HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-11/15/2006
James F. King, President
Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President
Peggy A. Dickerson
Dave Bergen
Bob Ghosio, Jr.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
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
RECEW:':D t ~
r bo fff/
- ~JI :JJ~
~::' , O~
~~...,"('"'\
S~1'~'1 -, - ,"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
BOARO OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLO
MINUTES
wednesday, November 15, 2006
6:30 PM
present were: James King, President
Jill ooherty, vice-President
peggy Dickerson, Trustee
Dave Bergen, Trustee
Robert Ghosio, Trustee
E. Brownell Johnston, Esq.
Assistant Town Attorney for Trustees
Lauren standish, Secretarial Assistant FIELD
12 CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
13
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: wednesday, December 6, 2006, at 8:00 AM
14 NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: wednesday, December 13, 2006, at 6:30 PM
WORK SESSION: 5:30 PM
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of October 18, 2006.
TRUSTEE KING: Good evening everyone, welcome to our
November meeting. I'm Jim Kin~, chairman of the board.
Before we get going, I would llke to introduce the rest of the
board to you. TO my far left is Dave Bergen; next to him,
peggy Dickerson; and we have our vice-president, Jill Doherty;
to my right is Lauren Standish, she's our office manager and;
I would like to welcome Bob Ghosio, who is just elected to the
board. This was a special election because Al Krupski was
elected to the town board last year; in January, the Town
Board appointed a former trustee, John Holzapfel to fill that
vacancy until an election to be held or a new trustee could
voted into office. Bob. welcome. Anything you would like to
say?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll do the best I can.
TRUSTEE KING: That's basically what we are all trying to
do.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Actually, I'm honored to be here. I
25 worked with you folks for quite a while so it's almost like I
have been promoted within my own company.
page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
2
TRUSTEE KING: Bob was a former chair of the Conservation
Advisory Council so he's kind of familiar with the routine.
He's got quite a bit of experience. And to my far right is
Brownell Johnston. Brownell is our legal eagle, does a great
job. Doing a heck of a job, Brownie.
MR. JOHNSTON: very serious attorney, okay.
TRUSTEE KING: And two CAC members, is peter Young with
the grey shirt on and Mr. Jim Eckert, with the blue shirt on.
And our stenographer is wayne Galante. He keeps track of
everything we say.
I'll try and give everybody a brief rundown of what we
been up to in the past year. we have been struggling through
a new mooring code. we are still in the process of writing
it. The first draft was a little on the complicated side so I
think we'll try and simplify it some.
we are rewriting our shellfish code which is chapter 77,
trying to upgrade it and make it a little more streamlined.
NOW we have a new -- shellfish is --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 219.
TRUSTEE KING: 219, so. we've also got some runoff
problems, storm water runoff we are trying to address. It's
really a very slow process. we have had, when you see these
heavy rains, it brings it to everybody's attention, then
things slack off and you don't get much rain and everybody
kind of forgets about it, but it's a serious problem
throughout town. We try and address it as we re-do
applications for bulkheads and that type of thing and new
construction. We try to get gutters and leaders to drywells
to help the problem. But the main problem is road runoff
throughout the town. It's just a difficult thing to handle.
we are working on it. we have a couple of projects in the
hopper now.
Other than that we have a pump out boat. We have a pump
out boat this year which, thanks to Dave Bergen, did a lot of
work getting it, and we have another one for Fishers Island.
so we have two pump out boats this year. That's another giant
step.
so I think we are making some progress. Does anybody
else? we are looking at the wetland code, revise it. we are
looking at that also, trying to keep ahead of things as much
as possible. So with that, we'll start the meeting.
There is a number of postponements tonight. we'll go
through them so nobody sits here waiting for them to come up
and they don't come up.
Number under Amendments-Extensions and Transfers, number
eight, Mary Zupa has been postponed. And coastal Erosion
wetland permits, number three, Ronald Stritzler has been
postponed. JMO consultant for Susan Rentchler has been
postponed. And Wetland permits, number 15, vincent Basilice
has been postponed. Number 16, Grace Burr Hawkins is
page 2
NOVMIN-FINAL
3
1 postponed. Number 17, George Guimaraes has been postponed.
Number 18, Eve Macsweeney has been postponed. Number 19,
2 Maria Trupia has been postponed and; number 20, FITF, LLC has
been postponed.
3 We will not be addressing any of those tonight. we need
to set our next field inspectlon for December 6, eight o'clock
4 in the morning.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: so moved.
5 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: second.
TRUSTEE KING: Motion to approve?
6 (ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Next regular meeting will be December 13,
7 2006, 6:30, with the work session at 5:30.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: so moved.
8 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
9 TRUSTEE KING: Did anybody read the minutes of October?
Because I have them.
10 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have some changes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I gave my changes to Lauren already.
11 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have not given in my changes. would
you like me to go through them? There is only four. Or would
12 you like me to do it in writing at a later date? which would
you like?
13 MR. JOHNSTON: Jim, have you had a chance to look at the
minutes?
14 TRUSTEE KING: I have not looked at it.
MR. JOHNSTON: You should really wait then. IS it okay?
15 TRUSTEE KING: we'll pass on approving the minutes until
next month, okay?
16 TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay.
17 I. MONTHLY REPORT:
18 TRUSTEE KING: Trustees monthly report for october, 2006.
Check for $12,557.26 was forwarded to the supervisor's office
19 for the general fund.
20 II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
21 TRUSTEE KING: Public notices are posted on the town
clerk's bulletin board for review.
22
23
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE KING: we have a number of state environmental
24 quality reviews and we have a resolution to read.
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of
25 Southold hereby find that the following applications more
fully described in section VII Public Hearings Section of the
4
page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
Trustee agenda dated wednesday, November 15, 2006, are
classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and
Regulations, and are not subject to further review under
SEQRA.
Theodore and Kathryn Bucci - SCTM#71-2-10
New Suffolk properties, LLC - SCTM#110-1-12
Matthew Kar - SCTM#111-14-14
FITF, LLC - SCTM#9-8-2
paolo and Jean Blower - SCTM#58-1-3
Nancy Carroll - SCTM#90-1-21
NOFO properties, Mark Gordon - SCTM#13-1-1
Marion Lake Restoration Committee - SCTM#31-17-1 & 31-7-9
Maria Trupia - SCTM#78-1-10.20
Norman and Adele Grudman - SCTM#106-6-27.1
Ronald Stritzler - SCTM#94-1-14
Breezy shores community, Inc., - SCTM#53-5-12.5
Elizabeth siddons - SCTM#97-8-25
Jonathan and Andrea parks - SCTM#111-9-5.1 & 5.2
Robert G. Bombara - SCTM#54-4-19
Heribert orth - SCTM#115-17-17.12
Joseph and Diana Corrarino - SCTM#43-5-6 & 43-5-20
IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: Next we have Resolutions and Administrative
permits.
DO you want to do it one by one or can we group them?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Group them for consistency.
TRUSTEE KING: That's what I don't understand. I didn't
think administrative permits were reviewed under on the LWRP
and I don't understand how it could be reviewed when I have
the file.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: (perusing.) we'll mention that and group
it together.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, it was also number one where there
were conditions attached to it, so. If I remember from the
field report.
TRUSTEE KING: Then why wasn't -- was Melnick found
inconsistent also? why wasn't Melnick found inconsistent?
That's less than 100 feet from wetlands?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: without Mr. Terry here, we can't answer
that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: so group them together, just mention the
two, the conditions for Melnick and --
TRUSTEE KING: For Melnick there were no conditions.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There was a buffer.
TRUSTEE KING: Oh, all right. Let's just pullout one and
three. we'll approve two, four, five, six and seven. All
right? I'll make a motion to approve those.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
5
1
2
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. JOHNSTON: Wayne, you'll list them in the minutes,
page 4
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
though. Thank you.
NOVMIN-FINAL
TRUSTEE KING: Number one, Mark Melnick, requests an
Administrative permit to raise height of the roof on an 18x32
foot area of existing dwelling, construct new 9x12 foot
addition on first floor and new 9x12 foot second-floor
addition. Located: 405 Private Road #3, Southold.
I believe we conditioned that they'll have a ten-foot
buffer.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right.
TRUSTEE KING: And gutters and leaders to drywells for the
new construction.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And they were going to do some plantings
in the front, we told them that it dldn't need a permit.
TRUSTEE KING: Right, the restoration is exempt from the
permit process.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just note it for the record in case it
comes back.
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE KING: And number three is clifford polacek
requests an Administrative Permit to construct an addition of
a one-car garage to the northwest side of the existing
dwelling. Located: 2905 westphalia Road, Mattituck.
I looked at this myself so I'm familiar with it. It's a
small garage to be constructed on the north side of the house
where there is an existing blacktop driveway. And I guess the
only reason it was found lnconsistent is because it's less
than 100 feet from the wetlands. And I explained to the
applicant when I saw him over there that we would ask him to
put leaders and gutters to a drywell to take care of the
runoff. On the north side of the house there is a gutter and
leader coming down to the driveway. So that would also be run
into a new drywell.
so with those conditions I would make a motion to
approve.
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
LWRP.
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
1
2
3
4
KING: so I would make
DOHERTY: Second.
KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
a motion to approve.
DOHERTY: That would make
BERGEN: Yup.
KING: In my eyes, it
it consistent.
makes it consistent with
DOHERTY: Second.
KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
6
MS. STANDISH: Can we just go
the ten-foot buffer to run from?
extended to the property.
TRUSTEE KING: (Indicating)
MS. STANDISH: Ten feet rlght
it on the plan, plan or --
TRUSTEE KING: I can draw it
page 5
back to Melnick. where is
Because the bulkhead is
across. DO you want to put
up.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
MS. STANDISH: You want to go to the moorings and duck
5 b 1 i nds.
TRUSTEE KING: Go ahead.
V. MOORINGS/DUCK BLINDS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. Moorings and duck blinds:
James Andrews requests a buck blind in West Creek. He's had
this buck blind there and he did not pay for it, so last year
it was cancelled and he is reapplying and there is no waiting
list so I make a motion to approve a duck blind for Jim
Andrews in west creek.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
VI. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS AND TRANSFERS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have applications for amendments
extensions and transfers, starting down at the end.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I haven't seen this, Jim, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim, you looked at number one Burton
Tremaine, requests an amendment to permit #5552 to include the
existing three-car garage. Located: Private Road, Fishers
151 and.
TRUSTEE KING: This has been ongoing thing. He had,
instead of building an attached garage he made it a separate
garage so we are amendin9 the permit to reflect that. It's, I
think, would be an as-bullt. He has drainage for it.
Motion to prove?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay, before we get to the next one,
these are not public hearings, so technically we don't have to
take public comments on these, but we do want to give the
public an opportunity, if they want to speak very briefly and
please leave their comments to be brief. This is, I'm
addressing any applications for amendments extensions or
transfers.
Number two, Catherine Mesiano, Inc., on behalf of
Heribert Orth requests an amendment to Permit #6047 to revise
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
the desi9n of the previously approved dock to a 4x42 foot
low-proflle (fiberglass grid) dock with fixed 6x12 foot
north-facing "L" at the seaward end on six-inch piles with 10
foot penetration and one six-inch pile off the south end of
the dock and a one-year extension to Permit #6047 as issued on
December 20, 2004. Located: 640 willis creek Road, Mattituck.
We went out and looked at this and made our way through
the woods and got down to the water's edge and found this, and
one of our concerns with this was the fact that there is a
dock that has been previously done across the way and with
this dock, the two docks, this dock is requested plus the one
Page 6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
that is already there previously will narrow the opening way
down.
So we were concerned about -- we had no problem with the
extension of the permit, just with what is being applied for
to see if we could somehow reduce how this dock goes into the
water so that it doesn't reduce the size of the navigable
water way.
MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the
applicant. Jill and I had spoken on Monday about this issue
and I have been going over the plans and trying to come up
with something workable and I'm trying to serve two masters
because Mr. Orth is my client but he does have a buyer for the
property who has given some input. So I'm trying to protect
Mr. Orth and at the same time come away with something that
the buyer would find usable in his circumstances.
And what I would ask you is this; how to verbalize it.
We have changed the plan, the revision of the plan is
basically adding the "L" and a pole for tying up a boat, and I
understand your objection to the "L."
What would your reaction or input be if we were to -- and
I'm just exploring options here -- to if we were to eliminate
the 'L" but put in pilings that would allow someone to tie a
boat at this dock. Basically, let me see, where we have the
"L" proposed is about a two-foot depth. If we were able to
instead of having the "L" and tying up outside of that, if we
were able to tie up our boat at that two foot, two to
two-and-a-half foot depth, and have piles to secure the boat
to. So we were tying side to, for example, the starboard side
of the boat to the seaward end of the fixed dock, without an
"L,", having two piles on the port side of the boat,
surprised I know that, two piles, if two are necessary, one or
two, whatever is necessary, in order to secure the boat.
would that be something?
TRUSTEE KING: I prefer to see the piles in line with the
dock and not extend.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The nei~hbor further down, Mr. Sheika
(sic) called me and he couldn t make it to tonight's meet1ng
but he was concerned, because even at low tide, that sectlon
of the creek is getting shallow, and at low tide he has
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
trouble navigating and he would be concerned of anything going
out further.
MS. MESIANO: Is that creek under any dredge maintenance
program by the state?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: unfortunately it's not. That section of
the creek is too far in. The county doesn't go that far in.
And is does need dredging. I mean, if the people want to
apply for a dredging permit we would certainly review that,
entertain that, but at this point the county would not go that
far in.
MS. MESIANO: Okay. Pat Moore is here and she is
representing the prospective purchaser of the property, and I
just would like to give her the opportunity to speak.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could -- absolutely Ms. Moore could
speak. But just one thing I want to mention, because it adds
Page 7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
NOVMIN-FINAL
to this discussion, is it was found inconsistent under LWRP
and it was found inconsistent because of the issue that we are
talking about, that the navigable channel is narrow and this
would reduce the size of the waterway, impeding navigation to
the channel.
If you would like to, may I suggest both of you approach
for a second and we'll show you what we are talking about here
in the diagram
MS. MOORE: Yes, because I couldn't understand what you
were asking.
(MS. Moore and MS. Mesiano approach.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is what we were talking about. You
were saying take the "L" off and put the pilings out there. We
are saying take the "L" off and put the pilings here so that
they are 1n line and not going out any further into the
waterway. That would make this consistent. we would deem it
consistent with LWRP.
MS. MESIANO: Right. I amended my application. You don't
have the amended. Because I eliminated this and did put it
down here.
MS. MOORE: The only problem with that is I don't know
what is there now. The concern that my client had is that
what was there presently was stairs down, I think.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This here, and what was proved --
MS. MOORE: Yes. It needs some form of a platform at the
end because to bring a boat up to the end of the dock you need
some fixed area.
TRUSTEE KING: That's what they call a dock.
MS. MOORE: well, yes, this dock, the original
steps down and unfortunately you don't really have
TRUSTEE KING: Just do away with the steps and
two pilings.
MS. MESIANO: That was my intention, to eliminate the
steps.
MS. MOORE: But possibly expand the end somewhat, because
one had
anything.
bring the
9
you have four feet that goes out and then how do you tie
you are tying the boat to the front --
TRUSTEE KING: That's what the two poles are for, tying up
the boat and so --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The poles are for tyi~g up the boat.
MS. MOORE: So there is a here and a t1e there.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. And they walk off the platform.
MS. MESIANO: we eliminated this step, which was what was
approved before. We put an pile here and a pile here for the
purpose of securing the boat, and then they'll need the normal
string to keep it off the dock, but this dock is fixed and you
don't have a tremendous rise and fall in tides. So my
objective was to, when the boat was tied, side to the end of
the fixed dock --
MS. MOORE: It would be perpendicular to the end of the
boat
MS. MESIANO: Yes. Then, again you could gain access to
the boat here and the boat would be something with an
eight-foot draft, a whaler of some sort.
page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
TRUSTEE KING: Eight foot beam, I think, you mean,
catherine.
MS. MESIANO: Yes, sorry. Eight foot beam. So we would
still not be out here a long way.
The reason that it was proposed here other than here was
the distance over the wetland and also the depths of the
water.
MS. MOORE: What was the width of this end platform at the
time? was it 4x8 --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There was no platform. It was a 4x40 foot
dock, and the steps were 6x2 foot.
MS. MOORE: Maybe designing something like the neighbor
has across the way which is a narrow, very narrow.
MS. MESIANO: That would probably be less safe.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. I like the idea of what has been
talked about; it's a walkway out or catwalk out with a pole
here and pole there, and not to go further seaward of the
dock.
MS. MESIANO: So this now is going to come in line with
this and we are goinV to eliminate the "L."
MS. MOORE: What s the water depth here?
MS. MESIANO: we are trying to keep it under two foot.
Here is a better copy, so you could see. so he's at two to
two-and-a-half foot, so we are at that depth because he's
going to tie off the docks. He's not bumping. So he's in two
to two-and-a-half feet of water.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay.
MS. MOORE: All right.
MS. MESIANO: So we'll add one pole to what I had proposed
and eliminating the "L".
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
10
MS. MESIANO: There is one other modification.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Not what you originally proposed.
MS. MOORE: No, it's what you just revised.
MS. MESIANO: Right. I just want to make that clear. And
there is one other revision pursuant to the prospective
purchaser's request. we are renewing the permit for the house
and garage, and I would like to add, within the building
envelope, 75 feet back from the edge of the wetland, a pool of
18x36 and to extend --
TRUSTEE KING: This is an awful lot.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay, hang on. Jim, if I may. what you
are asking for is amendment to the permit for the house,
correct?
MS. MESIANO: We reoriented the house. Same house.
Reoriented it. And one of the conditions of the contract was
can I get a pool. I demonstrated that there is room for a
pool and still be able to meet all your qualifications.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And what I'm saying, come back to us with
that as an amendment to that permit that was issued. In other
words we are not going to attach this to the dock, okay?
MS. MESIANO: Okay, that's fine.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we should maybe wait until you
transfer the permit to the new buyer.
page 9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
MS. MOORE: We are actually now in contract. what's your
deadline for -- so the next will be a transfer with that
amendment, so. we'll be back anyway, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay. CAC approved, just so you know,
they resolved to support the application.
So what I'm proposing then is that we approve this
amendment to -- we first off extend permit 6047, then we
approve the amendment to 6047 to reflect that we are removing
the stairs, from what was ori~inally approved at the end of
the dock. We are then approvlng the two pilings, one on
either side of the dock, not to go seaward of the dock, not to
extend seaward of the dock.
TRUSTEE KING: we are eliminatin~ the "L."
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are eliminatlng the "L," Thank you.
MS. MESIANO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: IS that a motion? I make that as a
motion.
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
DOHERTY: Second.
BERGEN: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
BERGEN: Thank you.
KING: Can we get a new
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
that, Cathy?
MS. MESIANO: Yes, I'll have
you as soon as possible.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
set of plans reflecting
that drawn up and get it to
11
1
2
3
4
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Young & Young on behalf of Nancy
Carroll requests an Amendment to permit #6316 to demolish the
existing residence and replace an existing first floor framing
in its entirety, maintaining the existing footprint. Located:
350 west Lake Drive, Southold.
Is there anyone here who would like to speak?
MR. CHAST: (sic) My name is Bob chast, I'm from Young &
Young, 400 Ostrander Avenue, Riverhead. We are here basically
to maintain the existing house, maintain the footprint that
was approved already by the Trustees and the Building
Department but replace the first floor structure; in other
words, the sheathin~ and the floor supports, the floor joists
and repair and rebulld some of the foundation wall, in lieu of
patch and repair. Basically that's it. Nothing changes in
regard to setback, size of house, distance to the property
lines, distance to the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: okay. I believe when the board went
out and looked at this, we felt that the footprint had been
expanded, and at this time -- do you have outstanding
violations at this time on this piece?
