HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-12/13/2006
James F. King, President
Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President
Peggy A. Dickerson
Dave Bergen
Bob Ghosio, Jr.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
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
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
1
r.:C[I';~D ,-~.-L.~
/'OOfJrn
Minutes
ai~orl.,!,,,,,
k<.','L :C.dl
wednesday, December 13, 2006
6: 30 PM
Present were: James King, president
Jill Doherty, Vice President
peggy Dickerson, Trustee
Dave Bergen, Trustee
Robert Ghosio, Trustee
E. Brownell Johnston, Esq.
Assistant Town Attorney
Lauren standish, secretarial Assistant
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Monday, January 15, 2007
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: wednesday, January 24, 2007
WORK SESSION: 5:30 PM
TRUSTEE KING: welcome to our December meeting, the last
meeting for 2006. I don't know where this past year has gone.
I guess the older you get, the quicker it goes.
I'll introduce the rest of the board to you. TO my far
left is Dave Bergen; next to him is peg Dickerson;
vice-president J111 Doherty; myself, J1m King; Lauren standish
is our office manager; our new trustee is Bob Ghosio; Mr.
Johnston is our legal advisor; Jack MCGreevy is here tonight,
is with us from the CAC, and we have our reporter, Wayne
Galante, who takes down everything we say.
I usually go over a few things we have been doing in the
past year. we have been making some changes to things. On a
good note, we have two pump out boats this year, one on
Fishers Island and one for here in Southold. We have a lot of
people asking for that and we finally got it. Thanks a lot to
Dave Bergen who was very instrumental 1n getting the grants,
in getting these two boats up and running. It's been pretty
successfully.
We have been working on the shellfish code, trying to
upgrade that. we are getting close to getting that done. We
also had a mooring plan we spent a lot of time on. we took it
to the Town Board and we're taking it back, downsizing it and
page 1
25
reviewing it more.
meeting on that.
121306 southold
I guess we'll have a public information
2
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
TRUSTEE BERGEN: we had tentatively asked about the 8th.
The 8th this room is booked. If the board was okay if we had
it on the 9th. That's a Tuesday. It's clear. I checked the
calendar. It's clear. January 9, which is a Tuesday evening
at 7:00 PM, if the board was okay with that date.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's fine.
TRUSTEE KING: Sure.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Not hearing any objections, that's what
we'll do. we'll have that advertized in the paper. And the
new draft of the mooring regulations I posted yesterday on the
town website. so it's there on the website. There are also
copies available in the office. It's just a draft.
TRUSTEE KING: we've also been working on some road runoff
projects. we have two DEC permits now for two separate
proJects.
Is Founders Landing fixed?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Founders Landing is 99% fixed. At the
end there is a little problem. We might have to add another
section. But it's fixed. we put different drainage than what
the town usually does. They put two catch basins on either end
and put a foot-wide grate, so it catches all the water that
comes down and it goes off into the basin instead of going out
into the creek. So that's done. Once you are out in the
creek, it's a different story because it's a creek that needs
to be dredged. But at least the ramp is fixed and not as
dangerous as it was.
TRUSTEE KING: Another point source of pollution is road
runoff; about the worst thin~s for water quality, and it
really shuts down the shellflsh areas. Anything we do there
will help improve the water quality.
Mattituck creek, I've been working Mattituck there ten
years now doing the samplings. we have done three, four
projects there. There's a big project done on County Road 48.
We drained all of 48 and some parts of Mattituck village
directly into the creek through a pipe. It was about a 24-inch
pipe. what they did is created a big drainage, a whole bunch
of drywells and they built a pond. So that's eliminated that
source of pollution in Mattituck creek, which was the worst
source, and we now have a conditional opening up in there. It
was shutdown at two-tenths of an inch of rain, now we are up
to three-quarters of an inch of rain before it could shut down
shell fishing, so it's a definite improvement.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the project on westphalia is going
to start soon.
TRUSTEE KING: Right. That's one of the projects. So
every time we can do a project, I can see -- I never used to
believe some of this about the road runoff but when I started
doing the water sampling and saw the numbers of bacteria after
rainfall, it's just amazin~. so every runoff project we do
you can see the water quallty get a little better. so I think
page 2
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
121306 Southold
3
it's really important for the town.
I guess that's about it. Wetland code revisions, we are
looking at that, too.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We have been keeping track, ever since
our last amendment and every time we come up with language or
a situation where we feel it needs to be refined or revised or
altered, we have been keeping a running list and we have quite
a list right now. We are in the process of also getting that
revised and amended and we'll be making public notices and
public hearings about that.
But I also want to mention the town has been very lucky
in getting some grant money. And one of the grant monies that
is going to help us out is our little trustee matters that we
put in, we try to get it in every month or two, that is just
informational. we have funding for that.
We also have gotten a grant to do a documentary, which
would be very, very similar to what the articles are. It
would simply be on our public government TV channel where it
probably would be about a 20 or 30-minute documentary, but it
would cover the same types of thin~s that are covered in the
code, trying to connect the code wlth the justifications of,
you know, the reasons for those codes and why they have been
created. So that's another project we'll be working on. so,
we have a busy year coming up.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just want to mention the shellfish
Code. we have been worklng on that as well and after we get
through the Mooring code we'll be having a public information
meeting on that.
The other, in addition to all this stuff we are working
on, our monthly field inspections, is usually 35 to 40
inspections. Each application that comes in, we don't just
say, okay, they applied, and do it. we field inspect it. we
mitigate it as much as possible, and there is lots, I would
say most of the cases, we change the application. If somebody
wants to come in with something real big, we can reduce it and
we work within the limits of our code and we reduce it and
mitigate it as much as possible.
And we are working with the wetland Code and coastal
Erosion code. Both codes have to do with the water, but they
are different. And they, I don't know, Brownell, maybe you
can technically say how they are different. we might review
the same application under both codes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Applications that come in in the coastal
Erosion zone area has got to be reviewed under both coastal
Erosion and wetlands. Not the entire town is covered by
coastal Erosion. There is a definitive geographical boundary
for coastal Erosion. so there are some cases where both
permits have to be applied for and there are some case where
it's just wetland.
MR. JOHNSTON: And, Jill, you wanted to point out that
page 3
121306 Southold
4
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
obviously these properties have to be reviewed by the State
Environmental Quality Reviews as well.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we do that review first on every
application, which has different steps under the state.
That's a state law we have to review the application under.
Then we review it under our local law as well.
MR. JOHNSTON: Then LWRP looks at it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: LWRP, CAC. what I'm saying, in addition
to all this other work we are doing, we are doing lot of work
on each separate application that comes in, a lot of steps we
have to take on our review process.
MR. JOHNSTON: That's before you even get to the building
department or the other non-trustee people. So you are doing
a heck of a lot of work, I guess.
TRUSTEE KING: Before we get started, we have a number of
postponements, just to read them off. I don't want to see
anybody sitting here waiting for something to come up that has
been postponed.
Number three under Applications for Amendments and
Extensions, Mary zupa has been postponed.
