HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-07/19/2006
James F. King, President
Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President
Peggy A. Dickerson
Dave Bergen
John Holzapfel
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MINUTES
R::CEIV;:D ... ~u
Ie: s-sr/A:;
6:30 PM
OCT O-no
J i.\.I~IJ
rJt:._/.~Jt2 n"f.$
~t';:ri~.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Present were: James King, President
Jill Doherty, Vice-President
Peggy Dickerson, Trustee
Dave Bergen, Trustee
John Holzapfel, Trustee
E. Brownell Johnston, Esq.
Assistant Town Attorney for Trustees
Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant
Heather Cusack, Environmental Technician
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 8:00 a.m.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to Approve,
TRUSTEE BERGEN Seconded. ALL AYES.
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, August 23,2006 at 6:30 p.m.
WORK SESSION: 5:30 p.m.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY moved to Approve,
TRUSTEE DICKERSON Seconded. ALL AYES.
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of May, 17, 2006.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to approve,
TRUSTEE KING Seconded. ALL AYES.
I. MONTHLY REPORT: For June 2006, check for $6,472.29 was
forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town
Board of Trustees
2
July 19, 2006
Clerk's Bulletin Board for review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
Michael & Susan Jeffries SCTM#1-1-11
John & Marie Shack SCTM#47-2-26
Robert T. Noyes SCTM#3-2-1
Raymond T. Ramondi SCTM#104-7-6
Ernest Schneider SCTM#90-4-5.1
Peter A. Cooper SCTM#81-3-3
Anne Sucher SCTM#35-5-18
Maurice Jezo SCTM#35-5-25
Robert & Patricia Moeller SCTM#35-5-26
Donald & Joan Brehm SCTM#35-5-27
Ralph & Lucille Stocker SCTM#35-5-28
James Reidy SCTM#123-4-14
James & Eileen Buglion SCTM#70-10-29.1
Hilary Pridgen SCTM#128-6-14 & 15
Kathryn Niedoroda SCTM#115-12-1 0
Evan Akselrad SCTM#47-2-27
Vincent P. Basilice SCTM#53-6-8
TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone, welcome to our
regularly scheduled meeting. Let me just introduce the
Board for you, Dave Bergen, Peg Dickerson, Jill Doherty, myself, Lauren
Standish, our secretary, she takes care of everything in the
office for us. Brownell Johnston is our legal advisor, John
Holzapfel, Heather Cusack is our environmental
technician. Jack McGreevey from the Conservation Advisory
Council.
Just to give you a quick update on what we have been
up to, we're in the process now of developing a new mooring
code for the bay, we had a public meeting last night on it,
probably going to have more. It's a little controversial in
some areas, we feel it's going to be a necessary thing,
we've got more people coming out here all the time, more use
of the waters, and you're going to have to start seeing some
regulations put in place.
We've also been in the process of getting a pump-out
boat, which we now have. When was that delivered, Dave?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Week ago today.
TRUSTEE KING: So that's a giant step forward in stopping
some pollution in the bay. We're working on our road runoff
problems, trying to stop some of the runoff, that's one of
the worst causes of pollution, shut down shellfish areas and
so forth.
2
Board of Trustees
3
July 19, 2006
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We've recently gotten some more money for
th at --
TRUSTEE KING: There's some grant money available. We're
trying all avenues to correct some of the problems we've
got.
I've been working on coordinating with the DEC, I
don't know if anybody knows, but they've bought a piece of
property on Mattituck Creek formerly Peterson's Marina.
There's been a big clean up down there. There's a temporary
public launching ramp in place now, they just opened it up.
Down the road it's going to be much nicer and much more
substantial. Right now it's temporary. Mondays, Tuesday
and Friday it's open from 8:00 to 4:00, Saturday and Sunday
it's open from 7:00 to 5:00 and Wednesday and Thursday it's
closed. It's a public access site that's been encouraged by
Governor Pataki. He put a lot of money aside for the
purchase and development. So we have been pretty
busy. Plus we're always settling neighborhood disputes, one
of my favorite topics. It's really sad sometimes.
With that, we'll get going with the meeting. There
are some postponements, so I don't want anybody sitting
here. Under Coastal Erosion and Wetland Permits, Padovan,
Number 3 has been postponed; under Wetland Permit 3,
Fragola has been postponed; 12, Shamoon has been postponed;
21, Manzi Homes has been postponed, 22, Ernest Schneider and
23, Breezy Shores Community has been postponed. So we will
not be going to those applications.
IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
1. Harold, LLC on behalf of GEORGE GUIMARES
requests an Administrative Permit to remove the Japanese
Knotwood and repeat cuttings over next three (3) growing
seasons. Located: Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island.
SCTM#9-6-4
TRUSTEE KING: I went over to Fishers Island. It's
something I want Heather to review. I'll go
over with this stuff on Friday of what I want you to look
at. It's a little complicated on the location. I would
like to table this.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
2. PETER BUJNOWSKI requests an Administrative
Permit to construct a three to four foot high wooden
split-rail fence and landscaping along property boundary
3
Board of Trustees
4
July 19, 2006
excluding waterfront boundary. Located: 1355 Watersedge
Way, Southold. SCTM#88-5-69
TRUSTEE KING: I had a question on this.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Heather did a lot of research on this.
She not only spoke to Mr. Bujnowski, but also talked to the
ZBA, maybe we can have her review it because even after I
spoke to him, there was even more information she got.
TRUSTEE KING: I had a question on it. Evidently the
location of the house had been moved by the Zoning Board
from what the Trustees permit indicates. So I think we need
to see an amendment to our permit.
MS. CUSACK: I spoke with Charles Cuddy, and he's
representing Biel Associates. And he'll be coming in with
an amendment.
TRUSTEE KING: When he does that we can visit the site.
MS. CUSACK: I guess what happened was when they did their
title search, that right of way doesn't actually go all the
way to the water. That was why local knowledge, or
something a surveyor put on there at one point, and the
right of way comes in off Watersedge Way and stops at the
end of the property that's behind it. So they actually
don't have a right of way that goes all the way to the
water.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have a copy of the title search?
MS. CUSACK: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we have a copy of that and then we have
a survey of Mr. Bujnowski showing where his property line
is. Then we can make a decision on his fence.
MS. CUSACK: Based on what we found out, he can get his
fence right on his property line because there's no right of
way there. It was confusing because all the surveys look
different.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If we have a survey documenting that, then
I don't have a problem.
MS. CUSACK: Do you want to approve it?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As long as you reviewed them and then we
can get a copy in our file, and we know for a fact that the
right of way does not go all the way down, then I don't have
a problem going on his property line from where he had it
staked, that corner to the seaward edge of his deck.
TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we let him amend his permit to show
the new location of the house.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is not the same people.
TRUSTEE KING: I misunderstood it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It was dependent on that right of way,
which was the neighbor.
4
Board of Trustees
5
July 19, 2006
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The one map said they shared the right of
way, and we said we didn't want to put the fence in the
middle of the right of way.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is just for the fence on the
property.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And the property owner has access?
MS. CUSACK: Yes, they weren't going to be using that to
drive on. It was a pedestrian right of way. They access
their property on the other side.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If he puts the fence where he wants on his
property line it would not cut access to the house site.
MS. CUSACK: He'll be coming to us for an amendment.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's the other individual, though. With
this one, yes.
TRUSTEE KING: I thought they were one and the same. So
what do you want to do?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a resolution to approve a
split-rail fence on his property line now that we know that
we saw the title search showing that there is no right of
way down -- that it is not going through the right of way.
I propose that the split-rail fence stop at the seaward edge --
in line with the seaward edge of the deck and go no
further seaward. I don't want it all the way to the jetty,
but in line. And he also wants around the other side
TRUSTEE KING: Landward side?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. He wants to put three sides and both
sides to stop in line with his house.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Does somebody have the file?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know where the file is.
MS. CUSACK: Just mark it on there. I think the house is on
there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Basically he can go from here to here,
around here and around here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You're indicating a fence post and rail
around three sides of the property excluding the side facing
the water and only extending waterside as far as the deck?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Which is really what it is on the
west.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we need to be assured of though is this
boundary, the right of way, and that's what Heather said
you've gotten some documentation?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: When they did the title search they
found it wasn't existing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If we can get a copy of that to put in the
file. So I make that motion.
5
Board of Trustees
6
July 19, 2006
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
3. EMMY RUSCH requests an Administrative Permit to
plant native grasses on bank to prevent further erosion
with two inches of clean sand for plantings, which include
spartina between mean high water and mean low water and
beach grass 12" on center. Located: 980 Jockey Creek
Drive, Southold. SCTM#70-5-14
TRUSTEE KING: We looked at this.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Do we know if she came in to amend
this to include the dock or not?
MS. CUSACK: She did come in and give me the dimensions of
the dock. We couldn't find an old permit for a dock and she
was pretty sure she had one, and that showed that she had a
permit for that dock originally.
TRUSTEE KING: Do we have a plan?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because we suggested if it was not
permitted to include it in this permit so that it would
become a permitted structure.
TRUSTEE KING: She didn't give us any kind of planting plan,
Heather, any kind of plan on how they're going to do it?
MS. CUSACK: I think did she say spartina?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: 12 inch on center.
TRUSTEE KING: No set of plans to look at how they're
going to accomplish it?
MS. CUSACK: No, I can talk to them about it.
TRUSTEE KING: They should do something up along here with
American Beach grass.
MS. CUSACK: I talked to them about that. Whatever you say,
10 feet, it's coming from there. They were in agreement for
that. I think in the description she said, yes, we talked
about this, and we added it, that was helping her out.
TRUSTEE KING: So you're going to work with her on this?
MS. CUSACK: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we had a problem. I make a
motion to approve.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Could we include in that permit the dock
that she come in and asked to have included?
MS. CUSACK: Lauren, can we add a dock permit? I thought if
she had a dock permit we were going to put it in there. We
didn't have anything in our records.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, there's a motion.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
6
Board of Trustees
7
July 19, 2006
4. THOMAS COLLINS requests an Administrative Permit
for the existing deck, attached to the dwelling. Located:
305 Dawn Drive, Greenport. SCTM#35-5-30
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This was our across the channel
inspection?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, this was fine.
TRUSTEE KING: I didn't have a problem. I make a motion to
approve.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
5. MICHAEL BRAVERMAN requests an Administrative
Permit to trim the phragmites around the opening of Lily
Pond. Located: 7615 Soundview Avenue,
Southold. SCTM#54-5-47
TRUSTEE KING: The only question we had was how they're
going to do it. They're out of the water.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did you talk to them, Heather?
MS. CUSACK: I did. I spoke to him, he said he was going to
go out in a little row boat and cut by hand. He said he was
going to go out in a row boat. He said it's grown in quite a
bit since he's been there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can say the limits of his property
line.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would also like to make sure that we
specify that they're the phragmites, because John, what did
you identify there, Marsh Mallow. I would hope they can
tell the difference.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Right.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm not sure they can tell the
difference.
MS. CUSACK: We can write it in the permit not to touch
other plants.
TRUSTEE KING: How do they dispose of them? Make sure they
don't cut them and lay them back in the water.
MS. CUSACK: Specify an upland site.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's what DEC says.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jim, make sure they didn't do any more
mowing.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, down that lower section.
MS. CUSACK: Yes, I did. I mentioned it to him and because
I wasn't there, I wasn't exactly sure.
TRUSTEE KING: Right at the end of the walk there's a little
bench where they sit down, but then over to the left that
was all mowed, that should be left alone.
MS. CUSACK: I wrote a note in the file.
7
Board of Trustees
8
July 19, 2006
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, I'm not comfortable with a carte
blanche cutting down. It says around opening. I would be
comfortable to go out and personally meet with Mr. Braverman
to make sure we're in agreement as to how far, how extensive
he's going to cut this down. In that case, if the Board is
okay with that, I'm willing to do that. I'd hate to give a
carte blanche and then we go out there and the whole thing's
been cleared, when maybe all they want to clear is the
vista, the view.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That sounds like a good idea.
TRUSTEE KING: Nothing is to be done until they notify the
office and one of the Trustees will go.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll make that part of the permit.
MS. CUSACK: Remove by hand, remove the phragmites to an
upland site.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application
to trim the phragmites around the opening of Lily Pond, the
trimmings are to be removed to an upland site and the
Trustees office to be notified before any activity takes
place so that one of the Trustees, probably Dave Bergen, can
go and look at it. And there's to be no mowing in the lower
section just to the left of the sitting bench and at the end
of the walkway.
I'll make that a motion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
6. CAROL WITSCHIEBEN & JANET LARSEN request an
Administrative Permit to complete emergency repairs to
foundation of pre-existing den and repairs to foundation of
existing family room. Also to rebuild, in-kind, within the
15' setback, the existing den and cement patio, and to bury
an oil tank. Located: 1000 Sound Beach Drive,
Mattituck. SCTM#99-1-5
TRUSTEE KING: Where is that oil tank to be buried?
MS. CUSACK: It's on the plans there.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: They're here, too.
TRUSTEE KING: We all were down there, looked at this
situation. It's my understanding they're going to come in
for a permit if any other work needs to be done. Does
anybody else have any problems with it? I'll make a motion
to approve.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
7. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of WILLIAM
8
Board of Trustees
9
July 19, 2006
HAMILTON requests an Administrative Permit to construct
in-place of and within the same parameters of existing
second story deck an irregularly shaped gunite swimming pool
with hot tub to be set on approximately 200 cubic yards of
gravel fill contained within concrete retaining wall faced
with brick; install pool dry well; and relocate sanitary
system and dry well. Located: 2670 Grandview Drive,
Orient. SCTM#14-2-3.6
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That was where they had that nice
buffer.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, remember they had the black fence.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: It was found inconsistent with LWRP because
it's less than 100 feet from the top of the bluff line.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All right.
TRUSTEE KING: I can't see this having any effect on
anything.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there CAC comments?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No, it's administrative.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think any of us had a problem with
it. I make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
V. RESOLUTIONS-MOORINGS
1. MAUREEN GRIFFIN requests an onshore/offshore
stake in Mattituck Creek for a 14' boat. Access:
Private.
(Discussion)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The Board, the whole Board looked at this,
and there's a lot of vegetation in the area that we do not
want to see disturbed and it would have to be to walk
through to put onshore/offshore stakes out there. So I
think at this point in time I would deny this permit and not
allow any onshore/offshore stakes in that area.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So it's a motion to as deny this request?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
VI. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS:
1. Cramer Consulting Group on behalf of PETER
BENOTTI requests an Amendment to Permit #6070 to construct a
9
Board of Trustees
10
July 19, 2006
3' by 15' ramp leading to a 3' by 66' fixed dock beginning
at the edge of the tidal wetlands, a 3' by 14' ramp and a 6'
by 16' floating dock. Located: 930 Clearview Road,
Southold. SCTM#89-3-11.4
TRUSTEE KING: Question on this first one Cramer Consulting
Group. Is there anybody here to represent them? We've got
a letter in the file asking for it to be postponed.
MS. STANDISH: Your agent asked for this to be postponed?
MR. BENOTTI: Is that so?
MS. STANDISH: That's so.
MR. JOHNSTON: Do you want to postpone it?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's your call as the applicant, would you
like for us to consider this or would you like to postpone
this for a month?
MR. BENOTTI: Let's go for it.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anybody to speak in favor of
this application?
MR. BENOTTI: I am. I'm Peter Benotti. The original
application which was approved by the Board was rejected
by the DEC. They came back to the consultants with these
recommendations.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All right. One comment we had, this is
just -- there's a very, very large cedar tree right in the
middle; is there any major problem for you to move it over
six or seven feet and spare that tree?
MR. BENOTTI: I don't see a problem.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Plus that would take you 15 feet away from
the property line. We like to have the dock 15 feet from
the line anyway, so if you move it over six feet, that would
solve both of those problems.
MR. BENOTTI: Move it six feet away from the cedar tree?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct. Move it six feet to the --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: To the east. As you're looking from the
house towards the water to the left.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anybody else who wishes to
speak for or against this application? I'll make a motion
that we close the hearing
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I will make a motion to approve the
application of Peter Benotti to Permit #6070 to construct a
3' by 15' ramp leading to a 3' by 66' fixed dock beginning
at the edge of the tidal wetlands, and that this structure
will be moved six feet to the east.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor?
