DEC
is concerned. That letter is dated March 31st and signed by
Karen Graulich.
My client is here and really would like to break
ground in the somewhat near future if that's possible and
wanted to know what questions the Board might have as to the
application. I know you've been down there several
times. By the way, I should let everyone know I did call
the DEC and hoped to get a coordinated review; they refused
to show up at the same time you were there, but they did
come anyway. In that regard, I would invite any questions
you may have.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I don't think we have questions. It was
just the one thing I think I had asked was a cross-section;
in other words, the land slopes a foot and a half or two
feet maybe from one end of the pool to the other, and there
didn't seem to be any walls or anything holding, flattening
that surface up.
MR. ORIOL!: On the left side I basically showed where the--
34
Board of Trustees
35
April 19, 2006
the bottom left, I drew a little side-view where the
driveway is with the negative slope going down to the buffer
zone. Then just taking steps, dropping that in the
beginning, and the pool is obviously going to be level, and
there will be a one foot drop towards that buffer zone.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The other question was the backwash?
MR. ORIOLl: It's going into the dry well, which is above
the 100 foot mark.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's the dry well that's marked out
there?
MR.ORIOLl: That's correct
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's for the pool.
MR. ORIOLl: That's correct.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Those are the questions I think we have;
does anybody have any other questions?
TRUSTEE KING: You got a warning letter from the DEC, did
you require a permit from them?
MR. ORIOLl: Only because of the clearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Because of the clearing?
MR. ORIOLl: Exactly.
MR. ARNOFF: There's a letter of nonjurisdiction also.
TRUSTEE KING: Has the catamaran been removed from the area
of nondisturbance?
MR. ORIOLl: It will be.
MR. JOHNSTON: The answer is no.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I might also comment that the CAC didn't
look at this project and that the LWRP found this a
consistent action.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He goes to court on the 21 st of this
month.
MR. ORIOLl: I think we wanted to get it as close as
possible.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For clearing the trees.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: DEC gave them a letter but we still have
our --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can we approve it and not give him a
permit?
MR. JOHNSTON: You can approve it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And not give them the approval and not
give them the permit until after the court date?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: What we're talking about is there's a
violation out by the Trustees, and I think according to our
rules and regulations, we can't issue a permit if there's an
outstanding violation.
MR. ORIOLl: The pool's not in DEC's jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We're talking about the violation with the
35
Board of Trustees
36
April 19, 2006
trees with the Trustee office.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: With the Town.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Any other questions?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I had a couple comments, John. I would
also recommend because of the proximity to the buffer, use
hay bales and silt screen.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Absolutely.
MR. ORIOLl: I guess last time we agreed. When we did the
house it had to be there.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: What we're talking about is the
violation, and do we want to deal with that at this point,
also? In a sense do we want to replant the trees?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I was thinking of replanting along that
buffer line.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And that would be our recommendation to
the Town?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what I would like to see, the
trees that were removed be replanted.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Or can he do some other plantings besides
taller.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Let me explain what's happening, Harvey.
There is a violation out there. That has to be settled. The
justice will wait until our comments to settle it. We have
to make some sort of statement to them. Our statement
is to replant the trees. That will be based on
the application that you have in front of us will go forward
with the idea that hay bales are put in, all of that, and
that there will be a replanting to get rid of the violation
so the application can go ahead. We're not going to give
you the permit until the violation is settled, but our
comments to the justice department is going to be replant
trees in that area.
MR. ARNOFF: Does that mean we have to wait until the next
meeting?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: No, not at all.
MR. JOHNSTON: If they approve it with those conditions you
won't.
MR. ARNOFF: That was my question.
MR. JOHNSTON: That was my answer.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'm trying to explain, that's what we
want to do.
MR. ARNOFF: If, for example, the Board votes and approves
it and we resolve it on Friday, then we can get a permit on
Monday?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Maybe Tuesday.
36
Board of Trustees
37
April 19, 2006
MR. JOHNSTON: One second, Harvey, do you want it planted
before or a planting plan?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: No, they can't plant in a day. I'm
going to make a motion.
MR. ORIOL!: There's going to be landscaping going on. I
really wouldn't want to do it now.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It makes sense to do it with the
project. I'm going to make a motion that we approve the
application, hay bales will be placed between the pool and
the wetlands to protect any siltation going down.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can I interrupt that? We mentioned hay
bales right at the road, at the nondisturbance buffer.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The road, the fake paper road that's
there, that will be where the hay bale line will
be. Secondly, that trees will be replanted, do we want to
make a size? On just Heather's recommendation?
MS. CUSACK: Six inch, something like that. Do you want to
specify what was taken out? Oak trees I think.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Based on Heather's recommendation; is
that okay? Four to six inch.
MR. ARNOFF: Fine.
MR. JOHNSTON: Do you want to say how many?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We'll say four, we'll say the same
number. We have hay bales, we have a replacement of trees,
and the dry well will be placed as in the diagram and that
the trees will be planted as the work is being done.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And planted along the buffer line?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Approximately where the trees were taken
out of, approximately.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That was my question, do you want them
where they were taken from, which is where the pool was
going to be, or do you want them along that buffer line?
TRUSTEE KING: Landward edge of that buffer is where the
trees were removed.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The landward edge of the buffer. Just
so there's no problems, the trees will be placed plus or
minus 10 feet within -- the pool is now 75 feet away from
the upland wetlands, and the trees will be placed somewhere
around the 30-35 foot mark between the pool and the upland
mark.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm not changing anything, I'm just
saying that my concern is to replace four that were removed,
but they can be to the perimeter of your property, so
they're not smack in front of your view. I'm just
clarifying.
37
Board of Trustees
38
April 19, 2006
MR. ARNOFF: That's great.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Do I have a second for all of that?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES.
6. Steven Kramer, P.E. on behalf of LAWRENCE
HOLFELDER requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the
existing bulkhead using C-Loc vinyl sheathing. Located:
6340 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM#126-11-1
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. KRAMER: My name is Steve Kramer, I'm a professional
engineer, family member and consultant to the applicant.
Basically what we're doing is we have 100 linear
feet of primary bulkhead that's falling apart, and we want
to encapsulate that bulkhead with new plastic material. I
would like to not destroy what's there now, but basically
cover it on the seaward side. There will be some material
taken out, wood material taken out of the project and
disposed of properly, but we would like to leave the
predominance there to hold the slope while under
construction. If anybody would like to see pictures, I have
pictures of the project.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Bring them up.
TRUSTEE KING: I looked at this. The question I had, do you
have any plans for the old, the existing groin that's there,
do you have any plans for doing anything with that? On the
west edge of the property there's an old groin?
MR. KRAMER: We're not doing anything with the groin right
now.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is it functional?
TRUSTEE KING: On the landward edge of the groin, looks like
it's open, not really doing anything.
MR. KRAMER: That groin was not part of the original
estimate. If you folks feel it should be rebuilt, we can
deal with that.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it's doing anything for you.
MR. KRAMER: I agree, that's the opinion of the dock
builder.
TRUSTEE KING: The other bulkhead sticks out so far, this
groin isn't doing anything at all for you. I would
recommend just removing it. I don't think it's doing
anything at all.
MR. KRAMER: Can we leave it? CCA is now a hazardous
material.
TRUSTEE KING: Is that CCA?
38
Board of Trustees
39
April 19, 2006
MR. KRAMER: I'm sure it is.
TRUSTEE KING: It looks older than that.
MR. KRAMER: The pilings could be creosote. It's 40 years
old.
TRUSTEE KING: I would recommend removal of it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would too, I'd like to see removal of
it.
TRUSTEE KING: While you're there.
MR. KRAMER: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: In the long run it's a good idea. I looked
at this, the bulkhead is well inside the neighboring
bulkhead on either side. I don't have any problem with
replacing it. Are there any other comments on this
application? I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application
with the stipulation that the groin be removed.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: Was there any plans on doing anything with
that secondary retaining wall?
MR. KRAMER: Not at this point. My only hope is that
those tie rods come off in one piece and we'll be able to
connect to them. I don't know what we'll find under the
soils there. What do you think, well, I have the pictures,
the primary slope between the house and the first retaining
wall, it's--
TRUSTEE KING: Very steep.
MR. KRAMER: It's steep and it's turf grass, would you
recommend --
TRUSTEE KING: That's why I asked you about that secondary
wall, if you were going to do something with that, I would
strongly recommend a nonturf buffer landward of that, do
some plantings because if must cascade off that.
MR. KRAMER: I'll recommend plantings, I don't think we're
going to do anything with it.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Just for your information, Heather has
planting plans generalized.
MS. CUSACK: Lists of plants.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And for another point, Allen Connell
from the Federal government will help you with planting and
what you should do and how you should do it, and he's free
advice. He's been doing it for number of years.
MR. KRAMER: Where is he?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Riverhead, Department of Natural
Resources I think. Heather?
MS. CUSAK: Natural Resource Conservation Service, it's on
39
Board of Trustees
40
April 19, 2006
Main Street in Riverhead.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: He lives out here in Southold and he's
very familiar with the whole area and he's very helpful.
TRUSTEE KING: Did we vote? I'll make a motion to approve
the application with the removal of the groin.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
7. Robert Barratt on behalf of JULIE TSAI requests
a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling and
driveway.
Located: 310 Lake Drive, Southold. SCTM#59-1-21.1
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. BARRATT: Robert Barratt and I am rather well supported
here this evening because the owner of the property is here
with me, and before I go into the details, I thought I'd
give her the opportunity to introduce herself and make a
short statement. We will keep within your guidelines.
MS. TSAI: Good evening, for the record I'm Julie Tsai, I'm
the owner of Lot 21.1 , and I'm here because my family and I
would like to build a house on the lot. It's a very
beautiful neighborhood and our family acquired it in the
2000, and it's for us. We have a big family from the city,
but then actually we live out in Riverhead as well as some
other areas in the county, and it's very nice. Thank you
very much.
MR. BARRATT: I have had several discussions with the Board
over the last three months. It probably would help if I
cleared the air slightly on one issue. I have worked for
Julie as a realtor on other properties associated with her
family, and through that professional relationship developed
a professional friendship as well. When she began to run
into some difficulties here, and not the least problems were
money was in short supply, I offered to assist her in
preparing applications, both for the Trustees and also for
the DEC, and of course, for the Department of
Health. Having said that, things were proceeding I thought
in a reasonable shape on lot 21.1 until the DEC sent their
Mr. Marsh out to the site. He's well named, Mr. Marsh, and
his final review of the site gave us some serious problems
because he found some wetland plants which severely
restricted Julie's plans. Since that time we have modified
the plans, we have prepared for the Board a proper survey by
qualified land surveyor and subsequent to that, the Trustees
visited the site and saw the proposed house.