MR. CHAST: There was a stop order issued by the Building
Department. That's one of the reasons why we are here. This
was done without benefit of going to the Building Department
on behalf of the owner and contractor.
However, the footprint is not being extended, I assure
you. But you can see by the application in front of you, the
site plan that was submitted in March, with the Trustee
Page 10
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
approval at the time, and the new one that the footprint is
exactly the same. There may be some overburden on the soil.
TRUSTEE KING: what was approved in the permit was a
second-story addition, not a complete demolition of the
house. The feeling of the board is to deny this amendment and
you'll have to reapply for a permit to build that house the
way it's being built now.
MR. CHAST: AS part of the permit and part of the building
permit, we were demolishing, selectively demolishing most of
the first floor.
TRUSTEE KING: we were out there and it looks like the
whole thing is selectively demolished.
MR. CHAST: I agree with you on that. The first floor
structure has actually been removed.
TRUSTEE KING: It's just a big hole in the ground now. It
went far beyond what the original permit was issued for.
That's our point.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The original permit says wetland permit
to construct a front porch, one-car garage and second-floor of
existing dwelling -- there is no existing dwelling at this
point -- and renovate and alter existing first-floor within
existing footprint. And the board is inclined to rescind this
permit, deny your amendment, and have you come in for a new
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
permit, because you extended the parameters of your existing
permit.
MR. CHAST: If I could, I think the altering and restore
the existing first floor was part of the work, and that really
meant taking most of the walls down to the deck. The thing
that really changed is the floor deck itself.
TRUSTEE KING: But the deck is not even there anymore.
MR. CHAST: Not the deck, I mean the structural flooring
for the first floor.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And the excavation has gone beyond the
boundaries of the footprint.
MR. CHAST: The excavation is part of the garage and steps
and the porch.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But that was not part of our original
permit.
MR. CHAST: The garage extension I think was part of the
original permit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The excavation that was being done --
MR. CHAST: The excavate to build the gara~e, you mean?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: what we saw out in the fleld we felt the
excavation was beyond what was necessary with the permit that
was given. So we would like to just have you come back in and
re-review the whole project.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: well, apply for a new permit. Apply for
an entirely new permit; to rescind the permit that was
originally provided to the carroll's, or MS. carroll, and to
apply for a new one to accurately reflect the job that this
now this project has turned into.
MR. CHAST: okay, I'll pass that on to my client. My
position is that really there is really very little change
except, it may look like a big hole. And I understand that.
page 11
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
Because the flooring is gone. But basically if the flooring
was there it would be no reason for me to be here tonight.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Again, the feeling of the board was --
and I'll make a motion to deny the amendment to permit #6316,
and to rescind permit #6316 so that you can come in and
reapply with new plans. IS there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number four, proper-T Permit services
on behalf of Cleaves Point condominiums requests an Amendment
to permit #6384 to place 200 cubic yards of clean
light-textured sandy soil to create a dune-like feature 155
feet long by 15 feet wide, to be planted with native species
and such other vegetation as recommended in the USDA-NRCS
suggested planting plan dated June 21, 2006. Located: 2820
shlpyard Lane, East Marion.
The board reviewed this and has no problem with this
13
1 amendment as per the DEC request and the applicant's request,
so I make a motion to -- Yes. Sorry.
2 MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald, proper-T permit
Services. The description here, if you write the amendment
3 that way, it doesn't cover the rock revetment and that in fact
is where the change is. we originally asked for 40x12 feet
4 and the DEC in their wisdom said they thought that was much
more than what was needed. They just want one row, two or 300
5 pound stones. So the dimensions of the rock revetment are
changed on the plan to 40x2 feet. And that should be included
6 as part of the description.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: okay.
7 TRUSTEE KING: So the size of the revetment is reduced to
40 feet long by two feet wide.
8 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the original -- we just, the
plan says 15 feet wide in the written text. And then it shows
9 40 feet here. So it has, it's contradicting. so this
description here --
10 MR. FITZGERALD: This applies to the shaded area and this
applies to the little box there.
11 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So this is not in the description I
read.
12 MR. FITZGERALD: And if you put it in --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: okay. So the amendment is for the
13 proposed rock revetment, 40 feet long and two feet wide as per
the plan received October 27, 2006.
14 I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
15 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
16
TRUSTEE KING: Number Five, Proper-T Permit Services on
17 behalf of the Cutchogue-New suffolk park District requests the
last one-year extenslon to Permit #5832 as issued on November
18 19, 2003. Located: 9430 Skunk Lane, cutchogue.
Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim, I have this. IS there anybody
here?
MR. FITZGERALD: I'm here.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is for the gazebo. They did the
fence, the wood fence and they did the walkway. Has the
gazebo been built? This 9azebo has not been built yet?
MR. FITZGERALD: That s correct.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's a storage shed.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is a storage shed and a gazebo next
to the storage shed. This is an additional gazebo, correct?
MR. FITZGERALD: That's the old.
TRUSTEE KING: What's the proposed location there?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The proposed location is sort of
TRUSTEE KING: Did we have a set of stamped plans that we
approved?
14
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is May 10.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: NO, these are not stamped.
TRUSTEE KING: Is it in the resolution on the permit?
What does it say on the permit?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the permit it says wetland permit to
construct covered wood gazebo. But I remember we looked at it
and we wanted -- we met you there.
MR. FITZGERALD: We went over the boardwalk thing on the
inside, on the landward side of the fence. Remember that?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But this is not on -- what we are
looking for is a stamped survey of where -- (perusing.) This
is the bath house, this is the picnic area.
TRUSTEE KING: These plans are from 2005, May of 2005.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: These plans here are from 2000. These
are very old.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I remember we changed the original
location and there is nothing here and nothing on our permit
that specifies. I remember we moved it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is this where you want it, where the
picture shows.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's where the original flags were.
I don't see anything else in here.
MR. FITZGERALD: well, if you would be inclined to extend
the existing permit, whatever it is, then we would get, we,
will get straightened out, whatever the problem is, because as
I said, I thought that --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, that's fine, once we can look at
the location again.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll extend it and go out and look and
make sure it's going to the right place.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Could you stake it for December so we
could look at it?
MR. FITZGERALD: Sure.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we moved it closer to the picnic area.
Instead of it being -- they had it right in the middle,
between the existing gazebo and the bath house. They had it
right in the middle, and we kind of moved you down toward the
terraced area.
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. And you don't have that drawing?
page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Apparently not.
MR. FITZGERALD: I'll ~et you everythin9 you need.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That s fine. So stake that before we
the permit.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the extension
we'll look at it next month to make sure the gazebo is in
right place.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.) (TRUSTEE GHOSIO ABSTAINS.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm going to abstain on this because I'm
get
and
the
15
not familiar with it.
TRUSTEE KING: Number six, peconic Associates on behalf of
west Lake Associates, requests a one-year extension to Permit
#6053 as approved on December 20, 2004. Located: West Lake
Drive and Little peconic Bay Lane, Southold.
I believe this was for a dredging project and also a
bulkhead. I don't think any changes have been made to the
plans. we'll give them another year.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
(TRUSTEE GHOSIO ABSTAINS.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm abstaining on that as well. I am not
familiar with the application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: patricia C. Moore on behalf of Gabriel
scibelli requests a Transfer of permit #5581 from patricia
wiederman to Gabriel scibelli to rebuild the damaged bulkhead
and as issued on June 26, 2002. Located: 450 Cedar Point Drive
East, Southold.
we reviewed this and I will make a motion to transfer the
permit. should we do separate motion for emergency fill or can
I make it all in one?
MR. JOHNSTON: Make it all in one.
TRUSTEE KING: pat, did you get an estimate of fill that
you'll need?
MS. MOORE: I already submitted it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I just don't have the file in front of
me.
MS. MOORE: It's 125 cubic yards of fill. I have it, the
drawing is in your packet, but I'll get you another one.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: okay. This section of bulkhead was
blown out in the last storm and they lost a lot of fill. So
in the motion to transfer the permit for the 90 feet of
bulkheading, I also will make a motion to grant an emergency
permit to place approximately 125 cubic yards of fill in
redoing this.
MS. MOORE: There you see, I had Bob FOX write up
specifically with the area, the shaded areas, 125 feet where
the clean fill needs to be installed. obviously you saw it
when you were, when you went out there. The 90 feet of
damaged bulkhead is along the southeasterly end of the
page 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
bulkhead, and then I just filed, as a matter of fact this
week, for next month, the amendment to this permit to replace
the balance of the bulkhead. So, it will come up in your next
meeting.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: what do you mean? Because we were
saying we wanted a full permit for the rest of the
bulkheading.
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
MS. MOORE: I filled out a full application but I thought
you said do it as an amendment of this.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There is no permits for the rest of
the structures on the property, so there is nothing to amend.
MS. MOORE: I think I just owe you a fee difference,
Lauren. I came so many times this week I'm trying to remember
what I paid.
MS. STANDISH: If it's an extension to the existing
bulkhead you can amend it to the rest of the bulkhead.
MS. MOORE: November 15, I filled out the full application
but I'll have to check my checkbook to see if I paid you $250
or $150. I don't know
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was extensive and there is this
bulkheadin9 up here. This doesn't have permits. we felt it
was extenslve enough that we wanted to see full permit.
MS. MOORE: The same paperwork is there. Yes, that's
fine.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: okay.
TRUSTEE KING: could we ~ive them ~n emergency permit?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That s what I Just proposed.
TRUSTEE KING: And then a float permit for the whole thing
to include that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what I just did.
MS. MOORE: Sorry, Jim, I couldn't hear you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right now she is only here to transfer
the existing permit, which is 90 feet, and to then -- and then
the new person fix that and what is not included in that
permit is all the fill, so we'll give them an emergency permit
to replace the fill. she then has to apply for the rest of
the stuff that she wants to do. And we can discuss later
whether we do it with an amendment or full permit.
MS. MOORE: YOU have the same paperwork. It's just a fee
difference.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: so we'll discuss that later because
it's not in front of us tonight. so I'll repeat my motion to
transfer permit #5581 from patricia wiederman to Gabriel
scibelli to rebuild, which the permit is for 90 feet of
bulkhead on the east side of the property and an emergency
permit to place approximately 125 cubic yards behind the
bulkhead according to the plan dated -- does anybody see a
date?
MS. MOORE: Dated November 14, 2006. very small print on
the bottom.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: okay. Dated November 14, 2006. I make
that motion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
Page 15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: MS. Moore, one thing you might want to
a look at before you come back with the other permit, on
take
17
1 the left side, near the return that is coming landward, that
soil there has been eroded and there is, it's got an odor as
2 if oil or creosote or something is in there. YOU may want to
take a look at that to see what we could do to remediate
3 that.
MS. MOORE: That's on the opposite, on the west side of
4 the property?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes.
5 MS. MOORE: I'll have the client ask the contractor who
ultimately works on this to take a look. Thank you.
6 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go over to the
7 regular hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
8 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
COASTAL EROSION AND WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: we'll go over to our public hearing
section. These are our public hearings.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: NOw that we have gone to public hearings
we will entertain comments from the audience. we are asking
you to please limit your comments to five minutes. we are
going to coastal erosion and wetland permits, number one is
Julie MCGivney on behalf of Karnick and Haci Garipian requests
a Wetland permit and Coastal Erosion permit to replace,
in-place, the existing bulkhead or repair same, dismantle the
dilapidated steps to beach, cap off the unused clay drain hole
leading to the beach, remove existing portion of deck landing
seaward of the bulkhead, and plant a ten-foot non-turf buffer
east of the deck along the top of the bulkhead. Remove
existing enclosed porch and renovate and enlarge the existing
dwelling, install drywells and new sanitary system, if
required. Located: 54715 North Road, southold.
NOw, the applicant came before us last month with this
and we explained that there was an outstanding violation and
that we would not rule on this until that violation was taken
care of. Has this violation been taken care of?
MS. MCGIVNEY: Yes, it was disposed of. There was an
unconditional discharge.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay. All right, now, I know, again, we
went over this last month and talked about various issues.
would you like to -- we'll give you a chance to make some
comments here, if you have any.
MS. MCGIVNEY: The only thing I just want to mention,
first of all, is the application had requested also to include
for a foundation permit that the Building Department required,
and that's not in the description. I just wanted to make sure
page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
18
that's in there, and I don't think I have anything further
than that. we have gone through, pretty much, everything.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The CAC resolved to support this
application.
MR. JOHNSTON: Julie, do you have documentation on the
resolution of the court thing.
MS. MCGIVNEY: I do. I apologize, I thought --
MR. JOHNSTON: we would automatically get it. Right
MS. MCGIVNEY: Not automatically.
MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, they E-mailed it to me.
MS. MCGIVNEY: unfortunately I only have the one copy.
MR. JOHNSTON: That's okay. I just want to look at it.
I'll just tell wayne that I've looked at it and stipulate it's
in the record.
MS. MCGIVNEY: (Handing).
MR. JOHNSTON: (perusing). Thank you
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, just briefly to review from last
month, we talked about the bulkhead being replaced in-place
with helix screws going into the bluff to help reduce the
damage to that short bluff, correct, you recall that?
MS. MCGIVNEY: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Great. I just wanted to make sure we went
over that again. This was, inltially last month found
inconsistent, the reason being the residence is within 100
feet of the bluff. And, I'm sorry, I don't have the minutes
from the last meeting, but I believe we talked about the need
for drywells, gutters to help mitigate any water runoff to
help address the LWRP concerns.
MS. MCGIVNEY: Right. Drywells would be at the top near
the bluff.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking for the coastal erosion line
on this, through the porch.
MS. MCGIVNEY: It goes through the porch.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There we go. Is there anybody else from
the public that wishes to make any comments or address the
board regarding this application?
(NO response.)
Were there any other comments from the board with regard
to this application?
(No response.)
If not, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve this permit
as read, Julie MCGivney, Esq., on behalf of the Garipian's
with the inclusion of the items that we talked about at our
last meeting, our October meeting. So we'll make sure we go
back to the minutes of the October meeting to make sure they
are included in here, to make sure they are included in this
Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
19
project, will be gutters, downspouts and drywells; that there
will be staked hay bale line, between -- seaward of the house,
between the house and the bluff, the top of the bluff; that
there is, as noted on the permit, a non-turf buffer of ten
feet, that we make sure that's included in there.
MS. MCGIVNEY: Sorry to interrupt you. CAC requested it
go across the entire bluff line, where we only had it on the
right.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. We'll ask it go across the
entire bluff line. Again, we'll refer to the minutes, but
we'll make sure the bulkhead is inkind, in-place, with the use
of helix, deadmen rods, so to speak so there is not the need
to excavate the old deadmen or pull any of that out of there.
Since it was mentioned before, I'll mention again, don't
use CCA lumber. We want to make sure since that was used
before that it's not used again. That's what caused the
violation.
MS. MCGIVNEY: Right, and will that also include --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, as required by the Building
Department. Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
(TRUSTEE GHOSIO ABSTAINS.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll be abstaining on this one. I'm not
familiar with the project.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: For the record, the mitigation efforts
will deem it consistent under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Young & Young, on behalf of Robert G.
Bombara requests a Wetland permit and Coastal Erosion permit
to construct a single-family dwelling, detached garage,
swimmin~ pool and associated water supply and sewage disposal
facilitles. Located: 1725 North Sea Drive, southold.
MR. DANOWSKI: I would. My name is pete Danowski. I have
been recently retained by Mr. Bombara to appear here tonight.
Representatives of Young & Young are present. Doug Adams, our
engineer is in the audience as well as Jeff siemen, our
environmental consultant.
I would like to hand up the affidavit of posting is
signed and additional Mr. Adams has produced some further
mapping that we would like to have you further provided with,
if I could approach to hand up the document.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure.
MR. JOHNSTON: Lauren, who is the agent?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Young & Young.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We just have Young & Young. We don't
have anything from peter Danowski.
MS. STANDISH: He's not the agent of.
20
page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
MR. DANOWSKI: Mr. Bombara may be heading down here
tonight so -- he is here. So, he can certainly give you the
authority for me to make this presentation.
MR. JOHNSTON: Did you do that, sir?
MR. BOMBARA: Yes.
MR. DANOWSKI: Maybe I'll wait for all the distribution
before I make any comment.
There are three distinct sheets each one of you should
have.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: okay, I think we have all of them in
front of us
MR. DANOWSKI: Thank you. I would like to start out by
saying I recognize you routinely deal with coastal erosion
hazard areas and the permit process, but you have to take a
look at the purpose for the statute itself, and going back to
its initial enactment in 1981 one it was referred to as the
shore owners protection Act, to protect the owners from
erosion caused to their own property. And I point that out
because after that enabling legislation most towns, as did the
Town of southold, adopted a code basically incorporating the
codes that were used by the state in the enabling
legislation.
But again, the purpose was to locate areas where there
was erosion. And where those areas were identified, the state
presumably produced an accurate map. Now, as much as I say
that, the state has an obligation under that statute to
revisit the issue every ten years. They are supposed to come
out, take a look and see if there is a change of
circumstances. Also, they are, if there is a big storm,
supposed to come out and evaluate after a year whether the map
should be changed.
I make mention of it because when we looked at the
particular mapped area on this particular lot, and the
surroundings, we found that there is accretion rather than
erosion on these particular lots in the vicinity. so it is
not longterm subject to erosion.
I'll be handing up a copy of the existing county tax map
as well as a copy of the old deed and the new deed that has
been handed in to Mr. Bombara. The reason I hand these
documents up is back that in 1947, there was an original
mapping done by a gentleman named Miller. It covered the lots
in the area. In 1947, deeds were passed, in that time period
and immediately thereafter, which located the descriptive term
for the lot. So we have these descriptions on lots that were
then placed on the Suffolk county tax map.
Recently, if someone bothered to order a new survey, the
surveyor would go out there, re-identify the water lines and
locate the lot with descriptions. And what we found out, and
you can notice it on the copy of the tax map, I point out,
there is a bump out, and actually there is an accretion on
21
1
2
these lots as opposed to erosion. From 1947 until now the
beach has actually been added to. And that is very important
when we consider what was the purpose in the state legislation
and what is this board's purpose when they evaluate someone
Page 19
NOVMIN-FINAL
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
asking for a permit.
NOW we are here, Young & Young have filed for Mr. Bombara
the permit application, and Mr. Bombara is the owner of land.
It is often said and in some quiet bit of jest on the
telephone to me today, he said he's an attorney -- I met the
gentleman only through this application -- and he says maybe
the old saying is true. when an attorney represents himself,
he has a fool for a client.
And the reason I say that is that he contracted to buy
this property without a condition that it was subject to the
issuance of a building permit. He, however, went to the area,
looked on the public road to the left and to the right of his
lot and saw some beautiful homes being built. Some of those
were under reconstruction. And maybe all of them were. so he
knew people were working on homes and improving them. There
are several very nice wood frame structures. There is one at
the far east end next to the municipal parking field. They
are beautiful, and in fact Mr. Bombara just presumed that he
would have the right to build.
He was smart enough, however, he tells me to go and ask
people in the Building Department whether he could build the
house he wanted, and he described it by square footage, and I
think it's excellent that people in the Building Department
will respond to a member of the public, have a conversation
and advise them what they honestly feel are the facts. And
they advised him he could build his house.
He then closed on it for $1.1 million for a vacant lot.
He is now told he has to go through this process and is here
before you.