Number seven under the same category, Heribert Orth, has
been postponed.
under coastal Erosion and Wetland permits, Susan
Rentchler is postponed.
Number five, Ronald Stritzler, has been postponed.
under Wetland permits, number six, Maria Trupia has been
postponed.
Number 13, phyllis schaffer, has been postponed.
Number 17, Elizabeth siddons, has been postponed.
Number 18, Robert seeley, has been postponed.
Number 19, Jonathan and Andrea parks, has been
postponed.
Number 20, vincent P. Basilice, has been postponed.
Number 21, Arthur Torell, has been postponed.
Number 22, Grace Burr Hawkins, has been postponed.
Number 23, Jack DaSilva has been postponed.
Number 24, Eve MacSweeney, has been postponed.
Number 25, Paolo and Jean Blower, has been postponed,
and; number 26, David Shamoon, has been postponed.
All these hearings have been postponed, so if there is
anybody here for those, you can leave now.
The next field inspection?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we were discussing before, the 15th is a
holiday and a couple of board members have off that day from
their regular job, so we were discussing maybe doing field
inspections on the 15th and then moving the meeting to the
24th, right?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: correct.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It would be helpful.
TRUSTEE KING: Move it from the 17th to the 24th.
5
1
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Then we are can figure out
Page 4
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121306 Southold
February after that. The February schedule is kind of screwy
too, with the vacation. we can figure that out. what I'm
saying is we might end up having a meeting three weeks later
instead of the four weeks later.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we did that this month.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we did that this month, too.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: DO you have a problem with that?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: NO.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the
altered dates.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: So it's Monday the 15th for field
inspections and wednesday the 24th for the meeting.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: okay, February, the week of vacation is
Monday the 19th, that third week of February. I don't have of
a regular calendar, but I have this. Right now we have it the
7th and the 14th. The field inspection 1S the 7th and the
meeting on the 14th. we talked about changing it to Monday
the 12th for field inspections, and the 21st, the meeting.
MS. STANDISH: we usually go away during that week.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there a problem d01ng the field
inspections and the meeting in the same week?
MS. STANDISH: No.
TRUSTEE KING: Not for me.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For Lauren, as far as getting the
warrant and paperwork.
MS. STANDISH: It's close but, once in a while, we can get
through it. we've done it before. It's a little close.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then the meeting would be on the 14th.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's also Ash wednesday.
TRUSTEE KING: so when do we do the field inspection?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: On the 12th.
MS. STANDISH: So I'll go ahead and just submit the rest
and then we can -- they just need someth1ng to go by.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: okay.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have no problem with October. It
was fine with me last month. My problem was August. He has
] i 11 and I n
TRUSTEE BERGEN: why don't we go then with the approval of
the 18th minutes. If nobody has any objections.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion we approve the October
18th minutes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But not August.
TRUSTEE KING: we are approv1ng october 18th minutes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Not August. There's too many
corrections. we have to go over it.
6
1 TRUSTEE BERGEN: We had a motion and a second. All in
favor?
2
(ALL AYES.)
3 I. MONTHLY REPORT:
page 5
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
121306 southold
4 TRUSTEE KING: The monthly report, trustees monthly report
for November, 2006. A check for $18,330.76 was forwarded to
5 the supervisor's office for the general fund.
6 II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
7 TRUSTEE KING: public notices are posted on the Town
clerk's bulletin board for review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE KING: RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees of the
Town of Southold hereby finds that the followin~ applications
more fully described in Section vII Public Hearlngs Section of
the Trustee agenda dated wednesday December 13, 2006, are
classified as Type II actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and
regulations and are not subject to further review under SEQRA:
Susanna Doyle - SCTM#10-11-5.8
phyllis schaffer - SCTM#76-3-1
Jack DaSilva - SCTM#57-1-4
David shamoon - SCTM#122-9-7.20
Fred pollert - SCTM#70-6-29.2.
Hugh Lee switzer Irrevocable Trust - SCTM#67-5-1
Iskender Erey & Angelica Bengolea - SCTM#38-6-7
Kevin & cara Ferro - SCTM#117-10-2
Liliana Nealon - SCTM#52-5-24
Nancy Carroll - SCTM#90-1-21
Joseph & carolyn Ferrara - SCTM#38-8-1
Lee & Marie Beninati - SCTM#90-4-17
Robert seeley - SCTM#33-3-19.4
Andrew McGowan, Jr. - SCTM#116-6-18, 19 and 20
carol Freda - SCTM#86-6-26.2
Heribert Orth - SCTM#115-17-17.12
Christine Howley - SCTM#144-5-29.3
Antonio & Grazia vangi - SCTM#83-1-7
James & Justine weeden, et al - SCTM#118-1-19
Thomas Yanni os - SCTM#83-1-6
Janet Doran - SCTM#119-1-3
IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS
TRUSTEE KING: Number four, Resolutions and Administrative
25 permits.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Nigel Robert william, Architect on
7
1
2
3
4
5
behalf of vicki Haupt requests an Administrative Permit to
remove and replace stoop and deck on southeast and northeast
side of two-story dwelling, remove/replace roof over
kitchen/dining room and construct new covered roof, install
new foundation wall on northeast side of two-story dwelling in
crawl space under kitchen/dinin~ room and existing wood deck,
and replace existing subsided pler on northeast corner of
dwelling an9 replace with new pier. Located: 2200 central
Drlve, Mattltuck.
page 6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121306 southold
First of all, this does go under Administrative permits.
It sounds like it's a lot but there is only one small addition
on the landward side of the house. And it's not a public
hearing, but I see somebody is here.
MR. WILLIAM: Yes. I'm Nigel Robert william.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In inspecting, there was a couple of
things. There is a pipe -- there are gutters and leaders
going into a pipe and the pipe is going right into the bank
and we would want that removed. And drywells instead of
that.
MR. WILLIAM: That's the existing pipe on the back of the
house.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the seaward side of the house, yes.
You see the pipe sticking out of the bluff. That needs to be
removed and drywells put in its place.
MR. WILLIAM: okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And during construction we would want to
see a row of hay bales.
MR. WILLIAM: You had, with the pipe, the drywell --
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, and a no-mow zone within ten feet of
the top of the bluff, we talked about, just to have a little
buffer there.
MR. WILLIAM: It's on the front of the cover, I think it
was four things, the buffer as well.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. You went into the office since
then. All right. we want to remove the pipe; drywells,
leaders and gutters around, not just that corner, around the
whole house.
MR. WILLIAM: okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It could be one drywell, but everything
to be running to it. You know, it doesn't have to be a
drywell in each corner. All the roof runoff needs to go into
a drywell.
MR. WILLIAM: There may be a problem with the upper level
because of the slope up there. I'm not sure if we have enough
flat area.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Could you put gutters and leaders down
the roof and just connect it to the other roof and connect it
to the drywell?
MR. WILLIAM: okay. Because I mean --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All the roofs connect, even though it's
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
two different buildings.