40
Board of Trustees
41
April 19, 2006
Following their visit, I was led to understand that
they felt that certain restrictions that should be further
applied and that information I transmitted to the owner,
Julie, who you just met, and Julie and her family discussed
them, and they decided that they still would like to go
ahead, build a house and enjoy this lovely area, not to
mention the great school system and everything else.
So, as a result of that, I prepared this piece of
paper, which I have given a copy to the owner's association,
and, of course, to the Board of Trustees. And in here,
Julie is prepared to do the following things.
MR. JOHNSTON: For the record, what is this paper?
MR. BARRATT: It's a fragment of the survey marked up to show
changes. This was transmitted by memo about three or four
days ago, and this has been available for the Trustees to
have a look at.
Basically what she's prepared to do is reduce
the size of the proposed house from 50 foot length
to 45 feet, and then push the front of the house out a
little bit to try and gain back some of the footprint that
she's losing on the end. This way, the undisturbed wetlands
buffer will be at least 60 feet, and that's about the best
we can do.
In addition, what she would like in order to
encourage her children, et cetera, to stay on the house
rather than down in the wetlands, we have asked for a
wraparound deck, which is indicated by the dotted line that
surrounds the rectangle, and the idea of that wraparound
deck would be that the kids would play on that rather than
in the sand.
Secondly, we fully recognize and understand that the
house must be built on stilts and this will mean that any
drainage effects will be mitigated from the sides of the
house.
Another area of concern was the septic tank. Now,
the septic tank is a sealed vessel and it should not leak
under any normal circumstances. But I was led to understand
that there was some concern that since it was only 76 feet
from the wetlands that that might not be sufficient to quell
people's uncertainties; so she is willing to move it over so
that it's 91 feet from the wetlands. And then finally,
there has been a lot of concern about view, people's visual
passages to see the sound, and Julie doesn't have huge
resources, and she would be happy to build a house a little
bit less than 1,000 square feet in size the way that this,
and not put a second story on the house, but hopefully a
41
Board of Trustees
42
April 19, 2006
widow's walk so that she and her family can enjoy the view
of the sound, et cetera, that would be available from that
widow's walk.
And that's really alii have to say and I thank you
for you r attention.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you for making these changes.
MR. BARRATT: One thing I should say on Julie's behalf, I
thank you for allowing me to prepare this draft without
bringing the land surveyor in. This way we've probably
saved her at least $1,000.
MR. JOHNSTON: Jill, can I ask one question? Mr. Barratt,
when were these new papers submitted to the Trustees office?
MR. BARRATT: This paper was -- the guidance was given to me
about a week ago.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If I could interrupt and fill in. We
inspected this last week and these are what we relayed to
Mr. Barratt last week. So he drew these; this is what we
asked for, and I told him he could submit it like this for
now because we don't know if we're going to have any other
changes.
MR. JOHNSTON: So that was submitted?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This letter came in the 18th.
MR. JOHNSTON: Came in yesterday, okay.
MR. BARRATT: You have to understand, I got the feedback
some time last week, and we had to go before the family to
get agreement.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The only thing that was relayed to you
that is a little different than the way I was picturing is
the wraparound porch. The Board and I were thinking on the
road side of the house, the opposite side of the house of
where you have it, that's what we were talking about. So it
isn't closer to the wetlands, so it's on the road side. I
don't know what the rest of the Board feels.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That wasn't my understanding. My
understanding is one of the reasons we asked for it to be
raised and put on pilings was so there could be a wraparound
porch. My impression was not along the front but just as
the appears in the plan, along the side and partially along
the back so they could enjoy the view, and as we had talked
about, if they wanted to entertain there rather than down in
the on ground, in the sand.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. I think Jim and I misunderstood.
I thought we were doing this.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was my impression.
MR. BARRATT: May I submit, there would be a front setback
problem if we were to do anything there too. So I'm modest
42
Board of Trustees
43
April 19, 2006
by nature, but I think what we have now is just about as
good a solution as we can get to what is a very difficult
situation.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Is there anybody else who
would like to make a comment? Again, I would like to remind
people to keep comments to five minutes or less.
MS. BALL: My name is Lillian Ball, good evening. I am the
chairperson of the Kenny's Beach Association, Wetlands
Preservation Committee, Great Pond Preservation Committee,
which is the area, as you know, between Great Pond and Long
Island Sound, and I have a number of issues that I want to
remind the Board of on the biological side because this area
has been deemed by both the DOS and the Natural Heritage
Society to be globally rare wetlands, significant habitat,
extremely important for wildlife and birds and easily
compromised by any sort of development, any kind of building
whatsoever will affect it. So I would really like the Board
to consider this issue.
We have had the support of the previous Board of
Trustees, as you know last year they revoked a permit given
in the same wetland interdunal area, and based on the new
information. You don't have new information, you have
information that's been here all along. And for you to make
a decision without regarding that information very
seriously, I think would be a very sad mistake, and a sad
comment on what the brave Trustees did last year. They
stood up for what they believed in; they got the new
information; they had to say they had made a mistake. So I
hope this time around you guys would consider it extremely
carefully under those circumstances.
Larry Penny from East Hampton Natural Resources also
gave an eloquent speech at the testimony in January last
year about how an interdunal swale is a -- a wetland has a
number of different qualities, and the interdunal swale
though it may look sandy is in fact very high water table.
Any interference at all in the sand will interfere with the
entire ecosystem, which is wetlands and dunes, as you heard
from the Natural Heritage Foundation. It is also making
any disturbance at all in an interdunal swale makes it possible
for the invasive plants to go wild. And as you know the
Kenny's Beach Civic Association got a grant with the Peconic
Land Trust from Fish and Wildlife to restore the properties
that we have already purchased and preserved from invasive
species. The invasive species situation in the town of
Southold is dire as the Nature Conservancy will tell you.
The phragmites and the purple lustrife are running wild. So
43
Board of Trustees
44
April 19, 2006
we are in the process of trying to control that and will
restore the wetlands to their former permeability and
freedom from these invasive species. So if there is any
septic action in that area, it will encourage more invasive
plants which is the last thing we want to do.
I also want to remind you that the wetlands are
already taxed to the max. In fact, the building is all
around the area. The wetlands are an island in the middle
of development. They are already performing their purifying
functions at a very serious disadvantage because of the
population density in that area, and if we should have a
hurricane like we did in the '50s and I believe in 1982
there was another one where actually the water from the
sound went into the lake, we would have no protection. And
Larry Penny also cited situations in East Hampton where, in
fact, they allowed building on an interdunal swale in the
'80s and two houses have since fallen off into the bay. So
you weaken the whole structure of the environment. You
weaken the ecosystem and you put everyone at risk.
I want to also emphasize we're not advocating that
it would be a taking. This is a situation where the
properties are all on the community preservation list of the
Town of Southold, and the county is already pursuing very
actively the acquisition of all the lots in question, 21.1
being one of the lots. We have had some recent very good
developments. We have now three things in contract and a
fourth that looks very promising and is in negotiations.
And as per my discussion earlier this evening with Julie
Tsai, it seems we need to go further with her on the other
two lots that the family owns. So I will be pursuing that
with the county, and I want everyone to know that the money
is reserved for purchasing these lands. The family has
actually received an offer on one of the parcels. So that
is something that needs to be resolved before the Board goes
forward and makes any decisions on the 21.1 lot.
So last year I think the Trustees set a precedent
that the Natural Heritage Society, Suffolk County Planning
Department, Mark Terry, the DOS, the Significant Habitat
Maps, et cetera, all these county entities, town entities,
state entities, have said that these are very, very
important globally rare, maritime, freshwater, interdunal
swale. It's the only one on the north fork. It's adjacent
to the Peconic Dunes County Park and we could have a
significant conservation biology chunk there that would
really preserve this very, very unique area of
Southold. And I would hope that this Board of Trustees
44
Board of Trustees
45
April 19, 2006
would take that responsibility very seriously.
And I will close with a very sweet letter that I
received today from Chris Moussari from the Cutchogue
School. He's in the third grade. He says, "Our third grade
class studies endangered species. We learned that loss of
habitat is one of the top reasons for some animals and
plants that are being threatened. In our town of Southold
there is a habitat called an interdunal swale. This is an
area between two dunes. We learned it is a rare habitat.
There are some unique animals and plants that live there
such as bob whites, iris prismaticas, which is an endangered
species in New York and the carnivorous sundoos, and native
cranberries too.
"We hope you will consider all the wildlife that is
dependent on this very important and special habitat. If a
house is built on this property, many of these plants and
animals might become extinct or endangered. We don't think
this is right.
"We appreciate your taking the time to look at our
issues and we hope you will agree with us and help solve
these global problems before it is too late." From the
mouths of babes. And these are the babes we want to protect
the wetlands for, Julie's children, our children and
everybody's children. Please, take that into
consideration.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else who would like to
speak on behalf of this application?
Yes, sir, if you could identify yourself.
MR. ROSAKIS: My name is Tom Rosakis, R-O-S-A-K-I-S. I
received this email sketch from Mr. Barratt today. Although
it's shown as a 91 foot setback to the septic tank, it's
actually 82 feet from the north wetlands. Just a point of
fact here.
"Dear Mr. King and Trustees, Thank you for this
opportunity to speak at this hearing. My name is Thomas
Rosakis. I have been a member of the Kenny's Beach Civic
Association for 17 years, and a member of the preservation
committee for two years. In that capacity and as a private
citizen, I am here to oppose --
MR. JOHNSTON: Excuse me, sir, are you going to read this
fou r page letter?
MR. ROSAKIS: Yes. I can do it in five minutes.
MR. JOHNSTON: Can we stipulate for the record and have her
type it for the record?
MR. ROSAKIS: You mean I can't speak it?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can you summarize the points?
45
Board of Trustees
46
April 19, 2006
MR. JOHNSTON: We will have it in the record and give it to
each one of the Trustees to read.
MR. ROSAKIS: I don't see why I shouldn't be able to do
that. I'll put in it in the record, but I would like to do
that under duress.
MR. JOHNSTON: Go ahead and read it, sir.
MR. ROSAKIS: The Kenny's Beach Civic Association was
founded over 50 years ago and has more than 125 members who
own homes on the sound front community bounded by Peconic
Dunes Park and Horton's Point. Our area encompasses two
public beaches, a freshwater lake, a large freshwater pond,
numerous small DEC regulated wetlands. This designation was
due in large part to our preservation committee's efforts.