I truly believe the Buildin~ Department looked at the
zoning code, looked at the buildlng setbacks, looked at the
area lot where you could locate your house and what size house
you could locate. whoever he spoke to, obviously honestly
gave him an opinion. He relied on it. That's said.
we are here now to talk about what are the natural
features on the property and is there erosion or isn't there.
I'll hand up these documents -- Doug, if you could hand up the
tax map, a copy of the old deed as well as the new deed. Just
for the record. (Handing).
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: At this point, before we go any
further, I think the feeling of the full board is that at this
point we don't feel we can give an approval of something that
is against what our existing codes are. so if you have more
to say, if you can condense it.
MR. DANOWSKI: I will condense it. I just need to put my
comments on the record as to the points of law with regard to
22
1
2
3
4
this and I would like to, not to burden Lauren on this, but I
recognize that permits have issued on that street and I need
to have the record incorporate, and we can certainly
incorporate by reference, the permits that have issued by this
board for, and you may have an opinion that these all dealt
with non-vacant lots, but permits did issue from this board
for coastal zone erosion permits, and I will indicate the
names at least for this point: (sic) paskov, Betche, Von
page 20
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
zubin, pearlstein, Rosicki, Sonnenborn. I would just merely
ask that rather than copy all the documents and put them in
the record, that we just make reference to those permits so
that the record in those files could be available for any
review.
MR. JOHNSTON: Peggy, would you be happy to stipulate
that?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Sure.
MR. DANOWSKI: I'm saying whatever permits you issued on
that street, I would just like to make part of the record. It
saves a lot of copying costs.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: okay. To continue to that note. The
information you just gave us, the two surveys and the two
maps, there is no coastal erosion line on any of those four or
am I not looking at the fine print?
MR. DANOWSKI: Let me make comment on that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: okay, but I just wanted to make a
comment that when and if they do come in, we always ask for
that to be so the survey.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Coastal erosion line must be on the
survey.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: In the file, but not on the ones we
just recently got. I also want to mention that the CAC doesn't
support the application because development seaward of the
coastal erosion line is prohibited as per chapter 111 of the
Town Code and also LWRP review has come in inconsistent with
similar issues, so.
MR. DANOWSKI: The issue is, and I think I have been shown
the coastal zone erosion map, I'm not sure what the date was
on that map, but it certainly on that public roadway, and I
recognize it's your position that the entire parcel is seaward
of that mapped line.
We all recognize, however, that the map line was from
aerial photography, even I think the state will admit it's a
pencil mark on a map that has a certain width. Some people
suggest it's as much as 30 feet. But I think better than the
map, I think your board, a9reeing with me or not, would be
similar to most boards saYlng erosion or lack of erosion or
accretion is something that happens from year to year and
happens longterm. so similar to the wetland ordinances where
someone said it's nice you produced a map from 20 years ago
where a wetlands is, we want you to go back out there and have
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
an expert in the field relocate the map and have a
governmental person, be it the state or the town, relocate the
boundaries and identify what the features are. And that's why
I say, even though there may be a map produced by the state,
which you refer to in your ordinance, which must be updated
every ten years, you have to go out there and identify the
features.
One of the plans that I submit before you establishes the
position of my client and Young & Young. And that is that this
is a beach area. It is a beach area by definition. The
definition talks about a physiographic change. That change is
on the one map that we produced for you. We have distanced
Page 21
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
the hundred feet which is referenced in your code and in the
state regulations. And that beach area is something to be
protected. It is something we do not wish to build on. In
all our building constructlon is outside that area.
Now, I recognize you may take the position that the
entire lot cannot be built on. I don't believe that is a fair
view of the law. I believe you are allowed to issue permits.
Even on secondary dune areas, the state legislation allows you
to do that. I think your own law allows you to do that.
Albeit the type of construction, the raising of the building,
the posts, the open area, as far as the foundation, are a
requirement.
So all I'm suggesting to you, as politely as I can, still
taking a position that may be contrary to yours, is that there
is a map. The map is outdated. The map is a reference
point. It's what is on that site today that should be
governing your decisions. And I'm suggesting and Young &
Young is suggesting and Mr. Jeffrey Sleman is suggesting,
there is a beach area. The beach has accreted, lt'S probably
40 feet of additional beach that's there. The beach goes over
into the grass beach area and we are staying out of that
area.
I believe you have the power and the authority to
consider granting a permit with whatever conditions. And I
will say this. I read through some of the conditions you
placed on the other permits you issued. I thought they were
fair, I thought they were reasonable and I thought the houses
that got reconstructed are well done, and I commend the board
and the owners of those properties. Because I think they are
very attractive, they are well done and they consider things
as replanting beach grass, no turf grass, build-on on poles
and you made a decislon in those particular cases; each one is
different, each one you considered and you rendered a
decision.
All I'm saying as part of my presentation here is I
believe if you evaluate that lot, look at the accretion, make
a determination, that you are allowed to issue a permit. And
that is my comment for the day.
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: okay. I want to make a comment to
that, then see if anyone else wants to speak.
You mentioned things, permits and buildings that have
been done in the past and one of the things we are always
doing is looking ahead and not looking back, and always
reviewing and revising how we see things and taking into
consideration, you know, as much new information, scientific,
et cetera. And one of the things we'll continue to do, when
Jim mentioned at the beginning of the meeting we have been
reviewing, we as a board have been working very seriously,
meeting after meeting after meeting, with revising our codes,
for shellfish and the mooring; 275 is in the midst of
revisions and Chapter 111 will also be updated and reviewed,
and comments that you have made tonight can certainly be taken
into consideration.
But as per this application, I believe our board has come
page 22
5
6
7
8
9
10
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
to a decision, unless there is anyone else here that wanted to
speak to this.
MR. BAIS: (sic) My name is christian Bais. Just so I'm on
the right page and at the right nanosecond of time, I want to
make sure we are asking about 54-4-19.
I'm a resident of the village of southold and I have an
interest in this situation because seven families in the
village of southold have owned the adjacent two lots, which
continue to be vacant to this property. we have been making
an effort over the last two years with the land preservation
committee of the Town of southold and others to donate the
development rights on our two parcels.
I would suggest that this land owner, rather than pursue
this course on this property, talk to the land preservation
committee about purchasing the development rights off of his
parcel. Otherwise any action to the contrary will jeopardize
the seven families who have owned this property, these two
lots adjacent to this lot in question, we'll seek expeditious
concluslon of their permits to build two more houses there as
well and while the town watches a defeat for waterfront land
preservation. Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Anyone else here tonight who would
like to speak for or against this application?
(NO response.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No one is raising their hand. I'll make
a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor.
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have a resolution before me that I
would like to read into the record. The Board of Trustees
took the following action during its regular meeting held on
wednesday, November 15, 2006, regarding the above matter:
WHEREAS Young & Young as agents for Robert G. Bombara applied
25
1
2
3
4
to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under prOV1Slons of
the wetland ordinance under chapter 275 of the town wetland
code and chapter 111 of the Town Code of the Town of southold,
application dated October 17, 2006; whereas said application
was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory
council and the Local waterfront Revitalization program
coordinator for their findings and recommendations.
WHEREAS the southold Town Conservation Advisory council
resolved to not support the wetland permit and coastal erosion
permit applications because development seaward of the coastal
erosion hazard area is prohibited as per chapter 111 of the
Town Code and;
WHEREAS the proposal has been found to be inconsistent
with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program as no
construction is allowed seaward of the coastal erosion hazard
area;
WHEREAS here the natural protective feature is a beach
area and;
WHEREAS a public hearing was held by the Town Trustees
with respect to said application on November 15, 2006, at
Page 23
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to
be heard, and;
WHEREAS the staff of the Trustees and town have first
reviewed and are familiar with the premise in question and
surrounding area and have reported to the trustees regarding
the location of the proposed development, and;
WHEREAS the proposed construction is located on the
natural protective feature of a beach as per definitions in
chapter 111, coastal erosion hazard areas of the Town code.
WHEREAS the board has considered all the testimony and
documentation submitted concerning this application.
WHEREAS a single-family dwelling garage and swimming pool
do not require a shoreline location and;
WHEREAS according to chapter 111-12 of the Town Code
beach area D, all development is prohibited on beaches, unless
specifically provided for by that chapter and the proposed
development is not provided for as such and;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees
deny without prejudice the application of Robert G. Bombara to
construct a single-family dwelling with detached garage,
swimming pool and associated water supply and sewage disposal
facilitles because of the following reason.
In accordance with chapter 111, coastal erosion hazard
area, all development is prohibited on beaches in the coastal
erosion hazard area.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this determination should not
be considered a determination made by any other department or
agency which may also have an application pending for the same
or similar projects.
very truly yours, Jim King, President of the Board of
26
1 Trustees.
Second?
2 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?
3 (ALL AYES.)
(TRUSTEE GHOSIO ABSTAINS.)
4 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll be abstaining. I did not see the
project.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Under wetland perm~ts. Number one,
Arthur R. Torell requests a wetland permlt to construct a
single-family dwelling, one-car garage, gravel driveway and
sanltary system. Located: 365 westwood Lane, Greenport.
The board looked at this a couple of months ago. To
refresh your memory, it was a wooded lot that was very narrow
and the house was very narrow. We talked about maybe moving
the house west. There was an easement that we needed more
information on and, um, I'll see if I covered it all. Yes. If
you look at the pictures, notes. (perusing.) Yes, September
13, we went out and looked at it. If you could give us a
minute to refresh our memories here. If you want to look at
the pictures. (perusing.)
page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
TRUSTEE KING: I thought we were going to try to get them
to move the septic.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we asked them for a bunch of information
which we have and we haven't had time to review. DO you
remember this, Dave, it was a very narrow lot?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't remember it at all.
TRUSTEE KING: When I parked the van, the wheel almost
fell off the side of the road.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Deep in the woods?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay. Bingo. This was deep back into
the woods. okay, I do remember it now.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: A permit was given in 2002 and it has
not been constructed and the permit has been expired, so they
have to come in and reapply.
what we asked for was agreement on the easement and I
don't know if - but I don't know if that was ever mentioned.
we have a lot of information here.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. TORELL: I am. I'm the property owner, Arthur
Torell. If I may, I want to point out that I did mail it. It
should have been arrived Monday. The documents that were
submitted to the Suffolk county attorney for the easement,
they have all been approved and at this point the Health
Department is writing the permit. The DEC permit, they
27
already have and they have both been written into the --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: DO we have a copy of the DEC permit?
MR. TORELL: Yes, you should have one.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: IS it in the packet you sent Monday?
MR. TORELL: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: If I remember right, we tried to move the
house further to the west to get it away from the wetland more
MR. TORELL: When I got the call a month ago from the
Trustees' office I called peconic surveyor and his comment
was, um, you would have to go before the Planning Board and
possibly get ten feet back further. But that ten feet would
probably equate to four or five feet being further away from
the wetlands, with that corner of the home. In other words
it's so narrow that moving it back means --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But we wanted to shift it west which
would -- we've got it 40 feet away from the wetland, when we
were out there.
MR. TORELL: But the question to me was move the house
back in the lot.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: NO. If you want to come up here, I'll
show you from the survey that you have. (Indicating.) The
farther west you go, move it this way. The wetland, not back
that way, but this way.
MR. TORELL: But it's this corner here that's the issue.
So John said if I move it back ten, if the planning Board
would give me that ten feet or 12 feet, it would mean like
four feet right here. Because it's, it doesn't, you know, cut
away. It's a shallow, soft marker.
page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Can the house be smaller?
MR. TORELL: It's only 25x47 right now. I mean, I'm sort
of shoed in to whatever the DEC and the Health Department have
suggested and given me as far as a building lot.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have to review, we have the easement
that we asked for, because the cesspools are in the easement.
That's what he submitted to us. We just got that on Monday.
A copy of that. I think I would like our legal people to
review these documents.
Is there any other comment from the audience, for or
against?
(NO response.)
I don't see a copy of the DEC permit. Do you have a
copy? The CAC resolved not to support the application. The
CAC, because the proposed structures are too close to the
wetland, however if the Board of Trustees voted in favor of
the construction, existing deteriorated hay bales should be
replaced. And it is found inconsistent with LWRP.
MR. TORELL: IS doesn't say --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: NO, this is the easement. This is the
easement. This is not DEC.
MR. TORELL: oh, that's the easement.
28
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. which we have a copy of that. The
DEC wi 11 cl earl y say "DEC" on it.
MR. TORELL: I'm positive that was sent, but I could send
another.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you could get us a copy of That, that
would be good. The LWRP is inconsistent because of the
100-foot setback.
Is there any other comments from the board?
(NO response.)
I think we need more time to review these papers, so I
would like to table the hearing.
MR. TORELL: That's fine.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we might want to -- Peggy is saying
maybe meet somebody out in the field next month on our next
field inspection to discuss the design.
MR. TORELL: Sure, myself or I should bring the surveyor
or the ~entleman from the DEC. I have been trying to
accompllsh this and build this house for a while. This would
be like the third and fourth permit I have applied for, since
way back when, and for a number of reasons, family, kids, it's
always been pushed aside.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our field inspections are December 6.
It's a wednesday. so we'll get in touch with you as to the
approximate time or whatever.
MR. TORELL: All right.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And if you could make sure the stakes
are still there.
MR. TORELL: I will.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we can discuss our concerns further
and review the easement paperwork. We really want to be
careful on granting anything in an easement without reviewing
the paperwork properly.
Page 26
NOVMIN-FINAL
17 MR. TORELL: All right. Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I'll make a motion to table this
18 application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
19 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
20
21
22
23
24
TRUSTEE KING: Number two, Eugene and Maryann Krupski
request a wetland permit to clean up and restore the existing
pond to include the removal of lilies, one tree, brush and
poison ivy, and relocate the driveway. Located: 2230 Soundview
Avenue, Mattituck.
Anyone here to comment on the application?
MS. KRUPKSI: I'm Marianne Krupski. I was here last time,
so.
TRUSTEE KING: so the violation has been resolved.
25 (perusing.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Did we get the surveys in? We needed a
29
1 survey to denote the property lines.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did you get us the survey that we asked
2 for?
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
MS. KRUPSKI: NO, I didn't know we were asked to get a
survey. I didn't hear that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: okay
TRUSTEE BERGEN: As you recall at the last meeting there
was a question of property lines going through this pond in
your requesting to take out vegetation in the pond and we
would need permission from the other property owners. That
was just one of the concerns that we had.
MS. KRUPSKI: Are any of them here, the other people, that
would be concerned? Because I don't think anyone cares either
way. Or they would be here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: well, we need that in writing.
MS. KRUPSKI: From them.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MS. KRUPSKI: That's fine. So can I continue with the
driveway and the tree that's on my part of the pond? Because
the excavator is coming tomorrow. And then the lilies would
be addressed with the other owners.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is the tree in the way of the
driveway?
MS. KRUPSKI: No, the tree is falling. when the excavator
is there, it's easier to remove it at the same time. It's
more convenient.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: YOU spoke to Allan Connell. What was
his position on the tree?
MS. KRUPSKI: who is he?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: From Natural Resources.
MS. KRUPSKI: I never spoke with Allan connell. The tree
is falling into the pond. It's dangerous.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, and when we were in the field we
asked you when you speak to Allan Connell, ask him. Because
you had originally asked that Kathleen Cole.
That's probably --
page 27
NOVMIN-FINAL
19 MS. KRUPSKI: There was a Nicole that came to the house.
TRUSTEE KING: I have a letter in here from her. I'm just
20 looking through it quick.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: DO you remember what her comment was
21 about the tree? Because you had asked how could we save that,
or support it or whatever.
22 MS. KRUPSKI: she didn't say anything either way. She
didn't have a comment. she said she did what she feels is
23 necessary. That was her comment.
TRUSTEE KING: She is recommending you wait until 2007.
24 MS. KRUPSKI: For the lilies. Not for the tree.
TRUSTEE KING: They are talking a lot of work on the pond,
25 excavation and everything. I don't have any problem with the
driveway. It's what's around the pond that's going to cause
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
30
us concern.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we can maybe separate the driveway.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't have a problem with the
driveway.
MS. KRUPSKI: what about the tree?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That would be included with the
excavation around the pond.
MS. KRUPSKI: The thing is they are coming tomorrow. It
will cost more money to come back.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You should have waited to see what
approval you got before you arranged for them to come.
MS. KRUPSKI: okay, but the tree is really on no one else'
property but mine.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We understand that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's part of the pond ecosystem. It's
part of that habitat at this point.
MS. KRUPSKI: But there is no one here rejecting to moving
it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: NO, we are saying we are concerned about
the removal of the tree. when we went out there in the field
inspection there had been a lot of work done removing, cutting
down and removing vegetation around that pond without a
permit. That's why there was a violation issued. You then
approached us about the tree and you approached us about using
herbicides in the pond. The last meeting there was somebody
who spoke, a neighbor who owns part of the pond who stated
that he was very concerned about using any chemicals in that
pond because of the wildlife that is contained within the
pond.
So what we are concerned about is that pond. We are
saying the driveway is okay but that tree we are not, what I'm
hearing right now is we are not goin~ to give you permission
to take that tree down right now untll we look at that entire
pond, whatever the project is for that pond. Because already
there was clearing done that we did not approve for which
there was a violation.
MS. KRUPSKI: But is there no herbicides removing the
tree.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand that. what I'm saying is we
are looking at the pond as an entire project that includes
Page 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
NOVMIN-FINAL
21 that tree.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't want to piecemeal that part of
22 the project.
MS. KRUPSKI: Wouldn't he be here if he was going to
23 reject that?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: our opinion is we don't want to
24 piecemeal that project. Whether everybody objects or nobody
objects, the board feels we don't want to piecemeal that part
25 of the project. We are willing to take the driveway part out
and piecemeal that part, but not the rest at this point.
31
MS. KRUPSKI: So what do I do? I have to keep coming
back?
TRUSTEE KING: Can we do a wetland for the permit for the
driveway and have her come in and amend that?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: She has a permit for the driveway, so
it's amendment, we can give her an amendment tonight for the
driveway. That's what we are all -- that's what
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was clarified in the minutes from
last month, Jim.
MS. KRUPSKI: There is a permit for 100 feet.
MS. STANDISH: That involves excavation or activity around
the pond.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They have a permit for the driveway. It
was 100 feet away, but the excavation was going to be within
100 feet. So they have a permit. They would like to move it
to 50 feet, which nobody has a problem with. So we can amend
that permit to move the driveway to 50 feet away. That's
permit #6264.
TRUSTEE KING: why don't we do that tonight.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can.
MS. KRUPSKI: And we still have to wait for the truck. So
what do I have to do? I have to come back again? That's all
I'm asking. How many times am I going to have to keep coming
back for the same issue?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If she likes we could deny that tonight.
And that way she doesn't have to come back. We can deny the
work on the pond.
MS. KRUPSKI: All together?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are asking not to come back again, so
we are saying, fine, we can deny it.
MS. KRUPSKI: Do you understand my point? HOW many times
do I have to come back, if no one even cares about removing
it?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We care.
MS. KRUPSKI: why do you care? It's a hazard. You even
said yourself, you have a la-year old son, you would not want
him on that tree either. That was your words
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I know. I did say that.
MS. KRUPSKI: So what's the problem?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The problem is we don't know exactly how
you are going to remove it. It's part of the ecosystem. We
don't want to piecemeal your project on that pond.
MS. KRUPSKI: I don't think that's piecemealin~ it. I
don't. It's not the lilies. It's not what's withln the
Page 29
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
water.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You want to come back to take out one
plant at a time? That's what you are askin~ for.