MR. WILLIAM: correct. But if you look in photograph B,
if you look at Photograph B that I dropped off today, you
can see the elevations of the two different roofs and you can
see the slope on the --
TRUSTEE KING: There is not a lot of area here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The second building --
TRUSTEE KING: IS there room on the west side of that
upper addition? would there be room to put like a little
French drain? Because that roof slants down; put a little
French drain under the eaves drop. That would take care of
the runoff.
MR. WILLIAM: If that would be acceptable. Because you
page 7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121306 southold
can see the grade difference between them and even --
TRUSTEE KING: Just something where at eaves drop, where
the flat roof, that would do it.
MR. WILLIAM: That would be great.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's a good idea, yes. And we would
like ten feet back from the bluff, a no-mow zone, to leave
that natural. Because it is so close.
MR. WILLIAM: okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The bluff is vegetated really well and
seems to be strong but this just enhances that.
MR. WILLIAM: okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, there are any questions of
the board on this?
(Negative response.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, I'll make a motion to approve
the Administrative Permit of Nigel Robert william on behalf of
vicki Haupt with the conditions of hay bales during
construction; ten feet back from the bluff is a permanent
no-mow area; drywells and French drains to catch all the roof
runoff; that one pipe that is existing now to be removed. And
I'll make that motion.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Just mark up the survey --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just mark up the survey with the
drywells and how you are going to do the drainage and no-mow
zone. That would great. And once that's in, you can get your
approval.
MR. WILLIAM: okay. Thank you
TRUSTEE KING: Merry christmas.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: samuels & Steelman Architects on
behalf of Kevin and Cara Ferro requests an Administrative
permit to construct renovations to the existing residence
including new windows and doors, new siding and interior
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
renovations. Located: 300 Jackson Street, New Suffolk.
IS there a question about a chainlink fence on this?
TRUSTEE KING: I think it belongs to the next door
neighbor.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It belongs to the next door neighbors.
TRUSTEE KING: This was originally put in as a wetland but
it qualifies for Administrative.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: okay. It doesn't look like there is
anybody here. Does the board have a problem with any of this?
(Negative response.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't see any comments or
conditions.
TRUSTEE KING: It was basically just window replacements.
The swimming pool is out of our jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have a comment for drywells here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, the standard drywells.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No one else has a comment?
page 8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
121306 Southold
(NO response.)
I'll make a motion to approve the Administrative permit.
TRUSTEE KING: CAC?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC supports the application with the
condition gutters and drywells are installed to contain roof
runoff.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jack, it was a wetland, but we realize
it should have been Administrative.
MR. MCGREEVY: sorry, I missed that.
TRUSTEE KING: It was originally put in as a wetland but
it's really Administrative, it was so minor. A lot of people
have not realized that some of this work can be done under
Administrative rather than having to go through the whole
routine of the wetland permit.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the
Administrative permit to conduct renovations to existing
residence including new windows and doors, new siding and
interior renovations to 300 Jackson Street, New Suffolk.
DO I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
V. MOORINGS/DUCK BLINDS:
TRUSTEE KING: what happened with the duck blinds?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: we postponed that.
APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS:
TRUSTEE BERGEN: under number six, Applications for
25 Amendments, Extensions and Transfers, number one, Fred
Fragola; number two, Janet Doran; number five, Lois Anderson;
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
number eight, Leonard Sessa; number nine, Douglas carlen and;
number ten, Dominick Mavellia, can all be grouped together.
we are under number six, Applications for Amendments,
Extensions and Transfers. what we do is we try to group some
of these together for approval when we have looked at them
ahead of time and know as a group there is not a problem.
So with the applications of number one Fred Fragola;
number two, Janet Doran; number five, suffolk Environmental on
behalf of Lois Anderson; number eight, Leonard sessa; number
nine, Douglas carlen; number ten, Dominick Mavellia, we looked
at these and had no problem with any of those.
I don't know if there is anybody here who wants to speak
on behalf of any of those that I just mentioned?
(NO response.)
BERGEN: If not, I make a motion to approve
two, five, eight, nine and ten as I read them
TRUSTEE
numbers one,
before.
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
DICKERSON: Second.
BERGEN: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MS. MOORE: Are you going to address II?
Page 9
121306 southold
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, we have to now do four, six, seven
12 and 11. we didn't forget you.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TRUSTEE KING: Number four, Julie MCGivney, on behalf of
Liliana Nealon requests an Amendment to permit #6077 to remove
the proposed garage, add one-story across the entire seaward
side of the dwelllng and increase the size of the proposed
screened porch, and a one-year extension to permit #6077 as
issued on February 16, 2005. Located: 395 Bayview Avenue,
southold.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, I went out and looked at that one.
TRUSTEE KING: Then I'll give it to you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. Absolutely. I'll be glad to take
that. I went out and looked at this and everything looked in
order. The reason that it was not grouped in with the others
earlier is because it was found inconsistent under LWRP
because the structure is 75 feet away from the wetlands where
the minimum boundary under the LWRP is 100.
Like I said, the project itself looked fairly simple. IS
there anybody here who wants to speak on behalf of this?
MS. MCGIVNEY: I'm Julie MCGivney. we are not here really
to speak as much as to answer any questions. AS far as the
LWRP, if you want anything included to mitigate that with hay
bales during construction, the plans have provisions for
drywells so.
TRUSTEE
sure that we
bales during
buffer. Let
BERGEN: I was just going to suggest that to make
have gutters and drywells, make sure we use hay
construction and I'm recommending non-turf
me just look. (perusing.) CAC moved to support
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
this application and I would like to suggest a ten-foot,
non-turf buffer there and with those changes, the mitigating
efforts will deem it consistent under LWRP, if that's okay
with you.
MS. MCGIVNEY: That's fine.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay. Being there are no other comments,
I'll make a motion to approve application number four, Julie
MCGivney on behalf of Liliana Nealon as written in the
description, with the addition of the gutters, drywells, hay
bales and a ten foot non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Number six, Costello Marine contracting on
behalf of Joseph and carolyn Ferrara requests an Amendment to
permit #6321 and 6321C to allow for the installation of two
two-pile mooring dolphins on the west side of the existing
dock structures. Located: 2170 Maple Lane, East Marion.
This was a dock on the bay we approved, I believe it was
in February. we have a lot of concerns with docks on the
bay.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121306 Southold
structure and we felt it was basically in the shadow of that
structure and therefore it really did not have a huge impact.
so we approved it. Now we are looking at an application to
include two two-pile dolphins here, on the west side, in my
opinion, would put this back into being inconsistent. It's my
understanding this was a dock to be used in the summertime for
pleasure and now it's being expanded, so I don't know if the
board has any feelings about it, but I think we should deny
this amendment.
MR. COSTELLO: John Costello with Costello Marine
Contracting. We are the agents for the applicant. This dock is
not being expanded.
TRUSTEE KING: The size of the area that is being used is
being well expanded.
MR. COSTELLO: If you would let me finish.
TRUSTEE KING: Fine.