We hired Eric LaMont, contacted DEC's Natural
Heritage Program and lobbied at the Department of
State. Some of our members participated in the initial
formation of the LWRP with Valerie Scopaz. We are not
armchair environmentalists. We paid for the original report
by Dr. LaMont. We are truly proud of our accomplishments
and fully expect the Town Trustees to respect our dedication
and efforts.
Our members made the lion's share of contributions
that made the Harper Preserve a reality. Eight people
donated $170,000 and the Town contributed the balance of
$50,000 to buy and preserve this land. Most of us made
these contributions with the express intention and
expectation that the Town would respect those efforts and
that the purchase would lead to the preservation of all the
lots, including this one. Certainly we expect the Trustees
to continue to support rather than undermine our efforts.
We do not expect government to bail us out or do our job,
but we do expect government to do its job.
The preservation committee opposes all the
development on this site for the following reasons. The
latest survey submitted by the applicant shows no setbacks
to the property lines. This is quite curious as it is the
primary purpose of a site survey plan to show these
dimensions. Why are these critical dimensions missing? If
the Trustees grant this permit they might inadvertently
grant a variance or preempt the Zoning Board of Appeals in
their duties. If one scales the west side yard it seems to
be less than the minimum 15 feet required by Town code. It
would be out of the Trustees jurisdiction to approve a site
plan that does not conform to the building code.
Two, the Planning Department had determined that the
contents of this application are profoundly inconsistent
46
Board of Trustees
47
April 19, 2006
with the Town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program.
will refer to Mark Terry's letter of February 9th where he
makes the statement inconsistent at least six times and
annotates in 10 pages the policies that this application --
by the way, I am changing this to make it shorter, so it
doesn't conform to that in some ways. If you approve this
permit, I'm sure there are quite a lot of people who will be
interested in how this proposal is consistent with
Southold's new and as of yet untested Local Waterfront
Revitalization Program. The setbacks from the wetlands to
the proposed house do not meet the Town Wetland Code
specification by 40 percent, and the wetlands to septic
setback falls 18 percent short of both Town and DEC minimum
requirements. The boiler plate sentence in the Town code,
allowing site-specific considerations is customarily used to
expand an authority's jurisdiction, not reduce it. This
globally rare significant habitat is one of the most
valuable areas identified in Southold in years. If this
area does not merit the enforcement of the minimum setbacks,
what would?
Four, the proposed plan does not take into account
that the entire project resides in a New York State
Department of State significant habitat. That wetlands and
dunes comprise a delicate system is comprised in and six
scientific reports that were cited by the Trustees last year
in denying a permit to an almost identical project,
Mazzanobile, less than 400 feet away in the same significant
habitat.
As you know, the applicant sued the Trustees and
that suit is still pending. In his affidavit defending the
Trustees' actions, former president AI Krupski quotes these
experts -- their six names are in this report -- including
Heather Cusack, the Trustees own environmental technician,
who recommended that the Board enforce full setbacks from
both the house and septic system.
This is the same area as defined by the Department
of State, October, 2005.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sir, if you could summarize?
MR. ROSAKIS: Yes. Granting this permit would be
inconsistent with the Trustees' unanimous decision last year
to deny the aforementioned Mazzanobile permit.
I will skip to the last. Seven, the Southold Town
Trustees have been charged with preserving the interest of
the commonwealth for over 300 years. As compelling as
individual interests may be -- and we are in no way arguing
that they are overly compelling here -- it is your duty to
47
Board of Trustees
48
protect the public interest and general welfare by merely
enforcing the minimum setbacks.
Attached please find copies of the LWRP consistency
review law, and former president AI Krupski's affidavit in
defense of the permit denial in Mazzanobile v. Town of
Southold. This letter will go to the Town Board, Sean
Kiernan, Steve Resler of the New York State Department of
State, and Tim Kelly of the Suffolk Times. Thank you for
your patience.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Mr. Rosakis, please, this is the
affidavit. We can't accept this. This is under
litigation. We can't accept that information.
TRUSTEE BERGEN. Yes, ma'am, hang on.
MS. TSAI: Again, my name is Julie Tsai, I'm the owner of
Lot 1 and 3 on that strip of land. And actually, I would
like to briefly talk to you about when we first acquired the
lots in 2000, we acquired three lots all together from
Mr. Georgopolous.
When we acquired it, our family, we love the beach,
we love the area so much that we also purchased a house
right on Great Pond lake front house, because lots, we can't
really live on it, but we wanted to enjoy it, so we enjoyed
it over the summer, that summer staying at the lake front
house right by Great Pond. So actually, I personally know
the area very well, and we wanted to originally acquire all
three because we saw a lot of big houses around there.
There's a big white house across from where our lots are,
and there's a little blue house at that time. So my family
were all very interested, and I brought my cousins and
everyone else to come in, and they all put in their money so
we could have a place to build up to for our children.
If we were looking for a flip over, we could do that
a long time ago, but we didn't; we reserved it for our
family to build on and to enjoy. That's why the intention
is not to destroy the environment in any way. The intention
was very simple, just like we wanted to be part of the town
of Southold as a resident. We wanted to have our children
grow up in a very beautiful area; that was our original
intention. And I think when we started having trouble was
when last year, two years ago, we started receiving letters
from the neighbors protesting, talking about we can't build,
and I had to be the one, tell the family, I'm sorry, it's
possible that we can't build, what are we going to do. It
kind of put a distress on the family since we're not
familiar with the laws and the area restrictions and all
April 19, 2006
48
Board of Trustees
49
April 19, 2006
that. But at the time when we purchased, we had no idea
what was going to be ahead of us.
But anyway, my point is right now we understand the
needs of our neighbors in preserving the area, so we are in
discussion with them, and I have to represent their interest
as well to the family, and say let's let Lot 3 and 4, which
is more connected to the wetlands area, let the county or
the neighbors enjoy that, that's fine. But it's very
interesting when we went out one day to the survey, we went
out and we saw the neighbors, they dump their grass clippings
right around our lot; they were not managed. We drove by
and there was a deer head hanging on the tree on our lot,
but we couldn't do anything about it because we don't have a
house there. So those lots, although they are preserved as
wilderness, but they're not managed. We actually saw the
dumping of their clippings. I didn't have a camera. That's
why I say, well, to our interests right now we just wanted
to make Lot 1 possible to build and live. There are houses
to the left and to the right of us. There is already a
house existing, and that little blue house built up to the
second floor, and I did receive a letter that the neighbor
came to the Trustee Board meeting requesting that second
floor, and I remembered saying we needed to attend to
protest against it; we didn't because we wanted to say,
okay, that's just building up to the second floor, that has
nothing to do with us.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Excuse me, if you could summarize, you're
at five minutes.
MS. TSAI: After hearing all this, I just want to let
everyone here in the Town Trustees know we're here to become
residents and that's it. I'm a teacher in the town of
Riverhead, and I try to contribute back to the family, but
our family -- one last sentence I wanted to make is they felt a
little bit in a way not welcome. And I try not to make it
that obvious, but it sounds like we don't want to be judged
because we're Chinese. I don't think that's not an issue,
but I hope that's definitely not a an issue for that. I
like to express what I want to say.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Anybody else would like to
speak? Yes, sir.
MR. MCNALLY: My name is Rich McNally, I have a summer
cottage at 1455 Lake Drive, which I share. I'm a co-tenant
with my sister, she lives up around Boston suburbs. I speak
for myself and for her. It is summer cottage it's not
winterized, but it was passed on to us through our
inheritance through our parents.
49
Board of Trustees
50
April 19, 2006
My sister and I were basically fortunate enough to
be summer kids out here since we were little. I can recall
my dad saying that that area in between the oval -- and the
oval meaning Kenny's Road, Lake Drive, Leighton Drive and
West Drive, although it's not an oval everybody called it a
oval -- was wetlands, and this was when I was seven or eight
years old. I asked my dad what does that mean. He said you
can't build on it. So I can ask the Board today, what has
changed in the last 45 years?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
MR. MCNALLY: I'm not finished. I asked this question of
the same Board about four years ago when the Mazzanobile
property came up for a similar to build or not to build. My
neighbor down the block George Prambrick gave me a call one
winter and said, hey, Rich, did you know there's a building
application. I said what are you talking about, George.
Well, they're going to talk about it down at the Southold
Town Trustees. So I'm sure a couple of you have heard me before.
I submitted some photographs of the two
one acre Mazzanobile lots, which are part of this nine
piece parcel within the circle. And at that time I talked
to the issue of an outcropping of the water table right in
the middle of the two Mazzanobile lots, which at the time
was not shown on any map as being a wetland area, and I said
to the board, how can this not be part of the wetlands when,
in fact, during the rainy season it's a little lake and it's
a depression and when it's wet enough, the water table
becomes a lake. So I said to the Board, four years ago, and
by the way, over by what is the nonexistent Central Avenue,
there were wild cranberries and sure enough, some DEC people
went in there and flagged it off. The outcropping of the
water table -- and this is on the Mazzanobile lot, has
nothing to do with your lot about a quarter mile down the
road, that little outcropping of the water table is today a
natural cranberry bog because the seeds from the cranberries
by Central Avenue came over, they fell into the water, which
was a little pond, they stayed put and today there are
natural cranberries and my daughter and I discovered this
four years ago walking on that lot. And sure enough, it was
flagged off. It's now part of the wetlands.
The point I'm making here is this, it's all one
ecosystem. What are we doing here? We're arguing that we
should now build on these wetlands? I don't get it. Just
less than a year ago the Town Board reversed its decision to
issue a building permit on the two Mazzanobile lots and here
we are again, the same situation is presenting itself. And
50
Board of Trustees
51
April 19, 2006
I think if this Board of Trustees issues this building
permit, it's an absolutely ridiculous precedent to set
because the entire Kenny's Beach community has literally put
its money where its mouth is. We've raised through private
donations to the wetlands committee tens of thousands of
dollars, and one of these nine lots has now been purchased
and is going to be forever public under Peconic Land Trust,
and thanks in large part to Lillian Ball, who held the flag
for like three years.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sir, if you could summarize because you've
had your five minutes.
MR. MCNALLY: Okay. Years ago when we drove out on Friday
afternoons to come out to Southold, we would get sprayed by
the airplanes that were crop dusting the potato fields and
the cauliflower fields. We got these little mustard splats
on which we realized years later was DOT, which went down
into the water table, infected the fish and wound up in
osprey eggs. And finally after years we realized everything
is connected here.