MS. KRUPSKI: I'm not really. I'm ask1n~ for safety on my
property so my child doesn't get hurt. That s what I'm asking
for. I'm not asking about the lilies. I could put them
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
aside. I'm asking for safety now.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand that. we asked for more
information.
TRUSTEE KING: This shouldn't turn into a debate. We need
a planting plan and a restoration plan for that pond, for
starters. We also need letters of permission for adjoining
p~operty owners to go along with this otherwise, it's part of
h1S property.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree. I would say give the amendment
for the driveway and we need to see a plan and the ownership
issue revolved.
TRUSTEE KING: You are going to have to have that
ownership resolved. Yes
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is information we asked for last
month and we need that information before we can make a
decision on it.
MS. KRUPSKI: A survey of the pond.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, a survey of the pond and a letter
from the adjacent owners of the pond and restoration plan,
planting plan, restoration plan. That's what we had asked for
MS. KRUPSKI: okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In the plan, if you are removing things,
we would like to know what you are going to replace them with.
I know you were not happy with the lilies, but in place of
that we would want you to put back into that pond vegetation.
MS. KRUPSKI: I don't want to put vegetation. I want to
put fish in there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: on the edge where it's completely clear,
we need to see vegetation.
MS. KRUPSKI: That's fine.
that now.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are saying we want to know ahead of
time when you do the removal. That's another thin~ we need to
decide. we need to know what it's going to look llke, what
you'll do to it, beside putting fish into, what it will look
like environmentally when you finished.
MS. KRUPSKI: I have another question. If I can't remove
the tree, can I cut the tree so I don't have to worry if he
goes up the tree. The limb doesn't go into the pond?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: NO.
MS. KRUPSKI: How do you keep a 10-year old from going
into a tree on your property.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we can't get
MS. KRUPSKI: I know, I'm just
a constant concern of mine that my
climb the tree.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY:
asked for last month,
I'm not even worried about
into parentin~.
saying, this 1S
son is going to
going to be
try and
well, get us the information that we
the survey -- yes, get it to us as soon
page 30
NOVMIN-FINAL
25 as possible because it's already been advertised so. our
meeting is on December 13, and we can table the hearing until
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
then and if we have all the information, then we can act on
it.
MS. KRUPSKI: what happens if you don't get the
information until next spring?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then we'll have this conversation
again.
MS. KRUPSKI: okay. DO I have to pay for a new permit?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: NO. We are going to separate the
driveway and table the rest of it.
MS. KRUPSKI: The hold is indefinite. I could leave it
until after the winter?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: until we get the information that we
want.
TRUSTEE KING: Have you got any plans of excavating the
pond?
MS. KRUPSKI: Do I have any plans? The only thing I want
to do right now is take the tree out. The lilies, because
they are so overwhelming, it takes them so much to remove
them. I don't have the money to remove them. That's why I'm
asking if I could remove the tree. I'm asking to remove the
tree. I'll never touch the lilies.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The request is to clean up and restore
existing pond. One tree, brush, poison ivy and relocate the
driveway. If that's not what you are doing anymore then
you'll have to amend your description.
MS. KRUPSKI: I'm not doing that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then you have to amend your
description. Because we are basing all this discussion on
MS. KRUPSKI: so I can't amend it standing here?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we still need information. we don't
have a proper survey. we don't have the letter from the
people.
MS. KRUPSKI: why? you've seen the property. YOU have all
been up there. YOU know where the tree is.
This is like --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I can't repeat it a~ain.
TRUSTEE KING: We can amend the existlng permit to move
the driveway. we can do that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Table the hearing for the other.
TRUSTEE KING: Table the rest.
MS. KRUPSKI: so can I start building the driveway
tomorrow?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: NO, you have to get the permit in your
hand.
MS. KRUPSKI: That's why I'm asking the question. when do
I get the permit?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let us actually make the resolution and
the approval then we'll -- Jim is just reviewing.
MR. JOHNSTON: DO they need permits from other agencies?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't know if the DEe would get involved
Page 31
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
34
1 in this or not. probably it's not on the wetland map. I doubt
it.
MR. JOHNSTON: when she asked can I start tomorrow, I
think we have to be careful to say we are only giving the
permit relating to our responsibility. She may need other
agencies and other permits.
Do you understand that?
MS. KRUPSKI: I do, but I don't know who. Then I should
be told that because I don't know who else I would need to get
the other information from
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we don't have the full information so we
can just table it and then do the amendment for the driveway.
MS. STANDISH: This is where it was approved originally.
TRUSTEE KING: Right. okay. I'll make a motion that we
amend permit #6242 --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we need to table the hearing and close
that one and then take that part out. Make an amendment.
TRUSTEE KING: Approve the relocation of the driveway --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: okay, I didn't know what the procedure
is. It's your call, Jim.
TRUSTEE KING: It moves it along.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: okay.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to amend permit #6242 to
move the driveway from 100 feet away from the pond to 50 feet
away from the pond as indicated on survey dated september 25,
2006.
DO I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: And I'll I make a motion to table this
hearing in regard to the pond restoration and what will be
done in that area until we get a planting plan and whatever
she is going to do and a survey. And also information from
the neighbor that owns part of the pond; permission for which
she could do the work.
DO I have a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. JOHNSTON: IS it clear to you, ma'am, what three
things they ask you to get?
MS. KRUPSKI: The survey of the pond, the plan how we are
going to fix it and what's the third one?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: permission from the neighbor.
MS. KRUPSKI: Why do I have to have his permission if I
own more of the pond than he does?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it's majority rules. He owns
part of the pond.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: He has rights also.
page 32
NOVMIN-FINAL
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. KRUPSKI: I own three-quarters of it. He didn't even
own quarter of it. That's neither here nor there. YOU said
also I should find out from other people about moving the
driveway. who are those people? That's more of the important
question.
MR. JOHNSTON: what I said is we are not making an opinion
or permission for all other agencies that you may need to go
to, for example, the DEC, other town agencies, et cetera.
MS. KRUPSKI: which are the other town agencies?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did you get an application form,
originally?
MS. KRUPSKI: NO. That's why I'm asking this.
MR. JOHNSTON: It's on the application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's on the last page of your original
application form.
MS. KRUPSKI: For the application for what? So I
understand this.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: From our office. when you got the
original application.
MS. KRUPSKI: Application for what?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The application for this.
MS. KRUPSKI: TO build the house?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: NO.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Either one. If you took an application
from our office, the last page lists those agencies.
MS. KRUPSKI: who would have to approve that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. It says you may have to --
MS. KRUPSKI: TO speak to other agencies, other people.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. And there is a whole list of
addresses, phone numbers off the last page.
MS. KRUPSKI: HOW long will it take for me to receive the
permit, or approximately?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You have to call them and find out even
if you have to apply to them.
MS. KRUPSKI: Yours.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you get us the information --
MS. KRUPSKI: There is no information.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Not what we approved tonight, the
driveway permit. YOu can contact the office by the end of the
week. we may have it toward the end of the week since it's an
amendment and not a full permit.
MS. KRUPSKI: So possibly Friday I should be able to have
that permit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: possibly. Call the office. save
yourself a trip. call the office ahead of time and just ask if
it's been completed yet.
MS. KRUPSKI: Call Lauren.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
MS. KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Good night.
36
1
page 33
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
Number three, Marion Lake Restoration committee requests
a wetland permit to trim the phragmites surrounding Marion
Lake to 12 inches. Located: Bay Avenue, East Marion.
This is an application just to cut the phragmites. The
Marion Lake Restoration Commlttee is working on bigger plans
to restore and come in with an application to restore and
replant the area. They are in the process of applying for
9rants and figuring out the detailed plans. But for now they
Just wanted to cut the phragmites around the lake.
IS there anyone to here on behalf of or against the
application?
(NO response.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jill, is that just the parameter of
the cutting, is just the whole perimeter?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The whole perimeter of the lake. The
town is goin9 to be doing the maintenance around the bridge.
The holdup wlth that is we are trying to find a dump site for
that which we think we have found but we have to 90 through
the DEC process and apply for permits for the spoll site. So
that's what we are doing on that end.
So this is, again, is just to trim the phragmites to a
foot high.
Is there any other comments or questions from the board?
(NO response.)
CAC, did you have a chance to look at this?
MR. YOUNG: Jack McGreevy and myself actually looked at
this and we felt we were in support of this conceptually but
felt it was more detailed, that detail should be provided in
terms of the plan, basically how they were going to enter and
where they were going to cut and what kind of machinery, if
any, was going to be used in the pond, the ponds or pond on
either side of that bridge, limits of what they were going to
cut. so we just felt more definition to the operation was
appropriate.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. what they plan on doing is go in
from each individual property and go that way and cut that
way. By hand. And what was your other? NO machinery. It's
going to be done by hand.
MR. YOUNG: Everything is by hand.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And gone throu9h each individual
property and we have a list in the flle of the restoration
committee, which is all the property owners around the lake.
And they have the letter saying that Laurie Lusher is the
point person on this and they do understand that if one
section is cut outside the perimeters of the permit, it will
get a violation, the committee will get a violation, that
particular landowner will get a violation, and so it's up to
the committee to make sure that it's done properly.
MR. YOUNG: okay.
37
1
2
3
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comment?
(NO response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
Page 34
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the
request of the Marion Lake Restoration committee for the
wetland permit to trim the phragmites surrounding Marion Lake
to one foot high; to trim by hand only. And that's it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: They are talking to the DEC for this, too?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, they are talking with the DEC.
Actually, one of the grants that they are applying for is
throu9h DEC. They are talking to other groups, Ducks
unlimlted, a nature conservancy and they are really doing
their homework.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't know who they could talk with.
connecticut has a program for removing phragmites now.
Actually I think contact their DEP to get some ideas.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think Fred Kessler mentioned that,
from Ducks unlimited. I'll make sure they go that route.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number four, Samuels & steelman
Architects on behalf of Nancy R. ROSS and others requests a
wetland Permit to demolish an existing dwelling and construct
a new two-story dwelling on a piling foundation with new
sanitary system. Located: 3350 Park Avenue, Mattituck.
IS there anybody here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MS. ROSS: I am Nancy Ross, I'm currently residing in
Yardley, pennsylvania and Tom Samuels is here with me from
samuels & Steelman. we have all the information that is
required.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. This is just an opportunity for you
to address the board if you have anything you would like to
say. You don't have to.
MS. ROSS: we have been in the process of getting all the
permits for many years now. We hoped to be underway with the
project by now but it has not worked out that way. I heard
that before tonight, too. So, I'm here to answer questions of
yours. I don't have anything else to say.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The board did go out and look at this.
Stand by for a second. It's not on the list.
MS. STANDISH: YOU could do it in two ways. You can
either don't do anything with the LWRP recommendation or we
could move forward with it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: what we are discussing is the Local
38
1
2
3
4
5
Waterfront Revitalization Review coordinator has not had an
opportunity to review it and so the board needs to decide
whether we, because it's gone beyond the 30 days that he's
required to review it, if it's the decision of the board to go
forward without it or not.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I suggest is that we talk about it a
little bit tonight but, again, Just so the public understands,
Mr. Terry was on vacation this month and was gone for a long
period of time this month. So he had very little opportunity
page 35
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
to complete the reviews required under the LWRP. He completed
and we just got today a bunch of reviews but apparently we did
not on this project. So technically we can't move on this
tonight. so we could postpone this entirely or we could get
some comments on this tonight. Because I heard you say you
came from pennsylvania.
MS. ROSS: Actually I came from Madrid. we are living
abroad this year. My co-owner is my sister and she lives in
Katmandu.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: well given the fact you have come such a
long distance, just understand, we are not going to be able to
act on this ton1ght because unfortunately we don't have that
review. I know the board has gone out and looked at this and
my understanding is there was a great deal of work done with
the DEC to approve this septic system. I see Mr. Samuels.
Maybe Mr. Samuels would like to speak to this.
MR. SAMUELS: Yes, Tom samuels, architect. This review
from the DEC and more importantly, I think, the Department of
Health, was very lengthy, very thorough and I think probably
looked at some of the same issues the LWRP has in mind,
although obviously not all of them and I wonder if it's not
possible you take into consideration all that review and all
those years and months of study that were put into this
project and perhaps find it in your power to act because
unfortunately we are being disadvantaged by Mark Terry's much
deserved vacation. I'm not sure if you are actually
absolutely prohibited from acting but if there is a
possibility for you to take into consideration all of the
review, and I mean three years of review went into this. It's
an existing house. we had the permit. You granted us a
permit and extended it twice; not you individuals, perhaps,
all of you, but the board of trustees, and so the project was
adequately and completely thoroughly reviewed by you guys.
unfortunately, the board of review at the Health Department
went beyond reason in terms of time.
We had a permit from you until last month when we came in
for a building permit and it was decided it was a little too
late. So please, if you could, act tonight on this and we'll
be happy to answer any and all concerns that we can. Assuming
we can answer them adequately, maybe you could act.
TRUSTEE KING: IS there any changes, Mr. samuels, to the
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
structure from the original permit?
MR. SAMUELS: No, essentially the same floor plan. Me
steepened the roofs a little bit to take it away from the
appearance of a ranch house. It's exactly the same house. We
have here former plans and we have here our plans. But it's
the same plan. Also received a variance from the Zoning Board
of Appeals, by the way, which have to do with, of course,
pre-existing nonconformities. It's a very odd site. There is
no doubt about it. Very odd site. The house that is there
has been there for all intent and purposes forever; maybe not
in terms of trustees' jurisdiction, but a long, long time.
we are replacing 1t in the footprint with minor additions
that are only intended to make it usable as sort of a boat
Page 36
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
shed attached to the side. we are putting a boat shed back on
the side and we are making it a little bigger. That was all
reviewed before and we are not deviating from the footprint.
MS. ROSS: The scope of the pr01ect has stayed the same
through the whole years of the appllcation.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Stand by for a second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mr. samuels explained since this has
been originally been approved, the code has been updated and
changed. So we have different things we are looking at as
well.
MR. SAMUELS: AS far as the sanitary and some of the
physical aspects of the project are concerned, it's as far as
could possibly be from wetland. The DEC did flag the
wetland. I'm not sure what else we could really do. That's
their minimum shallow system that is it going on in there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: DEC said non-jurisdictlon because it's
crossing the road?
MR. SAMUELS: NO, we have the permit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I thought.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just for the record, also, CAC did not
make an inspection, so they don't have any recommendations on
this project.
MR. SAMUELS: But I'm sure they did in the earlier --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's okay. I apologize for these
delays. what we are trying to do is find out if we could move
on this tonight, even though -- well, if we can move on this
tonight.
what I have been advised is we can move on this tonight.
So I apologize for the delays but I wanted to make sure that
we made an appropriate decision here.
MR. SAMUELS: After all this time, if a little extra time
is appropriate. Ten minutes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: One of the concerns the board had out
there when they looked at it is obviously, and you know this,
how close the structure is to the setbacks. How close it is
to the property lines. I believe I had seen some place or
heard some place it's going to stay within the same footprint
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
but I also know there was a porch. So is the building itself
going to extend out so that the porch is now enclosed and
becomes part of the habitable area or does it remain a porch?
MR. SAMUELS: NO, it's covered but open. NO problem with
that. In fact the ZBA probably said it can't be enclosed.
MS. ROSS: The ZBA also asked for slight modification on
the line on the deck in the front so it's parallel to the
property line.
MR. SAMUELS: It's actually a little smaller than the
existing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And this is an extensive septic area.
I'm gathering that's because of a combination of the
environmental issues that are there plus the number of
bedrooms this house is calling for.
MR. SAMUELS: That's the minimum size of a shallow system,
which is a five-pool system, two foot dig grades built
literally at or above existing grade by only two feet. But you
page 37
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
need a little fill. It's the distance to ground water that is
the issue and to meet that distance to ground water, which we
did. For the DEC and Health Department.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So what I'm understanding you telling the
board here, even if there were fewer bedrooms in the house, it
would still require the same septic system.
MR. SAMUELS: That's the minimum shallow pool system for
the Health Department.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what we needed to know.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we have a copy of the DEC permit in
the file?
MR. SAMUELS: I hope so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Not that we need it for our decision. I
just wanted to see if there were conditions on it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, we do.
MR. JOHNSTON: Are there any conditions?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The conditions that the DEC set are some
of the same ones we would, specifically that there is some
type of erosion control measures made with hay bales, silt
fencing, et cetera.
MR. SAMUELS: of course.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Drywells, any fill be clean fill,
construction equipment be confined to the driveway south of
the road, driveways and parking areas of pervious material and
no disturbance of the natural vegetation is done.
MR. SAMUELS: Absolutely.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So all those are similar conditions we
would have also.
MR. SAMUELS: Absolutely
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there any other comments or questions
from the board?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: HOW much fill is going to be needed to be
brought in for those shallow pools?
41
1
2
3
MR. SAMUELS: Not all that much, probably 25, 30 yards.
It's a compact area. They literally touch each other, then
there is a low wall, then you just fill in the rest. So it's
really sand to enclose them as much as anything. The bottom
of them is at the right elevation. We are just enclosing them
with fill. So a couple of truck loads is all they'll take. I
don't know exactly to be honest. I can calculate it, but I'm
not sure. I could look at the detail of it on the health
permit. It is clean sand. It must be by their standard, as
well.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And your driveway will stay the same?
MR. SAMUELS: Yes, sand/gravel. Definitely permeable.
I'm not changing elevation or anything.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other questions from the board?
(NO response.)
Are there any other comments from anybody else in the
audience?
4
5
6
7
8
9
(NO response.)
10 If not, I would like to make a motion to close this
public hearing.
11 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: second.
page 38
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
I would like to make a motion to approve the application
of Samuels & Steelman on behalf of Nancy ROSS and others with
conditions as follows: That there are erosion control measures
utilized, meaning staked hay bales and silt fencing around the
property, that roof runoff be addressed through drywells,
gutters and we make sure the driveway remains a pervious
material and there is no disturbance to the natural vegetation
around the site.
with those conditions we'll deem this application be
consistent under the LWRP. I make that motion.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: stageberg Architecture PLLC on behalf
of NOFO properties c/o Mark Gordon requests a wetland Permit
to rebuild and extend an existing wood deck by 6.5 feet,
rebuild the existing wood steps to roof and widen to meet
code, construct new roof and deck with guardrail and extend
the master bedroom over the roof of the existing ground level
roof. Located: 1150 Northview Drive, orient.
IS there anyone here who would like to speak to this
application?
MS. STAGEBERG: Hi, my name is Jane Stageberg, stageberg
Architecture. I have here an affidavit of posting.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You could bring it up to Lauren.
MS. STAGEBERG: I also have copies of the survey which
42
1
2
3
have the coastal erosion on it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you.
MS. STAGEBERG: seven copies, I
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: we can take
you want to make to us?
MS. STAGEBERG: other than to just describe, basically,
what we are asking for. There is an existing deck on the
house that is in disrepair. The wood is rottin~. And we are
proposing extending that existing deck, rebuildlng it and
extending it by six-and-a-half feet toward the water to make
that deck more usable. And we are also building an extension
alongside the house and rebuilding a set of existing stairs
that go up to the roof on the house. Those stairs right now
do not meet code.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: we saw a wire fence along the bluff.
IS there a purpose for that fence?
MR. GORDON: Yes. Jesse Gordon, Costello & Gordon, LLP. I
can speak to that. I represent the owner NOFO properties.