MR. COSTELLO: Thank you. It's the same boat that he
occupied the dock last summer. The next door, adjoining
neighbors asked if he could move the dock from the east side
of the floating dock to the west side in order to give the
adjoining larger dock more room because they were concerns
with some of the smaller kids that were operating the smaller
vessels, that the boat, the tightness of the pos1tion of the
dock on the property line was hazardous.
He agreed to move the boat and told the person that he
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
did move the boat to the west side of the floating dock. The
DEC gave them approval for a single piling to hold the float.
They also eliminated most of the inside p1ling on the dock
structure itself. The dock would not sustain any big, heavy
winds out of the southwest, which are the prevailing winds all
summer.
TO safely more his boat, the same boat that he moored
there last summer, he would like to be able to tie it off and
securely keep the same boat at the same structure. He's not
expanding anything else except making the slip safer in the
southwest prevail1ng winds of the summer. That's it.
TRUSTEE KING: Like I say, this is why we take a hard look
at these docks. If they are unsafe maybe they shouldn't be
built. I'll stick with my original feeling. If he needs to
tie it off, let me throw an anchor out in the blow. That will
keep it off the dock.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I was not here for the original
application in February but I would have denied it at that
time, so my vote would be also to deny.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to deny. DO I have a
second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: DO we have a vote?
MR. COSTELLO: Does anyone have any other questions of
me? I'll certainly attempt to answer them.
you'll notice when the dock permit was originally given,
there was no eel grass in the area. The beach 1S uncumbered.
yOU can walk around this dock whatsoever. The dock only
originates a few feet above high water. It was mitigated at
page 11
121306 Southold
that time. The piles were minimized. The size of the pilings
16 were minimized to meet the approvals of this board and the
DEC.
17 TRUSTEE DDHERTY: IS there some other --
TRUSTEE KING: YOU have 80 feet between that dock and the
18 other dock. I think that's adequate room to maneuver a boat
in there.
19 MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. president, there is a motion to be
voted on. It's been seconded. YOU can vote it down and then
20 open the discussion again or you can vote on it or whatever,
but it's not time for talking.
21 TRUSTEE KING: There has been a motion and it's been
seconded. All in favor?
22 (ALL AYES.)
MR. COSTELLO: Thank you.
23 TRUSTEE KING: Any nays? Any abstentions?
(Negative response.)
24 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I was just trying to think if there was
any other way.
25 TRUSTEE KING: I think doin9 that would put it back into
inconsistency with LWRP. Send 1t back up to Mark and let him
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
review it again.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I was trying to see if there was any
other way to tie it off.
TRUSTEE KING: He can throw an anchor out in the bad
blow. I've done it plenty of times.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 11. I have patricia Moore on
behalf of Marc and Deidre sokol requests a Transfer of permit
1792 from peter Eco, as issued on March 13, 1984, and; a
Transfer of Permit #5375 from Claus F. Rademacher as issued on
July 25, 2001. Located: 965 cedar point Drive, aka 350
Lakeside Drive, southold.
I see MS. Moore at the microphone. I know this is not an
opportunity, normally, for comments, but if you have
something, a comment you would like to make before we --
MS. MOORE: I think there -- I was under the impression
that when you went out for an inspection you discovered that
the drywells and the gutters -- gutters, leaders and drywells
were missing.
I'm just putting, for the record, my client requested
this transfer because he was a contract vendee at the time. I
went to the file and I found in the file a certificate of
compliance that was issued March 1, 2005, for the work that
was done under that permit, and at that time an inspection was
done and everything was found to be in compliance.
I have explained to my client, unfortunately, because I
guess government sometimes does make mistakes -- and we'll
keep that theory in mind for later.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: NO we won't.
MR. JOHNSTON: You will.
MS. MOORE: we'll put it that way. I will. My client
understands and he has no issues with adding drywells and
gutters and leaders, and that's not a problem. But he does
Page 12
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121306 southold
ask for time. He lives in chicago, the house is being sealed
up for the season and he really doesn't know when he's going
to be able to get to it. So he asked for at least a year's
time, assuming it can be done throughout this next summer
season when contractors might be available, he wants to be out
here, obviously, to monitor what is being done.
So he has no issue with it, given that supposedly this
was complied with and my client is, unfortunately, the one who
has to bear the brunt of, the financial brunt of the error, we
would ask for that consideration.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to clarify, when I went out, as Ms.
Moore said, on a field inspection, I was going out there to
look at a simple transfer of permit and also to measure a dock
and my eyes happened to notice no gutters and I noticed in the
permit that was issued in 2001, it did include leaders,
gutters into drywells.
I appreciate what your client is willing to do and I have
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
no problem, myself, approving this with the condition that
that work will be completed by september 30 to allow you
through the summer season, is that what you are asking for?
MS. MOORE: why don't we make it November 1 or something
like that so that if he has a contractor that he's able to
get, great, but if it has to be done in the Fall, um, we have
at least the Fall to do it, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If the board, if any members of the board
don't have any problem with that, that's fine with me. I
would be willing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have a problem with that. It's
just another couple of months.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My only comment is if you first saw
that not having them would create any sort of runoff problem
during the winter season. You are saying no.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: well, the house has been there without
it, so it's happening right now. NO, it's a very flat piece of
property, actually. There is not a slope down to the water
that I recall call --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's my only concern.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's a very legitimate concern. And the
house is setback fairly far from the water. so I think that,
I don't think there will be a drainage issue there.
So I'll make a motion to approve number eleven as written
under the condition that the gutters, leaders and drywells
will be installed by no later than November 1, 2007.
MS. MOORE: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: DO I hear a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
MR. JOHNSTON: Jim, do you want to provide some sort of
inspection with that?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Another compliance inspection.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MS. Moore, what we'll want to
include in there is an inspection to be done when the work is
page 13
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
121306 Southold
completed. If it's completed before that time, have your
20 client notify our office. If not, we'll go out after November
1 to do the inspection.
21 MS. MOORE: I'll make a follow-up inspection
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
22 MS. MOORE: Are you going to send a letter to this effect
so I could pass it on to my client to document the file?
23 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Ves.
24 TRUSTEE KING: I'll make motion to go off regular hearing
and go to public hearing.
25 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
15
(ALL AVES.)
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE KING: we'll do these a little out of sequence. I
want to do number one, then number three. And then move on.
Number one is David Corwin on behalf of Thomas vannios
requests a Wetland permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to
replace 120 linear feet of existing bulkhead, inkind/inplace,
using CCA lumber and 25 cubic yards of fill from an upland
source. Located: 545 Glen Court, Cutchogue.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. CORWIN: My name is David Corwin. I have no comments,
but if you had questions, I'll try to answer them.
TRUSTEE KING: we went out and tried to look at this. We
couldn't get down there. Is this the one that had the padlock
on the stairway or was it the next door neighbor?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I can't remember. One or the other.
TRUSTEE KING: We couldn't get down there. I went down
afterwards and walked the beach and took a look at it. We
have been using C-LOC vinyl on the Sound and we have been
armoring them with stones, on the Sound.