These nine lots are connected to Great Pond. It's a
natural ecosystem. It's been written about a globally rare
interdunal swale with all sorts of like natural flora and
fauna and natural cranberry bogs, I can't speak to Lot 1
specifically, and believe me, we're not here
because you're Chinese, we just want to keep the wetlands
wet and we don't think they've dried up in the last 45
years.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Anybody else like to speak?
MR. JOHNSTON: Let the record show that none of the Trustees
have commented about the Mazzanobile case, pro, con or
otherwise.
MR. HUNTINGTON: Ray Huntington, Cutchogue, speaking on
behalf of the North Fork Environmental Council. The
environmental significance of these lots in the interdunal
areas really quite well documented so I'll not repeat any of
that, and I'm sure the Trustees are very familiar with the
circumstances there.
The NFEC is very interested in critical small lots
as well as large lot preservation. Perhaps the activities
of the Town are best known through preservation of farm and
large open space areas, but those small lots in neighborhood
areas are just as important and sometimes can be very
critical to the character of the neighborhood.
The NFEC of course supports the Town code and the
Town plans with respect to our future. It also supports
property rights. We believe that people should use
51
Board of Trustees
52
April 19, 2006
properties that they own for legal purposes according to the
Town code; that should not be interfered with. But we do
not support a compromise of that code. When issues like
this are brought before the Trustees or the ZBA, there seems
to be a tendency to make a compromise. What we really have
here is a code that represents the community's agreement of
how we're going to behave. Yes, there's supposed to be
interpretation of trivial things, maybe we need a foot here
maybe an error has been made, needs to be corrected, but
when the exceedence becomes glaring, then we're actually
compromising the Town code and going out into an area that
is really not the interest of the Trusteeship or the ZBA.
So that's an explanation of the NFEC's position on
these kinds of issues. Small lots are very important;
they're important to the property owner. They're important
to us as a community. When a Board exceeds the
Town code significantly, they are really giving away public
property. And that is not what we want to see
happening. The rights of the owner and the public need to
both be served. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Is there anybody else who
would like to speak?
MR. COSTEllO: John Costello. It sounds like there's a
reasonably serious attempt to devalue somebody's property,
and if it does get devalued to some degree, maybe I could
afford to purchase it or purchase part of it because I would
love to have the ability to bid on a devalued piece of
property in Southold town, whether it's open space or
not. If it does get down in value and it is such an asset,
I would love to be able to put a price in. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Yes, ma'am.
MS. YATES: My name is Caroline Paul Yates, and I own a
summer residence at 1795 Wheaton Drive. It's a ticklish
issue, balancing the needs of people who own property
against the needs of the environment and the town, and I
would simply like to say tonight that due to the sensitive
nature and the environmental significance of our interdunal
swale ecosystem, I would like to see the Town grant no
variances for wetlands setbacks when considering development
of any properties in our area; and unfortunately, that
pertains also to this project that's being proposed here
tonight.
We would love to have the Tsais as members of our
community, but unfortunately the piece of property that they
own has been determined to be unsuitable for development,
and I won't go into reviewing, but we have a lot of
52
Board of Trustees
53
April 19, 2006
documentation to that effect. The area needs to be
protected and the Town needs to protect it. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Were there any other comments, members of
the audience? I do have just two pieces of input, one is
the CAC recommendation that was made back in November '05
was that it be tabled at that time because of wanting the
wetlands to be flagged.
I counted in the file here, approximately give or
take one or two, 25 letters, and I didn't go through some of
them because they are over such a history of time some of
them are written by the same authors, somebody wrote one and
then about six, eight months later wrote another, but there
are about 25 letters in here and none of them are in support
of this application. The LWRP recommendation has already
been mentioned. It is found inconsistent because it's
within 100 feet of the wetlands. Again, with the septic
system 100 feet, questions about protecting and restore the
ecological quality of the area for Town of Southold, talking
about the New York State Natural Heritage Program and the
maritime dune community and the that the proposed action
will result in a physical loss of part of a dune
ecosystem. As was mentioned, it's a long report. Again,
it's within 100 feet of this maritime dune system; this
could endanger threatened planted species in the immediate
area. And due to the size of the lots and the placement of
the home on the highest point, there's nothing in this
policy that relates to this action. Are there any other
comments from the Board on this before I discuss some of the
other aspects of it?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I just wanted to reiterate some of the
comments that I heard from the public. I hope you realize
this is not a personal to your family. Again, I think the
comment was well said, we would love to have you as members
of this community. I realize that you certainly did not
intend in 2000 to come in and destroy the area or destroy
the plants or destroy the animals. It really is not
connected to that and your intention was to buy a building
lot.
I find it very difficult to not ignore but not put
faith in all that we have heard about the globally rare
habitat, the protection of this unique habitat, the minimum
setbacks, and that this area is in the process of being
purchased and preserved. So I just wanted to reiterate some
of those points, those are my concerns.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think that -- I know I've only been on
this Board for the last few months, but I know I've been present
53
Board of Trustees
54
April 19, 2006
for Board meetings since last summer, and I know this
application has come before the Board many times during the
last five or six months. The Board after listening to a lot
of the comments both written and verbally as well as the
LWRP recommendations has gone back to the applicant and
asked them to please restake several times, to move things
several times, to downsize several times, and we have gotten
down to the most recent proposal where this house was again,
just in the last week or so, downsized yet again plus put on
stilts. They moved the septic tank so there has been a lot
that the applicants have done to try to mitigate the issues
that have been brought up.
So I appreciate the sensitivity of the area. The
Board has noted that there obviously are other homes in the
area, and have been talked about tonight, homes across the
street, homes on either side in this area. But I just
wanted to set into the record, again, all the requirements
that -- and the suggestions that the Board has made to the
applicant, they have complied with pretty much every single
one that's been made. I just want to check one more time if
there are any comments from the Board.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I have a couple comments just in
general. I think the basis of my comment is if there's any
place more rare than this piece of property in the town of
South old it doesn't occur to me. This has been recognized --
and I'm looking through the LWRP -- and it makes very
clear that this is a globally rare country, federally rare
and also a state rare piece of property. It doesn't exist
anywhere else. We have codes that are set up to protect
this type of piece of property, and it just seems in going
through the LWRP, it says inconsistent, inconsistent,
inconsistent with all the policies that the Trustee Board
has set up. I find it difficult to speak positively against
this application.
The owner bought this property four, five years
ago. The rules and regulations were in place at that time.
They were aware it was a questionable piece of property. It
was not obviously fitting into the then current codes. It
was still within a problem area.
So, as I went through the LWRP, each issue comes up
that it's inconsistent and inconsistent. It's globally
rare. It will do damage to the environment. So I'd like to
say that publicly, it is an inconsistent application, and it
does question the basic codes of the Trustees. I'd just
like to say that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. If there's nothing else, I'd
54
Board of Trustees
55
April 19, 2006
like to make a motion to close --
TRUSTEE KING: Don, are you interested in going to look at
this property?
MR. WILDER: Yes, because it's been significant changes
since we looked at it, so we're not up to date.
TRUSTEE KING: We got new stuff tonight. I'd like sometime
to review what's been presented tonight. I question why you
have to have that bump-out. I think it says on the north
western part of the house, but it looks like it's on the
northeastern part of the house in the description, 4' by 5',
a push-out on the northwest side, maybe I'm wrong but I
think that's the northeast corner of the house.
MR. BARRATT: It's on the northwest side of the northeast
corner.
TRUSTEE KING: What is the reason for it?
MR. BARRATT: To try to regain living space for the
family.
TRUSTEE KING: I know when we talked in the field we wanted
to keep this house as small as we could. That's a
significant addition. I think you could go without the
widow's walk. I would recommend that we table this until
they look at it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would you like to make a motion to have it
tabled?
TRUSTEE KING: Sure. I'll make a motion that we table so the
CAC can take a look at it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I know sometimes, Don, all your members
don't get out, but maybe for this you can have all your
members.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Aye.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Aye.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All opposed?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All the opposed? Aye.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Aye.
MR. JOHNSTON: Three ayes.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It's tabled so the CAC can look at it.
MR. WILDER: Can we make sure that the wetlands are flagged?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: They have been for months.
TRUSTEE KING: The house staked might be 20' by 50', if you
downsize that.
MR. BARRATT: The stakes are still on the 50 foot.
8. LES Associates on behalf of MARGARET
REINHARD requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 3' by 10'
55
Board of Trustees
56
April 19, 2006
extension to the existing dwelling, 19.3' by 12.2'
second-story addition, second-story bay window, 6' by 19.3'
deck, and to renovate the existing 13' by 20'
deck. Located: 505 Beachwood Road,
Cutchogue. SCTM#116-4-23
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak for this application?
MS. SAKAFICO: My name is Linda Sakafico from LES
Associates, 107 West Montauk Highway in Hampton Bays. I am
here on behalf of Margaret Reinhard, who is the
applicant. She has been a resident at this subject parcel
for over 50 years. She's a 98 year old woman who would like
to add this renovation so she can live here all year round
rather than only as a summer resident. Her daughter,
Delores Hans and husband is here if you have any
questions with regard to the proposed additions that they
are requesting the Board to review.
I have submitted a letter from the Suters, who are
the property owners adjacent to the west, and Mrs. Raynor,
who was case Number 4 earlier this evening is also
recommending approval for this application, and she is west
of the Suter property, which would be designated as Tax Lots
Number 22 and 21.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else here who would like
to speak for or against this application? If not, I'll make
a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I looked at this. This is just down
the road from Raynor's, it's just also next door to the
building we just approved recently. They're all choosing to
have permanent homes here, which they have beautiful
views. CAC recommends approval and LWRP reviewed it as
consistent. So I didn't see any problem. The only change
from the footprint is a small bump-out wooden deck landward
and a small bump-out from the kitchen, which I believe the
neighbors had no problem with.
MS. SAKAFICO: That's correct.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I didn't see any problems or anything to
change or add for this permit. So I will make a motion to
approve Wetland Permit as stated to Margaret Reinhard on 505
Beachwood Road.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MS. CUSACK: Do they have hay bales on the plans or is that
not needed?
56
Board of Trustees
57
April 19, 2006
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I didn't think they were needed because the
deck also ends right at the vegetation line, and they also
removed a portion of the deck to move it back from the 100
foot, so they really accommodated our setbacks.
9. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of PETER &
ARLENE MANOS requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the
existing house within the existing footprint with a
one-story porch on the north side and a two-story addition
on the south side, covered porch, in-ground swimming pool,
terrace, sanitary system, and garage. Located: 2000 Sound
Drive, Greenport. SCTM#33-1-18
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of
this application?