10
Board of Trustees
11
July 19, 2006
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm hesitant without an LWRP review.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Oh, it's not here? The reason there
isn't one is when I spoke to Mark today, he thought he had
reviewed it and we're not finding it.
MS. CUSACK: He thought he reviewed the original permit. It
was pre LWRP.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So it was before LWRP, but still should
have LWRP going back in?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I believe there's a motion on the floor
that has been seconded and is up for a vote. If the
Trustees wish to vote this down because there's not an LWRP --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Therefore, my vote is no because of
LWRP.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: My question is a legal one; can we
approve it without an LWRP?
MR. JOHNSTON: If you feel you can come to that conclusion,
as Mark said, without timely documentation, you could do it.
MS. CUSACK: Subject to the review as long as you address
the review in the resolution.
MR. JOHNSTON: Right. As long as you address the same
issues that he's reviewing in the resolution.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So then what happens if we approve it and
we get an LWRP and then we want to disapprove it?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just so the applicant understands what's
going on here, the Town requires a Local Waterfront
Revitalization Plan review. There is a person in the town
that completes those reviews. Apparently he has not done an
LWRP review on this particular amendment as you submitted.
As you can hear the Board's only issue right now is that we
don't have that review completed for our review to consider
with your application; would you as the applicant have any
issue, if we postponed this until next month so we can
receive that review and consider that as part of the
application?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That could very well be why his consultant
wanted to postpone.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I want to ask the applicant, first.
MR. BENOTTI: I don't have an issue with that but I do have
one issue, the original application that went through this
committee went right through that cedar tree. The cedar
tree was there then, and the cedar tree is here now; why the
change?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It was a different board then, we have new
members. And I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but I thought
you didn't have any problem with moving it a few feet for
that.
11
Board of Trustees
12
July 19, 2006
MR. BENOTTI: I don't have a problem.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But what I heard you say, I want to make
sure we're correct here, you don't have a problem with us
postponing this or tabling this until we can obtain the LWRP
recommendations on this?
MR. BENOTTI: What do you think the timeline will be for
that?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We'll have it for next month. I just want
to make sure you're okay with that.
MR. BENOTTI: I'm okay.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I want to make a motion to withdraw my
original motion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So that's gone. What we'll do is
postpone this until next month, we'll make a motion to table
it, and in between we'll get a recommendation from the
LWRP. Just another quick question, you said DEC changed
your permit or?
MR. BENOTTI: They rejected the original application which
this committee approved and made some suggestions which are
incorporated.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Have you reapplied to them?
MR. BENOTTI: Yes. This is ongoing now.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So it's in front of them in this new
model?
MR. BENOTTI: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Was that because of the length of the dock?
MR. BENOTTI: I think it had to do with depth of water.
MR. JOHNSTON: When do you anticipate getting the DEC
permit?
MR. BENOTTI: I'm new to the area.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'll make a motion that we table this
until next month.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES.
2. Meryl Kramer, Architect on behalf of JOHN &
MARION BRANDVOLD requests an Amendment to Permit #5879 to
add a screened porch on the previously approved
deck. Located: 1955 Bay Shore Road,
Greenport. SCTM#53-4-10
TRUSTEE KING: This is pretty straightforward. I make a
motion to approve.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: Even though these are just amendments or
12
Board of Trustees
13
July 19, 2006
transfers if there's anybody here that has a comment or
concern, you're more than welcome to voice your concerns,
but they are not public hearing. All in favor? ALL AYES.
3. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of
ROBERT SPITZENBERG requests an Amendment to Permit #6292 to
include a 6' by 20' deck landward of the reconstructed
bulkhead, to reconstruct the existing 40" by 20' dock, and a
10' nonturf buffer rather than 20', as originally
approved. Located: 375 Elizabeth Lane,
Southold. SCTM#78-5-4
TRUSTEE KING: We all looked at this, and I don't think
anybody had a problem with reducing the size of the
buffer. But I think everybody had a problem with the 40" by
20' dock that sticks out into the canal and now makes the
boat stick out further.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody here on this?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did you get a hold of Glenn, Heather?
MS. CUSACK: I did. He seemed to think it had been there
before and he was going to speak to Mr. Spitzenberg, but he
didn't get back to me.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't believe it was there when we went on
our original field inspection. I don't remember seeing it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. We had pictures that showed that it
was not there as I recall.
TRUSTEE KING: I would make a motion to approve the 6' by
20' deck landward of the bulkhead and to reduce the nonturf
buffer to 10 feet and deny the 40" by 20' dock that has been
added on to it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do we want to give him a time frame under
which he must remove that 20' by 40" dock?
TRUSTEE KING: No, just remove as soon as possible.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would recommend some type of time frame, he might just sit
on it.
TRUSTEE KING: I got a notice from one of the attorneys
that we gave somebody 30 days recently, it causes problems
because then they have another 30 days, they can postpone it
when it goes to court. He said you're much further ahead
just say remove it and don't give them a time frame. This
was under her guidance.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, if that's the recommendation from
legal.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor. ALL AYES.
13
Board of Trustees
14
July 19, 2006
4. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of KATHRYN
NIEDORODA requests an Amendment to Permit #6140 for an
extension of the dock to 65' (60' previously approved) and
addition of 4' by 12' fixed T and two pilings, and eliminate
the steps to grade. Located: 700 Deep Hole Drive,
Mattituck. SCTM#115-12-10
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I will make a motion to table this as the
LWRP application was incomplete, we do not have the
review.
MS. MESIANO: Can I just ask a question before you close it
Tonight? I know there were comments, a neighbor's comment,
could you share with me since your schedule was a little
different on your inspection day and I was not able to
coordinate with you. I know there were some issues, I got a
call from the neighbor, but I don't like to take secondhand
information.
TRUSTEE KING: Most of the comments we had from the neighbor
were he wanted to know if he could cut the tree down in his
yard.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I think the point was we had said there
were pilings on the dock to one side and pilings on the dock
to the other side, and if you were to draw a line between
the two pilings the dock shouldn't extend further than that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the neighbor didn't have a problem
with that. He wanted to make sure -
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: How far out you were going for safe navigation?
MS. MESIANO: Because the plan that I have only shows the
fixed portion. It was done before the floats were in. So
you're referring to the piles that are used in conjunction
with the two neighboring docks both fixed to their fixed
docks.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I think they have floating docks.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: One of them was the piling on the fixed
dock. The other one had two fixed pilings attached to the
floating on dock. So the one to the south has pilings on
the float, and then the one to the north had the piling on
the fixed portion, so in line with that.
MS. MESIANO: So I would assume that you would like to see
this map amended to reflect the float and the piles of the
neighbors?
TRUSTEE KING: That would help.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. I thought it was kind of set like
that. Can I see the survey?
MS. MESIANO: The neighbor to the south, he has a 4' by 12'
and a 10' ramp, and is he in a T or L configuration?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think it's a 1.
14
Board of Trustees
15
July 19, 2006
MS. MESIANO: Basically the same thing we're asking for.
didn't realize an LWRP was necessary.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does she need to give LWRP more
information?
MS. STANDISH: In other words, when Mark reviewed it, where
you checked off not applicable, he wants you to state why
it's not applicable.
MS. MESIANO: I didn't realize he made any comment on it.
MS. STANDISH: We just got it today. Whenever you fill the
forms out, just state why it's inapplicable.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make the motion that we table this
application until next month in order to receive LWRP.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
5. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on
behalf of MONICA KREISCHER requests an Amendment to Permit
#6119 to extend the bulkhead return within the northwestern
section of the property by an additional 1 0' to further
strengthen the bulkhead. Located: 825 Harbor Lights Drive,
Southold. SCTM#71-2-16
TRUSTEE KING: This is the one where we talked about putting
stone in place. Did he ever do anything with that
suggestion?
MS. STANDISH: He's here.
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Bruce, we saw Mr. Kreischer on field
inspection, and first of all, we suggested a 15' return
instead of 10' because of the way the land is, and then we
suggested maybe a 10' rock revetment.
TRUSTEE KING: He told us he would prefer the rocks but
didn't think we'd approve it.
MR. ANDERSON: You see his problem.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He was going to check with the association
and confer with you and get back to us.
MR. ANDERSON: I thought what we had heard was take the
bulkhead and extend it an additional -- return it five feet
four, the structure's out of rock and fill return; we just
extended it the extra five feet. I don't think if matters.
It might look a little cleaner if it's --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We left it up to him.
MR. ANDERSON: We filed those plans with you, they probably
didn't arrive. I can give you a copy of them. This just
went out the other day.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We offered him anything he wanted
really, that was the bottom line. We just thought the rock
15
Board of Trustees
16
July 19, 2006
might break it up a little bit but it might extend on the
other piece of property.
MR. ANDERSON: All right. I guess we'll just do our return on --
TRUSTEE KING: So we're all on the same page.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The permit asks for 10', we're going to
change it to 15 feet as per the July 14, 2006 survey. I
make a motion to approve a 15 foot addition on the existing
bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
6. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of LAURA WElL
requests a Transfer of Permit #4349 from Dan Kelly to Laura
Weil and an Amendment to Permit #4349 to construct a 3.5' by
80' fixed timber dock in place of existing dock consisting
of 3.5' by 40' fixed catwalk, 32" by 20' ramp and 6' by 24'
float; remove and replace in-place approximately 185 linear
foot of existing timber bulkhead with vinyl, and backfill
with approximately 50 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be
trucked in from an upland source. Located: 2760 Village
Lane, Orient. SCTM#26-1-20.1
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant. Jim, I just handed up to Lauren three copies of
a revised plan. The Board discussed this last month, the
only issue I understood to be outstanding was you wanted to
do a field inspection to review as a full Board the proposal
to convert the dock, but I understand from Tom Samuels who
was at the meeting that one of the results of that meeting
was an agreement to remove in its entirety the left-hand
groin, if you're looking towards the water I guess that
would be the southerly groin. So sheet one of two, the only
change on the plan that I gave you is that it would indicate
that that existing groin is to be removed rather than to
remain.
TRUSTEE KING: Do we have an LWRP on that?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Yes, I was going to say. LWRP finds it
inconsistent. I'll talk a little bit it about it. It finds
the proposed timber is to be treated with CCA. I don't know
if I see that anywhere.
MR. HERMANN: If you give me a second, John, I'll just pull
out the LWRP application we filed in case I can just refer
to any of our submissions.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'm just going to say for the Board, the
dock will protrude an additional 14 feet into Orient Harbor,
16
Board of Trustees
17
July 19, 2006
large historic population of eel grass were found in the
area. Prime habitat, physical impact will involve the
saving of bottom land where the dock is located, permanent
loss of ample habitat would result -- I'm skipping, but the
proposed action would result as physical loss of ecological
components as listed above, permanent loss in habitat. The
LWRP doesn't support the construction of large dock
stru ctu res.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have a question, does Mark realize that
this is there already or is he seeing it as a brand new
structure?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Yes, this review will only encompass the
extension of the dock structure.
MR. HERMANN: The only problem with that, and we discussed
it a month ago, all of those statements speak as though what
we're proposing is somehow an extension or expansion of
what's there. It's actually a reduction of what's there.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: CCA, that was a question he had.
MR. HERMANN: The CCA, the notation we had refers to the
portion of timber on the bulkhead. That's the sheathing is
to be vinyl and the timber is to be CCA,
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Right and that's the normal process.
MR. HERMANN: If the Board wanted to require that non CCA
materials be used for the dock, that's fine. In fact, in
our LWRP application we point out that with the existing
assembly there's a CCA treated timber float in the surface
waters of the bay, that would actually be removed and all of
the material would then be above the water surface in terms
of the decking.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Can I save you some time, I think --
MR. HERMANN: I got the impression you wanted me to
respond.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Just the CCA. In reality I've talked
about it to the Board in our inspections. I think it's a
better thing to put a fixed dock in this particular location
because, first of all it's not going to shade as much as the
low structure. The low structure is only a couple of feet
above the bottom, this is going to be 10 feet above the
bottom, and it will allow much more sun. It will be a fixed
structure in the sense that if there are eel grass beds,
people who are scalloping can't get in and get to those
spots so it might act as a resident population, and that I
think it's a better situation safety wise for that
particular area. It's an unusual situation but I think it's
a better situation. So I think I can save you some time in
general.
17
Board of Trustees
18
July 19, 2006
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Peg?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I do still have a major concern with it
being a potential eel grass area. It is in our code that
whether a dock will result in the prevention of growth of
eel grass, and I understand and I respect your opinion,
John, but I will be voting no.
MR. HERMANN: But the dock is there.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I understand that and I understand all
the issues. And we had major conversations about this, and
in my opinion and my own decision, it will be a no. And I'm
one of five.
MR. HERMANN: Peg, I'm here to obtain an approval, so if
your vote doesn't turn into a denial, I suppose I shouldn't
care, but I care only to the extent that what you're saying
seems to reflect a misunderstanding of the application. If
this were a new structure, a new dock, you could then apply
all those feelings, but there's already something installed
here, so the application doesn't create any new situation
that doesn't already exist. So in order for you to
substantiate your dissent, you'd have to explain why a fixed
dock would actually create some negative impact that doesn't
already exist.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: One of the purposes of a floating dock
is to be removed, so the fixed dock is shading for a longer
period of time.
MR. HERMANN: Okay, except that's in the winter.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Generally a longer period of time, over
a 12 month period.
MR. HERMANN: But primary productivity occurs during the
growing season, so you would have a period of light that is
occurring during the boating season. So you would have a
larger float closer to the bottom versus a smaller
structure higher from the bottom. What's happening in the
winter doesn't matter, it's not a period when eel grass
grows. I don't want to go into a long debate, I'm trying to
reassure you about your concerns for this particular
project.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do we have a motion?
TRUSTEE KING: My only concern was that one groin I'd like
to have made that a low profile, but it's not in the cards I
guess.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Nothing's happening with that.
TRUSTEE KING: It's just to remain.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Nothing's happening to it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can't we make mention?
18
Board of Trustees
19
July 19, 2006
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Next time it comes in just automatically --
TRUSTEE KING: Low profile.
MS. CUSACK: If they want to rebuild it, they would have to
transfer it into their name.
MR. HERMANN: It's being transferred now. I think we're
asking for a transfer.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: If it doesn't mention it.
MR. HERMANN: Was it just a transfer of the dock permit?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Depends on what's Permit 4349.
TRUSTEE KING: Replace lower stringer on bulkhead, replace wooden
sheathing on two jetties, extend existing dock facility.
MR. HERMANN: All that does is it makes it a legal structure in
Weil's name as opposed to the prior owner. If they were to
reconstruct it, we would have to file a full application at
which point you would put whatever conditions on it.
TRUSTEE KING: I will make a motion to approve this
application. I agree with John, I think there will be less
shading because of the structure. And the decking on the
docks be nontreated material.
MR. HERMANN: Please include that as a condition.
TRUSTEE KING: This includes the removal of the groin on the
southern edge of the property and it's all shown on the
plans submitted on July 19th, they're dated July 18, 2006.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Aye.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Aye.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Aye.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye.
7. OLIVE PENFIELD requests a One-Year Extension to
Permit #5956 as issued on July 21,2004 and amended on
December 20, 2004. Located: 515 Harbor Lights Drive,
Southold. SCTM#71-2-3.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think we had a problem with it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There's no field note in it. This is one
of the ones that we went -- remember it had the old Jeep in
the driveway.
TRUSTEE KING: No changes just an extension. No changes to
the permit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. It's to resheath 100 foot of
existing bulkhead using C-Loc vinyl sheathing as depicted on
the plan prepared by Proper-T Permit Services. This was
amended 2004, and 10 foot nonturf buffer is mentioned in the
original permit. So I'll make a motion to approve the
One-Year Extension for Olive Penfield for Permit #5956.
19
Board of Trustees
20
July 19, 2006
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off the regular
hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
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
1. Chris Edwards on behalf of ROBERT T. NOYES
requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to
repair/replace the existing deck and repair and enhance
stone slope for erosion control. Located: East End Road,
Fishers Island. SCTM##3-2-1
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of
this application? Is there anyone here to speak opposed to
the application? It's consistent with the LWRP. I was over
there Monday and looked at this. Jill and I, we looked at
this back in January, February. So it's an existing house
right on the waterfront. They want to replace the deck. I
suggested to them when I was there, they have large existing
boulders here and they want to take some of these boulders
and put them in here, add maybe some big boulders to stop
the erosion, and there's some phragmites in here starting to
grow. I told Chris, we'll add this to the permit, trim the
phragmites to one foot high. Other than that I didn't have a
problem with it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's not a problem.