MR. CORWIN: The problem with C-Loc is you are jetting
them in. vou got a piece this wide and if you run into rocks,
you got a rou~h time getting it down, as opposed to the CCA
sheet, which 1S why we want to go with wood.
TRUSTEE KING: BUY code it's been prohibited, use of CCA.
That's basically the story on that. Other than that, I didn't
have a problem with it. Other than the fact it should be
vinyl and armored.
MR. CORWIN: well, I would want to look into the code
before I consented to use anything besides the timber.
TRUSTEE KING: okay, do you want to table it?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Let's see the code.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because I recall that being in the code.
MR. CORWIN: My understanding is not above high water
though.
TRUSTEE KING: High water is going to be quite a bit of
this bulkhead.
MR. CORWIN: occasionally, on a storm tide.
Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
22
23
24
25
121306 Southold
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm on page 25.
TRUSTEE KING: There is some beach there, not an awful
lot. I'm just trying to be consistent with every bulkhead we
put in in the last year or two.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Isn't it in the code and isn't it in the
code that it has to be armored?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. It's in the code it has to be armored
with stone.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Section 275-11(b)(f) says in order to
16
prevent the release of metals and other contaminants into the
wetlands and waters of Southold, the use of treated lumber,
CCA, and then other items that they list there is prohibited
for use in sheathing and decking. That's under -- I said
that's (f). That's under bulkheads, retaining walls,
revetments and gabions. And that's also, in that same section
(c), talks about bulkheads and the sound must be armored with
stone. we talked about that.
MR. CORWIN: So what you are saying is you want plastic
sheets and you want rocks.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. CORWIN: All right. I guess we'll table it and I'll
make some selections and do some investigation.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can, Dave, if you are willing, if you
want to, we can approve this with the changes subject to
receiving new plans instead of you waiting a whole other
month, and if you want to discuss it further you could still
discuss it further. At least you walk away with an approval
instead of waiting a whole other month.
MR. JOHNSTON: If you end up agreeing.
MR. CORWIN: I want to investigate a little more before I
agree to that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's fine. We just wanted to give you
that option.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, do you want to enter into the record
the LWRP and CAC recommendations on that?
TRUSTEE KING: I didn't see an LWRP in there.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's exempt.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think it's exempt because it's
inplace.
TRUSTEE KING: CAC resolved to support the application
using -- sorry, under the condition no treated lumber.
MR. MCGREEVY: what's the restriction of pilings when you
are putting in a bulkhead? Are they allowed to be treated?
TRUSTEE KING: we have been, yes. usually the whaler, we
let them have a 6x6 CCA.
All right, I would like to go to number three, it's right
next door to the other one.
DO we have a motion to table?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, we didn't.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to table number one,
Thomas Yannios.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
page 15
121306 Southold
24 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: En-consultants, Inc., on behalf of
Antonio and Grazia vangi requests a wetland Permit to replace
25 (within 15 inches and 12 inches higher) approximately 106
linear feet of existing timber retaining wall; backfill with
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
approximately 50 cubic yards clean sand to be trucked in from
an upland source; plant backfill area with Cape American Beach
Grass (12 inches on center) and Bayberry; and reconstruct
steps to beach as necessary. Located: 645 Glen court,
cutchogue.
TRUSTEE KING: This is also in coastal Erosion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, it's coastal Erosion and Wetland.
It's not in the description, but -- is this in line with the
bulkhead next door? The bulkhead next door juts out.
TRUSTEE KING: NO, I think it's inside of it a little bit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's still inside.
TRUSTEE KING: I just have a couple of questions, too.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, let me review CAC and
wetlands.
CAC supports the application with the condition no
treated lumber is used and a certified best practice plan is
submitted. That's the CAC recommendation. And it's exempt
from LWRP but it's also found consistent, so let me just read
this.
TRUSTEE KING: I th9ught if they were, they went out
front, it would be conslstent.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: we'll go with what he gave us.
TRUSTEE KING: I know. I know.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It says it's consistent. so.
TRUSTEE KING: So we don't have to beat ourselves to death
over this.
Rob, I have a question. why did you call it a timber
retaining wall rather than a bulkhead?
MR. HERMAN: why did I call it a retainin~ wall instead of
a bulkhead? Because when you have, the technlcal --
TRUSTEE KING: It's a little unusual, I know. It's 6x6
rather than piles
MR. HERMAN: The technical difference in definition
between a bulkhead and a retaining wall is a retaining wall is
a structure that is constructed to retain the earth behind it
where there is generally dry land in front of it.
A bulkhead is actually a waterfront structure where it is
almost always exposed to water. So whether it's low and high
tide or just high tide. So if you were to go back through
almost every application I have ever put before this board for
a new structure on the sound, I have always called it a
retaining wall.
TRUSTEE KING: I never caught that before. Never caught
it before. Because we go next door and it's called a bulkhead
and this next to it is called retaining wall.
MR. HERMAN: I think it's probably analogous to
applications you get where people propose to replace a jetty
but they don't really mean that, they mean a groin, where the
difference is a jetty maintains a navigational channel and a
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
121306 Southold
groin maintains a beach. colloquially, people just use
18
whatever term is most familiar.
TRUSTEE KING: Are you willing to come out in front? That
would put that about in line with --
MR. HERMAN: It would still be short of the one to the
east. I think the vangi's, who are here, ultimately sort of
wish they could jump all the way out. But I explained to them
that would not be permissible either by the town or by the
DEC.
But there is a couple of things that we are looking at
here, one of which is the fact that this is a pretty stable
bluff face behind it, and it's pretty nicely vegetated. So we
are trying as much as possible, given the fact that there is
so much of a step out of the structure next door, to take
advantage of that to the extent that we could try to minimize
some of the disturbance if possible to the bluff face behind
it by stepping out.
We also asked to use timber here, as with the prior
application, for a couple of reasons. one, I did discuss this
with the contractor who had the same indication that Mr.
Corwin had made on the prior application, which is the fact
that this is a location where the timber may be a more
reliable structure going down into the beach front. I mean
you could see from the site there are some huge, huge rocks at
this location.
The other thing is, I know what David just read from the
code, and I don't know if the code makes, if it actually
distinguishes, but just the language and from what I recall
the splrit of that part of the code when you all enacted it,
although there may be only one of you who is on the board who
enacted 97 before it got changed to 275, was for bulkheads
mostly on wetlands and tidal waters where there was a regular
exposure to tidal waters; same thing southampton did, whlch
was the concern that you would have a leachate of the CCA
material because of its constant inundation in the water.
But it's also been my experience, Jim, even since you
have been on this board, not only on the sound but on peconic
Bay where you have a bulkhead or what I call a retaining wall,
it is clearly upland of regular tidal flux. You have not, in
my recollection, objected to the use of CCA. Now, you may,
that may be a direction that the LWRP is sending this board in
and I won't begrud~e you that. If we are only allowed to put
in the vinyl, they 11 have to put in the vinyl. But I would
not agree that you've got high water against this retaining
wall on a regular basis.