That fence is placed there to support Rosa Ragusa which is
planted along the bluff line to stabilize the bluff. It was
done in conjunction by peter Sterling at, I forget the name of
his company. plantings by the Sea. Thank you, very much. And
essentially it's also there to protect from our children
falling off the bluff and dogs fallin~ off the bluff.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: One of the thlngs we usually do when
page 39
I'll take that.
believe, here.
five. Any other
comments
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
we have any construction is we try to increase those buffers
and we like to see it come back about ten feet -- to be ten
feet. Not ten feet more, but to encompass ten feet. So I
don't know if you want to just -- and we really don't usually
have fences along the bluff.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a problem with that, a little
fence like that. I don't have a problem with that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: DO you have a problem increasing it?
I don't know what it is now. IS it five foot now?
TRUSTEE KING: It's probably four or five. Not even
that. It goes almost right to the top of the bluff.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So we would just want it moved back.
TRUSTEE KING: In other words we are looking for a
ten-foot buffer along the top of the bluff.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It just improves if for your own area
so you don't have problems ln the future. We have seen so
many problems alon~ the Sound area.
MR. GORDON: Rlght. The issue with that is the plantings
are meant to grow over the fence. The fence is not there for
any sort of, you know, support itself. It's just for the
plants to cling on. That would involve actually bringing the
plants, taking the plants out and moving them back.
TRUSTEE KING: Can you just plant more plants?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Can you leave the fence and increase
the buffer area to ten feet, which is what we ask anyone to do
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
along the Sound shore doing any kind of construction? It's
just increasing it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't want to see the lawn up to the
top of the bluff, non-turf.
MR. GORDON: So other plantings.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Just not grass.
MR. GORDON: we could do something, I'm sure, yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments?
TRUSTEE KING: That was the only thing we thought would be
very helpful. Ten foot non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We are pretty sure we understand all
the additions and improvements. The CAC supports the
application with the condition drainage plan and installation
of gutters and drywells. And this is an addition, so we
didn't have to worry about the LWRP.
Is there anyone else here tonight who would like to speak
for or against the application?
(NO response.)
No further comments?
TRUSTEE KING: Be sure drywells are indicated on the
survey. I didn't see anything.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did you include drywells on the
survey?
MS. STAGEBERG: I did not ask. NO, I haven't included
them on the survey.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Can we get them included on the
survey?
MS. STAGEBERG: Sure.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to close the
page 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
NOVMIN-FINAL
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the
application for a wetland permit to rebuild and extend the
existing wood deck by six-and-a-half feet, rebuilding existing
new steps to roof and widen to make code; construct new roof
and deck with guardrails and extend the master bedroom over
the roof of the existing ground-level roof. we also want to
see the drywells, gutters and drywells on the plan. We also
would like ten-foot non- turf buffer. We would like to
specify it be native, you already started, native natural
plantings along the buffer area.
MR. GORDON: Beach grasses of some sort.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, non-turf grasses. Natural beach
grass, et cetera.
DO I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
44
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number six, Patrlcla Moore, on behalf of
Norman and Adele Grudman requests a wetland permit to
construct an addition over the existing dwelling, a new wood
deck with steps to grade, a new ~arage addition and two
one-~tory additions to the dwelllng. Located 630 North Drive,
Mattltuck.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Good evening. I brought over to your file
a drawing with the exact dimensions of all of the additions.
We had actually measured, in the dark, measurements that were
pretty accurate considering the drawing that I have. we have a
proposed deck in the back which is angled, which follows the
contours of the property, so it angles in a northerly
direction. We also have an existing space that was completed
under, it was started before and we are including it in this
permit, and we have a proposed addition on the landward side
of the house, which is the gara~e addition and living space.
so this house is getting an addltion on both sides. one is on
the water. The other portion of the addition is landward.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: okay. The deck, for the trustees'
information, is approximately 17x20. And it is angled so that
the tree does not have to be disturbed.
MS. MOORE: Correct.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: CAC supports the application with the
condition of drywells, gutters are installed and does not
support the wood decking as proposed because of the close
proximity to the wetland. CAC recommends 75-foot setback
maintained from the wetlands.
unfortunately, we don't have LWRP comment and it's within
the 30 days, so we cannot act on this permit tonight.
MS. MOORE: Okay.
page 41
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments from
anybody?
MS. MOORE: I would just point out that this property, the
elevation where the wetlands are, as the crow flies it's less
than 75 feet but topographically it's quite high. So I think
that's why, if the CAC was looking at a survey, it would be
deceiving because on the, as you know from visiting the site,
the property is really high and is looking out over Mattituck
creek, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: would anybody from the CAC like to
elaborate on their request?
MR. ECKERT: Done wilder did the inspection and he thought
it was too close.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: IS there any other comment?
(NO response.)
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: DO we have to table the hearing?
MS. MOORE: Could it be approved subject to the LWRP or do
you have to have the report?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, we have to have the report because
we have to review it.
MS. STANDISH: Table it or close it and reserve decision.
Either way.
MS. MOORE: I don't think if makes any difference. I
would rather keep it open just in case something comes up that
you need additional information, I'll provide it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, I'll make a motion to table
the application until we receive LWRP.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Number seven, Suffolk Environmental
consulting on behalf of paolo and Jean Blower requests a
wetland permit to construct an elevated timber catwalk 4x20S
feet situated within the central portion of the subject
property, as well as pathways four feet wide, maximum,
connecting said catwalk from both the existing dwelling and
the top of the bluff. Located: 5865 soundview Avenue,
Southold.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, suffolk Environmental
consulting for the applicant, the Blowers.
probably the best exhibit you have is the aerial
photograph that I provided with the application. What we are
trying to do here is, what we have is a house that is well set
back from the water. Actually the land between the house and
the water is, it's sand dunes really is what it is and wedged
between two tunes is this sort of inter inter-dunel wetland
situation. So we try to cross that at its narrowest point.
TO the east, you have peconic Dunes, a park which I'm
recently very familiar with because we had our BOY scout
outing there. And what they did there is just, basically
page 42
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
built a road and built it up and kind of filled in the wetland
so you could walk from where you camp to the water.
TO the west you have Tim Gray's house, a local
contractor, and then there is just a clearance of, down there
you probably went toward Tim Gray and you walked out to it and
you could see hopefully the seaward stakes of this catwalk
structure.
My feeling is you are better off building a structure
because unlike the properties on either side this is the one
that would protect that inter-dunel wetland, more than the
adjacent properties have. That's pretty much all I have to
say.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll give you fair warning now this has not
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
been reviewed under the LWRP so we cannot --
MR. ANDERSON: If you have any questions, I'll answer
them.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: what access did the property owner use
prior to this?
MR. ANDERSON: Tim Gray's.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And that's not acceptable at this
point?
MR. ANDERSON: It was, it's sold. We used to share
access. NO we no longer can.
TRUSTEE KING: Tim Gray is to the west?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And there is no access to the property
line on the east, to the camp?
MR. ANDERSON: No, you have, to enter the camp and you
have to walk where the huts are and stuff.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim and I walked all the way to the end
of the property and it's just as thick on that end as it is
throughout the whole thing.
MR. ANDERSON: I think we laid it out as best we can. And
I thought we should have a structure from the house all the
way to the beach. I was sort of discouraged from doing that.
so I tried to limit it, you know.
TRUSTEE KING: We couldn't even get through it to get to
the seaward side.
MR. ANDERSON: You have to walk on to Gray's property or
peconic Dunes. YOU have to walk all the way around. It's the
only way to get there. I have photos of it. It's staked out
by a surveyor.
TRUSTEE KING: HOW would they even construct this without
even disturbing an awful lot?
MR. ANDERSON: You have to go in by hand. There will be
some short-term disturbance. clearly it has to be better than
what property owners do there and there has to be some way of
getting to the beach. I think.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there any other structures like this
down in that area?
TRUSTEE KING: Not that I could see.
MR. ANDERSON: And for the most part they just mow down
the wetlands. That's how they get there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If they mow it down, they wouldn't be
page 43
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
NOVMIN-FINAL
able to get through it. It's pretty deep in some points,
right?
MR. ANDERSON: well, if you go to the peconic Dunes side,
they bulldoze through the wetland then they filled it with
sand so it's dry. If you go to the Gray's, they sort of, I'm
not saying they did it, I don't know who did it, but it's
puddles. YOU go throu~h some puddles on your way there. But
the clearing the peconlC Dunes side is probably, I'll say ten
to 14 feet. The Gray side is little less, maybe ten to 12
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
feet. You could drive a four-wheel vehicle to the beach from
either peconic Dunes or from Tim Gray's house.
TRUSTEE KING: was there ever a fire in that area?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, there was. I think it was caused by
lightening.
TRUSTEE KING: I saw signs of a fire.
MR. ANDERSON: There was a brush fire down there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The fire Department must have a heck of
a time getting in there.
MR. ANDERSON: It was relatively recent.
TRUSTEE KING: (perusing). The CAC -- it was tabled. The
project was not staked. It feels more details are needed in
order to make a determination, such as type of material and
method of construction.
MR. ANDERSON: well, it is staked and you would have to
construct it by hand. That's really the only way you could do
it. And it would be a nasty job to put it there.
TRUSTEE KING: Environmental technicians comments, if I
could read them. The proposal is in a maritime inter-dunel
swell; the catwalk would fragment the habitat; part of natural
heritage program designation. YOu also have two large oaks,
two large oaks have been topped and wood is in the fresh water
wetland; sweet pepper bush, bayberry in freshwater wetlands.
I didn't see any oak trees that had been topped.
MR. ANDERSON: Was this Heather?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. ANDERSON: I consulted with her before I made the
application.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I saw a couple of topped trees. They
were top topped.
MR. ANDERSON: Where?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If you head out from the pool straight,
the minute you got, just as you approach the wetland line,
right where the fire was, and it was obviously chain sawed off
the top.
TRUSTEE KING: Not recently.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would not s~y too recent, no.
TRUSTEE KING: It was a long tlme ago. I was under the
impression somebody just topped it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's hard to tell based on what was down
in the wetland. I couldn't really tell.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: was debris in the wetland or you never
saw it?
TRUSTEE KING: TO me it looked like there was a some fire
damage there. It looked like there was fire damage from years
page 44
14
24
25
ago.
NOVMIN-FINAL
It was not anything new.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The trees.
MR. ANDERSON: It's charred.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: charred wood sitting there. Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't know. It's gOlng to be difficult
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
for me. I would like to go take a look at it, too. we can't
move forward because of the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jim, can we go through peconic Dunes
to go to the beach front next month?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure.
MR. ANDERSON: I'm sure it's okay, if you want to go
through Gray's. YOU have to walk around. YOu can't walk
through it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what I'm sayin~.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, go through Gray's, it s easier.
TRUSTEE KING: I would like us all to take a look at it,
in the meantime. All right?
MR. ANDERSON: I would be happy to meet you down there.
TRUSTEE KING: Maybe we'll do that. so I'll make a motion
to table the application and we'll revisit it in December
field inspections.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number eight, RLH Land planning services,
Inc., on behalf of Joseph and Diana Corrarino requests a
Wetland permit to construct a new porch at the front (west
side) of the house; to construct a 12 foot deck on the eastern
side of the house where there currently exists three steps
approximately 30 inches in length. The upstairs deck also on
the eastern side of the house will be extended to the extent
of the proposed 12 foot deck on the first floor. Located: 129
Inlet Lane, Greenport.
IS there anybody here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. HILL: Good evening. I'm Ron Hill, RLH Land planning
services on behalf of Joseph and Diana corrarino. In addition
to what has been said I would like to just add the property is
currently improved. The proposed project will not alter the
existing physical characteristics of the site because there is
no clearing or grading that is going to be necessary to
construct the decks. we feel that there is no adverse impact
as a result of the physical changes of the site. we also feel
that the project as proposed is consistent with the
surrounding community and in all other respects consistent
with town zoning regulations. we also feel that the property
as proposed, the project as proposed, is reasonable, given the
size of the parcel, existing conditions of the site and
existing use of the layout of the site.
I'm here to answer any questions that you might have.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. The CAC voted to support this
application with the condition that gutters and drywells are
installed. The LWRP finding was inconsistent and so we need
page 45
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to deal with that.
NOVMIN-FINAL
49
MR. HILL: Inconsistent in what way?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Minimum setback being 100 feet from the
water. That was it.
MR. HILL: That's the purpose why I'm here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand that. Bear with us. We
did, we also agreed with the CAC'S recommendation would ask
the gutters and drywells be installed here to control roof
runoff. We also had noted that the buffer, we thought the
buffer was very good on the south side, but as you move to the
north side, we were looking to increase that buffer. This is
the side of the property where there is right now, there is a
barbecue, a chimenia kind of thing, that's to the west. My
compass bearings are a little off. What we wanted to do was
to increase that to a ten-foot buffer so it would in line with
the buffer that is already there. In other words it's a very
nice buffer on the rest of the area, it's just that corner
there is no buffer and we are looking to just in that corner,
put in ten-foot buffer there. Does that make sense? If you
like, you can come up and I could show you exactly on the plan
here what we are talking about.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think it's suggested to make the buffer
just don't mow it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Here you go. Talking this corner
here. You notice there is a great buffer along here, but
there is really very little there. We are saying that little
area there to pull the buffer out some.
MR. HILL: Basically extending this across that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: correct. IS that acceptable to you?
MR. HILL: I believe it will. I would have to confer with
my clients regarding it. I'm sure they won't have a problem
with it. AS long as you approve it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I like you.
MR. JOHNSTON: He's tough.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: we are just suggesting in that buffered
area to continue to plant Rosa Ragusa. That's already in the
other buffer that looks really good. So just continue with
Rosa Ragusa in there. Those are the only comments we had.
Were there any other comments from anybody in the
audience pertaining to this application?
(No response.)
If not, I'll look to any other comments from the board.
(NO response.)
like to make a motion to close the public
I would
hearing.
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
DOHERTY: Second.
BERGEN: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to make a motion to approve
the application of RLH Land planning services on behalf of
Joseph and Diana Corrarino with the condition that gutters and
Page 46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
50
drywells are added to the house,
western corner is also increased
deem this to be consistent under
TRUSTEE OICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. HILL: On behalf of the corrarino's,
that the buffer on
and with that work
the LWRP.
that
that we'll
I thank you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: David Corwin on behalf of New Suffolk
properties, LLC, requests a Wetland permit to install new
subsurface sanitary sewage disposal systems to replace
existing systems. Located: 3350 west creek Avenue, cutchogue.
IS there anyone here who would like to speak for this
application?
MR. CORWIN: My name is David corwin. I don't have any
comments but if you have questions about the application, I
would try to answer them.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Actually the board was very impressed
with the system that you have in your survey. CAC'S comments
were that they supported the application with the condition
the system is a proven engineering technology.
MR. CORWIN: The Health Department has approved it, so.
That was a tough hurdle, I'll tell you. So it is.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And the existing cesspools are going
to be filled in; abandoned and filled in with sand?
MR. CORWIN: Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Anyone else here this evening who
would like to speak to this application or any other board
comments?
MR. HUNTINGTON: Yes. Ray Huntington speaking for the west
Neck property OWners Association.
We went to the Suffolk County Department of Health
Services hearings concerning this matter and we learned quite
a bit about it there, too. while we are not experts, we were
impressed, again, as you were, with the design. It seems to
be a good deal better than what we re9arded, than the current
situation, which is problematic. It 1S an existing
circumstance that is being improved. we don't support going
further into new construction, but that is not the matter
before us. The owners of this marina have been good
neighbors. So we are very supportive of their continued
efforts to make this better.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Being no further comments, I'll make a
motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve this for
New Suffolk properties to install the new subsurface sanitary
page 47
NOVMIN-FINAL
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sewage plan as per the survey stamped out october 13, 2006,
and to replace and fill in the existing systems at 3350 West
creek Avenue, Cutchogue. DO I have a second?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would also like to commend the
applicants for coming up with this new technology to address
this issue. That's what this board is always looking for and
I think that's excellent. Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number ten, Ian crowley on behalf of
Matthew Kar requests a Wetland permit to remove 6x33 feet
floating dock, 3x12 foot ramp and 4x7 foot platform and
replace with 6x20 foot floating dock, 3x12 foot ramp and 4x7
foot cantilevered platform. Located: 750 Little peconic Bay
Road, Cutchogue.
This is basically an application to, this is an existing
structure. we asked them to reduce the float and that's what
they have applied for.
IS there anyone here to speak to behalf of this
application?
MR. CROWLEY: Ian crowley on behalf of Matthew Kar. I
don't have any comments but I do have the affidavit of
posting, certified mail receipt.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. It's an inkind, in-place
well, it's a reduction of what is there. So I believe it's
exempt from LWRP, correct?
MS. STANDISH: It's consistent.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yup
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: okay. CAC resolved to support the
application. we were out in the field last month and asked
the applicant to reduce the size of the float. He has.
IS there any other questions from anyone?
MR. CAVANAUGH: Tom cavanaugh, I'm the adjacent property
owner to the west, 600 peconic Bay Road.
You indicated that this is not subject to LWRP review?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: NO, I asked that, but Lauren corrected
me and said it is and it's found consistent.
MR. CAVANAUGH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Anybody else?
(NO response.)
I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve Ian
crowley on behalf of Matthew Kar to replace existing structure
with a 6x20 foot floating dock, 3x12 foot ramp and 4x7 foot
cantilevered platform. DO I have a second?
52
1
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
Page 48
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
(ALL AYES.)
MR. CROWLEY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Number eleven, catherine Mesiano on behalf
of Elizabeth siddons requests a wetland permit to construct a
4x24 foot low profile dock with open fiberglass decking and
with a 4x12 foot platform. Located: 715 Monsell Lane,
cutchogue.
IS there anyone here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the
applicant.
Jill called me on Monday with comments that arose from
your field inspection and I had made some recommendations to
the siddon's for alternate designs and I have a couple of
alternatives that rather than try to explain it to you, I
would just like to show it to you briefly so, to see if this
is more in line with something you are comfortable with.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is revisions from the deck.
MS. MESIANO: I explained to the Siddons' what the
objections was and they understand that. And in an earlier
application you had approved a fixed dock, low profile fixed
dock with a kayak slide and I have taken, I just sketched this
very rudimentally so we can discuss it. But this is the plan
that you had approved with the kayak slide and what I come up
with here is that we eliminated, we have eliminated the
platform and in line with this kayak slide design, instead of
a platform, we have a ramp that, and I have shown the ramp in
two different configurations. I think, if I make it too
short, we are stepplng off into a mucky area and I think if we
can bring it down on a more gradual slope it would be the
wiser of the two choices.
This is 25 feet from the edge of the marsh. That would
result in the walkway being 16 feet long, the fixed portion of
the dock with a ramp that lf it were gOln9 to the existing
bottom, would give us a 25-foot ramp. It s about a one-on-one
slope.
NOw, in order to facilitate the kayak slide, as we had
used in the other plan, I have two suggestions. Mrs. Siddons
was concerned about the cumbersome nature of all of this. so
what I'm proposing is if we could widen the landward edge by
two feet, to make it six feet wide, for a distance of ten
feet, and then put the kayak slide on that which would be the
south side of the dock. That would allow them to store --
because -- and I'll back up. That would allow them to store
their kayak, canoe, et cetera, on top of the decking of this
dock because pursuant to earlier permits from the
construction, they are not allowed to store anything in this
53
1 adjacent area. So they would be able to launch their canoe or
kayak, then draw it back up or store it on the side and still
2 have a walkway that is reasonably safe.
Does that make any sense, do you have any questions?
3 Suggestions?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It makes sense.
Page 49
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would like to see it stay because
I'm curious if you widen this, I don't remember what was on
the side of the proposed area.
TRUSTEE KING: What's the advantage of going up here or
this end here somewhere?