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore, I'll try to do this
briefly. The house that was presently there was built I
guess in the 1950s. Mr. and Mrs. Manos are here. The
plans were to remodel the house and put a second story on
the house with the addition of the porch on the water side
and some additional work. What happened is, and I think the
builder -- the contractor is here as well, when they were in
the process -- they got a building permit. They got a
Zoning Board variance to put the pool where it is in the
side yard and to place the addition that is on the
seaward side at its closest point, this exact same plan is
what the Zoning Board had approved. What happened is when
they started, they got the building permit, started the
construction, they discovered the foundation was
structurally unsound due to water. The way the house had
been built, the sill wasn't high enough, there had been a
lot of water damage over time. So the foundation couldn't
support the construction. At that point there were parts of
the building that were remaining, parts of the foundation
that were remaining, but they discovered more problems than
they had anticipated. The Building Department said go ahead
demolish it, not realizing that in demolishing it, we would
end up starting over. At least the position the Zoning
Board would take is that you would have to come back because
originally because it's a renovation of the house, but now
we have to come back because it's a reconstruction of the
house. In that time you guys adopted the change to the code
that requires the same review that the Zoning Board reviews,
which is the setback from the bluff. We understand also the
neighbor is here, and he's had some concerns with the
proximity of the pool. We had plenty of time to discuss it
out in the hallway, since the foundation is no longer there
57
Board of Trustees
58
April 19, 2006
is -- our goal, our preference was to have the pool along
the waterside, that's where you want to have the pool, but
at the time when the application was made, we were squeezed
because the existing house was there; we were working within
the bounds of the renovation of the existing house. You
could see that the existing house was directly in line with
both neighbors. The houses in that area all built in the
same place. In order for us to try to accommodate everyone,
we would like to be able to put the pool on the water side,
which we would propose to keep the line, the original line,
51, I think the survey shows it 51 on one end 65 on the
other, because of the topography, the change, take the
existing line, the foundation, the excavation is all there,
that's where the foundation was, put the pool as the closest
point and then just build the house that far back. It will
end up being -- we haven't designed it essentially, no
offense to the original architect who's not here, they spent
$50,000 in architectural services that are essentially out
the window.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Can I ask, could you just describe that
new approach that you're taking? The pool is going to be
where the house is?
MS. MOORE: No. The pool, the closest point of any
structures, which we would consider the pool a structure,
would be where we are now showing the 51 and the 65. So we
would take that line as the closest line for any structures.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Then the house would be?
MS. MOORE: Mr. Manos, for health reasons, needs to have a
pool for the exercise, he'll speak for himself, you won't
believe his age, he has to admit to it, they really want to
have the pool; and that's why the pool was put in the side
yard at the time. If we put the pool there, and the pool is
16 feet in width, I have to be realistic that there has to
be some decking around the pool, so the reality is that
we're probably looking at about 20 feet where the house
begins.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So the whole house has got to be pushed
back 20 feet.
MS. MOORE: Towards the road in order to
squeeze -- but I want to keep that setback.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We were talking about that in the field,
to move the house --
MS. MOORE: Yes. I understand from Heather that there was
some thought that if we could move that pool there, and that
was our goal in our original application to the Zoning
Board, which the Zoning Board said no to was putting the
58
Board of Trustees
59
April 19, 2006
pool on the bluff side, but the house was in place so we
didn't have a lot of room. This way we can keep to the
excavation that's already taken place, the disturbance is
there; have the pool be the starting point.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What are you proposing from the seaward
edge of the pool, how far from the top of the bluff?
MS. MOORE: Seaward edge would be at 51 -- make it 50, it
says here 51, it's the same footprint. What I did was I did
a straight line across, which seems to be 51 and 65 if the
architect's drawings are accurate.
TRUSTEE KING: That would be the seaward edge of the pool.
Is there going to be a deck around that also?
MS. MOORE: The decking's going to be between the house
and the pool.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Between the house and the pool?
MS. MOORE: It's going to be an in-ground pool.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you have two feet on that side
of the pool edge?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: You need an edge.
MS. MOORE: You need an edge of the pool. So if you did it
at 50 and 64, you'll have a foot of rim around the pool.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we would need to see where you propose
the fence around the pool as well.
MS. MOORE: We didn't get that far.
TRUSTEE KING: This is the old plan, they'll have to submit
new.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Pat, I think you're going to have to --
MS. MOORE: We're going to have to draw it.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Yes. Also include a backwash for the
pool where it's going to be.
MS. MOORE: Sure. I was going to do it as a dry well. The
backwash and the dry wells can be the same hole? Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The dry wells for the roof runoff and the
dry wells for the pool? I don't know what the code says.
MS. MOORE: I don't know what the code is.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We generally like to see a separate one
for the pool, so if you can squeeze a second one in.
MS. MOORE: That's fine. See the problem is after all that
architectural design now what we're doing is setting kind of
limits so they can go back and design based on the setbacks
that are established because to try to design -
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think that these changes, although this
is what we want, they're significant, and I think we're
going to have to wait until you resubmit the plan, send it
back to LWRP.
MS. MOORE: We did it as a permit.
59
Board of Trustees
60
April 19, 2006
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me look through LWRP because they
found it consistent.
MS. MOORE: Consistent? So we're doing actually better.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me look at the CAC. They recommend
approval with the condition and all the conditions that the
Trustees would put on it, a 20 foot nonturf buffer from the
top of the bluff, and dry wells and gutters are installed to
contain roof runoff.
MS. MOORE: I think we have that already.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's already there and just show that on
the new plan anyway. I think, I'm still learning LWRP, but
I think under LWRP when there's a significant change like
this it has to go back to them.
MS. MOORE: Because we're talking about the same setback and
the only difference is we're actually putting a pool where
the building was.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I see, what you're saying because
nothing's going closer.
MS. MOORE: Actually what our proposal was, we're actually
pushing back further than our original request. So instead
of a foundation you're putting a pool, which is a lesser. I
have no objection. I think it does need to be drawn, I have
no problem with drawing it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree, it's staying at the same line and
the same requirements for the pool are going to come in here
as far as drainage goes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there anyone else who would like to
speak on this application?
MR. MANOS: My name is Peter Manos. One of the things I'd
like to say is that swimming is one of the little bits of
exercise I get. I'm 83 years old. It's great going down to
the beach but how in the hell do you get back up?
MS. MOORE: I know the neighbor's going to be supportive of
the Zoning Board because we want to try to accomplish the
same thing since you're kind of duplicating reviews here,
I'm hoping that the Zoning Board will see the same --
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Pat, when do you go in front of the
Zoning Board?
MS. MOORE: We have the application in, I just don't know.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It doesn't matter if we wait until you
get new plans to us? I mean, we can approve this next month
so we just have the plans?
MS. MOORE: Yes. I'm going to have to try to get the drawing
because I'm going to have to show it to the Zoning Board
anyway. I'm not going to have elevations, obviously, just
the footprint.
60
Board of Trustees
61
April 19, 2006
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Why can't we approve it pending receipt of
the plans of what was discussed here tonight?
MS. MOORE: Isn't that what you were saying?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: My question is which was better?
MS. MOORE: No. I would rather you approve it subject to
receipt of the drawing, so alii need you to do is sign off
on it when you get the drawings, as long as I've drawn it
the way you've approved it.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That makes sense.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any other comments from anybody
on the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: Where's the coastal erosion line?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Thirty, 40 feet away.
TRUSTEE KING: So any fencing would be landward of the
coastal erosion line, right?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Make sure you put the fencing on the
drawing.
MS. MOORE: Do you have any requirements as far as where the
fence goes?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Check with the Building Department, that's
Building Department. What we would like to see is
everything landward of the coastal erosion line. Whatever
the boundaries are of the Building Department.
MS. MOORE: Right now the privet actually acts --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know what the Building Department
requires.
MS. MOORE: They're going to require a fence. I'll check
with them, they might not require it on the sound side if
you have a barrier on the stairs.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And can you draw, I'd like to see a
nondisturbance buffer maybe from the coastal erosion line.
MS. MOORE: We have it already. It's already landscaped,
we're not touching any of that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It was existing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that enough?
MS. MOORE: It is already existing, it's already mature, we
don't want to touch it. As a matter of fact, all the
construction and excavation was very good about that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, I'm just going on our notes. Any
other comments from the Board? What Peggy's saying is from
where the lawn is from the coastal erosion line out seaward
to that hedge, there's lawn there, if we say nonturf as a
buffer.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This was all hedge row, would we want
say landscaped in here, no lawn, just to keep the lawn away
from the bluffs that have been blowing out.
61
Board of Trustees
62
April 19, 2006
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They have extensive decking there.
MS. MOORE: You have lawn there now.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Top of the bluff is where this hedge is
and normally we would have -- just say nonturf to the
coastal erosion line?
MS. MOORE: Can we say 10 feet? Because that we can
landscape. Instead of grass what they would rather you have
any kind of nonturf, low-lying shrubs.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It could be gravel, sand, beach grass.
MS. MOORE: Anything, not grass. Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to close the public
hearing.
THE TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I will make a motion to approve the
application of Patricia Moore on behalf of Peter and Arlene
Manos for the request to reconstruct a house, a two-story
house with additions as shown on the survey --
MS. MOORE: I'm trying to suggest, because all our plans
have to be essentially thrown out, if you could establish a
setback that our pool will be at a certain distance and the
house behind the pool, just generic distances so we can
design after the fact.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. I'll make a motion to approve an
application for Peter and Arlene Manos to construct a house
with a pool on the seaward end at least 50 feet back from
the top of the bluff.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I was going to say at least 50 and 64,
there are two existing points there, as per survey.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As per site plan 50 to 65 feet back from
the top of the bluff, with a 10 foot extension on the
existing buffer, dry wells for the roof runoff for the house
and also a separate dry well for the pool.
MS. MOORE: Do you call it a back wash?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Back wash.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Jill, how did you define the 10 foot,
that seems very fuzzy?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Ten foot extension on the existing row of
hedges. And all subject to receiving new site plan showing
the previously dimensions.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
10. Samuels and Steelman Architects on behalf of
EDWARD & ADRIENNE SOLOMON requests a Wetland Permit to
construct an in-ground swimming pool and enclosure
62
Board of Trustees
63
April 19, 2006
fence. Located: 1205 Point Pleasant Road,
Mattituck. SCTM#114-1-4
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this
application?
MR. SAMUELS: I am Tom Samuels, the architect. This was a
site that was earlier developed with a foundation and then
purchased by the Solomons, at which time we came back to you
for amendments to the permit for the house on the site at
the time, and we were beyond the 100 foot as it was at that
time defined jurisdiction, so we went along actually with
very little influence from you guys. And now the pool,
which is also within 100 feet from the wetlands, but it is
by new definition within your jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE KING: I had a question with the wetlands
delineation myself. I think it's nearer to the toe of the
bluff.