TRUSTEE KING: Not all the time on a regular basis. Every
high tide doesn't do it. I understand that.
MR. HERMAN: So you don't really have that situation
ecologically, nor would you have it unless the sound reached
the actual structure and stayed there all the time. But I
also think that ecologically you've got a big difference in
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
121306 southold
19
terms of your water bodies here in terms of an open water body
like the Long Island Sound versus your more enclosed and
protected creeks and estuaries which would be much more
sensitive to CCA leachin9' That's why, obviously, I'm before
you every month. vinyl lS on 95% of our applications.
TRUSTEE KING: I can't remember a timber broker beam being
in place in quite a while now.
MR. HERMAN: Unless it was something behind the bottom
bulkhead or something. Anyway, that was my justification
after speaking with the vangi's and after speaking with the
contractor as to the fact we were going to try to use the
timber here, try to step out and increase the height a little
bit and just try to keep things as much the same here as
possible. Most of the structures along the sound really are
timber.
TRUSTEE KING: The new ones are vinyl. I can't think of
any that are not. They just --
MR. HERMAN: I can't think of one that I had recently
enough where we didn't use a revetment, so I can't even
remember the last time where I had a vertically faced wall on
the Sound. I haven't done a replacement in years.
TRUSTEE KING: We just did one last month, two months
a90. Access was from Bailie Beach Road going east. They just
flnished one in there. That's all vinyl.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would say -- I completely understand
what Rob is saying, but because we have been consistent with
the vinyl and because CAC has a recommendation of no treated
wood and because we are looking into the possibilities of CCA,
I would like to stick with the vinyl.
MR. JOHNSTON: And the law says retaining wall, no CCA.
You can do whatever you want but I'm just telling you it looks
like the law
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is that 275?
TRUSTEE KING: 275(b)(I), bulkhead, retaining walls,
revetments.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I just read.
MR. JOHNSTON: I was just pointln9 out the top.
MR. HERMAN: I think my question lS if we had a retaining
wall that we would all call a retaining wall by nature, that
was in your jurisdiction but on the bluff face behind this
outer structure, would you object to the CCA?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't thlnk I would.
MR. HERMAN: That's really my question.
TRUSTEE KING: secondary wall. Yes, we have.
MR. HERMAN: YOU have to take a position that the town
will either just completely ban the use of CCA or other
treated materials, which makes our lives easier because we
know what to expect. But if the board is going to consider
the use of CCA based on its location, then you have to decide
where that threshold is going to be. And I think, logically,
Page 18
23
24
25
121306 Southold
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
if the concern is over leachated CCA into the waterways then
you would have to draw that threshold at the location of the
wall. It's either in the water and has the potential of
leachate or it doesn't. In this case, it doesn't.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Most of the time, if it leaches into the
ground water, the ground water is, it's usually lower than
where the ground water would be.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would still stick with vinyl.
MR. MCGREEVY: According to the LWRP, how do they define
location-wise, as far as treated or --
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think they do.
MR. MCGREEVY: They don't. HOW about intent? where do
they have intent using certain materials? The intent of using
vinyl verse treated.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think it was very black and white. It
said none at all. No exception.
MR. MCGREEVY: Unless you mitigate it, Jim, you know.
TRUSTEE KING: What's the board's consensus; stay with
plastic?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what we've been doing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree. I want to see if there are any
other comments.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments for or
against this application?
MR. HERMAN: Jim, one of the things I was thinking of and,
I mean, I don't know how you would quantify the compromise,
but as it stands based on the discussions that the board and
the CAC is having, is that you would allow the use of vinyl
sheathing but CCA treated piles. What if they were to use CCA
treated timber but use the tropical hardwood piles? Because
we have to balance a cost here somehow, and it would be
impossible to do the whole thing with the tropical untreated
hardwood. That's what I just asked John, to take the mystery
out of that, if you could even get untreated sheathing. He
said probably not. so the cost of using untreated material he
said is about 50% more.
TRUSTEE KING: what about the plastic, is that more?
MR. HERMAN: well, they are all more expensive than the
CCA timber. Tropical materials are about 50% more expensive
than using vinyl. And with the vinyl and CCA treated piling
combination. so maybe we could eliminate all of the treated
pilings in exchange for the u~treated piles that would be, you
know, some extent more expenslve.
TRUSTEE KING: I think it's the board's feeling right now
we'll stay with the plastic.
MR. HERMAN: And stick with the vinyl sheathing and CCA
piles.
TRUSTEE KING: what's the access going to be into the
water?
22
21
1 MR. HERMAN: well, there are access stairs for some
materials coming down the property. The rest would have to
Page 19
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
come
121306 Southold
from Duck Pond Road.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: At low tide, probably.
TRUSTEE KING: Have you been down that road lately?
MR. HERMAN: I haven't been.
TRUSTEE KING: It's a disaster. An absolute disaster.
MR. HERMAN: Do you have a suggested -- apparently there
is
TRUSTEE KING: It's really the closest access but the
whole road end has been blown out. There is a lot of large
boulders. It's going to be tough. It could be done. I think
somebody, get a hold of the Highway Department, you'll have to
post a bond. Most of the guardrail is already knocked down.
Somebody is going to have to go down there, take some pictures
and make sure --
MR. HERMAN: I don't know how that's going to work.
MS. vangi, do you want to speak to the board directly if you
are not clear as to what their direction is here?
MS. VANGI: I would like to go to the water like my
neighbor, my next door neighbor.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Before you stay something, Peggy looked
up in the code and there is no hardwood either. NO tropical
hardwoods, it says in the code as well.
MR. HERMAN: well, then that -- for the sheathing or use
period?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It says no use of tropical hardwood is
permitted.
MR. JOHNSTON: Unless it is certified by the Forest
Stewardship council.
MS. VANGI: I would prefer in wood just like my neighbor.
I don't care too much for plastic, first of all.
TRUSTEE KING: Which neighbor? TO the east or to the
west?
MS. VANGI: To the east.
TRUSTEE KING: Chances are it's an older bulkhead and it's
been there along time.
MR. HERMAN: I think, Mrs. vangi, one of the things is
your neighbor on the other side who is represented by Mr.
Corwin, has a proposal to do the same thing and it looks like
the direction of both of these is they are both going to have
to be done in vinyl. So eventually, what they are saying, is
unless you want them to deny our request so that you could
file an Article 78 lawsuit to use timber, it looks like you
are going to be stuck with the vinyl as is everybody else.
Eventually everybody will look the same. I'm not going to try
to convince you one way or the other. It's your choice. If
you want to table it so you could speak to your contractor
between now and next month, maybe you can discuss with them
what it will look like, what the material is, what the price
22
1
2
is so you don't feel pressured to make a decision right now.
TRUSTEE KING: I have another question, too. HOW about
oak?
MR. HERMAN: Oak?
3 TRUSTEE KING: Why can't you use two-inch oak sheathing on
something like that?
Page 20
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121306 Southold
MR. HERMAN: I would have to defer to someone like John
Costello to answer that question.