MS. MESIANO: Just not having to drag it that far.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: weren't there three, I saw like two
kayaks and a canoe. My point is it will only give them
storage for one of them.
MS. MESIANO: Right. But at least they can stage their
launching and whether or not they re stored here or here, it
gives them the ability to stage the launching of them in a
safer manner.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: HOW wide is a kayak?
MS. MESIANO: They are about two feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: so you would not need ten feet wide
here.
MESIANO: It's not ten feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, but you are saying make the whole
dock ten feet.
MS. MESIANO: NO, six feet. Two feet added for a distance
of ten feet, because generally a canoe is 17 feet long.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought you said 20 feet wide.
MS. MESIANO: NO, total six feet in width for a distance
of ten feet, then the balance of it being, that would be 15
feet, or 13. And the balance being four feet.
It was something, they and I talked about it and they
said if I could come back with approval for something rather
than nothing, they are willing to work with the trustees.
They would like to be able to utilize their waterfront without
treading through the vegetation.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So what is the projection beyond the
edge of the marsh? In other words from where June is standing
there in the picture.
MS. MESIANO: okay. At this point would it would bring us
just past the low water mark. This would bring us --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is that 25 feet? Is this distance 25
feet?
MS. MESIANO: No, because the parallel to the grade
distance would not be 25. This is the length of the proposed
ramp. So that would not be the distance.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That would go out 25 feet.
MS. MESIANO: The distance would be shorter.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm trying to get how much that is
54
1
2
3
4
5
going into that now.
TRUSTEE KING: About 23 1/2 feet.
MS. MESIANO: I know that would be a consideration which
is why I have two proposals that are 20 foot. So let's just
stake it. so I'll stake the farther limit and then we can,
we'll know, that, anything back from that. okay. I'll have
that done. So we are holding that for next month.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we don't have LWRP anyway, so.
TRUSTEE KING: So I'll make a motion to table the
hearing.
Page 50
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
6 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
7 (ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: And we'll look it at it next month for the
8 stakes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 12, Catherine Mesiano on behalf of
Jonathan and Andrea Parks requests a wetland permit to repair
the damage to bluff using approximately 200 cubic yards of
fill; replace existing bulkhead to secure bluff; repair and
replace (where needed) existing stairs to beach; regrade yard
and install plantings to prevent further erosion; install
drywells and catch basins in front yard to prevent water from
reachin~ bluff; regrade and install retaining walls
(approxlmately 80 feet from bluff) to level portion of
waterside yard; construct 32x50 foot addition to existin~
dwelling; install pool and patio; and revegetate bluff wlth
beach grass approximately 18 inches on center. Located: 3995
Nassau Point Road, Cutcho~ue.
I hear paper flutterlng so obviously something else has
been added here.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the
applicant. The paperwork that I just handed you are the
revisions and additional data that was requested by the
trustees subsequent to the site inspection last week. That
information basically pertains to the replacement of the
existing bulkhead and landward retaining wall, and the filling
of the breach in the bluff that was the subject of an earlier
emergency permit.
we have had extensive discussion over the last few hours
with our project manager and pat Moore who represents the
Case's who are the owners of the property to the north and Mr.
and Mrs. Santiago and their attorney who are contract vendees
for the Case property. And because the portion of the bluff
that failed is so close to the Case property, they are of
course very concerned with, first of all, how and why it
happened, what's been done to mitigate the problem, and how
the problem is going to be handled in the future.
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
There are a number of items we have discussed, and
generally agreed upon, although Mr. and Mrs. Parks are not
here, we'll just let them know tomorrow what they have to do.
We are going to be doing -- let me back up a little bit.
On the site plan that you have, you can see that the location
of the pool and the proposed dwelling has been moved landward
so as to comply with your request that we maintain a 70-foot
setback from the bluff. And is that to your satisfaction?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MS. MESIANO: Okay, in addition, we have shown on the site
plan various drainage structures that are or will be installed
to mitigate additional runoff.
The initial problem was created at least in part by
clearing and landscape work that was performed in the front
page 51
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
yard which caused a runoff problem into the backyard. so
substantial work and monies have been put toward this effort
and the front yard has been regraded, swales have been created
for collection of storm water runoff, drywells and catch
basins have been installed. The driveway has been regraded
and rebanked so as to direct the runoff from the front yard
into the swales so it doesn't continue to be a problem.
NOW, the neighbor and the prospective owner of the
neighboring property are of course concerned with what else is
going to happen and how is it going to occur. And I'm caught
between a rock and a hard spot because our failed bluff is,
the problem is continuin~ to grow. we have more failure. we
have more erosion. So I m gOlng to try to offer up a solution
and I welcome anybody to jump in at any time.
what I would like to accomplish in order to satisfy your
needs, are to provide you with an updated topographic map and
an engineered grading and drainage plan that has been
certified by an engineer that has more technical information
than what you presently have.
we are also going to gather more information to be able
to demonstrate the nelghboring steps and the terracing on the
neighboring steps so that we can create a restoration plan
that would tie into the neighboring property in an effort to
have a longterm solution to the problem.
Along with those retaining walls we would of course need
to do vegetation to work in conjunction with that. We would
also offer up that, at your, the final inspection that you
will require, you will be provided with an engineer's
certification that any work performed under a permit issued by
the trustees would have an engineer's certification. And in
conjunction with that, our engineer would oversee and inspect
the work in progress to assure that it is done in conformance
with an approved plan.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: cathy, while you are mentioning that
can I just ask that in that report of this engineer, that he
address the impact of that pool and that speclfic area. since
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
it is very near and close to this major blowout and that in
someway way he assure that that construction is not going to
effect that area.
MS. MESIANO: Right. And I want to add as well that while
it appears just to be a pool around, an integral part of the
pool is a retaining wall that in part will serve to -- let me
back up and say that again. That retaining wall will have a
finished elevation equal to the first floor elevation of the
house, which I believe is 58 feet.
Therefore there would be fill involved in that area so
that there is not additional runoff created from that area.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: what's the height, proposed height above
grade of this retaining wall along the northern boundary of
the property?
MS. MESIANO: okay, we have an elevation that goes from 52
feet to 48 feet, and the finished elevation of the retaining
wall -- okay. since I don't have the engineer's plan I'm gOlng
to say that I believe the first floor elevation is 58, give or
page 52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
take a couple of feet. The finished elevation of the
retaining wall will be approximately the same as the first
floor elevation of the house.
Therefore, if it is 56 to 58 feet, the distance above
grade then would be at its greatest point, eight to ten feet.
Because we have a grade of 52 to 48 in the area that we are
no, eight feet. we have a grade --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: My interpretation is also --
MS. MESIANO: I was looking at the hay bales. sorry. The
grade at the area of the retaining wall goes from 50 to 52.
Therefore, at its greatest point lt would be no more than
approximately eight feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. And the distance from that
property line to the north of that retaining wall?
MS. MESIANO: Let me just get my scale.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It looks like it's very minimal.
MS. MESIANO: It is. And the parties are working in an
effort --
TRUSTEE KING: six, seven feet.
MS. MESIANO: It's premature to get into a lot of the --
MS. MOORE: It might be helpful. since we have the
santiago's here who are going to be buying the property, I
have think their longterm plan would be to have a plan that
matches their grade to the finished grade that the parks' are
proposing. So if their retaining wall is close to the
property line is at 58 feet, the tennis court that is there
right now is at 52, so the plan by the santiago's and we asked
them specifically, is that they are probably going to end up
redoing the tennis court and raising the elevation of it to
address drainage of the tennis court, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. I'm sorry, Cathy, I want to give
you a chance to complete your presentation before we open it
57
up for other comments.
MS. MESIANO: This all came about when I got here tonight
so if I'm a little hesitant it's because I haven't practiced
it six times and they are all watching and listening.
Also, I just would like to say that during the course of
this project, we did have an emergency permit lssued. The
parks' have made every attempt to do what they need to do as
they have been required or requested by the trustees and in
conjunction with what their professionals are advising them
and that it will continue in that same vein. Now, the zinger.
What I'm hoping, what I'm -- I know I'm asking for a lot but I
have to ask because of the emergency nature of this lot it
continues to deteriorate. And lf I may ask you a question,
does the board have questions, are you conceptually opposed or
are you conceptually in favor of what I'm describing? Can I
clarify any points?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: well, as you have already stated, this is
a multifaceted application. As a matter of fact, when I get
to the CAC comments you will see how they have broken down
with parts one, two, three, four, five. So I can't answer
that question.
If you would like to go to one part of this or another,
Page 53
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
absolutely, we can address this. Because we do have a bunch
of questions for you here tonight.
MS. MESIANO: of course.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So, I can't answer that question.
MS. MESIANO: Then I would just like to say that my
objective tonight is to be able to come away with something
that will allow us to act on the emergency nature of the
project.
I have next month, I have January, to deal with the other
issues. But I'm most concerned about the condition of the
bluff and that it's continuing to deteriorate. It's
reasonable of me to anticipate that I might get from the DEC a
letter of non-jurisdiction because I can document the
existence of the bulkhead to 1958. I have surveys of the land
with this bulkhead shown. So it's a reasonable expectation to
come away with a letter of non-jurisdiction. of course, being
the DEC, it doesn't mean that I will, but it's reasonable to
anticipate that.
so, if I'm fortunate enough to come away with my NJ then
I don't have an eight or ten month wait for a permit to
restore the bluff that will be ten times worse in eight or ten
months from now.
So my -- I hope to be able to come away with something
from the board that will at least allow us to stop the
bleeding and to put an end to the damage of the bluff.
Because our bluff damage is impacting our neighbor and their
property, their stairs.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That one I can address. when this came
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
in for an emergency permit, it was a similar situation, as a
matter of fact, we dealt with in the work session toni~ht also
at the Barton/Baxter property line. They mitigated thlS with
an emergency permit where they came in and they put in some
work that was successful. what the parks', what your clients
have done here, they attempted to mitigate this and it didn't
work. My sug~estion is if they would look at what the Barton
and Baxters dld, and did that same work, they would not have
this continual sluffing off or this continual erosion problem.
I am not a professional in this area but I just went and
looked and they put a couple of 4x4s with a couple of pieces
of plywood in there hoping that would stop the erosion from
continuing and that didn't work.
MS. MESIANO: No, that was as much as we were allowed to
do is placing the hay bales and shoring up that gapping hole.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I'm saying is if you go and observe
what we approved as an emergency permit also, what Barton and
Baxter did, it would help. It would probably help your client
out. Because that worked down there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They used different material than just
plywood.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It was much more extensive work. And it
was successful.
MS. MESIANO: okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I wanted to get other comments, if there
were other comments first, before we proceed forward.
Page 54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
MS. MESIANO: That's fine
MS. MOORE: We were out there and our major concern, we
were out in the hallway and our primary concern is addressing
the bluff and I think that Cathy understands and certainly has
tried to convey that to you. We really, what they do with
respect to their house and pool, we have no objection to
that. It's up to you whether you are satisfied with those
plans. But I think that we would be very concerned that you
give them permission to do terracing, in particular, to
connect to the terracing that is on the Case property because
what we see is below the stairs, there is terracing there at
different levels, and the return, the breach, seems to have
occurred on the other end of those returns.
so if you had their retaining walls connecting to our
retaining walls and then with vegetation and fill, we could
address that area of the breach almost, well, immediately.
what, I think Joe Fiscetti was the engineer in the Baxter case
because he actually came and looked at this on behalf of my
clients, the estate of Case. And I don't know for sure, I
never spoke to him about the details, but is it retaining
walls that were placed at the Baxter property? Some form of
retaining walls?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It was one wall right at the top, right
where the blowout is. There were no retaining walls down
59
there. AS an emergency, they just -- it's hard to describe.
MS. MOORE: Are we talking about the Baxter property?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. Up on top where the blowout
was, they went around the perimeter the Baxter and the Barton
with some vinyl sheathing and that worked. They didn't --
nothing else was approved by the board because we knew they
had to come in for full permit for that
MS. MOORE: So that was just a temporary measure.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. And we were saying then, I
guess a month, two months ago, where there are emergency
permits for both Parks and Baxter, we are recommendlng the
very same thing, to be treated the very same way.
MS. MOORE: That's fine. We are actually a step ahead, I
would hope in Cathy's case now because what we want to see
happen is approval of some type of retaining wall system that
is properly engineered. Bob FOX provided a cross-section of
what a standard, typical retaining wall, how it would be
constructed, but I think the important part there is to
identify where the retaining wall ends on the case property so
that, again, they get connected.
That, I think, from all the opinions that we have, and we
have three engineers in total on these properties, that would
solve that area of the breach. Beyond that, I think that they
will have to talk to their engineer as to other areas where
there has been vegetation that has become stripped away on
their property but it falls in different spots. So that
either can be handled through some type of matting or smaller
retaining walls. But this area is a significant area that has
to withhold or retain significant area of 200 cubic yards of
fill. So we think it needs much more attention.
page 55
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
we are very anxious to see that be approved and we are
certainly here in force to support that application. I think
she already mentioned the different stages and certainly we
want to see some more engineering of the area that is seaward
of where the pool is proposed.
I think that ultimately she, unfortunately, none of us
have seen the engineer's plan because I think somebody has it,
chicanowicz may have it. He's not here. The area between the
proposed new structures and existing structure and the top of
the bank may require some regrading and some additional
drainage structures. we hope that that is being addressed by
the engineer's plan. we don't know at this point.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. with regard to the retaining
wall, there is, I see on the plan, I just want to make sure we
all understand. There is one retaining wall on the plan at
the toe of the bluff.
MS. MOORE: No, that's been modified
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking at a plan. There is one
retaining wall at the toe of the bluff, approximately 200
linear feet with two ten-foot returns. NOW, if there is
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
something else proposed, I don't see it if on the plans here.
MS. MESIANO: what Pat is referring to is in addition to
the retaining wall that is at the toe of the bluff, she was
referring to terracing. That would be comprised of a smaller
or lesser substantial retaining wall type structure. But as
far as a, from my plan, I had asked for inkind or rather
in-place replacement of the existing bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: correct. we wlll get to that. we have
questions about that also.
MS. MESIANO: And the existing retaining wall at the toe
of the bluff. Now, those are the retaining walls that we, I
was talking about now. I think what pat is referring to is
the retainlng wall that is around the swimming pool.
MS. MOORE: NO
TRUSTEE BERGEN: NO. Hang on, please. what you are
saying is there is terracing called for and there is no
terracing in these plans. So right away that's going to
create an issue for tonight.
MS. MESIANO: Right, I know.
MS. MOORE: Our concern is in the hallway what all the
property owners felt was the plan was deficient in the sense
that that would address the problem but it's not showing on
any plan. So we asked Cathy to have the surveyor identlfy the
location of the retaining walls that are on our property. We
give them permission to enter our property, identify their
location, so that we know approximately where on our property
it falls so that they can then look at it with the engineer
and identify how it needs to extend out beyond our property
into their property so that it coordinates and in a sense
surrounds the breach. It will be catching that area so that
it starts to accept and retain the soil that is going to be
included. Am I explaining it clear enough?
TRUSTEE KING: I just want you guys to work something out
together and then come back to us.
page 56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
MS. MESIANO: What I was going to say is this. I don't
think that it's appropriate of me to expect you to approve a
plan conceptually where we don't have the answers to your
questions. So I'm going to ask you to keep this open until
December when I can come back to you with a plan that I'm
comfortable with. Because I'm not comfortable with where we
are at right now and I don't want any misunderstanding by
anyone and I don't want there to be down the line somebody
saying he said she said. so I would much rather --
MS. MOORE: well, our only concern, our concern with that
is we are taking one more month. what we were trying to do
and I thought we had agreed out in the hallway was to do the
retainin~ walls, extend the retaining walls and the basic
descriptlon that has already been put on the record, and have
it drawn and submitted to you so that it backs up what has
been presented to you.
61
YOU are as qualified as we are in the sense that we have
to rely on an engineer to certify whatever has been drawn.
You just have to worry, as we do, that that soil is contained
and we don't have further deterioration of that slope.
MS. MESIANO: I think what I could offer would be a
resolution to that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Very quickly, because I want to move on.
MS. MESIANO: I'll go as fast as I can because I want to
get out of here more than you want me to.
I think that perhaps if we can get the contractor back in
there to do the staving as I initially instructed him to do. I
don't know why it ended up with plywood. But the staving as
Baxter job, if that staving were put in appropriately, that's
going to stop the major part of that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You're ahead of me.
MS. MESIANO: so I would like to do that. Because I have
a history with this board, believe it or not, I used to be,
you know, respected. I don't like to be come to the board
with a plan that is not substantially appropriate.
And I'm uncomfortable asking you for something of this
nature. So I will see to it that the emergency permit is,
emergency work is conducted in a better manner and then come
back to you with a more complete plan.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Can I suggest that maybe that plan be
brought to us prior to the --
MS. MESIANO: I'll make every attempt to have it to
a timely manner so you are not sitting there looking at
knowing what you are looking at. Because I'm tryin~ to
many masters here and not doing a very good ~ob of It.
I'll get it to you as soon as possible and I 11 get the
contractor back out there to do the staving on that emergency
permit as soon as possible.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay. I would like to see if there are
any other comments from the audience before I go through a
shopping list of issues that we still have to address.
Yes?
MS. MOORE: Are you going to go over the other issues?
page 57
you in
it not
please
So
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm planning on it.
MS. SIMPSON: I'm Eileen case-simpson, one of the Case's.
And I just want to go on record as saying that we never had
any problems like this and since 1920 when the house was
built, and I was down the day that there was that torrential
rain and I saw the tennis court fill with rain and the folks
next door had done whatever they did, but it was just piles
and piles of sand and it was just gushing and I don't think
anything like that would ever happen, could ever happen again
because of the drainage things and so on, but I just want to
go on record as saying we have never had anything like this.
It comes at a very bad time. I feel badly for the parks' and
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
their problems but had they not uprooted, you said tonight and
in many other cases about the vegetation and other things,
they upset the balance of nature. That's all. And I hope we
can conclude with some great plan.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE KING: Dave, before we go any further, I would
like to recognize Al Krupski, former chairman of this board.
I don't know why he's here. You must miss it Al.
MR. KRUPSKI: I took a wrong turn. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Anybody else like to speak on behalf of
the application?
(NO response.)
This was found inconsistent under LWRP, primarily because
of the distance the pool was originally from the bluff, and I
know that has been addressed with this new proposal is to move
the pool back.
And the CAC comments, supports the repair of damage to
the bluff; the replacing the existing bulkhead; repair or
replace as necessary stairs to the beach; regrade and install
plantings; install drywells, catch basins in front yard;
regrade and install retaining wall to level portion water side
yard. They tabled the application to construct the 32x50 foot
addition, to the existing dwelling to install pool patio.
They support the application for revegetation of bluff with
beach grass.
I just wanted to make sure that was on the record.
Now, some questions to consider for when you come back
that we had. Again, we talked about the moving of the pool.
The bulkhead itself you are asking for complete replacement,
inkind, in-place of this bulkhead? IS that what you are
asking for?
MS. MESIANO: In-place replacement of the existing
bul khead.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay. we looked at it and, you know,
there was some whaler damage but the rest of the bulkhead
didn't look in bad shape. If you want to continue the
application to include a replacement, you can. The deck itself
on the stairs, you have decks down there, we were concerned
about the dimensions of the deck to make sure they coincide
with what is in current codes. So they don't exceed current
code. So it's just something to consider.
MS. MESIANO: on that plan I reduced it as Jill had
page 58
NOVMIN-FINAL
22 required.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay.
23 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The only other thing, I don't know what
the top is rebuilt as.