MR. SAMUELS: That line was on the drawings as I inherited
them.
TRUSTEE KING: I know. We have all been out to the
site. It was purchased by Pelligrini, I think it was. They
came to us and got a Wetland Permit to tear the house down
and build a house in its place. And at that time a line of
hay bales was placed along the top of the bluff, and I think
that was to be a nondisturbance area from seaward of that
hay bale line. Where this new location for the pool is I
think it's down beyond that. It looks like they pushed the
hay bales out of the way and went down there with a piece of
machinery for some reason on the western edge of the
property.
MR. SAMUELS: Yes. I think those are actually new hay bales
in that vicinity because it's beyond where the original
foundation was. The contractor put new hay bales along
there. Actually all the hay bales degraded over that
time, so they put new hay bales there on the edge of the
clearing.
TRUSTEE KING: I had some questions on the fence. It looks
like they want to the fence almost in the wetlands at the
base of the bluff.
MR. SAMUELS: There is a fence now on either side of the
property.
TRUSTEE KING: There's a chain link fence that goes down
into the wetlands on either side of the property.
MR. SAMUELS: That's correct, those are there, but no, the
fence that encloses the pool is approximately on the 26 foot
contour so I don't think it can be in the wetlands.
TRUSTEE KING: It goes right along the edge.
63
Board of Trustees
64
April 19, 2006
MR. SAMUELS: Most of the contours are below that fence
line.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay. We're all right.
MR. SAMUELS: We actually it's very close to the line that
En-Consultants --
TRUSTEE KING: The fence is going right at the top of the
stairs then?
MR. SAMUELS: Yes, please, that's where we'd like it to
be.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It was essentially at the top of the bluff?
MR. SAMUELS: Since you were there, you should recognize
that the bluff, if there is a bluff there --
TRUSTEE KING: I consider it a bluff right in front of the
house, but as you go west it slopes down more.
MR. SAMUELS: Right, but towards the bottom of the stairs
there is what probably would be called a bluff; in
other words, there's a steep drop. I would say that was the
bluff. Then it slopes from there up many feet, I would say
75 feet.
TRUSTEE KING: This doesn't bother me.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That fence is fine.
MR. SAMUELS: We certainly are willing, and I talked to
Heather today about removing some of that preexisting fence
in the wetlands.
TRUSTEE KING: That would be nice because that goes right
down into the intertidal area almost.
MR. SAMUELS: Yes, that's terrible.
TRUSTEE KING: It would be nice if that was removed up to
like to the toe of the bluff.
MR. SAMUELS: Yes. We would say to the six foot contour
line or whatever, to the toe of the bluff, it doesn't suit
us in any way. We don't need that.
TRUSTEE KING: That would be good; that would be an
improvement on that property.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there a fence on the other side?
MR. SAMUELS: You mean for the enclosure of the pool?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This becomes the fence for the pool.
MR. SAMUELS: Right. And we're using parts of the side
fence that exist as the enclosure for the pool.
TRUSTEE KING: This to me is like the tidal wetlands
boundary right along in here, not out there. It's still a
good distance. I think it's fine.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think it's fine.
TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments on this
application? I'll make a notion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
64
Board of Trustees
65
April 19, 2006
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the
application -- by the way, it was found consistent with the
LWRP and CAC recommended approval. They had one condition,
recommended approval with the condition dry well is
installed to contain the pool backwash, and all trees with a
diameter of six inches or more from the hay bale line to the
water are left in place. From the hay bale line to the
water, if I remember right that was like a nondisturbance
area.
MR. SAMUELS: It could be. It doesn't show up on the
paperwork we have. We're treating it as a nondisturbance.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application
with the dry well for backwash for the pool, and I don't
know how many feet of fence you would remove there, probably
25-30 feet or so. Remove the old existing chain link fence
that's into the wetlands, remove it back to the toe of the
bluff
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
12. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of
ANN MARIE NELSON requests a Wetland Permit to remove 62' of
existing west bulkhead, construct 435' of new bulkhead
immediately in front of and within 18" of existing bulkhead
using vinyl sheathing. Remove 65' of east and north
bulkhead sections and replace in-kind/in-place using vinyl
sheathing. Repair 30' of existing stone north bulkhead
in-place. Relocate existing concrete blocks above spring
high water line. Maintenance dredge existing basin to a
depth of minus 4' below mean low water, approximately
1650-2000 cubic yards. Deposit spoil (sand) as beach
nourishment on southwest side of the inlet between high
water and high marsh area.
Located: 1420 Ninth Street, Greenport. SCTM#45-6-9.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anyone who wishes to speak?
MR. COSTELLO: I've spoken on this many times and I believe
the last discussions at the last meeting were if we could
get an approval on it with any contingencies the Board so
desires because there were some environmental concerns,
legitimate environmental concerns of sewerage being pumped
into the wetlands area, and I think if those restrictions
would allow that before the project could be done, so be
it. I think it would be a wise decision on the Board's
part, and I would hope some of the powers to be, this Board,
the Police Department, the Health Department, the DEC and
65
Board of Trustees
66
April 19, 2006
the Highway Department of Southold could resolve that
problem in some time frame, and by placing the sand as beach
nourishment to the west, I think you'll also assist as just
a natural bypass to what is occurring now.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When you say you're going to place to the
west?
MR. COSTELLO: To the west side, it's just a bypass of sand;
the east side has too much sand, the west side has too
little.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anybody else who wishes to
speak? Just for your information, earlier tonight I think
just during the work session or before, I'm not sure, I
don't think you were here. At the time we spoke and said
that Jill had been in contact with DEC in the sense of
controlling the sewerage that's coming from up above, and
they're trying to get the police involved and the DEC and
make some headway in that. We didn't want to close off the
pipe at this point because if there is a problem that water
would be coming onto Town property, and we can in turn use
the Town as an agent to close that off. But it's the
intention of the Board, I think, to move ahead with the idea
that there will be an application approved if that pipe is
closed.
MR. COSTELLO: And I think any Board Member wants to go down
on there on a rainy day, you'll know what the problem is.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Even dry weather they were saying it's
flowing right through now.
MR. COSTELLO: And that is a violation on some body's
part. And again, Mrs. Duffy is here and to put the sand on
the west side, we certainly would need her approval because
that is the property that a majority of the fill would be
placed on.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That letter isn't in the file yet?
MR. COSTELLO: I think it's in the file. I hope it is.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'll make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'll make a motion that we approve the
application of an Ann Marie Nelson with the stipulation that
no activity should start until the pipes are closed, pipe on
Silvermere is closed, sealed off, stopped; do I have a
second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Can I just add that we did get a letter
66
Board of Trustees
67
April 19, 2006
from the adjacent owner allowing for the spoil to be placed
as part of the application.
13. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of
BREEZY SHORES COMMUNITY, INC. C/O HELEN SZARKA requests a
Wetland Permit to remove and replace in-kind/in-place eight
existing jetties, dredge basin inlet to minus 4' below
average mean low water, approximately 800 cubic yards, and
use spoil as beach nourishment. located: Sage Road,
Southold. SCTM#53-5-12.5
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. COSTEllO: Yes, George Costello, Sr., for the Breezy
Shores Community. We had a verbal from Chuck Hamilton to do
the dredging down at the entrance to the boat basin and to
put it on the beach. The problem is, and I'm sure everybody
is aware, that we have eight jetties, most of them are
nonfunctional due to a lot of facts. One is if you look at
the pictures that I sent you, which were taken about five
months ago, prior to 2001, this community taking ownership,
the in-shore sections of most of those jetties were cut off.
They were cut for the access for kids to play on the beach
because at that time there was quite a bit of beach down
there. The existing bulkhead which I bid on and lost the
bid on in 1985 due to my brother's bidding. It's basically
three to four feet out, but the real problem we're going to
face shortly if a Katrina or a Rita ever shows up that the
sheathing to that bulkhead is six feet, there are some areas
where the sheathing is in the bottom two feet. So I tried
to explain this to the DEC that if I did the dredging and
used the material for beach nourishment and was allowed to
put some of the jetties back, I could keep some of the beach
nourishment intact in front of the bulkheads where it's
needed. Otherwise, I'm going to be coming back to the DEC
and the Trustees in South old looking for a rock revetment to
keep the bulkhead there once the bulkhead is undermined.
Obviously you can see on the eastern end, it's a little more
prevalent, the beach loss and the erosion that's occurring
on the return. Normally in the past three or four years
we've gotten permission from the DEC to rebuild existing
jetties most of the time, if they were functional, but they
allowed us to cut them back to the low tide and drop the
elevation down to 18". And when you look at these pictu res
that I presented to the Board, you'll see that most of these
jetties are fairly tall, and that's one of the reasons why
they cut the section out so the kids could play on the beach
67
Board of Trustees
68 April 19, 2006
and transverse the beach itself.
I am trying to present my case, and it's one that if
you look at it today, it doesn't look like a major issue but
because I know how long the piling are and the sheathing
are, I know it's going to be an issue tomorrow or the day
after or the day after. So I am requesting some help with
these jetties and obviously the dredging, which would be
for beach nourishment.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Is there anybody else who
would like to speak for this application?
MS. SZARKA: Yes, my name is Helen Szarka. I met some of
you when you came to Breezy Shores. I have to say you were
very pleasant and not quite what I expected. So that was a
very positive surprise.
I just have a few remarks to make. Over the years
the waterfront land at Breezy Shores has been severely
eroded. Many years ago there was a road on the water side
in front of the cottages. Now many of the homes are
extremely close to the bulkhead shoreline. It is very
important that we try to protect and support this shoreline
and the eight jetties will do that. Previous owners did not
do the best job maintaining the jetties and the
property. This newly formed community is trying to solve
some of these problems that we inherited due to this
past neglect. Rebuilding the jetties would be a step in the
right direction for us. The sand that will be deposited
from the dredging will be very helpful to maintain the beach
and the bulkhead. But as George mentioned, we have been
having very erratic weather and another storm may take all
of this away and the end result of that would be that we
would have to come back to you for other requests for
permits or revetments, and I have to tell you that this
community right now does not have the money to do that. So
we're asking that you be very sympathetic to our cause, we
really need help. We need your support. I know that the
jetties are nonexistent, but we're asking you to help us the
best we you can.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Anybody else want to speak?
TRUSTEE KING: I think the only question we had was why was
there so much beach when there's no groin?