TRUSTEE KING: If there are no other comments, I'll make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application
to rebuild the deck and repair and replace the stone slope
for erosion control, and also to trim the phragmites to one
foot high in the front of the house to their property line.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
20
Board of Trustees
21
July 19, 2006
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
2. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of KEVIN &
SUSAN FERRELL requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion
permit to regrade the existing bluff crest landward by
approximately 5' to remove a vertical lip, and use
approximately 50 cubic yards resultant material in
conjunction with approximately 285 cubic yards of clean sand
to be trucked in from an upland source to re-fill washed out
portion of bluff face. Stabilize fill with erosion control
matting (e. g. straw, cor, jute) and plant with Ammophila
breviligulata (12" on center) and with Myrica pensylvanica
and Rosa Rugosa (2 gal. 3' on center). Establish a 10'
non-turf buffer landward of newly established bluff crest to
be similarly planted. Located: 130 Lloyd's Lane,
Mattituck. SCTM#99-3-4.6.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application?
MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the
applicant. We've made every attempt to cover all the bases
so basically I'm here to address your concerns. I've given
you everything we think you want.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Was there anybody else here to speak
either on behalf of or against this application? I know
this was an application that had come before the Board
previously, and we had asked for it to go back to the
applicant to do some additional consideration, which you
have done. I for one appreciate the willingness to remove
the five foot of lip to try to cut that back to reduce the
amount of fill that originally had been called upon to come
in. The LWRP found it exempt. And I don't know that the
CAC had been back there since last time. Any other
comments? If not I'll make a motion to close the public
hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the
application of Catherine Mesiano on behalf of Kevin and
Susan Ferrell as stated, and this will comply with the plans
dated 7/5/06, 7/7/06, I'm sorry, is when it's stamped as
received.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES.
WETLAND PERMITS
1. Robert Bassolino, Architect on behalf of JOHN
21
Board of Trustees
22
July 19, 2006
AND MARIE SHACK requests a Wetland Permit to construct an
extension to connect existing residence to detached garage
and add a second floor. Located: 1265 Shore Drive,
Greenport. SCTM#4 7 -2-26.1
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. BASSOLlNO: The Robert Bassolino, architect,
representing the client, John and Marie Shack, who have been
summered here for about 25 years. The adjacent property is
also owned by her mother for about 30 years. She also has a
sister there on the block, I also live there for about 20
years myself.
The purpose of this application is to construct an
existing one family building into something that Mr. and
Mrs. Shack can retire with. There's a zoning variance
filed. We comply to the front yard, it's the side yard
where we're one foot short. Existing side yard is 1 foot 9,
taking down a 6' extension and making that six foot nine,
only one foot short on the side yard. The proposal we have
is an existing deck about 36 feet to the bulkhead and we're
asking for a one story extension for the screen porch into
that minimum 75 feet to the bulkhead. There's no change in
grade, there's no impact on the environment, no impact on
the shoreline. And we're asking for this minimal relief so
we can create this project. I'm trying to be brief, I know
the hour is moving.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We do have a letter in the file from the
neighbor to the south and that was one of her concerns was
the proximity to her line, to her property line, which is
really not in the Trustees jurisdiction, like you said, it's
in the Zoning Board jurisdiction on the sideline.
MR. BASSOLlNO: It's actually east.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any other comment from anyone?
MS. HEARST: I'm the other neighbor. I'm Catherine Hearst,
I live at 1195 Shore Drive. I just want to say that my
primary concern is that this garage is going to be a two-car
garage. It's going to be set back further on the bay, and
it's also going to be two stories. My house is 10 and a
half feet from that property line. This garage is going to
be 7'11" from that property line. So it's like 17
feet. It's very, very, close and to have an apartment above
is really an awful lot. They're going to use the entry and
exit on my side. It seems to me from the way I read the
plans, the entry to the apartment would be along my side and
going on that little deck and going up a staircase. I
really don't need that either. They're also going to take
22
Board of Trustees
23
July 19, 2006
down seven to eight trees, and the house is not going to
follow the line of the houses. It's going to go out 21 feet
more. I have a survey of my lot. It's a very strange
lot. I have very little property on the water, and it's
closing it in even more. If I can show you my survey.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. My question is if it's in the code
saying you can't have it, how could we --
TRUSTEE KING: All it says is existing one story garage to
be two stories.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It doesn't say it's going to be an
apartment.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: There's no accessory apartment.
MS. HEARST: It says on the letter that came to me accessory
apartment. There is no other one on the block. But you
people came to see the property, right?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In the application itself it doesn't say
anything about accessory apartment.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are the Shacks here tonight?
MR. BASSOLlNO: Mr. Shack is here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In the application it does not state that
you're putting an apartment.
MR. BASSOLlNO: The apartment is a permitted use if you
apply to the board of standards of appeals. Which we have
done that. And the purpose is when the building is being
demolished, the Shacks will have some place to use for the
next one or two summers, that's the concept. It's a 400
square foot area with maybe one or two persons maximum.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You have approval for it already?
MR. BASSOLlNO: It's filed with the Board, we have not
heard. The application has been filed five or six weeks
ago.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If they're just applying for a second
story, that's all we need to know the parameters?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Unless the sewage affects our decision.
MR. BASSOLlNO: There's an entirely new septic system being
installed. Right now plans are being filed for that.
MS. CUSACK: Is that going to be within 100 feet?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's information we need. We can't go
forward without a septic system.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't see it marked on the survey, the
proposed septic; do you have anything marked?
MR. BASSOLlNO: I don't have the survey, but the septic is
being designed right now.
MR. SHACK: That's being done, now. There's a separate
23
Board of Trustees
24
July 19, 2006
survey.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We have to see it before we can
vote. We can't go forward without a septic system.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mrs. Hearst, do you have any other
comments?
MS. HEARST: These are my primary comments. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: We need to see a survey.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would suggest too, Jim, bring that
back a bit, if they're going to redo or add on that they
bump that back in line with the front porch.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What Peggy is saying the one bump-out of
the window of the proposed section, she was saying --
MR. BASSOLlNO: On the water side, yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Would like to move that back in line
with the existing structure.
MR. BASSOLlNO: There's a deck right now that's 36 feet from
the bulkhead. Are you talking in reference to that line?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We often ask when people are --
TRUSTEE KING: You can try to keep them in line.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then it would be --
TRUSTEE KING: It's nothing on this side. I'm just
wondering if it couldn't be moved landward.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Take this entire addition and shift it?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We're discussing whether the applicant
would consider moving what's listed as the new addition back
six feet so it would not protrude farther seaward than the
current structure is, so that it's in line with the current
structure and the neighboring buildings also.
MR. BASSOLl NO: So you're saying if we move that existing
link between the two stories, back six feet, the Board would
consider that?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We would prefer that in our decision
making.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's something to consider.
MR. BASSOLlNO: That one story extension that you're seeing
is actually one story and notice that it's truncated; the
reason it's truncated is I used site line from the adjacent
property, so we would not impinge on the views. The first
thing I did when I entered the site was measure the location
of every tree more than five inches caliper, with an effort
to save as many as we could. The client has indicated that
any tree that is taken down, they certainly would landscape
the property accordingly. Also in terms of the pedestrian
traffic going to the accessory apartment, it's only 425
square feet apartment, no bedrooms, so you're talking about
maximum of two people and that would probably be used by the
24
Board of Trustees
25
July 19, 2006
Shacks in the two, three years that it takes to construct the
building.
MS. HEARST: Can you say it would not be rental?
MR. BASSOLlNO: I did not say it would not be rental. I said
the first two or three years it would be used by the Shacks,
the amount of time it would take to design this and build
this and knock this down.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: At this point because we don't have the
septic system in here, I don't know that we can move on this
tonight.
MR. BASSOLlNO: I have no problem with that. Right now it's
being done, the boring is being done and an engineer is
designing it. We can get that to you as soon as we have it.
But you're indicating if it was moved back approximately
five feet in line with the existing deck.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Actually, no. You want to come up here.
We're saying move this whole thing five foot back.
MR. BASSOLlNO: Five feet I think we can live with, still
want to keep the roof low. Stood on the top here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you give us new plans showing where the
support and moving this five feet back.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just has to be marked in on the plans.
MR. BASSOLlNO: The existing system, the age of it is
questionable.
TRUSTEE KING: Where is it; do you know?
MR. BASSOLlNO: Here, we have been in touch with the
DEC. They want one catch basin and three pools regardless
of the square foot.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just mark it on the plans. We're
discussing, you're telling us the septic system is going to
go here.
(Discussion. )
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Jill, there's a comment.
MS. SHACK: I'm Marie Shack. I'd like to read a letter, I
tried to drop it off, I just got it today. The neighbor on
the other side of us, when I expressed my concern when I
heard about the letter from my other neighbor wrote this
letter; when I brought it to the Secretary of Board of
Trustees she said it's too late because you were due in
hearing so, I don't know if I should read it out loud and
then submit it to you or just submit it you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is it brief?
MS. SHACK: Brief, yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You may read it.
MS. SHACK: "To whom it may concern, I, Evan Axelrod, am the
neighbor to the west of the applicants, John and Marie Shack
25
Board of Trustees
26
July 19, 2006
at 1265 Shore Drive. I would like to weigh in on the
proposed plans for the additions and improvements to their
house.
"I have reviewed the plans and find that they will
be a welcome addition to the neighborhood. I find it very
encouraging that they are eager to invest in and approve
their property. I understand that some trees will be lost,
but this is an unfortunate result of most projects. I am
sure that the planting of new trees and the associated
landscaping would more than make up for the loss. I would
urge the Trustees to approve their project." I just wanted
to submit that.
The other thing I wanted to say is the stakes were
up from last summer, and I showed our neighbors the plans,
and Cathy certainly in the fall of 2005, and at that time
when things were not set and it would have been very easy to
try and accommodate her, there were no objections made
whatsoever. This was very new to us, that she had some
concerns. It's the only thing my husband asked for is the
screened-in porch so he could smoke a cigar without getting
bit by the bugs. He's a Vietnam vet, we have been married
37 years, he's an easygoing Irishman, it's the one thing he
asked for. What I was concerned about was the stakes
weren't just put up, it's been over a year, and then all of
a sudden last week there were some concerns.
I have pictures and when I spoke to Mrs. Hearst,
the concern that she said to me was as she comes out the
door of her house, it blocks the view and I said Cathy, when
you sit at your chairs you can still see and it's screened.
Also, I'm an artist, I like to use that area as a
studio. If we do end up renting it it's so small, it would
be one person. We've been on that block since 1962, there
have been rentals on that block, my sisters in-laws have
rented a house there from the '60s, there's a house being
rented now there. So the concern, her concerns really threw
me for a loop. We hope to retire. The reason that we want
this area is my daughter already has two children, they're
planning on more children, so we want a family room for them
to play. I have a son on who's 25.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me interrupt. If you move the whole
thing back five feet, you still have it, and it's not going
to be in line with the house, it's still in line with the
deck so you still have the view as well. Is that a
consideration that you would move it back five feet?
MS. SHACK: What happens then the family room becomes very
small.
26
Board of Trustees
27
July 19, 2006
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We're not saying reduce it, we're saying
move the whole thing back.
MR. BASSOLlNO: You can't do that, it's a bit on an axis,
when you come in the area, you have building to the right
and building to the left. If you move that back you have
the 35 foot entrance area and only a 20 foot space in the
front. This whole area.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Bob, our code does require that new and
remodeled homes cannot be situated or modified such that
they project closer to the wetland boundary than homes on
either side of the subject lot. So it's our code that's
telling us that, which is the reason why we want to shift it
back.
MR. BASSOLlNO: Is that something for the zoning variance to
approve, the set back?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: No, this is the Wetlands Code, this is
the Trustees.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And actually it's existing, correct,
Jim?
TRUSTEE KING: We should draw a line between the two
neighboring homes, keep them all in line so we don't get
these bump-outs. We don't know where it is as far as this
location. It would be interesting to see the house.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It could be another request on that new
survey.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Show the neighboring foundation.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is that a foundation or a wall?
TRUSTEE KING: It's a foundation. Remember we drove into
it? I stopped the van.
MR. BASSOLlNO: The reason said we moved this back in line
with that, still have a tiny little screened-in porch.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But I think that's relevant information
we need.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: May I ask, you also mention because I
was very aware of the trees that you're talking about and I
commend you for already agreeing to replant them, but what I
would like to see is somewhere in the plans of the survey
showing the size. Often times we lose very large trees,
then we get -- so that would be nice.
MR. BASSOLlNO: The investment that they're making here is
formidable and you can imagine that the landscaping would
be.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We have to be careful because people say
and do.
MR. BASSOLlNO: Most of the trees here are fairly stressed
27
Board of Trustees
28
July 19, 2006
and they're very close together. You want to see the septic system, the adjacent
new construction.
TRUSTEE KING: And the existing house on the other side.
MS. SHACK: And I think that's being done because I
submitted everything to the survey, she's doing a new survey
with new foundation and she said to me with structures on
either side.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: LWRP found it inconsistent due to it's
within 100 feet, that it was the only reason. The CAC
recommends approval with the application with the condition
of dry wells and gutters are installed to contain the roof
runoff, a 20 foot nonturf buffer is installed from the
bulkhead back.
MR. BASSOLlNO: It's all grass now.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. It could be nonturf, it could be
stone, plantings, anything but grass.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Anything but grass.
TRUSTEE KING: That yard isn't that big. I would say 10
sounds a little more reasonable.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You asked for 20.
MR. MCGREEVEY: We figured 20, but our big concern was the
asbestos removal.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, I haven't finished. So 20 foot
non-turf buffer is installed and replacement of the trees
that will be taken down. The CAC also recommends that the
Trustees address asbestos siding on the dwelling and review
the alignment with the neighboring houses. So we have
addressed everything in the CAC report except the removal of
the asbestos shingles.
MR. BASSOLlNO: That will be done by an asbestos removal
company. I'm a little concerned about the 20 foot amount of
lawn.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think 10 foot.
TRUSTEE KING: 10 foot is more than enough.
MR. BASSOLlNO: It could be bushes and wood chips.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, anything but lawn. Is there any
other comment?
MS. DUFFY: I have a comment.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, ma'am.
MS. DUFFY: I'm Darlene Duffy, my husband owns the property
to the east. My only question is for Mr. Bassolino. There's a
serious, serious drainage problem in that area because we
all live with it, and you have lived there for 20 years and you
know what the drainage problem is. So when you do the
septic system -- you know we have an oyster farm out in the bay
so we worry about -- you know, we're on about 38 feet of clay, something
28
Board of Trustees
29
July 19, 2006
like that, are you going to address that, if you make this
house larger and have a rental unit?
MR. BASSOLlNO: Our concern about the drainage there's no
question about it, I've lived there 20 years, the driveway
is proposed to be blue stone so it permeates water. There's
a complete septic system being put in maybe then go down to
sand, which is 33 feet. The adjacent property, the exact
same thing was done they went down 30 feet to sand, and the
house to the left of you, they did the same thing, they went
down 30 feet. The septic tank and three eight foot diameter
by four foot wells, that's the minimum DEe will do. All the
leaders will go to dry wells, so there will be no additional
runoff. Now with the condition of the first 10 foot not
being lawn there's more areas for gravel or chips or
something.
MS. DUFFY: Thank you.
MR. BASSOLlNO: No, it's true, it's a bad area.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comment?
MS. HEARST: I really don't want to have problems, but
number one the neighbor who wrote the letter is building a
house has never lived there, and I am sure he thinks it's
going to be an asset, but he's never lived on the block, so
please take that into consideration with the letter. When
the stakes were put in the ground, I asked Mr. Bassolino
what he was doing, and he said, oh, we're just trying to
figure out what we're going to do, he didn't say to me,
well, this is where this is going, this is where that's
going, fine, it really wasn't my business at that point.
Marie did show me the plans, yes, I don't think I understood
at that moment -- my husband had a stroke, I had other
things going on -- that this apartment was going to be on my
head. Now, if you people came over, you saw how close the
property is. I am more upset over having a two-story garage
on top of me, I did not go on about the screen porch which I
don't like it sticking all the way out, but it's the
apartment on the two-car garage which is just devastating
me. It ruins the whole side of my house, the other side of
my house, I am very close to Silver Sand, I have about nine
feet of property there. I can't walk from the front door
all the way around my house. This is the way I live on this
side. I really don't need this entry and exit, and that's
what I was upset about. Thank you for your time.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. Is there any other comment?