TRUSTEE KING: That's why I was looking in his direction.
MR. COSTEllO: You could use oak. The only trouble is
without treatment, like the railroad ties, without any
treatment, the oak is very detrimental to fresh water rot and
decay. You know, and you will have, the soil will retain some
degree of water.
TRUSTEE KING: HOw about if you put like
behind the back side of it to keep the water
MR. COSTEllO: You are not getting air.
Just like in a boat
TRUSTEE KING: Just a thought.
MR. COSTEllO: The ribs in a boat, the contact of the ribs
in a boat, oak, will rot between the contacts. Because they
don't dry out.
TRUSTEE KING: It takes a long time.
MR. MCGREEVY: In a long run, Jim, using the vinyl
longterm, is more cost effective because you are not going to
have to worry or be concerned about deterioration.
MR. HERMAN: well, that's the theory.
MR. MCGREEVY: It's cost effective.
MR. HERMAN: Time will tell. we don't yo know yet. That's
the theory.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: IS there any other comments?
TRUSTEE KING: DO you want time to think about it? we can
table it.
MS. VANGI: How long time can I get?
TRUSTEE KING: we'll put it on for next month. Four
weeks.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Or we with approve with the vinyl
tonight.
MS. VANGI: So with the vinyl it could be approved. With
wood, no.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct.
MR. VANGI: why not wait four more weeks?
MR. HERMAN: you'll be offered the same deal. YOU may
just be more comfortable with it by then.
MS. VANGI: It's going to be the same deal.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Take a walk down the beach and look at some
of the other bulkheads, some of the plastic ones to the west
of you. Yes. There are brand new ones down there.
MS. VANGI: They are strong enough?
a plastic liner
out?
It doesn't dry.
23
1
2
3
4
5
TRUSTEE KING: They seem to be holding up all right.
we've also made a requirement to armor the bulkheads in the
sound with stone. That helps. That helps tremendously.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That breaks the energy of the water
coming in.
MR. HERMAN: It also hides half the vinyl.
MS. VANGI: That's right, yes.
TRUSTEE KING: I think there is a huge boulder there where
the bulkhead actually goes around behind it. You are not
going to disturb that boulder, are you?
page 21
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121306 southold
MR. HERMAN: I don't know how he's going to get around
that unless he drains it out and sits it back. He's not going
to unearth it.
TRUSTEE KING: That's a rock.
MR. HERMAN: Jim, are there any other objections to any of
the other details of what we have proposed?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think so. Not in my mind.
MR. HERMAN: Then why don't we take the approval with the
vinyl with tow stone.
TRUSTEE KING: okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any other comment?
(NO response.)
Does the board have any other comment?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing on this wetland
permit, coastal Erosion permit.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
I'll make a motion to approve numb~r thre~,
En-consultants on behalf of Antonio and GraZla Vangl,
requesting a wetland and coastal Erosion permit to replace
approximately 106 linear feet of existing timber retaining
wall with vinyl; backfill with approximately 50 cubic yards of
clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source; plant
backfilled area with Cape American beach grass and Bayberry
and reconstruct steps to beach as necessary and with rock
armored tow stone.
MR. HERMAN: Jill, it's in the description we are going
out and up, correct?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, sorry. within 15 inches and 12
inches higher. This whole structure sits well back between
the neighbors, so going out a little bit is going to be in
line with the one neighbor but still behind the other
neighbor. Normally we don't let in front but this makes it a
little smoother and we feel it's fine to do that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: second that motion
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MS. VANGI: Thank you.
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
TRUSTEE KING: Does anybody need a recess?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Actually, I do.
TRUSTEE KING: we'll take five minutes.
(After a five-minute recess, these
proceedings continue as follows.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This brings us back to number two,
Robert Bombara. Before I get into that, I just want to
mention that at the beginnlng, tonight, Jill mentioned a lot
of the procedures and the different applications that we
review. Often there are two applications that have to be
considered for permits; one being the coastal erosion, which
she explained, and one being the wetland.
we have before us Robert Bombara, that we need to modify
page 22
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121306 southold
and correct tonight because of the language of the resolution
for procedural details. So I'm goin~ to read the new
modifications. This is our new, revlsed language for the
resolution that we had adopted last month.
Dear Mr. wolpert. The Board of Trustees took the
following actions during its regular meeting held on
wednesday, December 13, 2006, regarding the above matter.
WHEREAS Young & Young on behalf of Robert G. Bombara applied
to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the
provisions of the wetland ordinance under chapter 275 of the
Town Wetland code, and chapter Ill, coastal Erosion of the
Town Code of the Town of Southold, application dated October
17, 2006, and;
WHEREAS said application was referred to Southold Town
Conservation Advisory Council and Local Waterfront
Revitalization program coordinator for their findings and
recommendations and;
WHEREAS the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council
resolved not to support the wetland Permit and coastal Erosion
Permit application because development seaward of the coastal
Erosion Hazard Area is prohibited as per chapter III 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 and;
WHEREAS here the natural protective feature is a beach area
and'
WHEREAS public hearings were held by the Town Trustees with
respect to said application on November 15, 2006, and December
13, 2006, at which time all interested persons were given an
opportunity to heard, and;
WHEREAS the staff and the Board of Trustees of the Town have
personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in
question and the surrounding area and have reported to the
Trustees regarding the location of the proposed development
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
and'
WHEREAS the proposed construction is located on the natural
protective feature of a beach as per definition in chapter
Ill, Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas of the Town Code and;
WHEREAS the board has considered all the testimony and
documentation submitted concerning this application and;
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.
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,
swimmin~ pool and associated water supply and sewage disposal
facilitles because of the following reason: In accordance
with chapter Ill, Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas, all
page 23
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
121306 southold
development is prohibited on beaches in the coastal erosion
hazard area.
WHEREAS an application under chapter 275, wetlands, the Town
Code has been filed by the applicant and is currently being
considered by the trustees.
BE IT RESOLVED that this determination is solely for an
application under chapter Ill, Coastal Erosion of the Town
Code and is not a determination under Chapter 275 wetlands
which is also required by definition in the town wetland code
from the Board of Trustees for the described project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this determination should not be
considered a determination by any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or
similar project.
Very truly yours, James King, President, Board of
Trustees.
Do I have a second to approve these corrections?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. JOHNSTON: Any opposed?
(Negative response.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Now I'll open, as per number two, that
just took care of Coastal Erosion Permit. I'll open the
public hearing for the wetland permit for Robert Bombara.
IS there anyone here who would like to speak for or
against this application?
TRUSTEE KING: Just a comment. please keep the comments
brief as you can. I know there is probably going to be a lot
of testimony here, so keep it to five minutes or less. Thank
you
26
MR. JOHNSTON: Peggy, could I just ask that you read
number two, only because it may be contentious.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The description?
MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. The description for the wetland
permit, please.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: TO construct a single-family dwelling,
detached garage, swimming pool and associated water supply and
sewage disposal facilities. Located: 1725 North Sea Drive,
Southold.
MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you, peggy.