MR. COSTEllO: It was pushed down there. If you go down to
the west end, you can see there's quite a bit of soil
deposited on that corner. There's probably -- and I was
being fairly reasonable about the 800 yards of dredging down
there. Most of that I believe came right from the east end.
I was there yesterday to take another look at it, and I
68
Board of Trustees
69
April 19, 2006
noticed there was probably 10, 15 or 20 yards of sand piled
up against one of the jetties. It was on the west side of
the jetties. I was a little surprised, but I guess we had a
little blow-out of the southwest, pushed up a little bit of
the sand.
TRUSTEE KING: I talked to Mr. Hamilton about this and that
was one of his concerns. A real strong southwester and
you'll get beat up.
MR. COSTEllO: Yes. When you get the tide running out of
there or ebb tide or flood tide and the combination of wind,
it's a snotty little spot. I've sailed through there
plenty of times with a barge, there's quite a bit of current
there. It's kind of an iffy situation at any given day, any
weather condition. And my only concern is to keep the
bulkhead there, and that keeps the little shacks
there. That's basically the bottom line of this whole
application.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: One of the ideas we floated was simply
putting the end jetty, the furthest east and putting that
out as a block; that's the most eroded part of the whole
area, and that that might act as a block for the whole
beach. And that since the other ones aren't functioning
that well anyway, and there is beach in front of those with
just the end one it might all build up. Any comment on
that?
MR. COSTEllO: I understand and agree with that theory, but
if you were to go back in some aerial photos, and I wish I
had a series of photos to show you how much beach was out
there. Somebody smarter than me 40, 50 years ago put eight
jetties for a reason. Very low slung piece of property,
floods fairly easily, and I got to believe that those eight
jetties has kept that beach there for 40, 50 years.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Another question. Some of the spacing of
the jetties seems to be -- normally they say the jetties to
be effective should be two, two and a half times the length,
and some of them seem a little too close to be actually
functioning to do what we want them to do. So that was
another question. Do we want all eight of them in there
because some of them aren't doing what they should be doing;
should they be spaced? Comment?
MR. COSTEllO: I agree, at that time, I don't know if the
homeowner or the outfit that owned that place 40 years ago,
I think at the time they didn't need permits, I think they
did what they thought would work. Whether they were all
working the way they're supposed to, I don't believe so.
But since they were at that location, obviously we had a
69
Board of Trustees
70
April 19, 2006
survey to show the location of the jetties, and the length
that they used to be. They used to be fairly long. There
are some remnants that are quite well offshore, 65 feet
offshore. We don't want to go there; they can't afford to
go there. So that is a possibility. Again, that would be a
DEC, Army Corps, some of those guys seem to think they know
what the spacing should be. We're willing to negotiate or
maybe a little experimenting on two or three jetties or
something, but I don't want to completely remove them, and
then have them in a dire straight three years from now, and
sort of say to myself or say to the Board, I kind of told
you so.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: What we suggested and -- do you want to
go, Dave?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Couple comments. The LWRP found this
consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council recommends
disapproval of the application to replace the jetties;
however, would recommend approval of an application to
remove and replace Number 1 jetty on the south end -- I know
there is a little confusion, some people are saying
east/west, some people are saying north/south, but the
Shelter Island side would be the south end of the property --
complete removal of the remaining seven groins and place
the dredge spoils on the south and east sides of jetty
Number 1. When the Board was out there, that is exactly
what the Board recommended at the time. Because it seemed
like the majority of these jetties were nonfunctional right
now. When you say 40-50 years ago somebody made the
decision to put a total of eight jetties in there, I think
that was common, or I shouldn't say it was common, it was done
in a lot of places around here. We have felt the effects of
it since then. There has been a concerted effort to try to
cut down on the numbers of jetties because while the jetties
cause benefit to one side of the jetty, it's at the detriment
to the other side of the jetty. So that an answer some
people have had is you put one jetty and it's causing a
detriment to the other side, well that neighbor should put
in a jetty, and then that neighbor should put in a jetty,
and the next thing you know you have jetties going all the
way down to the beach. And that was the situation that
possibly happened here. So what we were recommending is the
removal of the jetties, to replace the one all the way down
at the end, and place the spoil down there from the dredging
to renourish the beach down there. And then we took
pictures of it, take a look at it and see if the beach
maintains as it is over the next year or the beach does
70
Board of Trustees
71
April 19, 2006
erode in some way. It's our feeling, hopefully, that the
beach will maintain just as it does naturally, that there
won't be any decrease, and obviously we're promoting the
increase of the beach at the southern-most end where the
nourishment would go.
MR. COSTEllO: Okay. If I could ask the Board a question.
let's imagine that the eight jetties are rebuilt as shown in
the plans; what side is going to be the detrimental side?
Who are we hurting and where is the fill --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's just environmentally is there a need
for that? Because if you don't put any jetties there then
there's no erosion also. It could be the converse side of
that. I'm not saying this is how it should go. I'm just
saying that's the other side of the argument. This goes
back to people saying he should put a jetty, he should put a
jetty, he should put a jetty, and all you have is jetties
going down the beach. You remove all of them, then there
was no need for the jetties. And we had said that we would
look at it in a year or two years out, and if there is
significant erosion beyond what other properties have
experienced, then we would reconsider the opportunity to
maybe put additionals as you say, maybe not all seven are
needed, we're saying okay to one, but maybe a couple are
needed
MR. COSTEllO: In the past, obviously this argument comes up
constantly, and at one point, and I'm going to say this is
probably 10 years ago, we were given permission to pre-fill
jetties, and they had to be low profile. And the theory
behind the prefilling was to negate any down drift
effect. That's pretty much what we're going to try to do
anyway. We're taking our own spoils, our own beach that is
heading from east to west going down to the inlet,
collecting on that corner, dredge it, take it down to the
other end and put it back to our little teeny system. And
if you notice the jetties are 18 inches above grade where
the existing ones are maybe three our four feet above
grade. So if we were to pre-fill, let's imagine say four
jetties, that negates any down drift effect and we're good
to go. If I lose any beach, it's down to the corner again,
in the basin, I dredge it out again, and put it back on the
beach. Again, the only thing I'm trying to do is keep the
bulkhead there. If I could do that with one jetty and not
charge the community for seven, then I'm a hero.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have the same goal.
MR. COSTEllO: I'm a little reluctant to take the jetties
out until I hear from Mr. Hamilton, and, Mr. King, did you
71
Board of Trustees
72
April 19, 2006
do the on-site with Chuck?
TRUSTEE KING: No. I happened to run into him at
Peterson's and I mentioned to him what we had seen, our
suggestion was going to be to remove the jetties. He said
his concern was a good strong southwester there is going to
cause problems because there's nothing left.
MR. COSTEllO: I don't know what his real feelings are. He
was very quick to come down, take a look at the dredging,
call my secretary up and say he was in favor of it, but I
don't know what he said about the jetties.
TRUSTEE KING: He didn't appear to have a problem with them
to me, just low profile to the low tide mark is what he told
me.
MR. COSTEllO: At this point, if it's going to be a
recommendation that I remove them, I would rather table the
application and get the input from DEC, find out where
they're going because normally if I take a jetty out, it's
usually gone forever, unless I can get a clear understanding
from Mr. Hamilton on what he's going to do. That spooks me
a little bit. If I have to table, I'll table. Does that
sound fair enough?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Definitely.
TRUSTEE KING: Sounds fair to me.
TRUSTEE KING: I've seen good luck with the new low profile
groins, especially when you fill them.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: In considering -- not deciding upon,
but in considering a low profile, would four do as well as
eight?
MR. COSTEllO: If placed properly, yes. That's the thing,
I'd have to pay a little more attention to it, look at old
aerial photos. Obviously there's a couple areas where the
tide is almost touching the bulkhead, and that's down to the
west a little bit and on very east corner, where jetty
Number 1 is. I'd have to figure out that placement.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can you look at that and give us a plan
for reducing the number and something that the DEC would
also --
TRUSTEE KING: Take another look and reduce the number of
groins.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we can talk to Chuck again on it. He
didn't seem to have a problem with low profile all eight of
them in my discussion with him.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But I think what Mr. Costello's concern is
if we have him take out four groins and then he finds out,
well, I need those four groins back, Chuck might say no. Is
that what you're --
72
Board of Trustees
73
April 19, 2006
MR. COSTEllO: You don't take anything out until you
absolutely have to. The footprint is the footprint.
TRUSTEE KING: I would investigate lowering the number and
properly space them.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So what I'm hearing is a suggestion for
tabling this. Just two things I'd like to mention before we
get to that. Two other items, one was there were some boats
on the beach in the peninsula there, for them to please be
removed from storage there. There was a very large floating
platform for a boat he said that somebody had donated.
MS. SZARKA: That's history, not history, but it will be
history in a couple of weeks.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And you had talked about maybe putting in
a small boat rack in there, and we will need that when we
get to the final plan stage, if you could just show us on
the plans where that boat rack is going to go.
MS. SZARKA: Certainly.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: At that point, then I'll make a motion to
table the application pending more consideration of the
jetty situation.
MR. COSTEllO: A new plan.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All the in favor? All AYES.
14. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of
ANNA COOPER requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace
48' of existing bulkhead with vinyl sheathing. Truck in
15-20 cubic yards of clean sand/topsoil and place landward
of the bulkhead as backfill. Excavate area landward of the
bulkhead as required and replace excavated material in same
place as fill. located: 565 Osprey Nest Road,
Greenport. SCTM#35-6-29
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak?
MR. COSTEllO: George Costello, Sr., representing Mrs.
Cooper. Existing bulkhead way past its age, apparently we
had some heavy rains, it flooded, popped the
out. She would like me to replace it. I'm going to replace
it with vinyl sheathing right in the same old spot.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We would just like to see a 15 foot
buffer.
MR. COSTEllO: You got it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any other comments from the
Board? lWRP finds it consistent. CAC recommends approval
of application. They are looking for a 50 foot nonturf
buffer. What is the length of that return now? Because
73
Board of Trustees
74
April 19, 2006
that's based on what the buffer goes to now.
MR. COSTEllO: Six on the south end.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I support a 15 foot buffer.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think a 15 foot buffer is
sufficient. If there's no other comments I move to close
the public hearing.
THE TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? All AYES
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve the application
of Costello Marine on behalf of Anna Cooper with the
addition of a 15 foot buffer behind the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? All AYES.
15. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of
NICHOLAS BRUNO requests a Wetland Permit to remove 52'
plus/minus of existing bulkhead, 18' east end return, 8'
west end return and replace in-place using C-loc 4500 vinyl
sheathing. Construct a 4' by 5' cantilevered platform onto
a 32" by 12' seasonal aluminum ramp onto a 6' by 20'
seasonal float secured by two 2.5' diameter galvanized steel
pilings. located: 115 Sun lane, Southold. SCTM#76-1-2
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here who would like to
comment on this application?
MR. COSTEllO: John Costello, Costello Marine Contracting.
First of all, I'd like to thank the Board for letting my
older brother go home to bed. I had a brief discussion with
Mr. King on this application, and his concern with the
narrow channel way was how much of the channel way was going
to be taken up. I went back, staked the channel way two days
ago, photographed it with the stakes out there and the
channel way is 73 and a half feet wide, from bulkhead to
bulkhead. So in order to take up, put the bulkhead where it
is now in the same location, put the floating dock outside
of that, and he has a boat there now that's 9 and a half
feet, if it had 10 feet, it would only take up approximately
23 percent of the waterway, not one-third, 23 percent. That
is replacement of the bulkhead in-kind/in-place, putting a 6'
wide floating dock, and a 10' boat, whether it's 11' with a
bumper in it, it is still only taking up less than one-third
of the waterway. It's deceiving, and I think Mr. King had a
legitimate -- I thought it was narrower than that, and I
thought that the boat being tied to a float would exceed the
one-third portion of the waterway. It doesn't come close.
Like I say, that could reduce to 23 percent.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The idea of the float is to get further
74
Board of Trustees
75
April 19, 2006
out?
MR. COSTELLO: Because of the shoal and right off of that it
is considerable deeper.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That was our concern.
MR. COSTELLO: And the cost of the bulkhead, in the shoal
condition, in the shoal with sheathing, it's less expensive.
And to dredge there would be difficult because there's a lot
of mud and where would you put it. There's plenty of water
out in the middle.
TRUSTEE KING: Like you say, it's deceiving. It looks so
narrow there.
MR. COSTELLO: With your concern, I thought it was narrower
than that, we went up with a tape and went across, 73 and a
half feet from bulkhead to bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can just say no more than one-third
across, that's what we normally do.
MR. COSTELLO: Because if it had been in that
one-third neighborhood, I would have approached
the owner with indent some of the float into the bulkhead,
in our brief conversations.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments on this application? It
was found consistent with the LWRP. CAC recommended
approval with the condition of a 10' nonturf buffer landward
of the bulkhead. If I remember right, it wasn't a very big
yard so 10 feet's probably enough. It was pretty narrow
there. So 10 foot buffer. If there's no other comment, I
make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: I make a motion to approve the application as
submitted with a 10 foot nonturf buffer landward of the
bulkhead. And the docking facility including the vessel is
not to exceed more than one-third of the way across the
creek.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
16. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of
JOSEPH BRITTMAN requests a Wetland Permit to construct 105'
of low-profile bulkhead using C-Loc 4500 vinyl sheathing,
re-vegetate intertidal marsh area with spartina alterniflora
and install a 32" by 20' seasonal ramp and the end of an
existing dock onto a 6' by 20' seasonal float secured by
four 6" pilings. Located: 80 Glenn Road,
Southold. SCTM#78-2-10.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anyone here to comment on this
75
Board of Trustees
76
April 19, 2006
application?
MR. COSTEllO: John Costello, and I am the agent for
Mr. Brittman on this application. I believe Mr. Brittman
met with the past Board onsite and the past Board of
Trustees suggested to him that the only thing that he could
get approved at that site would be a low profile, the
bulkhead, where the tide would come up and feed, and he said
that he would be tickled to death to have that in order to
try to get the vegetation, intertidal vegetation to
revegetate the area instead of the phragmites. So that was
why the application was made for that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Had the applicant ever tried replanting
that area?
MR. COSTEllO: If you looked at it, the photographs, it's a
pretty sharp drop off. He did try to do some planting, but
they have a road runoff pipe. He tried in that area but the
steepness of most of the banks at the west end of the
property --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's also shaded.
MR. COSTEllO: But the bulkhead doesn't go out -- you know
where the trees start, the shade, we stopped it, we didn't
go to his property line. Because he said the Board met on
site was reluctant to go all the way because the erosion
wasn't as severe.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: John, did you have a chance to talk to
Mark?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I didn't, he's against it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Even after your discussion,
because you had some comments?
MR. COSTEllO: Who?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The Planning Board, Mark Terry who
writes up the lWRP, and what he basically said is it's
inconsistent. The applicant hasn't demonstrated the
proposed action is consistent; and basically he says that
there's no evidence that you need a hardened structure
there, and basically they don't like to have hardened
structures according to the rules and regulations. So he's
against it on that basis. He just thought there was not a
lot of boat action up there anyway. So what I told him is
based on, you know, I work on a creek that has no boat
action, there's nobody, it sloughs off on a regular basis
because it just undermines and it comes off.
So I can understand that there is a constant, and to me this
made more sense and what his comment was you people have the
right to do whatever you want. Basically he said you can
override my comments. I'm just writing what I find on the
76
Board of Trustees
77
April 19, 2006
books.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But the comment is that it's a natural
process.
MR. COSTEllO: There is a degree of boggy material that is
supporting the phragmites and some of the other vegetation
that is in there. And as you go to the west there is a
little more of the high marsh back into the woods, and there
is some spartina alterniflora and to encourage that I think
you'd be better doing a better job than letting the bog
fall off in clumps, it's slumping now.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: As John says, it's a natural
process.
MR. COSTEllO: That was a dredged portion of the canal at
one time.
TRUSTEE KING: It's private bottom, right?
MR. COSTEllO: Yes, I think I know who dredged it but I
wasn't involved.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And I think you know we looked across at
one that was done 10 or 15 years ago, we were at a different
property --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The property we just, the Bruno property.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, where you measured across, that low sill
bulkhead right there.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: There's a low sill right across from
that, and it seemed to be just a little too high, and that
there was some alterniflora growing, and I noticed your's was
at one and a quarter above, that's a critical measurement
and that will encourage alterniflora to grow, and I think
you'll increase environment not decrease.
TRUSTEE KING: That's my feeling too.
MR. COSTEllO: I probably was involved in working and
designing the first low sill bulkhead that was constructed,
and the DEC uses is on a documentation, on the island boat
yard on Shelter Island. We had a little marina and we
wanted to keep the wetlands for environmental reasons. So
what we did is we allowed the bulkhead, just cut planks out
of the bulkhead so we had six foot of water on one side of
the bulkhead in a real wetlands. It's still there. And the
DEC came out there and they allowed it as a trial, and that
was probably 1983, and they use that in filming.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is it still there?
MR. COSTEllO: It's still there, Island Boat Yard in Shelter
Island.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't remember where that is.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I just want to the comment too, the CAC
77
Board of Trustees
78
April 19, 2006
disapproved it. They didn't think there was any need for
it. So just add that also. We also had a problem, I think,
with the float it was going out too far I believe. I don't
have my comments right in front of me.
TRUSTEE KING: We talked about maybe turning it, making an
"l", rather than straight out.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: An l heading north.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Turn dock to left, northwest.
MR. COSTEllO: I think you could. There's two things --
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: No, no, no, I'm sorry, not left. I'm
sorry, I remember so I'm sorry. Make an "l" out of it
instead of straight out, because that brings it into his
property.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There's another dock or whatever over
there.
MR. COSTEllO: There's a couple things. The concern because
it's a dead end, there is not going to be an increase of
traffic, but if you measured it and it was measured out to
be just the one-third, but it's insignificant. There's not
going to be any traffic and you can shorten the ramp to
bring it back or put it in an "l" configuration.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our thing it was not directly across, it
was the neighbor, direct neighbor, if they had a boat there,
and then you have a boat there it would be too close.
MR. COSTEllO: If that's a concern putting it in an "l"
configuration, I don't believe it's going to bother him.
Because I think his son has a canoe and he has one boat, so
maybe that accomplishes the same thing.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Are there any other comments from the
Board?
TRUSTEE KING: I've seen some of these low profile
bulkheads, and if they're done properly it increases the
size of the wetlands and it gives you deeper water on the
other side. One in Mattituck that's absolutely beautiful.
You don't even know there's a bulkhead there. It just looks
like a wetland.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? All AYES.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I make a motion that we approve the
wetland application, we believe it will be a positive step
for the environment. It will allow for the growth of
intertidal marsh and protect it. We also would like to see
an "l" formed by the dock not straight out and also a 15
foot nonturf buffer from the edge of the water.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
78
Board of Trustees
79
April 19, 2006
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? All AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: And you could tell him those phragmites, keep
them trimmed a foot high.
MR. COSTEllO: If we were inundated in salt water, they
don't do too well but they'll hang around the edge.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Can I say one thing too, on the
application of Nelson, I do want to make a point, that the
lWRP was against. They wouldn't write a comment until we
resolved the problem, so that we're passing it. I just want
to make it clear for the record that we're passing it with
the idea that the pipe is being closed, so it will probably
not be a problem, not that I can say that.
TRUSTEE KING: We intend to improve water quality in that
area.
MR. COSTEllO: I have one other question, Gardiner's Bay
Homeowner's Association.
TRUSTEE KING: He talked to us tonight.
MR. COSTEllO: I told him it was necessary because if I got
some of the Board Members to agree to that 6' wide, which
was your concern instead of the 8' wide, which basically was
hopefully designed by Mr. Hamilton.
TRUSTEE KING: He told us he didn't want an 8' float?
MR. COSTEllO: He told me 10. I met with him onsite.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Continue.
MR. COSTEllO: It makes no difference. They agreed to allow
the 6', what we'll do is try it, we'll try to coax to the
people to eliminate some of the dinghies, so if he wants
that done or they want that done this season, this Board at
some stage is going to have to take some action.
TRUSTEE KING: We told him he needs a new set of plans,
because he said he was going to raise the elevation on the
fixed dock, we don't know that. He said he was going to
change that dock, so I told him submit the plans showing
that, showing the 6' floats -- well, you had a drawing
anyway. Submit that so next month we can do it and we waive
the application fee because they already paid one fee.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So he would have to fill out a whole new
application.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. He has to apply for what we talked
about.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And what he said is you can start to
work on the floats and all that stuff.
MR. COSTEllO: I don't want to start buying floats in the wrong size.
TRUSTEE KING: He said the DEC said they had to do some
replanting. I told him go ahead start replanting, it has
nothing to do with us. He was afraid he couldn't replant
79
Board of Trustees
80
until he got a dock permit. I'll make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
(Time ended: 11 :02 p.m.)
April 19, 2006
RECEIVED .... ~
/J :05 j111f
JUN 2 2 3Xl6
80