MR. BASSOLlNO: There are several buildings on the road that
are two stories, and the minimum yard is being complied
with, it's not like we're encroaching.
29
Board of Trustees
30
July 19, 2006
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comment from the Board? I will
make a motion to table the hearing and application until
next month until we receive revised plans as discussed
tonight.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
2. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of
JAMES & EILEEN BUGLlON requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 4' by 10' catwalk, 3' by 15' ramp, and a 6' by
20' floating dock, elevated a minimum of 4' above the tidal
wetlands and supported by four 6" diameter piles. The float
will be supported by four 6" diameter piles and the docking
facility will be accessed via a 4' wide by 155' long natural
cleared path. Located: 2520 Clearview Avenue,
Southold. SCTM#70-10-29.1
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this?
MR. HALL: Yes. Dan Hall, Land Use Ecological Services for
the owners. I'll answer any questions or comments the Board
or public may have.
TRUSTEE KING: It was found inconsistent with LWRP.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I can make a few comments or do you want
to wait? That's the one Jill and I were talking about
showing the vegetation and the depth, and Mark's comment too
was interfering with that boat ramp.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We had one thing we saw when we were out
at the site was the drainage from the house was going to a
pipe and actually coming out onto the town road. It's all
the drainage for people's houses are supposed to be
contained on their own property. So we have a problem with
that.
MR. HALL: Which road, the Gagans Landing?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Gagans Landing. And there was a
French drain, there's a French drain on either side
of Gagans Landing, the Town put on one side and I
believe he has encroached on the right of way of
the Town, so this 15 to 20 that he landscaped onto
Town property and therefore the French drain is not working
property. So now all that flooding is running right into
the creek and the reason for the French drain was to catch
all that.
MR. HALL: I wasn't aware, that's fine, I'm sure we can
address that and correct that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'd like to see all that corrected before
we can act. I don't know how the rest of the Board feels.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there a violation?
30
Board of Trustees
31
July 19, 2006
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe there's a violation, it's in the
Town attorney's office, it's being reviewed.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So we have to table it?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know if it's a Trustee violation,
it's a town violation with the Building Department. Did we
have a violation written under Chapter 97?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No, it's not our violation, it's a
violation by the Town on the property.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What were the CAC comments?
MR. HALL: Essentially the French drain is covered now?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, I believe the Assistant Town
Attorney, Laurie, was going to contact Mr. Buglion and
discuss this with him. I don't know if she got a chance to
and describe exactly how many feet, she said 15 to 20
feet. She didn't have the file outlet when I was speaking
with her.
TRUSTEE KING: CAC recommended approval with the condition
of a raised aluminum catwalk. I think we should table this
until we get the drainage issues straightened out.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other issues on the dock
that we can talk about tonight that he can address at
another time?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think so, it's really minimum.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: LWRP is inconsistent, Jim.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Would you consider grated aluminum?
MR. MCGREEVEY: I think it was meant to be vinyl, Jim.
MR. HALL: For the ramp?
TRUSTEE KING: I think they're talking about the catwalk,
right?
MR. MCGREEVEY: That should be vinyl, I think. It says
aluminum but it should be grated vinyl.
MR. HALL: Kind of like the neighbors got going on there.
MR. MCGREEVEY: I'm not sure it's a vinyl grated.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jim, what are your thoughts about going
deeper than going more shallow? That was one of Mark's
concerns, it has depth immediately offshore but as soon
as he gets out to the end of whatever he's applying for
it gets shallow again.
TRUSTEE KING: We've got that dock right next door to it,
it's almost identical to that, it's almost an identical
set up, it's very, very small.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because the boat's going to be in the
deeper area, right? It's not going to be in the shallow
area.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That was another suggestion.
MR. HALL: We can go in the direction with the ramp there,
31
Board of Trustees
32
July 19, 2006
what direction is that, south? West.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can we get some soundings out there?
MR. HALL: I'm not arguing, it definitely gets shallower,
but you can navigate, you go west, your boat ramp is
adjacent to it. If there's a problem with the dock, there's a
problem with the boat ramp, and there's a dock to the east,
and this is a small, minimal dock structure; it's going to
be a small boat, nothing that creates a big draft.
TRUSTEE KING: I didn't have a huge problem with the catwalk
or what you're proposing. I like to see things, if there's
a violation or any kind of a problem, I'd like to see it get
cleared up.
MR. HALL: I understand that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do we want to ask for soundings?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Since we're tabling it is there a problem
to do soundings at the end of the dock?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The concern is that it has depth and it
gets shallower.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But there's another dock in here already.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I understand that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It also shows where people go out of the
ramp, and this is used quite a bit. This is where people go
out.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you feel that that dock would impede
navigation there?
TRUSTEE KING: No.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And to tell you the truth, I think it's
shallow from all the runoff from the road.
(Discussion.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we will table this until the
violation can be cleared up and resolved.
MR. HALL: The homeowner's here, he hasn't received any
violation; is that pending?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know. Speak to the Town
attorney. We don't have anything in our file.
MR. BUGLlON: There is no French drain on that side of the
road.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on, sir. First off, the public
hearing is still open. If there is anybody else that would
like to make a comment, state your name.
MR. BUGLlON: James Buglion, the applicant. There was a
comment made about a French drain on Gagans Landing, and I'm
not aware of any French drain and we wouldn't have covered
it up on either side of the road.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not a concrete drain or anything,
it's a natural layers of stone and earth.
32
Board of Trustees
33
July 19, 2006
MR. BUGLlON: Correct, but it's nothing there.
TRUSTEE KING: We need to review the application on the
house application. We need to review that to see what kind
of drainage is supposed to be there.
MR. BUGLlON: What makes it worse is where it's draining
towards that public ramp is there are people driving on
there all the time, so there's a low spot. That's where
there should be a drain.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's on our list to upgrade the drainage
in that area, however, what you're adding to it does not
help, and it's not legal to have all your roof runoff -- you
have to contain all your roof runoff on your own property,
and we saw the pipes coming out, until that situation is
resolved we don't want to move on this. I suggest you
contact the Town attorney. She told me, Laurie Montifusco,
was going to try to contact you before tonight's
meeting. So I found out this information from her and the
Town engineer because we questioned it.
MR. BUGLlON: I wasn't aware that my drainage pipe was
wrong, and I'll remove that tomorrow.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You should have all your roof runoff into
dry wells.
MR. BUGLlON: That's correct. That's not roof runoff, it's
a low spot on the property that I ran under the berm.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. You have to contain all the water
on your own property.
TRUSTEE KING: If you get that rectified, we'll come out and
take a look, and put it on for next month.
MR. BUGLlON: Okay, thank you.
MR. MCGREEVEY: On your diagram, does it show a depth on
that? On mine it says three and a half feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You have to make a motion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, it says three and a half feet at the
end of the dock.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to table this hearing
until next month until --
TRUSTEE KING: As soon as they fix the problem, notify the
office, so the sooner the better.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I'll make a motion we table the application
until the problem of the runoff is corrected.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
4. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of DON
JAYAMAHA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 63'
fixed dock, 4' by 16' ramp and 6' by 20' floating
33
Board of Trustees
34
July 19, 2006
dock. Located: 243 Maiden Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#140-1-8
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here to speak on this
application?
TRUSTEE KING: We went down, we staked it and took the
measurements.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: 116 feet was measured from the corner of
the northwest corner of the house to the catwalk.
TRUSTEE KING: That was where the catwalk starts. And we
figured we would run that out in a line towards that west
pole holding that float in place.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: At Matt-a-Mar.
TRUSTEE KING: At Matt-a-Mar.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We were going to make sure that it was not
more than one-third, that distance between Matt-a-Mar and
the shoreline that this boat and dock would not exceed
one-third of that distance so two-thirds would be left as
navigable area.
TRUSTEE KING: The drawing I've got at home showed 81 feet.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Of the extent of the dock?
TRUSTEE KING: Between the float and the end of the dock.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Between the Matt-a-Mar dock and then how
far was --
TRUSTEE KING: This is 60 --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's 140, 60 of 140 is 6/14, is more than
a third.
TRUSTEE KING: This thing has been going on too long.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think we need to give a measurement there
between that piling of Matt-a-Mar and the --
TRUSTEE KING: One of the problems was this float really
extends much further.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought we were going to review the
Matt-a-Mar file.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's a different issue, I think. I think
right now regarding this again, my concern is whatever this
distance is between Matt-a-Mar and the shoreline, whatever
that distance is that the dock does not extend more than
one-third of the way into the creek as per our code.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can't improve the length of the dock if
we don't know what that measurement is. Why don't we table
again.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't want to table this again.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Why not say just not to exceed one-third and you
can approve it as per getting the dimensions.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't want to say the length of the dock
if it's more than one-third, and then say we approve this
length as long as it's not one-third.
34
Board of Trustees
35
July 19, 2006
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The length of the dock may not exceed
one-third of the distance between that last float and
Matt-a-Mar.
TRUSTEE KING: That's not what it says in the code. The
code says you're not to exceed one-third the width of the
waterway. So the float, this is not the width of the
waterway, the waterway is over here. You have the shoreline
that runs over here, these are all floating docks coming out
like that; this is the shoreline; this is the width.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Maybe if you said one-third of navigable
water.
TRUSTEE KING: I've been in and out of there and haven't had
a problem.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Jim, on that configuration of the dock where
do they intend to tie up? There could be another way of
doing it. Are they intending to put it at the end of that
dock?
TRUSTEE KING: They've got a straight out catwalk with a
ramp to float straight out.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They wanted to do a T, but we asked them
to do it this way.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Where would the boat be on the side?
TRUSTEE KING: On the side?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the side.
MR. MCGREEVEY: If it's a problem, why not put the dock out
at a slight angle.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We discussed that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It impedes on the dock.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You should see all of our time on this.
We've lost stake poles --
TRUSTEE KING: I did them a favor, I went up and staked it,
we went out on field inspection, the stake's gone. This has
been a saga. I feel like we're holding these people up
unfairly.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand that but I'm not comfortable
with approving this unless I know that there's sufficient
space to navigate in there, and that's going to require a
stake, that's for myself, I'm just speaking for myself.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Is there a channel in there, Jim?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Would the proposed dock be into that
channel?
TRUSTEE KING: No. We're looking at three feet of water
here. We need a new drawing indicating the starting point
of the dock.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would like to table it again, first of
35
Board of Trustees
36
July 19, 2006
all, Mr. Fitzgerald is not here. I believe we said you were
going to stake it, we were going to inspect it, notify it
him, and he was going to do the new drawings if we accepted
when you staked it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: A new drawing I think is appropriate
after all the ones that we had. Can we require
Mr. Fitzgerald to get a distance from shoreline to
shoreline?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I mean can we, I mean why don't we.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Is the dock as far west as possible on the
property; would that make a difference?
TRUSTEE KING: Not really.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We moved it as far west as possible.
TRUSTEE KING: All right. You guys convinced me.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's unfortunate that the stake was gone.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I make a motion to table to get new
dimensions of the width of the waterway, the dock and the
permanent stake in the water.
MR. MCGREEVEY: What if the shape of the dock, Jim, was
L-shape going out --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
MR. MCGREEVEY: -- and then make a right turn going west so
you have an L-shaped dock, so the boat could be put parallel
to the longest section of the dock so you're not out more
than one-third; do you follow me?
TRUSTEE KING: We talked to the applicant, and he said he
only wanted a little, small boat, just access for a small
boat.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The way the property lines go it's
narrow.
TRUSTEE KING: Very narrow properties.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Do you follow me?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It goes around when you extend it out.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We discussed all the possibilities. His
actual first drawing showed sort of an L-shape on an angle.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have a motion and a second, do I have
all ayes? ALL AYES.
5. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of JOHN
CORBLEY requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge a
133' plus/minus portion of an existing boat basin to a depth
of minus 4' referred to NGVD29 with sides sloping upward at
approximately 1:2 to existing grade, to an overall area 140
plus/minus by 29'. Approximately 220 cubic yards of
material will be dredged and moved offsite by truck to an
36
Board of Trustees
37
July 19, 2006
approved upland disposal site not less than 300 feet from
any wetlands. Dredge to same conditions in four additional
events over a 10 year period. Located: 680 Mason Drive,
Cutchogue. SCTM#104-7-3
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of
this application? This is supposed to be a 1:3 grade, not a
1 :2. That was one of the conditions we asked for, a 3:1
slope.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Heather, did you find out where the
property lines were?
MS. CUSACK: I did speak to Mr. Fitzgerald about it, and he
was looking it into it. He didn't get back to me. He
seemed to think some of it was and some of it wasn't.
TRUSTEE KING: I would say this is the property line. Part
of it's private.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He wants to dredge all the way out to
here?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. Like I say, about half the
project. LWRP found it consistent. Installation of a silt
boom, turbidity screen during construction activities,
recommended approval, no change. Like I say, that was
supposed to be a 1:3 slope.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we can consider it.
TRUSTEE KING: The dredge area they had staked out.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's just not on the survey yet. We had
no problem with it in the field as far as the staking.
TRUSTEE KING: That should be on the survey.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we close the hearing and do it subject
to receiving it on the survey.
TRUSTEE KING: Any comments, any other comments? I'll make
a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application
to maintenance dredge existing boat base to a depth of 4',
with side sloping of a 1:3 slope, and we need to see a
survey with the seaward edge of the wetlands marked on the
survey, shown on the survey as well as the staked out area
that we saw in the field. It's to be by a barge-mounted
crane only and a silt boom is to be put in place during the
dredging operation, there should be no machinery brought in
across the wetlands it's all to be done by barge.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
37
Board of Trustees
38
July 19, 2006
6. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf
of FISHERS ISLAND UTILITY COMPANY requests a Wetland Permit
to remove the existing dilapidated bulkhead and place
boulders along the shore, remove the existing dilapidated
dock and replace with a 4' by 90' fixed dock, 4' by 15' ramp
with railings, and an 8' by 20' floating dock. Located:
Private Road of the Gloaming, Fishers Island. SCTM#10-9-13
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. JUST: Glen Just, J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of the
applicant. If there's any questions from the Board or the
public.
TRUSTEE KING: I was out there Monday and looked at it. It
was found consistent with the LWRP. During reconstruction
we'd like to see a turbidity screen around it, during the
work. CAC did not make an inspection so there's no
recommendation made. I looked at it. Pretty
straightforward, the dock is in very bad condition.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Jim, just a question about that letter
we got on it.
TRUSTEE KING: That was from Mr. Edwards. I don't think
it's going to be any problem, they have the dock next to it.
Their concern was when they're doing the work it might stir
up a lot. They were worried about sediment going into
lobster crates.
MR. JUST: That's from Ken next door?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'm sorry, yes.
TRUSTEE KING: I asked what they're going to do with the
shed and they said right now they're probably going to
remove it, not planning to rebuild. I didn't have a problem
with any of it. I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application
as submitted with the stipulation that turbidity screen be
placed during construction.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: One other thing, no CCA on decking.
noticed on the plans, it said CCA material throughout,
untreated wood for decking.
MR. JUST: I'll have them amended and sent back to you.
7. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of
RAYMOND R. RAMONDI requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct
in-place 377' of timber bulkheading, 43' timber groin, 4' by
38
Board of Trustees
39
July 19, 2006
51' fixed dock, 3' by 3' steps, 3' by 2' steps, and 4' by 5'
beach access stairs and to dredge the existing 51' by 22'
slip to minus 4' average low water. The resultant spoil
(145 cubic yards sand) shall be used to backfill the
reconstructed bulkhead as needed and any remaining spoil
shall be trucked to an upland site for disposal. Located:
1150 Mason Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM#104-7-6.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. JUST: Glen Just from J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of the
applicants.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The LWRP finds this consistent, and the
CAC recommends approval of the application with condition of
wetlands on the seaward side of the bulkhead are restored
and a 20' non-turf buffer be installed landward of the
bulkhead, and the CAC questions the need for the groin. The
other comment from LWRP is to the installation of silt boom
and turbidity screen during construction.