24 TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's not on this plan.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What's the dimension of the top deck; is
25 it 12x12?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rebuild lower deck smaller 10x20; rebuild
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
63
deck 12x12. And steps 80x4 inkind, in-place. It doesn't say
upper but I'm sure that's referring to the upper deck.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The 12x12?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
MR. ECKERT: Dave, if I may. CAC also requested a 20-foot
non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. There will have to be a buffer
considered with this. I can tell you based on what I heard
tonight, I'm concerned with this retaining wall around the
pool with the fact it's six foot above grade. That's very
high. so I just want to let you know I have a concern about
that. The drywell that's marked to the southern end of the
pool, looks like the shallow end of the pool. IS that a pool
drywell? I want to make sure on the plans here. I didn't
know if it was from the house to the pool. Looks like it goes
from the pool. I just wanted to double check.
MS. MESIANO: It was going to be from the house and the
pool.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Both.
MS. MESIANO: Yes. Because it would not be raining
torrentially when you are backwashing your pool, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand. so when you talk to the
engineer, looking at this, if they would look at that also to
make sure it's sufficient for this.
And you had mentioned the driveway had been regraded. I
thought the last time we were in there, well, the driveway is
really outside our jurisdiction, but it looked like the
driveway was being leveled by hay bales. That hay bales were
holdin9 the driveway up and I didn't know, it's outside our
jurisdlction but I wanted to make sure we noted that.
MS. MESIANO: The driveway has been regraded and
reconstructed with a compacted RCA base and the banking was
done for the purpose of directing the runoff from the front
yard into the swales and drainage containment in the front
yard. so, no, it's just that the hay bales there kind of
confused things.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And the other condition we had down here,
just to make sure there is not going to be sprinklers
lnstalled on the bluff. In other words no irrigation system
on the bluff. It didn't call for it but we just wanted to
make sure it was noted.
MS. MESIANO: You mentioned the 20-foot non-turf buffer.
From experience that I have had on other projects, and
comments that come from the Soil and water conservation Board,
it's been recommended that small berms be constructed or
placed at the top of the slopes to prevent any runoff. would
page 59
NOVMIN-FINAl
24 that be something that the board would be in favor of?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: we'll certainly consider it.
25 MS. MESIANO: Because that would be part of a non-turf.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, we would certainly consider it, if
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it came in on the revised plans.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's like the neighbor to the south
has berms like that.
MS. MESIANO: Yes. I have a number of jobs where that has
been requested.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was all that I had. I wanted to
make sure, see if the board had any other issues to assist the
applicant for when she comes back in next time around.
MS. MESIANO: Could I possibly get, perhaps tomorrow,
Lauren could E-mail me or fax me the CAC comments because I
guess that's where you are taking these items from.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: YOU can get that. No, I'm not taking
these items from the CAC comments. YOu can get that.
MS. MESIANO: okay, I have most of it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: They are off the top of my head.
MS. MESIANO: okay. I have most of it here. None of them
were surprises.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just so we are understanding, what I'm
going to do is make a motion to table this. But before I do
that, you already have permission with the emergency permit to
address this erosion problem at the top here. So that has
already been given. So you can certainly do the work
necessary to address that
MS. MESIANO: I'll see to it that it's done properly.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right. If there are no other
comments I'll make a motion to table this application. Do I
have a second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
MS. MESIANO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Costello Marine Contracting
Corporation on behalf of Breezy Shores community, Inc.,
requests a wetland Permit to remove and replace inkind/inplace
eight existing jetties, dredge basin inlet to four feet below
AMlW (approximately 800 cubic yards) and use spoil as beach
nourishment. located: sage Road, Southold.
IS there anyone here who would like to speak to this
application?
MR. COSTEllO: I believe it was four or five months ago we
were here at a board meeting and we tabled a hearing. We were
waiting for a decision from the DEC and chuck Hamilton on how
he wanted to approach this jetty situation. Being that there
is eight jetties and the dredging and since chuck Hamilton is
not here ln the audience I'm going to give him some credit for
coming up with a very fair compromise.
He gave us the eight jetties but you'll notice that the
jetties have been shortened up to a low tide only, meaning
page 60
NOVMIN-FINAl
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
most of the jetties were approximately 35 to 40 feet in
length. The jetties have been in existence for about 40 years
or better and seem to be working out pretty well.
The material that we are going to dredge is our own
material that was washed away from the east to the west and
sort of clogging up the entrance to the little clay basin. We
are going to take that material and re-nourish the beach above
the high tide mark. Basically what we are doing is we are
negating any down drift effect of these jetties with our own
material. That's all the comments I have.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. Is there anyone else
here?
MS. SZARKA: Helen szarka, I'm a shareholder at Breezy
Shores and I'm here to ask you to approve the jetties as the
DEC has done to help us protect our beach and the bulkhead and
our property. Thank you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The last board had looked at this and
our new board has been there to look at it. And the last
board had a very, very cold inspection with snow on the ground
and we were able to see this last inspection on a very nlce
day.
I think one of our biggest questions is that the jetties
are appearing to this board, do appear to be non-functloning.
NOW, I forget which way the numbers start. Number one, we
didn't have a problem with. TWO, three, four. Right.
MR. COSTEllO: Number one is to the east. Eight is to the
west.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And the feeling of the majority of the
board, correct me if I'm wrong, is that we still are of the
decision that we would like to see them removed with the
exception of the eastern jetty and the reason being when we
were there again, we had taken pictures back in, do you
remember, Jim, if it was December of last year?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't remember.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: when we were there last. I know there
was snow on the ground. The shoreline doesn't appear to have
been removed at all. we have taken pictures where the
shoreline was above the beams of the bulkhead and it appeared
to be, Jim even noticed, almost exactly in the same place if
not more. so our feeling was that the existing, not number
one but the two, three, consequently going down the beach, are
non-functioning and they should be removed.
MR. COSTEllO: And you are concerned they are not needed,
because the beach is pushed up?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: With the exception of one and eight,
right.
MR. COSTEllO: One and eight, first and last.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right.
MR. COSTEllO: okay, if you were to look at a set of
aerial photographs over a period of time, you'll see that that
Page 61
NOVMIN-FINAL
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
beach comes and goes. We just had a blowout to the south and I
believe it was three weekends ago it was a pretty heavy
southwest wind or south, southwest wind and a lot of material
was pushed up. If we get a northeast wind cut through there,
then you'll see all the material down drift at the basin. If
you were to calculate the amount of yards that we propose to
dredge, that's about 800 yards of material. well, that 800
yards of material came from our beach. So we are losing beach
there. obviously to the east is the worst. And over time I
think you are going to see a lot more erosion there. Again,
depending on the weather. If you get abnormal blowout of the
south, which doesn't happen often, you'll see some beach
pushed up right against of the bulkhead. simple as that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And just to clarify. NO one on the
board have any problems with the dredge; dredging the basin.
That's not an issue.
TRUSTEE KING: Didn't we at one time talk about reducing
the number of jetties and relocating them? I thought that was
one of the --
MR. COSTELLO: It was mentioned toward the end of the
meeting that you were thinking about doing four. We also
discussed the theory, everybody seems to have a theory on the
distance between jetties, length versus the distance between
them. Army Corps has a theory, chuck Hamilton has a theory.
we have our own theory. I sort of like the theory that is
existing for 40 years or better: Eight existing jetties
maintained at property for a lot longer than some of us have
been on this earth. so chuck Hamilton took that as a hint. I
took that has a hint and the 31 property owners taken that as
a hint.
YOU know, what has been working in the past seems might
work in the future. Although these things have been shortened
up, so that is going to negate some of their effectiveness but
I hate to go alone. If we had a storm of the wrong magnitude,
from the wrong direction, we would be back in about ten
minutes later requesting to have these permits reinstated.
NOW, I realize they are non-functional but if you realize
how difficult it is to get 31 people to go the same direction,
it takes a little bit of time. Takes a little thought.
obviously takes some financing. And that's why I have not
been here in front of this board or the previous board
sooner. Simple as that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments from the board?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: One of the items we talked about last
time was the possibility of -- this project will require the
removal of what is there and a construction new. So what we
had talked about last time was the opportunity to remove them,
do number one and eight, and ~ive it a year to look at it and
then come back in a year and lf there has been substantial
erosion to reconsider those other jetties being allowed back
67
page 62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
in, to be put back in.
MR. COSTELLO: okay. I don't remember the one in eight
jetties but I know we talked about the possibility of putting
some jetties in and taking some aerial photos.
What if I came up with aerial photos right now from
history and showed you what happens to that beach with the
jetties and without the jetties so that we don't have to
Jeopardize anybody's property and have to go through this same
scenario again.
I mean I have a DEC permit that will last me five years,
which is a good thing. So, you know, if there was a major
problem I could come back to this board. But if I could prove
the case by aerial photos, would you consider that instead of
experimenting?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But your aerial photos would only show
that, what you are saying, that the jetties are saving the
beach. There would be no evidence of what would happen without
those center jetties.
MR. COSTELLO: well, I think you could go by other case
histories on peconic Bay with non-functional jetties. I'm
sure some of these cases have come up in front of the board.
Maybe not this board but other boards. where people have not
replaced their jetties and had some serious erosion on the bay
front. DO you guys know of any cases like that? I could cite
a couple of cases in Nassau point.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So you are sayin9 the beach we are
observing, that appears to us because it s non-functioning,
that the beach is there, you are saying with other weather
conditions it actually is less?
MR. COSTELLO: NO. It changed. obviously if the jetties
were functional, either the jetties would be full or empty
depending on the material coming down the beach. what I'm
saying, what you looked at and what I can show in aerial
photographs with the jetties intact or slightly intact, that
there is less beach there.
So what I'm afraid of, I don't want to experiment with
someone's property. If I can prove the case with aerial
photographs, instead of taking them all out and only replacing
one in eight, am I making that clear?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand what you are saying.
MR. COSTELLO: I don't want to gamble if I don't have to.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand what you are saying, but the
natural occurrences are beaches are going to come and beaches
are going to go. Just in the short time I have been on this
board I don't know how many people came to me and said do you
realize how much beach we've lost in the last ten years. And
I say I sure do. It's nature. It happens. And the proposed
solution of putting jetties all the way down the beaches is
not something that environmentally has been supported.
In other words, environmentally what has been supported
68
1
2
is let nature take its course and there will be natural ebb
and flow; sand is going to come, sand is going to go. Over
time it could mean a lot of sand is going to go. And that
page 63
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
could happen.
MR. COSTELLO: And the end result of that?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Could be the sea takes away what we have
had for years. I'm not saying I'm in favor of that. But what
I'm saying that, you know, there are issues with these jetties
with increasing the hardening of the shoreline and puttlng
more jetties in. That's what I'm saying. That's where the
concern is.
MR. COSTELLO: I understand. The jetties are a tricky
situation. But your concern, if we were to put eight jetties
in, what do you think is going to happen? What is the problem
that you foresee?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right now it's probably more structure
than what is there, since we all agree these are
non-functioning, the structure that is there is less than what
you are going to put there. And speaking for myself, we are
constantly trying to reduce the number, the amount of
structure on our shorelines.
So my point would be if we replace one in eight, we are
not replacing eight, so we are reducing the structure, which
by peconic Estuary program's longterm goal is to actually
reduce the structure along the shoreline. And I totally
understand your concern and I totally understand where you are
coming from but I think what we've proposed, because as you
say your DEC permits are for five years, and as Dave said and
I know Jim and the last board and I proposed, replacing one in
eight and giving it a year and if what we think is ~oing to
happen doesn't happen and what you are saying is gOlng to
happen, happens, then we would consider the other jetties.
But, again, we have talked a long time about it and I think
the board is still --
MS. SZARKA: Aren't you placing us in more jeopardy by
removing the existing jetties that we have now.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But they are non-functioning. They
are not doing what they are supposed to be doin~.
MS. SZARKA: They are not totally non-functloning. If you
take those out you are putting us at jeopardy. We have 1,800
feet of bulkhead. who will pay for that if that disappears on
us? we don't have the funds to do that. what happens then?
What alternative do we have at that point?
TRUSTEE KING: I would assume they are all going to low
profile?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, 18 inches tall.
TRUSTEE KING: Where would the landward end be compared to
that whaler that's almost flush with the beach now; height
wise?
MR. COSTELLO: 18 inches above grade on the down drift
69
1
2
3
4
side. That's the way chuck Hamilton wrote the permit. 18
inches tall versus what is there. Some of them are probably
three or four, five feet tall. Four feet tall, maybe. The
tallest. And what I'm sayin~ they have already been reduced
almost by half from the origlnal jetties.
TRUSTEE KING: I was trying to envision in my mind the
height that they would be above the existing beach now at the
page 64
NOVMIN-FINAL
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
bulkhead.
MR. COSTELLO: At the bulkhead is 18 inches.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: when you say shorten, is it shorten
the length or just the height?
MR. COSTELLO: Height.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: what's the length?
MR. COSTELLO: The first one is 17-and-one-half feet and
the second one is 27-and-a-half. That's relative to the beach
at the time that Mr. Hamilton was on site.
MS. SZARKA: The avera~e length now is 25 where what is
existing or what was when lt was in good condition was 40.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I saw Mr. Costello's hand up before. Did
you want to make a comment?
MR. COSTELLO: There was discussion of trying four and see
what the effects were. But to remove more than you have to,
there will be an effect. Tides are rising. There is going to
be more severe storms, whether we want them or not. You know,
there is development on the waterfront. There has development
has been there for many, many years. Successful. You know.
But one of the reasons is that they are successfully is
structures are there, were minimal and they were functional.
And for going to reduce the functionality by reducing the
length, reducing the height, that's fine, but it's cutting
back on structures and some reasonable alternative should come
out of this.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are these new plans since they
reduced, DEC reduced the -- this is stamped March 21, 2006.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we received them March 21, 2006.
MR. COSTELLO: NO. The permit was issued October 19,
2006. So.
MS. SZARKA: That's from Bob FOx.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So we don't have a current --
MR. COSTELLO: My mistake.
MS. SZARKA: The current high and low tide.
MR. COSTELLO: Do you have a copy of the DEC permit?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't think we do.
MR. COSTELLO: (Handing).
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC recommends disapproval of the
application. This goes back to April 12. TO disapprove of
the application to replace eight jetties, however recommend
approval to remove/replace number one jetty on the south end
of the property, complete removal of the seven remaining
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
groins and replace the dredge spoil on the southeast of the
number one jetty.
MR. COSTELLO: whose recommendation is that?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC. They made that recommendation in
April.
TRUSTEE KING: (perusing). In my mind, the beaches
MR. COSTELLO: There is a profile on page eight or nine
showing the 18-inch height.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Bob, any thoughts?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I could see going with four.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did you gentlemen see this?
Page 65
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
MR. ECKERT: No, this is before.
MR. YOUNG: We are too young for this.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I didn't know if you had gone out to
see it.
MS. SZARKA: Low profile is only 18 inches.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No new jetties permitted. Net results
net decrease in total number of jetties. so the way I read
this, it's saying only number 275 now, only low profile
jetties, only inplace replacement, and no new jetties or
groins permitted unless the work results in a net decrease in
the total number of jetties in the subject area. And the last
part is there has to be an opportunity for public passing.
which we know.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: would you be willing to reduce any
number of them?
MR. COSTELLO: well, I think the idea that was talked
about on our last meeting was to try four and document the
results. And then go from there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would be willing to do that.
would you feel comfortable with four?
MS. SZARKA: I would feel real comfortable with six.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I feel comfortable with four.
TRUSTEE KING: what do you feel is like the height of the
beach as, like we are out there was about even with the
whaler.
MR. COSTELLO: That was in
you go to the east, it's a lot
has the last, the most eastern
a little upset.
TRUSTEE KING: The beach a lot below that whaler. What if
you build a low profile groin with the top of the groin even
with the top whaler? wouldn't that fill to that height?
MR. COSTELLO: well, we'll pre-fill them so we are
negating any down drift effect. We are taking 800 yards and
putting it back to the beach. The idea was to take it and put
it in the corner of each jetty, then evenly disperse the
spoils, the 800 yards. So they are full, you know, a week
after they are constructed.
That was the whole idea, just to maintain 18 inches of
the middle of the property. If
lower. on Helen's end. Helen
cottage. so that's why she is
71
1 beach in front of the existing bulkhead. And it's all about
the bulkhead. AS far as I'm concerned, it's not about the
2 damn jetties.
TRUSTEE KING: 18 inches of their property is lower than
3 18 inches in the middle.
MR. COSTELLO: Contract.
4 TRUSTEE KING: Can we get a top measurement from the top
of the bulkhead to the top of the groin where it meets the
5 bulkhead and go from there?
MR. COSTELLO: Sure. I just have to go on site and mark
6 each one of them.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Say that again.
7 TRUSTEE KING: I would like to see a measurement taken
from the top of the bulkhead to the top of the landward end of
8 the groin to see what it is. Above the beach. Just like you
page 66
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
said, her beach is way below the whaler. So if you put an
18-inch groin in there --
TRUSTEE OICKERSON: I understand that. 00 you want that
measurement prior to approving or do you want to make it --
TRUSTEE KING: I would like to go out and take another
look, to be honest with you. With that dimension showing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Can you get the dimensions for
December 6 when we go out and look at it?
MR. COSTELLO: Sure.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you want to ask for measurements if
we are thinking of four, where the other two would be?
TRUSTEE KING: could you stake them out?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, I'll mark them on site.
TRUSTEE KING: Could you show where you would put the four
groins?
MR. COSTELLO: I'll mark them on site and you could see
where the measurements are.
TRUSTEE KING: I think that would be the best thing.
Let's go look at it one more time.
MR. COSTELLO: obviously the eastern end is in the most
danger and the center of the property is where the material is
the highest on the beach, is less of a problem, less of a
concern, I should say. At present time.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Good. Appreciate it.
TRUSTEE KING: Because I'm inclined not to do the gamble
bit so much. That's my personal thought.
MS. SZARKA: What's that?
TRUSTEE KING: I'm inclined not to gamble.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: TO give you something more protective
MS. SZARKA: I don't know where we would go if our
bulkhead disappears. What do we do? where do we get the
money from to fix it?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We understand that. We are just --
some of us have different ideas of what would happen. So I'll
make a motion to table.
72
1 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?
2 (ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We'll see the stakes December 6. It's
3 the first week.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 14, Costello Marine contracting
on behalf of Theodore and Kathryn Bucci requests a wetland
Permit to remove 15 feet of existing bulkhead and replace
in-like, inplace and add two 12-foot returns. Dredge area in
front of bulkhead to four feet below AMLW (approximately eight
cubic yards) and truck spoil off site to an approved disposal
location. Located: 200 Harbor Lights Drive, Southold.
Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. COSTELLO: George Costello, sr., representing the
applicant.
what we are doing is there is a 15-foot existing right of
way that is deteriorating, amongst a couple of other pieces of
page 67
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
NOVMIN-FINAL
property, and we want to replace this existing bulkhead. For
a little insurance we are just goin~ to put a couple of
12-foot returns so the next door nelghbors don't repair their
bulkhead or have a problem with their bulkhead, it doesn't
effect our client.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was one of our questions. Has
there been any contact with the next door neighbors to maybe
repair both at the same time?
MR. COSTELLO: AS much as having a letter of permission
from the next door neighbor to cross his property. At this
time he was not willing to do any work on his bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. CAC supports this
application and requests a 20-foot non-turf buffer. we
thought maybe a 12-foot buffer to come back to meet with the
return, non-turf.
MR. COSTELLO: Can I have a little pathway going through
there so a guy can jump overboard?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Is there any other comments from
the audience, the board?
(NO response.)