MR. JUST: I don't think there would be any problem with the
buffer or the silt screen across the mouth of the boat basin
when they dredge it out, and what was the recommendation
about replantings?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They didn't see the need for the
groin. The Trustees comments are we would like to see that
low profile and we put 15 foot buffer and there's a pipe
needs to be closed. I don't remember where the pipe was.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Came through the bulkhead. There's a
pipe that led from the land down diagonally.
MR. JUST: I didn't see it if you want to mark it.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: This all is low land, and it's a
drainpipe that goes under there.
MR. JUST: I'll look.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that it right there?
MR. JUST: You want that removed?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The other comment we have is to make the
groin a low profile.
MR. JUST: I could redraw that.
MR. MCGREEVEY: And the wetlands, replacing the grass in the
wetlands on the water side of the bulkhead. It's an unusual
set up.
MR. JUST: There's some areas on the western side of the
property where the tidal marsh goes right up to the bulkhead
and then when you get to the eastern side of the property
it's like a five foot space between the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that where you're talking, Jack, do
39
Board of Trustees
40
July 19, 2006
plantings in there?
MR. MCGREEVEY: There is grass there, it should be restored
once the construction is completed.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That grass is not going to be
disturbed during construction, I think we'll let it go on its
own and fill in naturally. Are there any other comments?
TRUSTEE KING: Who owns this property?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Who owns the property on the other side?
Only because we felt that there's going to be encroachment.
MR. JUST: If you look at the survey, there's a small stand --
TRUSTEE KING: Is there enough to do the work? We ran into
the next door neighbor who said, no, you're not digging up
my property.
MR. JUST: This man did respond to the mailing, this fellow
didn't.
TRUSTEE KING: I think if there's going to be any
disturbance on his property, we need his permission, I would
make that a condition.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. Is there any other comments
from the Board? I make a motion to close the public
hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion that we approve the
application of J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of
Raymond Ramondi with the condition of a 15 foot nonturf
buffer behind the bulkheading, and silt boon in place during
dredging, a letter of permission from the neighbor to the
west saying it's okay to encroach on his property during
construction, and there will be no disturbance of the
existing beach grass seaward of the bulkhead; if there is it
should be replanted. And remove the existing pipe, on the
north end, and the groin should be low profile, subject to
new plan, and that's about it. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
8. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of EVAN
AKSELRAD requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 50'
fixed dock with seasonal 4' by 14' ramp and 6' by 20'
floating dock. Located: 1355 Shore Drive,
Greenport. SCTM#47-2-27
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anybody here who wishes to
speak in favor of this application?
MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant.
The application pretty much speaks for itself, however, I
40
Board of Trustees
41
July 19, 2006
did fail to put two points in there, Mr. Akselrad would also
like to rebuild the existing stairs, and I didn't show that
on the plan, but I will have the plan revised to show that.
And I don't know what the Board's position is on this so
it's more of a question than a statement, he would like to
install two davit frames on the bulkhead so that he can
lift his boat out of the water, won't be a full-time
resident, so he'd really rather not leave a boat out while
he's not there. And I would get the plan modified to show
that. Also, Mr. Akselrad advised me just this evening that
he would rather have the dock as far to the west as he could
put it, so I would call that 15' off the westerly lot line.
And again, I would modify the plan to show that as well.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak
about this application?
MR. YAXA: Dean Yaxa, 215 Colony Road, Southold. The fixed
dock to me provides no scenic quality to anybody in the town
of Southold, and also the Town of Southold. The Public
Trust Doctrine of the State of New York gives the people the
right of passage to walk on the shoreline. This dock will
prevent that. I own some underwater land out in front of
this property, and I was contacted in the last three or four
days by, I want to say the oceanographic people or the
chart-making people who make -- it's time to revise the maps
or put out new ones of the shoreline, and Army Corps
contacted these people in accordance with the permit that I
have out there. Anyhow, they want to make the area out in
front there a no anchorage area, which is fine with me. To
me a 70 foot dock sticking out in a very pristine quiet area
such as Pipe's Cove is completely nonconsistent for the
area.
Also, the area, the properties in the area are
probably of a quarter acre, maybe to a third of an acre,
maybe up to a half acre in size, they're not real small
lots. They're large homes and the revisions going into the
homes are extensive, what I'm saying is there's a lot of
money in the area, and what I'm saying is if you give them
the right to put this dock, there goes the neighborhood
because everyone on the whole line in a row will want to
have docks put out there. And once again I want to say it's
not consistent with the area.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anybody else who wishes to
speak for or against this motion?
MS. MESIANO: Alii can add is docks are consistent with
waterfront properties. This is the minimal structure that
would achieve the desired effect, which is to get into water
41
Board of Trustees
42
July 19, 2006
deep enough to float a boat. It sent any longer -- there
are docks to the east and west of this particular proposed
dock.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: You said there are other docks?
MS. MESIANO: There is a dock, I was down there again this
evening, there is a dock to the east.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: How far away would that be?
MS. MESIANO: This is not to scale, I would say it's
probably three or four properties to the east, and the
property to the west -- I don't know the distance, I would
have to have that added to the map as well to confirm that,
but I went down this evening and checked the stakes, the
signs, et cetera, and there are two other docks within sight
of this dock and we're not proposing anything of any greater
magnitude of what presently exists.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I went on the aerial photographs, I was
only able to find two or three docks over almost a mile of
coastline.
MS. MESIANO: I did take some photographs, but they're in my
digital camera, but I could have them more specifically
located, if you would like.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Any other comment? We do not have
excuse me -- the CAC resolved to recommend the Trustees
approval with the condition to construct, they say, a
nontu rf buffer.
MS. MESIANO: That's the project where we already have that
approved. I was before you several months ago on this
project, and I might remind you, this is the project where
we proposed to put a cement retaining wall with only a 6"
reveal, and then an ark-shaped planting of beach grasses and
other native vegetation with a little sand area in the
center for a little play yard for the children, and you were
quite complimentary of the design because it was exactly
the type of thing you want to see.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I was just reading what they
recommended.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Consistent landward of the concrete
barrier.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We do not have a recommendation from the
LWRP. They said there was an incomplete--
MS. CUSACK: Just that the form was incomplete, the form
that came into the office.
MS. MESIANO: I'd like to discuss that with you another time
because if I answer all the questions I don't know what
constitutes incomplete. I'll take that up with you another
time.
42
Board of Trustees
43
July 19, 2006
MS. CUSACK: You can probably take that up with Mark Terry.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'll leave it up to the Board.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would rather table until we get LWRP.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'll make a motion that we table this
application.
MS. MESIANO: If I might ask you, would you like me to make
these amendments to the plan and bring it back to you with
the data?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: You mentioned about boat davits, they
are not permitted by code. That's one thing.
TRUSTEE KING: Do we know whether there's any active
shellfishing in that area?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is just west of shellfish.
TRUSTEE KING: Any natural vegetation?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could make one request for
consideration of the applicant, we already heard one concern
about the inability as designed according to what the
gentleman said to transverse the beach, walk along the
beach, to make sure that that situation's addressed because
obviously that's going to be of concern to the Trustees.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The other thing we talked about in the
field is the T.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I thought I heard you say, was that being
amended in any way?
MS. MESIANO: No, I hadn't mentioned the T; do you have a
problem with that?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we'd rather see it straight out. The
way the flow of water the way the storms come in, it just
makes more sense.
MS. MESIANO: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The concern was damage to the vessel and
to the dock from the prevailing winds from the
southwest. It would be safer in our opinion if it was
turned and went straight out.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Just a comment from some of the Board, I
also think it's unsafe either position. I don't want you to
think that's an adjustment that you have to make; either way
I think it's an unsafe arrangement. I don't know what
you're going to do. I just don't want you to take the
advice of one Trustee and say turn it that way. I don't
think it's the feeling of the whole Board.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, John, you're right.
TRUSTEE KING: My only comment is in the 10 years I've been
on this Board we've really discouraged docks on the bay,
especially when there's a long reach. I think we've maybe
only approved two in the last 10 years. One was in the
43
Board of Trustees
44
July 19, 2006
shadows of a much larger structure, and the other was right
next to a large structure that was very similar.
MS. MESIANO: If I might point out that the groins on either
side of the structure are the length of the fixed portion
so we don't have much beyond the extent of the groins that
exist. So we do have structure, they're not a dock
structure but we do have hardened structure.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: They're past structure too, they're
changes in hard structure that we have taken on in the new
code and that are changes that are current as opposed to being --
MS. MESIANO: I'm sorry, I didn't follow.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The groins that you're referring to are
past structures, structures that have been there. We're
talking about a new structure.
MS. MESIANO: I understand that, and I'm just pointing out
that it doesn't exceed the magnitude or the length of the
groins, so there is structure there already.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The other thing we look at is eel grass in
the area, natural shellfish beds and also, I would like to
know the distance from the existing shellfish, they have the
shellfish beds, if you can find out the distance from the
dock to there.
MS. MESIANO: Can you tell me what agency I can go to for
that?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can speak to them to find out where his
property is underwater land, and then --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: John, who maintains documentation of
oystering grounds in the bay?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The county has tax maps, there's a Van
Tuyl from 1910 or '18, it has all the tax maps for the
oyster ground, but that's 1,500 feet beyond the shoreline no
matter where you go. So it's not right next to
that. That's why it doesn't apply in that particular
case. But are you talking about is it specifically eel
grass beds, then you have to have somebody go out and look
at it.
MR. Y AXA: I start 500 feet from shore. not 1,500 feet.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's unusual.
MR. YAXA: I got the deed.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I believe you, it's just not the usual
case.
MS. MESIANO: I know where to look and I'll have that
plotted.
MR. MCGREEVEY: The other recommendation from the CAC it
will be a vinyl graded catwalk over the wetlands.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Any other comments? I'm going to make a
44
Board of Trustees
45
July 19, 2006
motion once again to table this application.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES.
9. Catherine Mesiano on behalf of VINCENT
BASILlCE requests a Wetland Permit to replace in-place the
existing 75' bulkhead with new vinyl sheathed bulkhead and
construct a 4' by 65' low profile fixed walk with seasonal
4' by 20' ramp and A 6' by 20' floating dock. Located:
3255 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. SCTM#53-6-8
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anyone who wishes to speak in
favor of this application?
MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the
applicant. We have designed a minimal structure that we
could do to reach a depth where one could float a boat, if
you will. I know a neighbor had a concern about the
distance from the property line. I just want to make
clear that the structure is proposed 15 feet from the
property line. We have had current soundings so our
structure is based on the soundings that we recently had
done. And I also understand that the Board had a concern
about the sheathing that had been repaired when they had
appeared at the property last week, and I have photographs
to give the Board. The bulkhead is in very sad shape.
There was a lot of washing out. There's been quite a bit of
overtopping. They were losing a lot of soil behind the
bulkhead, it was washing out beneath. There was a lot of
holes in the bulkhead, so it was a temporary measure, they
screwed up decking material, tongue in groove decking
material to maintain what's there. The old bulkhead is
still there underneath it, it's a temporary measure until
the bulkhead can be replaced because it was quite holey, and
I'll give you these pictures.
TRUSTEE KING: You're talking about a complete
replacement.
MS. MESIANO: Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Cathy, you're saying the vinyl was put --
MS. MESIANO: It was screwed up over the existing sheathing
as a temporary measure because a lot of material was washing
out from --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I understand that, but shouldn't that
have been an emergency permit from us?
MS. MESIANO: I was unaware of it until it was brought up to
me. There was no excavation done. It was put up as a patch
on the face of the bulkhead. There was nothing removed.
There was nothing excavated. I've seen many people just
45
Board of Trustees
46
July 19, 2006
screw up pieces of plywood to patch a hole. They had that
before but the holes were getting bigger and they were
getting more material washing out, so they put this material
up over it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I share the same concern with Peggy
here. This was to me appeared like it was tongue and groove
vinyl, work was done, it could have been applied for as an
emergency permit, it was not, and what it appears to me is
though the people did the work without a permit, and now,
they're coming in and asking for a permission to do
something they already did without a permit. Also with
tacking on over the outside, they have extended it, and I'm
not sure, there was no chance for an LWRP review of
this. There was no chance for CAC to look at this. So I
was very concerned whether I saw what appeared as though the
applicant had done work without seeking proper approval.
MS. MESIANO: I was not aware of it until I spoke with
Lauren and she gave me the Board's comments. I went down
and looked at it. I don't know if someone had asked me to
apply for an emergency permit, I would have done it in that
manner, but I probably would have said to the Board let us
screw some boards up so we can keep it in place.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This was a lot more than screwing boards
up, the whole bulkhead has been resheathed. Essentially the
entire bulkhead has been resheathed, and it's not just
patching.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Do you know when it happened?
MS. MESIANO: Probably within the last month. When I went
to post the property, I did not walk down to the water. So
I would say at least a month or more.
MR. BASILlCE: The sheathing was done just before the
winter. We had a big sink hole that was developing, and I
did try to patch it with the plywood several times.
MR. JOHNSTON: For the record, could you state your name?
MR. BASILlCE: Vincent Basilice. None of the wood was
changed. When the fellow said he was going to patch it, he
said it would be easier to just go tongue and groove across
the whole front so nothing would wash through.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Who was it that did that work for you?
MR. BASILlCE: First name is Chris, I don't know his last
name, I have his company.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: He was a local contractor?
MR. BASILlCE: A local excavator, yes.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anybody else who wishes to
speak for or against?
MS. DUFFY: I'm Darlene Duffy, my husband owns the property
46
Board of Trustees
47
July 19, 2006
right next door to Dr. Basilice. One of the things I'm
concerned about, I apologize, I don't know why I was under
the impression they were trying to put this bulkhead five
feet off the property line, but they assured me today they
were looking to put it 15 feet off the property line, which
is what you allow.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The dock or bulkhead?
MS. DUFFY: The dock, I'm sorry. One hundred feet out is
pretty far out there. One of my concerns is we have 45
houses along that peninsula on that side, and half of them
on are on 50 foot lots and I don't know what kind of a
precedent the Board is going to set about docks. If I
wanted to live on a marina, I would move. But I live on
open water and that's because I like looking at it that way.
If we had 50 docks out there, and I do believe some of the
neighbors are just waiting to see what you are going to do
with this application, so I think that's an important
consideration.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Are there any other comments?
MR. BASILlCE: I do. You're looking at 2.2 feet of water where
the dock is going to go. There are no boats that are going
to be running in front of this dock, only little rubber
rafts, which is what we're talking about, center
console. This is not a place where people are going to
water ski or anything like that. It's such a difficult
thing to get down to the beach because of the size of the
rocks that it's hard to walk on the beach. We don't have a
beach, Darlene and I, we have rocks. Basically it's tidal.
So it's really something to get to, a tender to get out to
the water, that's what we're looking to do, low profile. I
share her view. I don't want to see an obnoxious looking
dock. This is going to be a low profile dock made out of
plastic which will let light come in; it's not going to
environmentally impact anything that's growing underneath
there. It just makes the property more useful. I live out
here full time, this is my residence, and I would like to be
able to use the property to its fullest. And there was also
a dock here before when I bought this property. It was on a
survey in 1972. When I bought the property the two original
pilings are still there. If you went out there, Mr. Bergen,
you saw pilings in the front. We left those because we
always intended at some point to put some kind of a
structure back, so we can use a little boat.
MS. DUFFY: I just wanted to say one thing, I've been living
there 24 years and I have never seen the dock. I assume
he's telling you he still has pilings there, so I guess. I
47
Board of Trustees
48
July 19, 2006
don't know how much standing that has. He says there was a
dock there when he bought it.
MR. BASILlCE: Before 1972 on the survey, that's what I
said. That's before you were there.
MS. DUFFY: Okay. That's right in 24 years I haven't seen a
dock.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Are there any other comments?
MR. YAXA: One more comment, Dean Yaxa, 215 Colony
Road, Southold. I think we're talking about setting a precedent here.
Miss Duffy said there's 45 more homes on the street there, no one
of which have docks. This guy gets it, you know darn well
that there's money on the street like I said, they're all
going to want docks, and there goes the serenity of the
beautiful area, thank you.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Bruce, I'm sorry.
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, resident, how about that.
have ambled into the office earlier today and Darlene was
there and we started talking about this. I can tell you
that the applicant undoubtedly has a problem, and his
problem is going to be to try to secure a DEC permit. The
problem begins with DEC with this ridiculous policy that
says you have to get to two and a half feet of water because
the propellers are going to stir up the bottom, and that's
why you need that water. And what happens, particularly if
you're in Pipe's Cove, which is a very shallow cove, is it
forces these docks to be very long because you have to go
out the 100 feet or more to get to that kind of water at
low tide.
I was telling the gang down there that on Sunday I'd
taken my 10 year old son out to the ruins in hopes to catch
a keeper fluke, which didn't exactly work out, but on the
way out there was a tremendous amount of boat wakes, and
I've noticed in my life time that the number of boats have
increased as have the size of the boats and that means more
and more waves. And it's this policy of trying to get into
deeper water that fosters the larger boats that you're
seeing today and it's really driven by DEC.
This gentleman says he's looking for a
tender just to get out to his boat, I understand that
and I understand his problem, it's got to be 100 feet
because he's got to get that DEC permit. And I've mentioned
this to the previous Board and I'm going to mention it to
you that it's my recommendation and hope that the Board get
together and write a letter to DEC and write it to Charles
Hamilton, who invented this new rule three or four years
ago, and write to Pataki and copy all these people because
48
Board of Trustees
49
July 19, 2006
that type of policy, the implementation, if I'm a consultant
and I have to get a dock permit and I have to find a way to
come up with a dock that's acceptable to everybody, it
becomes a very large dock or a very long dock, and for a
tender, that's unreasonable. But I understand this man's
problem. So I really encourage you to do that. I'm even
willing to write the letter for you, you can edit it
yourself, because you will see more and more docks, and they
have to get bigger and bigger and bigger to comply with this
ridiculous policy, which in my opinion would never have
withstood the legislative process. If the legislature had
come up with this policy, the two and a half feet for the
prop dredging, folks like me and I suspect Mr. Hermann and
maybe Miss Mesiano would say, wait a second, you're just
saying bigger boats, bigger props, more prop dredging, the
policy doesn't address the alleged impact, if the impact is
real in the first place. So I encourage you to do that. I
stand by, I'm willing to write the letter for you, I think
that would resolve a lot of these problems, you're going to
see more and more of this.
TRUSTEE KING: You must remember it used to be four feet, we
got them down to two and a half feet in seasonal.
MR. ANDERSON: I must tell you, I represented a man named
Philbin who lived at a house on Dune Road in Quogue, and he
had 1,000 feet of spartina marsh between his house and the
water. I went in to DEC and I got a permit for a 1,000 foot
catwalk, a 3' by 20' float to a -- no, a 3' by 15' ramp to a
6' by 20' float. On my plan I put down at the seaward edge
of that float it would achieve 1.6 depth and I got a permit
from DEC in about three weeks signed by Hamilton. So this
was never this idea that, oh, it used to be four feet, it
used to be no requirement, then it went to four feet, then
it we have a seasonal two and a half. These are all
contrived rules but they all foster bigger structures than I
think are desirable in these areas.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Thank you, Bruce.
MS. MESIANO: I can't top that.
MR. BASILlCE: Joe Basilice, 2405 Bay Shore Road, I'm a
resident also. Seems to me there's a difference here
between me putting a dock in and him putting a dock up. If
it was grandfathered that he has a survey that shows that a
dock was there, it makes sense to me that he should be able
to get a dock. If I was going to ask for a dock, I could
see the big political rigmarole here, but if Chuck Hamilton
says that this survey shows there was a dock and there's
still existing pilings, it makes sense to me that the man
49
Board of Trustees
50
July 19, 2006
should have a dock.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: For your information, normally if there
is a structure existing we allow it a lot easier, but if the
structure's no longer functioning, by code it has to be
functioning a certain percentage, and it's just the way the
book is written that there is no dock there, that there is
no dock there, it is not functioning so even if it was there
10 years ago, three years ago, if it's not functioning, we
can't consider that.
MR. BASI LICE: If a groin is destroyed that's not rebuilt
either?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Yes, if you have a groin going out and
half of the boards are missing, we have to consider it as a
new project. It's just the way it's written.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Cathy, is there a reason why you didn't
go to two and a half feet?
MS. MESIANO: Length.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So do you expect DEC to approve this?
MS. MESIANO: Alii can do is send it to them and get their
comments. I explained to my client that we just had to
apply and see what's going to happen. I appreciate the
Board's position as far as trying to limit docks and you
refer to docks on, quote, the bay, and in other instances
I've interpreted that to mean the Peconic Bay because of
its nature of being a more open body of water, more wave
action, et cetera, when it's referred to as "the bay,"
it's always been my perception that you were referring to
the Peconic. I usually come to this Board first before I
finalize plans and send them to the DEC. I haven't sent it
because I was waiting for your comments. It's easier to
amend a plan then give it to you and then send it to them
rather than amending what's already been sent in there. So
I have not sent it into them, and I wouldn't until I got your
comments.
I would just like to say that as a waterfront owner,
waterfront owners do have riparian rights. We were not
asking for an excessive structure. We're asking for the
minimal structure that we can to have a minimal dock that
will float. It's a low profile structure of a grid material
that we have used on other projects that the Board has
approved. I agree completely with Bruce. Forcing people to
go to deeper water does force people to build bigger docks
and allow you to bring in bigger boats. Dr. Basilice's
objective is to be able to maintain a small boat with a
shallow draft and a tender because he has a mooring off
shore, but it's very difficult to get to because of the
50
Board of Trustees
51
July 19, 2006
underground conditions; it's a very rocky bottom there. So
it's difficult.
Mr. Bergen mentioned I believe in my prior
application, after someone's comments about the public
access across the shoreline, and as much as I respect the
public access across the shoreline, I also respect the
property owner's right to access the water for his enjoyment
as well. So I would urge the Board to consider this
application, and if the Board is inclined to want to see
something different, I'm sure we could talk about that.
would rather discuss it than get an outright denial.
TRUSTEE KING: Cathy, did you say he has a mooring now?
MS. MESIANO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: I just had -- I had a concern about the
plastic sheathing that was put on the face of the bulkhead.
MR. JOHNSTON: Does he have a permit for the bulkhead that
was fixed?
MS. MESIANO: I'm sorry, do you mean the repair of the
bulkhead or the original bulkhead?
MR. JOHNSTON: Does he have a permit for this bulkhead right
there?
MS. MESIANO: For that material that was affixed to it, not
to my knowledge.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That had already been determined earlier.
MS. MESIANO: We're coming to the Board for a complete
replacement of the bulkhead that was done as a temporary
measure to shore it up and keep what was in there because
they were losing a significant amount of material from
behind it. I provided some pictures, they're not very good.
I can get them redone so you can see them better if you
like.
MR. BASILlCE: The header bulkhead, the top part, the
whalers and the dead men that go in, they're rotted, they
have to be replaced. So our intent was when we were going
to apply for this dock, we were going to repair all of that
because we really only Band-aided it. If you look closely,
you'll see that the wood on top is totally rotted out. This
was only an attempt to preserve the dirt, rather than just
Band-aid it, the comment was the tongue and groove would
hold it for the winter, because we had planned this as we
were planning to do this now. We weren't trying to hide or
do anything other than just preserve the property. This
does require a complete new wooding on the top and dead men
into the side to keep that bulkhead, which is going to be
very expensive.
MS. MESIANO: I'm sure if they were aware that a permit
51
Board of Trustees
52
July 19, 2006
would have been necessary for that action they would have
done it. It was an attempt to Band-aid what was there, and
there was no attempt to get around anything, circumvent any
regulations, simply an attempt to preserve what was there,
and I don't think they were aware that more was needed. We
have had never discussed that, so I was not --
TRUSTEE KING: I'd be interested to know the name of the
contractor myself.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The contractor should have been aware of
the fact that that should have been an emergency permit, you
should have come in to us. We have done them many, many
times before with exactly what you're saying, you needed to
do something immediately, but there's a process to go
through and your contractor should have known that.
MR. BASILlCE: I certainly can do that, I just don't
remember his last name.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: To be honest, the contractor doesn't
have the responsibility, the owner -- even if we find the
contractor, the owner has to be the one that pays it. So
it's the owner's responsibility, no matter what, to know what
they're supposed to do.
Cathy, just two things that you said, you were
saying that you believe that the Trustees have a certain
area for the bay, I don't think that's a true statement
because Orient is open bay, there's a lot of open, Cutchogue
is open, there's a lot of different areas that are open bay,
it's not just what you're saying.
MS. MESIANO: I had my perception was that --
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I don't want you to have that down as a
particular that it isn't bays, and I think also legally
riparian rights end at landward. They end at mean high
tide, there isn't any right into the water. It's a right to
access the water. Darlene?
MS. DUFFY: I just had one question, according to this
schematic that the applicant provided for us, the last two
structures I guess they're the ramp and the floating dock?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The ramp to the floating dock.
MS. DUFFY: At the end of the stationary dock you're at two
feet, then the two more structures bring you to 2.1
feet. It seems a long way to go for .1 foot.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I just also make the comment that the
CAC approved the replacement of the bulkhead and disapproved
the dock because there are no other docks in the area.
MS. MESIANO: Again, I observed at this property when I went
down this evening that there is a dock further to the
south. Again, I couldn't give you distance, I don't have
52
Board of Trustees
53
July 19, 2006
good spatial abilities, and with regards to Darlene's
comment, yes the depths under the proposed dock are not
significantly different from the end of the fixed dock to
the end of the float. However, along the northerly side of
the float, there is a difference in the depth, so you do get
to about 2.6 alongside because the water gets deeper as you
go to the north and east.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: No LWRP. There was an incomplete LWRP,
so we can't act on this application.
MS. CUSACK: It wasn't that Mark didn't respond to it.
MS. MESIANO: We would also be willing to give up the float
and the ramp and just have a fixed structure because that
would accommodate their need to be able to use a tender to
get back and forth to the boat on a mooring. So we would be
willing to give up the float and the ramp if that would make
it more palatable to the Board
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The LWRP is also incomplete on this
application.
MS. MESIANO: I'll check with Mark.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Cathy, this is one dock within a mile of
shore. You said there's one adjacent dock?
MS. MESIANO: One that I could see.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I went on aerial photographs and looked,
and I'm not swearing by it, but I was able to look at a mile
of shore and not find another dock.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I looked to the south and there was a dock
approximately four pieces of property to the south, there
was a dock there, or there is a dock there.
MR. BASILlCE: There is also a dock as you turn on to Bay
Shore Road, a large dock that's maybe 20 properties to the
north -- to the west of us, a large, large dock.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's a very big one. Okay, I'm going
to make a motion that we once again table this, we do not
have sufficient information from the Planning Department, and
that's my motion.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES.
10. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on
behalf of PETER A. COOPER requests a Wetland Permit to
remove the timber sheathing (125 linear feet) from the
existing timber bulkhead and replace with vinyl sheathing,
as well as timber top and bottom stringers (6" by 6"),
timber top followers (3" by 6"), a timber top cap (2" by 18"
- 24") and helical screws to stabilize the bulkhead in lieu
of a typical dead man system. The existing timber pilings
53
Board of Trustees
54
July 19, 2006
(23 total) will be utilized. Located: 4800 Paradise Point
Road, Southold. SCTM#81-3-3
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf
of this application?
MR. LONG: William Long, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of the applicant. There's only a couple things I
would like to add to that. I want you to know this
is a functional bulkhead, it just happens to be in a pretty
large state of disrepair; in addition to that there is no
fill proposed at this time, and the applicant has agreed to
replace and reestablish any vegetation that's damaged during
the installation of this.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's a very nicely vegetated area
between the house and the bulkhead. Is there anyone else
who would like to speak to this application?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: One question, the helical screws, how long
are they?
MR. LONG: The length will vary. My understanding they're
screwed to a point of resistance.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Here we go, length determined by torque
factor. Sure clears that up.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't think there's any problems with
this. Anyone else like to speak to this? If not, I'll make
a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the application
for Peter Cooper for a Wetland Permit to remove and replace
and just a note that LWRP is exempt because it's replacing
in-kind -- and I did have a comments, Jack, CAC recommended
approval with a 10 foot nonturf buffer, but it's all
vegetated, it's all natural vegetation now. So, CAC
approval, exempt from the LWRP as per the description, I
make the motion; do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES
11. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on
behalf of JAMES REIDY requests a Wetland Permit to construct
a 4' by 63' catwalk to access the existing dock. Located:
2910 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM#123-4-14
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. LONG: Again, William Long, Suffolk Environmental
Consulting for the applicant.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the existing dock, we didn't
54
Board of Trustees
55
July 19, 2006
measure the existing dock; what is the size of that?
MR. LONG: If I had to guess it's fairly square, 6' by 10',
it's not very large.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The original permit said 6' by 12', and
LWRP had a concern that it was bigger than what was
permitted. And actually Dave mentioned that in the field
and we saw that it was 6' by 12'. Our concern was that if
it was in violation. As I understand at one point all the
docks in the area were grandfathered in, and this was back
in '88, and basically, it just says approval to register
existing dock and boat slip on property located 2910 Deep
Hole Drive, Mattituck, 12' by 6' dock, and that's basically
what all the permits in that area has said. It is
approximately that size, so I don't think it's an issue.
The reason it came up is the LWRP wrote a memo saying I have
become aware that the dock located on the property and is in
violation of the original permit. It appears that it is
larger than permitted in 1988; and it says, he has a problem
reviewing actions that are in violation of the permit,
therefore he has not finished his review. The LWRP has not
been finished.
MS. STANDISH: No, the Reidy is done.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I was reading this memo.
MS. CUSACK: Yes. It came before his memo.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, he finds it consistent, that
was cleared up, thank you. CAC approves it with the
condition of a raised fiberglass catwalk and the existing
floating dock which is larger than a 6' by 20' is
reconstructed in accordance with the code. We talked about
having a low profile fiberglass grid catwalk in the field;
is there any problem?
MR. LONG: I thought this was vinyl. The only ones I've
seen have been vinyl, but I think the brand name is
Through-flow. It actually comes out very nice.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Would she like to see what it looks
like?
MR. MCGREEVEY: There's also a condition on that property
that the storm water runoff committee should know about.
There's at least an eight foot conduit pipe that runs
through that property.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's where that
drain on the other side of the road, that's how that is.
MS. REIDY: Nancy Reidy, owner of 2910 Deep Hole Drive.
just want to call my husband.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I don't know how fair that is to throw
it in her lap at one minute. I think we can approve it
55
Board of Trustees
56
July 19, 2006
either way. It's not fair to give you a decision to make in
one second. I think it makes much more sense to say we'll
give you either way, and it's your choice; does that make
sense?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's our recommendation.
TRUSTEE KING: DEC will let them put it lower, where they
won't let them put a wooden catwalk low.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You'll have the same view as you have now
because you won't have the catwalk there, it will be lower,
it's a consideration.
MS. REIDY: Somebody had mentioned that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments? I'll make a motion to
close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve Suffolk
Environmental Consulting on behalf of James Reidy request
for a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 63' catwalk to
access existing dock located on Deep Hole Drive.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion that we reopen
the hearing of Vincent Basilice.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Had a question for -- is it Dr. Basilice?
DR. BASILlCE: Vincent Basilice. You said that the
contract's name was Chris?
MR. BASILlCE: It actually wasn't, it was lan, I made a
mistake, lan, not Chris.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Question, the gentleman in the
back of the room with the green shirt, yes, sir, could you
step up to the microphone, please? Could you identify
yourself for us, please?
MR. JAIGLE: Christopher Jaigle.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Were you the contractor who did the work on
this bulkhead?
MR. JAIGLE: No, I did not.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Did you work on this bulkhead at all?
MR. JAIGLE: No, I did not.
MR. BASILlCE: I just said it was Ian Crowley.
TRUSTEE KING: Had a misunderstanding, I guess. Make a
motion to close the hearing,
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
56
Board of Trustees
57
July 19, 2006
MR. BASILlCE: I know you closed it, we don't have a beach
at all on high tide on our property. We did try to put a
dinghy up against the thing last year, the dinghy did get
damaged so, high tide there's in addition.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: There's a bulkhead there.
13. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of
GREGERSEN'S KEEP, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct
a 4' by 34' fixed elevated catwalk with steps secured with
6" diameter pilings, 3' by 15' hinged ramp, and 6' by 20'
floating dock secured with 6" diameter pilings. Located:
Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM#35-3-12.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there anyone here to speak on this
application?