It's consistent with LWRP because it's inkind replacement
or in-place replacement, I should say.
Hearing no other comments, I'll make a motion to close
the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve Costello
Marine contracting on behalf of Theodore and Kathryn Bucci to
replace bulkhead as applied for with 12-foot non-turf buffer,
and that's it.
73
1 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
2 (ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you.
3 we have to make a resolution to go off public hearing.
I'll make that motion.
4 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
5 (ALL AYES.)
VIII. RESOLUTIONS-OTHER:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we'll go back to our regular meeting,
number two under Resolutions. The scallop season started
almost two weeks ago and the reports back in Hallock's Bay, we
have reports there is basically just bugs there and there is
really no resource right now. So in light of that I would
like to make a resolution to amend our original resolution of
september 20.
Be it resolved that the southold Town Board of Trustees
open the following dates to scallop harvesting:
From Monday, November 6, 2006, from sunrise to sunset, through
sunday, November 19, 2006, inclusive, for non-commercial
page 68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
scallop harvesting only.
From Monday, November 20, 2006, from sunrise to sunset,
through Saturday, March 31, 2007, inclusive in all town waters
with the exception of Hallock's Bay, where that area will
close on Monday, November 20, 2006.
All gear is permitted pursuant to chapter 219 of the code
of the Town of Southold.
I'll make that motion.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
Just to clarify, Hallock's Bay will be closed to
scalloping as of Monday, the 20th.
MR. ANDROSKY: why? That's why we sat here for four
hours? why?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: AS I explained, it has been told to us
there is no resource there.
MR. ANDROSKY: If there is no resources, okay, no one is
going to go in there. You do something like this, you close
down an area like that to dredging. It may never get open
again. I dealt with this two years ago. Went through the
same thing. If there IS nothing in there, nobody goes in
there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was closed in 2004 and it was opened
last year. It was open this year.
MR. ANDROSKY: I don't want to see it closed at all.
There is no reason to close an area down. Because you get,
74
say you do get some bugs in there, then you get a crowd of
people in here saying they don't want dredges in there,
because you get ignorant people in there that don't know
anything about scallop dredging then they want to close it.
And we have such -- this is it. This is what represents us
now.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are closing it to everybody, not just
dredging.
MR. ANDROSKY: It shouldn't be closed at all to anybody
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't see what the difference is.
MR. ANDROSKY: If is there is no resource, nobody goes
there. There's going to be no scallops, no dredges, nothing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For us to close it, it makes enforcement
that much easier.
MR. MILHAN: Charles Milhan, 15 wilson Road, Greenport.
what's the reason to close this? what's the reason? Are you
hoping to save the scallops that are in there?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's part of it.
MR. ANDROSKY: There are no scallops in there. So why
close it?
MR. MILHAN: HOw do you know what's in this creek at this
time? Hallock's Bay. where do you get your information from?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: From the bay constables who got it from
the people that are --
MR. ANDROSKY: There you go.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on. one person at a time, please.
MR. HARDY: Charles Hardy. I been doing this for 50
page 69
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
years. I can 90 in there tomorrow and make two, three-hundred
dollars. This 1S what I do for a living. You're taking a
piece of my year's pay away from me.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If there is nothing in there, there is
nothing there to harvest.
MR. HARDY: who said there is nothing in there?
MR. ANDROSKY: You can maybe go there and scrounge up a
day's pay for a day or two.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is the only area we are closing.
There is other areas in the town.
MR. ANDROSKY: It shouldn't be closed at all, though.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Today is the 15th. So you have until
sunday at sundown.
MR. ANDROSKY: First, that's for the recreational people.
what about commercial people? That's for all the yahoos you
see in the front paper.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can go in there.
MR. ANDROSKY: No, I can't go in there after tomorrow. I
can't go in there period because I'm a commercial person. I
don't do recreational.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can get your residential limit.
MR. ANDROSKY: Do you understand I do this for a living?
He did does. He does. We don't go in for half a basket or a
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
couple to eat. You are taking my living -- am I taking your
living away from you?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: NO. If there is nothing in there then we
are not taking anything away from you.
MR. ANDROSKY: You are taking away the right for us to go
in there anyway.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's a matter of protection of the
resource. Again, what we have been told by the bay constable
is there is essentially no scallops in there other than bugs,
and so we are trying to protect what is there for the future.
MR. ANDROSKY: HOw you goin9 to protect it? By what?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: By not hav1ng anybody go in there and
harvest or disturb what is there.
MR. ANDROSKY: Nobody takes bugs.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm trying to provide you with feedback
as to why this decision was made. That's all I'm trying to
do.
MR. ANDROSKY: I don't think you guys should be getting
any feedback from the bay constables because the bay
constables don't know anything about what is 90ing on either.
MR. ANDROSKY: Ben Androsky, Post Lane. F1rst thing, when
they planted the scallops in there last year, they lost 90% of
them. All right, they did this with no studying, no survey,
no recommendations from the shellfish, no nothing. They dump
a bunch of scallops there, bugs, feeding frenzy for the
predators. No protection. where does this bug go? It's got
no place to hide. It's not out in the bay. It has no cockle
shells. The bottom was barren last year. Absolutely barren.
So there goes a waste of all them scallops. Nothing around.
okay, no advice, put them in the bay. They can grow. They can
move. They can hide. They tried this in Goose creek before,
Page 70
7
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
100% wipe out. Did they have any advice? Did they learn from
this? No. Nobody says they want scallop at Hallock's. we
know what it's all about. It's for the public. To make you
look good. we know that. Now we keep the baymen out of there
because there is a few people that don't want dredge dredging
in there. who they influence, I do not know. But they
definitely influence somebody.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: with respect to the area that --
MR. ANDROSKY: okay? NOW, as we all know, as Mr. King
knows, the bottom of that water, the bottom of that bay,
creek, is like a farm. YOU don't work that farm, you don't
get a crop. You put dredges in there to work that bottom, get
that silt up, get everythlng, get that air moving, you going
to get a product. YOU basically, you want dredges in there if
you got bugs, you want them bugs scattered. You want them
moved. YOU want them to deeper spots. You want them shifted
all the way around. where you are getting your advice from, I
don't know. wherever you are getting it from, evidently it
looks like it's wrong.
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we haven't 90tten an official from
Cornell. we had a conversation wlth Cornell with respect to
their area that they had their, I don't know what they did
there --
MR. ANDROSKY: They closed off the eastern portion of the
creek, put about a million bugs back there. None of them
lived. That goes to show you where you get our resources
from. They put all this time and effort to put the scallops
there and nothing lives. They all died.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what they told us and we asked
did it go into the other sections of the creek. They said
no. They said there is nothing else in the creek.
MR. ANDROSKY: YOU got predators coming in there by the
millions. That's a feeding frenzy. There is no study behind
thi S.
MR. MILHAN: Can I just say one thing.
MR. ANDROSKY: GO ahead, I'm gone. you're wron9.
MR. MILHAN: It's impossible to catch scallop wlthout
dredging on the bugs. It can't be done. Because scallop
lives for 16, 18 months, then it dies. It spawns once during
the summer. Then when the season opens or they are done
spawning you catch it because it's going to die anyway. You
have to dredge up the scallops to catch it. They been doing it
for a hundred years. According to that, they should have been
wiped out 100 years ago if you kill them by dredging them.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are not saying they will be killed by
dredging. That's not what we said.
MR. ANDROSKY: Every year now this problem comes up.
Every year it comes up the same old mess.
MR. HARDY: You 90ing to do what you going to do anyway,
so. We are just asklng you, just sitting here listening
tonight I could see the board is really working hard to take
care of the environmental problems and stuff but this is not
just a Hallock's Bay problem. This is the whole peconic Bay,
Gardner's Bay. It's everywhere. There is no grass growing, no
Page 71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
scallops anywhere, no clams growing. It's pollution. Start
looking into some of the sewer plants, road runoff.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we are working diligently on storm water
runoff.
MR. HARDY: Stop selling all the junk people put in the
lawns and stuff.
MR. ANDROSKY: Yeah, issuing people grants to build houses
on the water, then they get these nice blg green lawns, what
do you think when they put all them pesticides or stuff on the
lawns, you see all the water coming from.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what we are working on. You
heard us tonight asking for the buffers. we are doing the
best we can.
MR. HARDY: The problem is thousands of the houses now
that don't come into compliance. Every time it rains,
77
something on the lawn, bush, where does it end up.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We understand that. It's a fight we are
willing to keep fighting.
MR. HARDY: why close the creek? you're putting a
Band-aid on a boo boo.
MR. ANDROSKY: Grass is a weed. weed killer kills weeds.
That don't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
MR. MILHAN: I could tell you, I used to clam down there.
I clam, I would wear out an area the size of this room. I go
back on the next year, just as thick as it was the year
before. so, the answer is not closing the creeks. Or,
something that has to be done about the pollution.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Meanwhile let's work on, give us some
more answers.
MR. ANDROSKY: why are you closing it? why?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we feel it's the best --
MR. MILHAN: The only thing you do when you close it is
set a precedence. I don't know if there is anything there.
MR. HARDY: people keep taking away from us and we keep
getting pushed into a corner. Don't go here, don't do that.
only take so much of this.
MR. ANDROSKY: And there is the possibility it may never
get open again. so don't tell me it can't. Because it could
happen.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I didn't say it can't.
MR. ANDROSKY: You said you'll open it again next year.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm not -- I didn't say that. I'm not
going to base next year's decision on this year.
MR. ANDROSKY: If you don't close it. It's not an issue.
This has been an issue about three years ago. It opens, they
go in there. If there is nothing --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In the 90s they closed it, too.
MR. ANDROSKY: We did close it once for the same reason.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Ri~ht. And it did reopen after that.
MR. ANDROSKY: I don t like to see it closed. It's
scary. YOU might not ever get it back. And like Carl said,
we had so much stuff taken away from us in the last years..
why take more away from us?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You understand the intention here is not
Page 72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
NOVMIN-FINAL
to permanently close it. That's not the intention.
21 MR. ANDROSKY: You don't understand. You don't do this
for a living, do you?
22 TRUSTEE BERGEN: NO, I don't.
MR. HARDY: YOU can throw them back dead all day long but
23 only 60 pounds to bring in.
MR. ANDROSKY: The saving of the bugs that cornell plants
24 there is ridiculous. They are going to live if they want to.
They'll set where they want to. Not because of cornell. All
25 the money that this town pisses away in that place. I mean,
it's ridiculous. Because I see it. I'm out there every day.
78
I see all this spat they put out where they dump all these
millions of clams and all these oysters you read in the paper
and all these millions of dollars worth of scallops. I never
seen nothing come back. Nothing. Maybe a million clams, 1%.
Maybe a million 2% oysters. Zero percent on the scallops.
where are you guys getting all the money to do this stuff?
You don't see any of this return. That's where you are taking
your advice from. Your resource. cornell.
MR. HARDY: You reseed the oysters in the creeks. Get
them from Fishers Island. It's natural.
MR. ANDROSKY: That's 90ing against Town code.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thlnk they have done that in the past.
I don't know what the results were.
I think it's unfortunate, I feel bad for my comment
before you had to sit here for so many hours. But as you said,
we appreciate your comments, we are trying to improve things
and little by little we are trying to create buffers and
increase buffers and trying to cut back on structures and
trying to work on road runoff and we to the best we can. And
this decision, we feel as a board was the ri9ht decision
because we are trying to improve and help thlngs out. And you
have a different perspective because it's your profession. So
you have a different perspective. But from our perspective,
we felt this was the right thing to do.
MR. ANDROSKY: Can I speak for a second. You are going to
close it. when this makes the paper, that the trustees close
Hallock's to dredging, is it going to be because on the
recommendation of the bay constable with no, nothing known,
not even a mention ahead of time to shellfish advisory
committee. what do you have a shellfish advisory committee
for? Aren't you supposed to work together as a team? No, all
of a sudden we find out today this is all done behind their
back. Because the bay constable said close it. That's your
answer. That's what's going to be in the paper. And all the
people from orient are about going to be happy. Trustees did
us a favor. They'll dredge us out of here. Correct? Going
to make you look real good.
MR. ANDROSKY: I'm on this committee and I been on it for
some time now and now I'm officially on the shellfish
committee. This was back-doored. we had a meeting two weeks
ago. This was unheard of.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This was brought up to us last week. We
did not back-door it.
Page 73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
23
24
25
NOVMIN-FINAL
MR. ANDROSKY: First I heard about this. I just found out
about this at 11 o'clock this morning.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we discussed this a week ago and we did
not consider the shellfish advisory for one reason.
MR. ANDROSKY: why didn't you consider the shellfish
advisory?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was our mistake. We didn't bring
79
it to the shellfish advisory. Excuse me. I'm trying to talk.
could you please be quiet so I could finish my sentence.
Thank you. We did not think to bring it to the shellfish
advisory committee. That was our mistake. We were thinking
of the dates. We wanted to get it done before Monday because
if we close it by Monday, make sure that we have enough notice
to people. And that is why we are doing this tonight.
MR. ANDROSKY: That's the notice? I'm on the shellfish
advisory committee. There is a meeting at seven o'clock
tonight and I find out eleven o'clock this morning? I have
eight hours notes? That's the notice the committee gets?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm telling you, we did not notice the
shellfish advisory committee. That was our mistake.
MR. ANDROSKY: HOw do you overlook that?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we are not required -- you are a
committee that works under the trustees.
MR. ANDROSKY: I think something you advise them of if you
are going to close town water to shellfishing. wouldn't you
advise them or tell them or give them heads up? God, if
nobody told me, I wouldn't have even known.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think you made your point and we
have a resolution.
MR. ANDROSKY: one more thing, I can quote you, you said
you did this on the recommendation of the bay constable.
That's exactly what you said. I can quote you on that. what
bay constable told you to shut it?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Actually, both bay constables we spoke
to and they spoke to people that were out there.
MR. ANDROSKY: And what was their reason for shutting it?
what reason did the bay constable give you?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is no resources there.
MR. ANDROSKY: Did the bay constable tell you it's not
good to put dredge in there and work the bottom? I'm asking.
I'm allowed to ask.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The bay constable didn't come to us and
say close this down. He said there is no resource there. He
came to us and we said, how do you know. He said all the
people that they have talked to while they were out patrolling
said there was nothing there. It was bugs. And he suggested
that we make a decision on what he want to do for commercial
part. And this is our decision.
MR. ANDROSKY: They talked to you. All right, there is
only non-commercial let in there, allowed in there. They
don't scallop for a living, they do nothing with the water for
a living, they buy $3,000 worth of scuba gear. But they don't
ask the shellfisher. They know.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you for all our comments.
page 74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
bay
NOVMIN-FINAL
MR. ANDROSKY: First, one question, what ri~ht does the
constable have to advise you to shut somethlng down?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He didn't advise us to shut anything
80
down. He explained to us what the resource was out there.
MR. ANDROSKY: pretty much advised you to shut it down.
where else did it come from?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He didn't come in and say shut this
down. He came and said there is no resource there and
consider what to do for the commercial season. That's what we
did and we thank you for your comments.
MR. HARDY: Good niyht.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It s difficult because this is how these
men make their living and their resource has dried up. It's
the same situation, Jim, I'm sure you went through with the
lobster die off a couple of years ago. It's frustrating as
hell. It's affecting their pocketbook, their way of life. so I
understand their frustration and their anger but if they were
listening to each other they were killin~ each other's
rationale off. And all you could do is llsten and say thank
you very much. There is no way we are going to make those
guys happy tonight. I feel sorry for them they sat here all
night.
TRUSTEE KING: Now, the Sim Moy resolution.
WHEREAS, Suffolk Environmental consulting as agent for sim Moy
applied to the Southold Town Trustees to construct a
single-family dwelling, attached rear deck, pervious driveway,
retaining wall and sanitary system, under the provisions of
the wetland ordinance of the Town of southold, application
dated January 31, 2005, and,
WHEREAS said application was referred to the Southold Town
Conservation Advisory council and the Local Waterfront
Revitalization program coordinator for their findings and
recommendations, and
WHEREAS the southold Town Conservation Advisory Council
recommends disapproval of the application for the following
reasons:
The concern with raising the septic system and the proximity
to the water table.
The concern with drainage.
The concern with a suitable buffer area.
Status and condition of the bulkhead is unclear.
And
WHEREAS, the Town of Southold senior Environmental planner and
Local waterfront Revitalization pro~ram coordinator has
recommended the proposed single-famlly dwelling, attached rear
deck, pervious driveway, retaining wall and sanitary system be
found inconsistent with the following Local Waterfront
Revitalization program policy Standards: 5.1, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5,
6.3 and which recommendation attached hereto and therefore be
found inconsistent with the Town of Southold Local Waterfront
Revitalization plan (LWRP) and
WHEREAS, numerous public hearings were held by the Board of
page 75
NOVMIN-FINAL
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Trustees with respect to said application, with the first one
on March 23, 2005, at which time all interested persons were
given an opportunity to be heard and,
WHEREAS, the board members on multiple occasions personally
viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the
surrounding area, and,
WHEREAS, the board has considered all the testimony and
documentation submitted concerning this application, and,
WHEREAS, the application does not comply with the standards
set forth in chapter 275 of the Southold Town Code and,
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the project as proposed
will have a detrimental effect upon the health, safety and
general welfare of the people of the Town, and,
WHEREAS, the proposed deck is located 27 feet from the
bulkhead along the inlet to west Lake, the proposed house is
located 30 feet from the bulkhead along the inlet to west Lake
and 31 feet from the bulkhead along Little peconic ay, the
proposed septic tank is 24 feet from the bulkhead along the
inlet to west Lake, the proposed cesspool is 40 feet from the
wetlands and the proposed driveway is two feet from the
bulkhead and,
WHEREAS, the minimum setbacks from chapter 275, wetlands and
Shoreline of the Town code, section 275-3.D, that apply to any
and all operations proposed on residential property within the
jurisdiction of the Board of Trustees are as follows:
(1) Residence: 100 feet.
(2) Driveway: 50 feet.
(3) cesspool: 100 feet.
(4) Septic tank: 75 feet.
And WHEREAS, the subject property is surrounded by tidal
wetlands on three sides and,
WHEREAS, these wetland systems are typically found within and
comprise an intertidal saltmarsh/beach ecosystem, and
WHEREAS, the board of trustees found the proposed action does
not comply with the purpose of chapter 275 which states,"it is
the intention of this chapter to ensure for the citizens of
the Town of southold the protection and preservation of its
wetlands and that they shall be regulated in order to maintain
their values, including water pollution control, groundwater,
flood control and protection of wildlife habitat and plant
habi tat," and,
WHEREAS, a document submitted by the applicant titled
"Groundwater Flow Analysis For Moy property" was reviewed by
Ron paulsen, a hydro-geologist with the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services and Daniel o'Rourke, project
hydro-geologist of Camp Dresser and McKee, a consulting
engineerin~ company and both found the document to contain
discrepancles,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, for the reasons stated above,
that the Board of Trustees finds the application of sim MOY to
page 76
NOVMIN-FINAL
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
be inconsistent with the Local waterfront Revitalization
program, and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees deny
without prejudice the application of sim MOY to construct a
single-family dwelling, attached rear deck, pervious driveway,
retaining wall and sanitary system and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this determination should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or
agency which may also have an application pending for the same
or similar project.
Motion to approve?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
(TRUSTEE GHOSIO ABSTAINS.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm abstaining I never saw it.
(Time noted is 10:45 PM.)
21
22
23
24
25
RECEWi:D L Vd
j.' 00 pfI1
ern ~ r; 2007
. O~
~~T('Cl! Clerk
page 77