MS. MOORE: Good evening, this is a continuation of last
month's hearing. I provided, I hope you got a letter that
gave you the whole history of how this dock within the 20
foot right of way was created, and you can see that, in
fact, in your records that right of way was created back in
the '80s, in '84, and the Trustees granted a permit for that
dock in the '80s and then extended that dock as well a
couple of years later. There were two docks on this
property always. There was the dock that now appears on Lot
2, because as you know we subdivided this property and the
dock that's at the end of the right of way. The right of
way provides access to land westerly property owners that
are on the west side of Gull Pond Road. These are all
pre-existing conditions, pre-existing situations. I know
your code speaks in terms of one dock per lot, but this
parcel actually had two docks on it since the '80s. I want
you to be aware of a circumstance that you're going to face,
a very routine circumstance. What happens is when the
Planning Board approves subdivisions with community docks
for example, they don't want it to be on a strip, they want
it to be as part of a right of way. What happens is if you
do it as a strip and somebody forgets to pay the tax bill,
because the Suffolk County Clerk will assign it its own tax
number, and the county clerk sends the tax bill to an
association that does or does not exist, and somebody
doesn't pick up the mail, they lose that strip through a tax
sale, and that's why they did away with these strips and
they did it as part of right of ways. So you'll see, your
policy from way back when didn't work for that reason, and
putting it in the code, if you were dealing with a property,
a new property today, with no docks and you created a
community dock that gave access to the entire piece, then
57
Board of Trustees
58
July 19, 2006
your code would work, but when you're dealing with
retroactive impacts because these properties were already
created and already the docks -- we're talking about legal,
pre-existing docks because they were granted permits from
this Board. So every dock that's here is a grandfathered,
permitted dock.
Mrs. Claudio's here with respect to Gregersen's
Keep. There's a very nice aerial photograph of Gull Pond,
and I'm going to come up. You can see that Gull Pond the
way it's developed, on the east side, this lot, the east
side of the Gull Pond has a whole bunch of boats that are
around this cove, that is historically how Gull Pond was
developed. You have a lot of docks here that are for the
benefit -- not of the waterfront property owners, but of the
landward property owners, that's how historically the
property has been developed. This was one piece at the time
and there were two docks.
TRUSTEE KING: Pat, when that was subdivided, why didn't
they do a lot line change and make that a separate piece of
property?
MS. MOORE: It seems very simple, but you don't know the
policies of the other boards. When it comes to the Zoning
Board, that counts toward the area calculation towards the
creation of this lot. The Zoning Board gave specific -- the
square footages were met with all of the land area. If you
start -- you have to do actually separate applications, a
lot line change is a separate application from a
subdivision, and from a variance. So we actually had
multiple agencies. We had the DEC, the Zoning Board, the
Planning Board, everyone saw this same map, but we couldn't
strip it off because it would have been a separate
subdivision application. So retroactively it would have
been nice, but it would have complicated an already somewhat
complicated application, plus you have to be able to give it
to somebody. What do you do, this strip is for someone
else.
TRUSTEE KING: This right of way, did you say it's for
people or for one person?
MS. MOORE: There are two lots, when it was first created it
was for the benefit of two separate properties, and it
carried through for the two properties. Now the same owner
owns the two properties, but I think Quinten still uses it,
there may be a sharing with the dock.
TRUSTEE KING: I remember the one gentleman came in early on
saying, That's my dock, that's my dock.
MS. MOORE: Early on, remember through the subdivision
58
Board of Trustees
59
July 19, 2006
process, because originally, I don't know, when John Metzgar
first prepared this he hadn't noticed, it must have been
very light in an old map, the 20 foot right of way wasn't
showing up, and he specifically came before all the boards
and said, hey, put my right of way back in there, and by
deed there is a right of way and we had to show it.
MR. JOHNSTON: Pat, do you want to comment, I don't know if
it's relevant, in the deed it says it's a nonexclusive 20
foot right of way; could you make a comment to the Board?
Is there any significance that it's an exclusive right of
way to this person who you're talking about saying it's my
right of way versus it's a nonexclusive right of way, which
they could give to other people as well?
MS. MOORE: That was something that was created back in the
'80s. So the intention at the time of what they were trying
to create today, I'm kind of speculating today, but the fact
that it's not exclusive provides one thing to us, and I said
to Mrs. Claudio, if you want to walk back and forth on the
right of way all day long, they can't throw you off. But
whether or not they can go out to the dock and put a boat on
the dock when the permit was issued to someone else, I don't
have an answer to that. I think you might have a court
action that might determine that, I don't know.
MR. JOHNSTON: And for the record, I don't know either.
MS. MOORE: But if my client wants to go out and sit
within that 20 feet, they're not precluded, it's their
property. And that's part of the complication in this whole
process is, it is part of this property. As I said before,
that was specifically done so as not to lose these strips
through tax sales.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Are you saying anybody could walk?
MS. MOORE: No, only the underlying property owner and the
person who has the right to use that right of way, that is
Quinten Witt.
MR. JOHNSTON: When it says nonexclusive right of way,
wouldn't the property owner have the ability to give it to
three other people as well because they did not give away an
exclusive right of way?
MS. MOORE: It wasn't exclusive to one lot, it was to two
lots. But I think we'd have a fight if you tried to grant
it to others, where it suddenly becomes a community dock.
don't believe that the owner of the underlying land, it
would be presumed in a reasonable interpretation of that
language that you can expand the use of the right of way to
others.
MR. JOHNSTON: You understand my confusion, if they have a
59
Board of Trustees 60
July 19, 2006
nonexclusive right of way that would hint to me that the
owner who gave them a nonexclusive could give nonexclusive
to more than one person, could give it to 10 people.
MS. MOORE: But could those 10 people use the dock?
MR. JOHNSTON: I didn't say they could use the dock.
MS. MOORE: If this right of way was going from one street
to another, then I would say absolutely.
MR. JOHNSTON: I'm talking about the land, not the dock.
MS. MOORE: That's what's so complicated here. I don't have
an answer. Again, you're applying today's code back to the
'80s development.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Pat, usually we try to get soundings; did
you have any surveyor?
MR. ANDERSON: There is a lot of water, deep water very
close to the property if you go out. I thought we well
demonstrated four feet of water in something like 20 or 22
feet. It's really deep, great docking areas even for big
boats.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim just found it on the cross section.
TRUSTEE KING: Shows three feet.
MR. ANDERSON: If you go five feet east of
there --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We just want to be consistent.
TRUSTEE KING: We know this process started before the new
Board. I remember going out there when it first started,
and the general feeling was there's a dock on this piece and
there's a dock on this piece, there was never any talk of
just put a new dock in.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Pat, right now there are two pieces of
property on the water and there are two docks?
MS. MOORE: Physically, there's a dock but we don't have use
of it.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Right. But there are two docks on two
pieces of property?
MS. MOORE: Yes. But I'm saying that's fine but you have
lots of situations where there are 10 docks on a piece of
property, you have to have a right to use it.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'm not sure about 10 docks.
MS. MOORE: Theoretically -- actually, no, look at Gull Pond up on the
north end, on the southeast, you have that spit that has
multiple, and it looks like one spit of land.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was years ago.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The second question I have is what
prevents anybody from coming in and putting a right of way
on their property and claiming this is the right of way for
so and so, and allowing a dock on the right of way separate
60
Board of Trustees
61
July 19, 2006
from a dock on the piece of property already?
MS. MOORE: I'm not sure if I understand.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We're saying there's a dock on the right
of way right now and you're saying this property doesn't
have a dock.
MS. MOORE: You can see from a title history when that right
of way was created. When you create the right of way,
there's got to be a right of way of record, recorded at the
county clerk's office that recites liber and page, where you
find it, how you know it's there.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Right. I do that today, I put my dock
out, and tomorrow I put another dock on the next piece of
property.
MS. MOORE: For example, Toman case.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I don't know. I wasn't on the Board.
MS. MOORE: What we did is we had a piece of property like
this and my client owned two pieces of property, one on the
water and one land. We created a right of way with one
dock, but in the agreement we had, we're putting one dock.
It's going to be for both properties, so that as of record
when the person that buys the waterfront piece, they know
that that dock is for both properties. So that's where your
policy, your code is fine. It works fine when you're doing
it then and there, when you're creating the right of way,
creating the dock all at the same time. But I'm saying to you
it doesn't work when you retroactively apply it to something
that was done 20-some years ago, the policies were different
then, and the rules were very different then. Plus you and the
Planning Board all have to be on the same page because you
have a lot -- and particularly on the sound, a lot of sound
front properties have a stairs to the beach that go by way
of community stairs, and the Planning Board actually
encourages a community stairs, and what happens is the
person who has the sound front, if they buy all at the same
time, and it's all part of the same subdivision, it's fine,
it works great; you just can't retroactively apply it if
everybody is buying at the same time. Because you can't
impose a covenant after a person has bought it. I can't
come to you and say I'm imposing a covenant, I'm going to
put a right of way on your property without your consent.
So that's why it's very difficult. Everything is a case by
case basis. You can't work it retroactively. I'm trying to
give you other examples.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The LWRP finds it consistent, and I guess
the typical is to install silt boon, turbidity screen during
construction. CAC recommends approval of the application
61
Board of Trustees
62
July 19, 2006
with the condition there is one residential dock on the
property, the applicant should supply evidence that the
existing docking facility is part of a single and separate
lot.
MS. MOORE: That was the deed documentation I gave you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. But it's not single and
separate. In other words, CAC denied it. Are there any
other comments?
TRUSTEE KING: My only comment would be when we first
initially looked at this as Trustees in my mind, we felt
that there was a dock on each property.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I agree with you, Jim, and I was on the
Board with you.
TRUSTEE KING: And I think at that time, we would have
suggested that if these two lots were going to be separately
sold, that the one big structure be a community dock for two
pieces of property; that's the way it should have been done
but it wasn't, and now it's looking at another dock. That's
a huge structure on the one piece of property, and it should
have been shared.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Because it was originally one piece of
property.
TRUSTEE KING: Because it was originally one piece of
property. When this thing was divided that should have been
considered and it wasn't.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Jim, what if the wording was rewritten for
that subdivision breaking it off into two lots revised.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what we just discussed.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let's not reopen.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Can't apply to this situation.
MS. MOORE. That's for future.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Pat, the right of way is for whose
property?
MS. MOORE: Gull Pond -- here's Gull Pond, on the west side
of Gull Pond are two five acre lots, those two five acre
lots were created before conservation subdivisions were
known as conservation subdivisions, those two lots were
created when the larger piece on the north end was gifted to
the -- it's not Peconic Land Trust -- it was a conservation
entity.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: They both have rights to that dock?
MS. MOORE: They're both the same owner right now, but I
think they both have -- independent they have rights to this
dock, so theoretically it's the same owner, right now he's
got one boat but they share rights to the dock.
MR. JOHNSTON: So two lots have the nonexclusive rights to
62
Board of Trustees
63
July 19, 2006
that dock?
MS. MOORE: That's right. That's how it was created in the
'80s.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And the problem now to get a lot line
change is?
MS. MOORE: The lot was created through the Zoning Board and
the Planning Board. The Zoning Board approved it just as it
is as far as square footage goes. I can't take away from
this property without violating the Zoning Board approval
and the Planning Board.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But you can go back.
MS. MOORE: No. The map has been filed, it's filed with the
county clerk.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Just help me here, if I have a property
and I want to give my next door neighbor 20 feet, I can have
a lot line done.
MS. MOORE: Not if your lot was created with the Zoning
Board.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Yes, it was. My lot was created by the
Zoning Board.
MS. MOORE: Go try to do it.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I did it, couple years ago.
MS. MOORE: They changed their rules.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can we move on?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: No. We're just hearing they can't do
it, but my own experience I did it five years ago, so I'm
not sure. I think that's something -- that would solve our
whole problem if they just did a quick claim on that right
of way and give it to the other property and then you have
your dock right there, and there's no problem and it keeps
everything nice and clean, it doesn't set precedent.
MS. MOORE: My understanding is if I went to the Zoning
Board and said I want to split off this, that they would say
you can't do it because we granted, you might have to come
back and do a whole new application to them and get approval
from them, which is discretionary, you'd have to go and ask
them to reduce the size of the acreage.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It's something we could investigate.
MS. MOORE: If you granted it and you just say pursue
splitting it off, I will pursue splitting it off, I just
don't know that either board would go along with it.
TRUSTEE KING: You might pursue it a little more
aggressively if we say no dock until it's done.
MR. ANDERSON: I don't think it's possible to move forward
today to create a right of way and put a dock in. What
we're seeing here, distinguish this from that possibility is
63
Board of Trustees
64
July 19, 2006
because the dock and the right of way existed prior to the
restrictive statute that said you couldn't do it.
MS. MOORE: It's pre-existing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But now it's a new lot.
MS. MOORE: But this lot is subject to the same
restrictions.
MS. MOORE: It runs with the land.
MR. ANDERSON: You would have still had two docks on one
property.
MS. MOORE: There was always two docks and the boards have
always granted the two docks.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You have a comment, ma'am?
MS. CLAUDIO: Yes, hi, Janice Claudio, Gregersen's Keep.
met Mr. Quinten the day, a month ago meeting, and he was
walking on the property, so I went over and I said, hi, who
are you kind of thing; and he introduced himself as the
person who has the south side of the Witt dock, so I think
that they share that dock. So both sides of the dock are
gone.
MS. MOORE: And Quinten was the prior owner of one of the
lots. The Witts love this dock, they use it all the
time. You don't want to create problems here.
Secondly, if this is split off, we're under one acre
and then all the setbacks and all the variances and that
whole thing begins again, and we have been through it, it's
horrible, don't ask us to do that again.
MS. MOORE: The rules have changed completely, since you did
their lot line change, I would say they created a much more
difficult process, including the health department. The
health department takes --
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The head of the Planning Board did it
last year.
MS. MOORE: No, Gerry had two houses on one property, got
variances to create undersized lots, it was a much more
complicated situation, and she was also chairman of the
Planning Board.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But it wasn't when she started.
MS. MOORE: But she was when she got it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: John, do you want to table this?
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I think we should investigate.
MS. MOORE: I went to the Planning Board office yesterday
and I said, Anthony, how can we do this? And he was
stumped. At the time I didn't give him enough time to think
about it. If I could do it, we would.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's clearly not allowed in our code to
have two docks on one property.
64
Board of Trustees
65
July 19, 2006
MS. MOORE: You can't create a law retroactively
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any other comment from anybody
else? I would like to table the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? Aye.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Aye.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Opposed.
TRUSTEE KING: Aye.
MS. MOORE: Opposed to what?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: To tabling it.
MS. MOORE: Are you opposed to granting it?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The vote was to table.
MS. MOORE: All right, if I've got three votes to grant it,
dandy. But if you're considering denying it, I want to
table it so I can at least pursue -- I don't want to have to
reapply.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'd like to table this so we can research
what we have been discussing with the right of way.
MS. MOORE: If you find, if you go see Linda and she says
yes, this is no problem. Share this with me, we'd be happy
to pursue it that way.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We need to move on.
14. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of MICHAEL &
SUSAN JEFFRIES requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the
existing dwelling and construct a new dwelling, abandon the
existing sanitary system and install the new sanitary
system. Located: Private Road, Fishers Island. SCTM#1-2-11
TRUSTEE KING: Anyone here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MS. MOORE: Pat Moore. I have M.J. Sagan and Mr. Oliver
Link from Anderson Architects, they came from New York City
with respect to this plan, and they're here to address any
concerns you might have with respect to the
reconstruction.
This is a demolition of the property on Fishers
Island and reconstruction. They can provide testimony with
respect to the fact that foundation is inadequate and they
have to rebuild. I also provided for you the owners have
hired a landscape architect, and I have a color rendering of
what I dropped off the other day in black and white this is
the color. This is a -- I don't want to call it a ranch
house, but it is a one story.
(Discussion.)
TRUSTEE KING: Like I said, I didn't have a problem with any
65
Board of Trustees
66
July 19, 2006
of it. I was over there Monday. Are there any plans for a
swimming pool there?
MS. MOORE: No. It's a second home, maybe eventually.
TRUSTEE KING: It was found inconsistent with the LWRP, and
I'm sure that's because it's within the 100 feet.
MS. MOORE: For the record, Jonathan Britt, a neighbor,
actually sent a letter in support, I want to keep it in my
file, but he wanted to relate to the Board that he's in
support of the application.
TRUSTEE KING: The only recommendation I would make is a
staked row of hay bales between the house construction and
the freshwater wetlands.
MS. MOORE: It's on the site plan. We have hay bales and we
have dry wells on the site plan, just the landscape architect
hadn't integrated these things. I wanted to be sure
that you had, because there's such extensive landscaping,
I wanted to make sure you had that as part of your application.
TRUSTEE KING: I missed it.
MS. MOORE: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments? I'll make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application
as submitted for Michael and Susan Jeffries.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
15. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of MAURICE JEZO
requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace in-place
approximately 97 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead
with vinyl bulkhead. Incidentally dredge to recover lost
backfill approximately 25 cubic yards sand from area up to
10' off bulkhead to maximum depth of minus 4' average low
water and use spoil for backfill landward of bulkhead.
Remove and replace (in-kind/in-place) existing dockage
structures, including two 6' by 20' floats. Located: 810
Maple Lane. SCTM#35-5-25
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant. David, would you like to open all five?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'd like to open one at a time, but move
rapidly.
MR. HERMANN: What I'll say on the first one can stand for
all. Straightforward application, remove and replace
66
Board of Trustees
67
July 19, 2006
in-place timber bulkheads with vinyl. The only one where
there's going to be some discussion is the Brehm application
which we can discuss when you get to it, assuming on all of
the others you don't have any other questions.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else to speak on behalf of
this application? This was found consistent with the LWRP,
Conservation Advisory Committee recommended approval with a
condition of a 10 foot nonturf buffer, and that's what we
had down in the field inspection that we wanted to see a 10
foot nonturf buffer in front of this. Any comments from the
Board? If not, I make a motion to close this public
hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve application 15,
Maurice Jezo, as described previously.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES.
16. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of ROBERT &
PATRICIA MOELLER requests a Wetland Permit to remove and
replace in-place approximately 72 linear feet of existing
bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead. Incidentally dredge to
recover lost backfill approximately 25 cubic yards sand from
area up to 10' off bulkhead to maximum depth of minus 4'
average low water and use spoil for backfill landward of
bulkhead. Remove and replace in-kind/in-place existing
dockage structures, including a 6' by 6' cantilevered deck,
2' by 13' ramps, and two 6' by 36' float. Located: 910
Maple Lane, Greenport. SCTM#35-5-26.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann, En-Consultants, on behalf of the
applicants, any questions you have I can answer them.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Anybody else would like to make any
comments on behalf of this application? If not, I'll make a
motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This one, just so you know, the CAC
recommended approval with a 10 foot buffer and the LWRP
found it consistent, they did ask for the installation of a
silt boon, turbidity screen in the water to help minimize
turbidity.
MR. HERMANN: That would not typically be used for an
in-place replacement of a bulkhead.
67
Board of Trustees
68
July 19, 2006
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But there's dredging here involved also.
MR. HERMANN: No, no, I'm sorry, yes, that's acceptable.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Then I make a motion to approve the
application 16 on behalf of Robert and Patricia Moeller as
described with the condition of a use of a turbidity screen,
and again a 10 foot buffer included.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES.
17. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of DONALD AND
JOAN BREHM requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace
in-place approximately 79 linear feet of existing timber
bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead. Incidentally dredge (to
recover lost backfill) approximately 25 cubic yards of sand
from area up to 10' off bulkhead (to maximum depth of minus
4' average low water) and use spoil for backfill landward of
bulkhead. Remove and replace in-kindlin-place existing
dockage structures, including a 4' by 5' cantilevered deck,
two 2' by 5' ramps, and two 6' by 20' floats. Located:
1010 Maple Lane, Greenport. SCTM#35-5-27.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anyone here to comment on behalf
of this application?
MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant. This is the application that I know that the
Brehms would actually like to do a little bit differently
than what we have proposed. I don't want to spend a lot of
time talking about the reasoning for it. I know they
discussed it with you at the field inspection. There was
some discussion of them modifying or having us modify the
plans submitted to you. It was my advice to the Brehms that
I did not want to do that. I would like to ask you to
approve the application as submitted and then accept either
an application for amendment, or if you wanted to table this
particular one. The reason is in order to try to facilitate
this application with DEC, Angelo Stepnovski, the contractor
specifically met with Charles Hamilton with the DEC, a
meeting that was hard to come by, and he specifically
brought these plans, pictures, et cetera to Chuck and asked
for Chuck's input ahead of time so that when we filed with
the DEC it could presumably be approved in an expedited
manner. The question was asked and answered about whether
this seven foot jog could somehow be eliminated, and it was
Mr. Hamilton's position, no. So I do not want to just
submit something to him that explicitly contradicts his
discussion. However, I believe when Angelo spoke with him
the idea that was floating about was for the Brehms to come
68
Board of Trustees
69
July 19, 2006
back three and a half feet, and for the neighboring parcel,
I think it's Stocker, to go out three and a half feet. And
I think it was it was Chuck's position according to his
recollection, the Brehm bulkhead was constructed farther
seaward than it was originally intended or approved to be
constructed. So I think his position is he doesn't want
that what could be construed now, years later as an illegal
step out to contribute to any further step outs. In light
of that, in order to resolve the problem, the Brehms as I
think they indicated to you, would be willing to let Stocker
stay where they are, and they would come back the full seven
feet to come in line with Stocker. And at that point to me,
I can't imagine anyone would object to that because you're
in effect giving back what was allegedly taken improperly,
if that was the case, and even if it wasn't you're giving up
seven feet by however many feet of land to create
waterway. I would ask if any of you or all of you as a
Board would make that contact to Mr. Hamilton to say that
you have heard us, you have heard the application, you
understand there was a meeting, you understand the initial
indication was no, but in your minds -- and I'm thinking for
you -- this would be a no-brainer idea. So in effect, it
sort of comes from as a recommendation from your Board that
we can follow along with, as opposed to us asking
Mr. Hamilton for his opinion and then blatantly giving him
something that contradicts what he suggested we do.
Otherwise it puts Angelo in a terrible position, and it puts
us in a terrible position to ever get his time again before
an application is filed because they really don't do
pre-application conferences anymore.
TRUSTEE KING: Did he come out to the site?
MR. HERMANN: No.
TRUSTEE KING: I can't imagine him saying no to that
suggestion if he saw it.
MR. HERMANN: I can't imagine it either. Angelo brought the
maps into his office because, as I said, they really don't
come out and do pre-application conferences, He very rarely
does it, even in his office. Now, if you say no, we're not
going to do that but you would agree with the idea, then
I'll have no choice but to submit it, but I'm basically
beseeching you to do us a favor and see if you could get a
hold of him on this matter to sort of take Angelo and me out
of the position.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Can I make a suggestion that we made
earlier, that we approve it with three variations; does that
help?
69
Board of Trustees
70
July 19, 2006
MR. HERMANN: No, because I think the only two variations
that are possible would be to do it exactly as it is or for
Brehm to come back seven feet. He's not going to allow
Stocker to go out.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Two variations. If we approve it with
two then they don't have to come back.
MR. HERMANN: That would be fine, but I would still ask,
even if you don't want to contact him, could you give me a
letter or something that I can --
TRUSTEE KING: I would request that this bulkhead be in a
straight line, regardless of how they do it.
MR. HERMANN: And the Brehms will be delighted to hear that.
I just don't want to create a situation where you say this
is the only way you can do it. I mean, you have to tell me,
you're the Chairman of the Board, you have to tell me what
you're comfortable doing.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm comfortable with saying we want to see a
straight line of bulkhead there. We don't want to see a jog
in it. Accomplish it the way you want to do it.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Jim, as a spokesman for the CAC --
TRUSTEE KING: I'll give him a call myself. I went out
there and looked at it. I'm sure he didn't go out and look
at it.
MR. HERMANN: He didn't. And as I said, I don't think the
proposition of Brehm resolving the problem by himself or by
themselves was on the table. It was what if we do
half-half. In doing that, you're still pushing Stocker out
and filling tidal waters, which Chick is never going to
approve, and understandably so. The state code really
prevents him from doing that unless there's mitigating
circumstances. And I think in his mind, Brehm's out seven
feet too far, and they don't want the jog, well, Brehm can
come back seven feet, and in this case they're willing to do
that. So if you want to approve it as Brehm coming back
seven feet conditioned upon me giving you modified plans and
in the meantime if you can contact Chuck, that would be
great. Because then at least I know I can give you the
plans, I can submit those plans to them, and are we're done.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm confused here, it's not Brehm that
would come back.
MR. HERMANN: It is Brehm. Originally two applications
would be affected, now it's just one. Stocker would be in
place.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we're suggesting is approve it as
plans dictate here and later on you come back with an
amendment to move Brehm's back.
70
Board of Trustees
71
July 19, 2006
MR. HERMANN: I'm comfortable with what Jim is saying that
you just approve it stepping back the bulkhead seven feet to
be in-line with Stocker condition upon receipt of revised
plans from me. If we run into a problem, I'll have to come
back and ask you to reopen the hearing. But it just creates
additional process to approve this and amend it. It's not
something that you're imposing on us; it's something that
Brehm would like you to approve.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If Brehm doesn't have a problem with that.
We'll be revising the application so that the Brehm bulkhead
comes straight into the Stocker bulkhead.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Would it help, Jim, if CAC recommends as a
recommendation that they drop back that seven foot. Put in
the record as a spokesperson for the CAC we recommend that
Brehm drops back seven foot and angles it accordingly.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So this would be amended -- in other words,
the new site plan would come in that would reflect on the
Brehm property, which is tax map 35-5-27, would move back
seven feet so that it comes in straight line with the
Stocker property tax map 35-5-28.
MR. HERMANN: Right, and I can give you a description that
matches the plans.
TRUSTEE KING: I think that's the simplest way.
MR. HERMANN: I think so too, and I appreciate your help.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: LWRP finds it consistent with the use of
the installation of a silt boon, turbidity screen during
construction to minimize the turbidity in the water; and the
CAC is recommending approval with the condition that they
also are recommending that this be pulled back so the Brehm
bulkhead comes in as a straight line with the Stocker
bulkhead.
Is there anyone else who would like to speak on
behalf of this application or against this application? If
not, I make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I make a motion to approve Number 17, Donald
and Joan Brehm, with the condition that what was submitted be
altered so the bulkhead will come back and end up as a
straight will come back seven feet at the southerly end so
it comes back flush with the Stocker bulkhead, their next
door neighbors, and maintain a 10 foot nonturf buffer as
well as the use of the turbidity screen.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES
71
Board of Trustees
72
July 19, 2006
18. En-Consultants on behalf of RALPH & LUCILLE
STOCKER requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace
in-place approximately 62 linear feet of existing timber
bulkhead and replace with vinyl bulkhead. Incidentally
dredge (to recover lost backfill) approximately 25 cubic
yards of sand from area up to 10' off bulkhead (to maximum
depth of minus 4' average low water) and use spoil for
backfill landward of bulkhead. Remove and replace
(in-kindlin-place) existing dockage structures, including a
4' by 6' cantilevered deck, 3' by 16' ramp, and 6' by 40'
float. Located: 50 Snug Harbor Road, Greenport.
SCTM#35-5-28
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody here to speak in favor of
this application?
MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
Stockers. This application is in-line with the others the
Board has just approved, just as the application's
proposed.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Anybody else who would like to speak on
behalf of this application? The LWRP found it consistent
with the use of the installation of the silt boon/turbidity
screen during construction. The CAC recommended approval
with the condition of the a 20 foot buffer. We would like
to see that as a 10 foot buffer. I believe on our field
notes, yes. Hearing no other comments, I'll make a motion
to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'd like to make a motion to approve Number
18 on behalf of Stockers on 50 Snug Harbor Road, as
described, with the condition of the use of a silt
boon/turbidity screen and a 10 foot nonturf buffer.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES.
19. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of ANNE
SUCHER requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace
in-place approximately 139 linear feet of existing timber
bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead. Incidentally dredge to
recover lost approximately 25 cubic yards of sand from area
up to 10' off bulkhead to maximum depth of minus 4' average
low water and use spoil for backfill landward of bulkhead.
Remove and replace in-kindlin-place existing dockage
structures, including a 5' by 6' cantilevered deck, 3' by
12' ramp, and 6' by 40' float. Located: 545 Dawn Drive,
Greenport. SCTM#35-5-18
72
Board of Trustees
73
July 19, 2006
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anyone here who would like to
speak on behalf of this application?
MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicants. This project is actually on the opposite side
of the lagoon from the others. There is just one correction
on the project description, it is a 3' by 16' ramp leading
to a 6' by 40' float; it's 6' by 40' float. David has the
agenda with the corrections. It's 3' by 16' the ramp, and
6' by 40' float, and again, these are all existing. We just
want to make sure we have the numbers correct so when
someone comes back years from now. I would also like to
correct myself for the record that this is not exempt from
the LWRP because of the incidental dredging.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else who would like to
speak on behalf of this application? Or against this
application? If not, the LWRP found it consistent with the
installation of a silt boon/turbidity screen requested. The
CAC recommended approval with the condition of a 10 foot
nonturf buffer. If there's no other comments, I'll make a
motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve 19,
En-Consultants on behalf of Anne Sucher with the correction
that the ramp is not 3' by 12' it's 3' by 16', and ask that
it include a silt boon/turbidity screen and be sure it's a
10 foot nonturf buffer included.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The float is a correction too, 6' by 40'
on the float.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I said 6' by 40' on the float.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sorry.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES.
20. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of HILARY
PRIDGEN requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace
in-place approximately 215 linear feet of existing timber
bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead and backfill with approximately
75 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be trucked in from an
upland source; remove and replace existing deck landward of
bulkhead; construct in former locations two 4' by 5' steps
to beach; and replant backfill area (to be maintained as a
minimum 15' non-turf buffer landward of bulkhead) with Cape
American Beach grass (18" on center). Located: 2410 and
2530 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM#128-6-14 and 15.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of
73
Board of Trustees
74
July 19, 2006
this application?
MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann, of En-Consultants, for the
applicant.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I inspected this and it's clearly in
disrepair. You have 15 foot buffer but the whole front yard
is really buffer. There's no turf there at all.
MR. HERMANN: That's true.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's fine with the 15 foot buffer.
MR. HERMANN: We wanted to make sure on this one the buffer
is obviously there, it's well established. There's no
proposal to clear down to 15 feet, but just to be consistent
with your usual recommendations. The reason we stated it,
Jill, was because there's at least 15 feet that's going to
be cleared and excavated, so we wanted to make it clear that
that area has to be replanted as the rest of the yard
is. Otherwise it's pretty straightforward.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I see the platform here is 12' by 21' on
the survey. I'm looking for the dimensions on that
platform.
MR. HERMANN: It's 12 feet back and 21 feet along the
bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any other comment?
MR. MCGREEVEY: Can I make a change on that? The CAC did
inspect these two properties. There was no recommendations.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay.
MR. HERMANN: Was the replacement of that deck not in the
project description?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, but it doesn't give the size. And
it's consistent with LWRP. I'll make a motion to close the
public hearing.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the
application, Number 20, on behalf of Hilary Pridgen as
requested.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion we go off the public
hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES:
VIII. RESOLUTIONS-OTHER:
1. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of JOHN & JEAN
WEBER requests a Wetland Permit to repair/replace the
74
Board of Trustees
75
July 19, 2006
existing bulkhead and dock. Located: 590 Budd's Pond Road,
Southold. SCTM#56-5-17
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is the one we looked at and we
suggested they remove the indentation of the second
bulkhead, they consulted with their contractor and they came
back saying, no, they want to replace it as it is,
in-kindlin-place.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion that we approve this request.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have to go back to Benotti, Page 2,
Number 1.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We postponed it because we didn't have
the LWRP, but we really had it, it's consistent. There's no
problem. It had been delivered tonight.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve Peter
Benotti's request for Permit 6070 to construct the ramp/dock
as related under Applications and Amendments 930 Clearview
Road in Southold.
TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to adjourn the public
meeting.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
(Time ended: 10:55 p.m.)
RECEIVeD ..,-r/
/ 0.. ~>. #/1.(
OCT 3 2006
rJt:.aktitl'lJ,.ui/J
~uiljQld Tc.v:n Clerk
75