MS. BALL: Hi. My name is Lillan Ball, I'm the Great Pond
wetland preservation Committee Chair of the Kenneys Beach and
McCabe's Beach civic Association, and I'm going to paraphrase
from a letter that speaks for a number of our members. But
first I would like to welcome Bob Ghosio to the trustees. We
have high hopes for another trustee with a scientific
background and we look forward to working with you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you.
MS. BALL: This is, as I said, a paraphrase from the
letter. The majority of the voters in Southold time and time
again show their overwhelming support of preservation issues
at the polls. It is time to stop the unhindered development
Page 24
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121306 southold
of our most precious natural resources. In this instance I'm
referring to the pristine beach and waterfront property within
the New York state significant Habitat that is the subject of
this hearing. And I have copies the significant Habitat
information from the New York Department of State. This is
included in some of our other information that we have given
to you, but it's always easier if you have it right in front
of you. And I made an extra one for Mr. Johnston.
MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you.
MS. BALL: we understand that you rejected the application
by Mr. Bombara last month for the coastal Erosion Hazard Area
permit phase and I just had clarified for me that the only
reason the wetland permit was not addressed last month was due
to oversight, so I would hope in the future that these two
things would be addressed together.
AS you know, community activism is a labor of love and
the ability to mobilize our desperate forces is at a distinct
disadvantage in this type of piecemeal approach of conducting
business.
Both these permits fail to adhere to the latest
requirements of the LWRP and the coastal policy consistency.
These requirements are meant to eradicate single-purpose
decisions and conflicting standards that have served us so
poorly in the planning and conservation processes before.
consistency is meant to end all the permitting and
multi-agency conflict so all relevant objectives are met
without advancing one at the expense of another. so we hope
that both permits will be denied because it is subject and
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
contingent to the same policies as the coastal Erosion permit
-- the wetland Permit is subject to the same policies.
so considering the complexities of these issues and the
growing complexity of the application process, members of the
Kenneys Beach and Mccabe's Beach civic Association are
suggesting several changes in the Town Code as well as to the
town's departmental organization.
We have suggested to members of the town board that a
natural resources department be set up usin~ all the existing
environmental technicians and planners. ThlS concentration of
expertise along with a newly hired grant writers could better
facilitate all permits, applications and grants and we hope
the trustees can consider this suggestion and ultimately
support it. Thank you, very much, for your time.
MR. JOHNSTON: DO we have a copy of that letter?
MS. BALL: YOU have a different version of that letter, I
think.
TRUSTEE KING: I just want to make one comment. I don't
think the way we do things would be considered piecemeal.
Because Coastal Erosion permit, the Town Board is an appeals
board and there is no appeals board on the wetlands other than
Article 78.
MS. BALL: well, Dave just told me he thought that they
should have been done simultaneously and it was an oversight
that was not done simultaneously.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: By law, if we deny under one, we don't
page 25
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121306 Southold
have to fully address the other. But after, once we discuss
it and we felt it only appropriate to address both, since both
were applied for at the same time.
MS. BALL: And under the same circumstances. It is just
much easier for us to keep track of --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. We weren't saying let's put this
off for a month. It was just we didn't, legally, we didn't
need to address the other since we denied the one.
MS. BALL: But they both do have to have an answer, don't
they? I mean --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what our understanding was last
month is they didn't. But in reviewing our process, we
decided that we need to give this an answer.
MS. BALL: So it's not like starting over from scratch.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: correct.
MS. BALL: Good. I'm 91ad to hear it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But lt'S a different code.
MS. BALL: Yes, we understand that.
MR. JOHNSTON: Jill, as you started out, the standard for
each are different. And, for the record, per se, according to
the coastal Erosion, you could not grant that permit. It's
the review process for the other permit requires more time.
So really what you did is you expedited the first permit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, you could say that.
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
MR. JOHNSTON: Normally it would wait and both go together
so
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: However you want to
MR. MEINKE: Hi, my name is Howard Meinke. I live in
cutchogue. I'm speaking for North Fork Environmental Council
at this time, however. And I feel as though this letter I'm
going to read is superfluous because having looked at the
property and looked at the survey, and being relatively
conversant with LWRP it certainly looks as though it's hands
down a very bad application, which is what I guess you decided
what you judged it on coastal erosion.
But to make sure it doesn't slip through the cracks
because we kept quiet and other people kept quiet, thinking it
was a slam dunk, I'll 90 ahead with this. This is a letter
that our Land use Commlttee of North Fork Environmental
council put together.
The Land Use committee of the North Fork Environmental
council urges the trustees to deny a wetlands permit to Robert
Bombara for his beach property at 1725 North sea Drive in
southold. This property is within a coastal erosion hazard
area and has already been denied a permit on that basis.
In addition, the town's LWRP coordinator has determined
that the proposed action is inconsistent with the LWRP in
three respects and has recommended that the trustees deny this
permit.
For this reason, the permit should be denied. Any
authorization of proposed permits in the Town of southold are
required to be consistent with all of the applicable policies
and purpose of the LWRP and all of the applicable local
standards that implement it.
page 26
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121306 Southold
The town and the trustees by virtue of the adoption of
the LWRP in 2004 are now required to make decisions that are
consistent with the policies and purposes of the LWRP or where
inconsistencies persists, explain how the inconsistencies are
to be made consistent to the maximum extent that is
practicable.
Granting a permit would violate the following policies in
the LWRP: policy 4.1, minimize losses of human llfe and
structures from flooding and erosion hazards. policy 4.2,
protect and restore natural protective features. policy 6 and
6.3, protect and restore the quality and function of the Town
of Southold ecosystem; protect and restore tidal freshwater
wetlands.
since there is no way any degree of consistency has been
or can be demonstrated with respect to these policies, this
permit must not be granted. while we have made mistakes in
the past by building in this natural protective area, nothing
in this application justifies doing it again. Sincerely, Bob
Fager, president, Frank wheels, chairman of the NFC Land Use
Committee.
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. Is there anyone else here
tonight who would like to speak?
MS. BOOTH: My name is Margo Booth. I'm a partial land
owner to the property just to the east of the property that is
proposed to be built.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is this your letter?
MS. BOOTH: That, actually, is not my letter. That's my
father's letter. He just walked in, so he saved me from
having to read it.
The property is owned at this time by nine families.
It's sort of an association -- and their extended families.
So it's four generations. So thanks to my grandfather, I'm
still able to use the property. we have family picnics there,
every year, at least three, and --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Let me clarify, this is the property
to the east?
MS. BOOTH: Yes, discussing the unde~eloped property.
TRUSTEE KING: Excuse me, how large 1S that property?
MS. BOOTH: One acre.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
MS. BOOTH: so it's been a family -- extended family
property with several other families. As a child we picked
beach plums there with my grandmother and mom, we made beach
plumb jelly. I notice last summer there are no beach plums
there at all. It's the last area along that strip of North
Sea that has beach plums, so it's pretty well stripped along
there. october 15, 2005, there was a report in the New York
State significant Fish and wildlife Habitat, it runs just west
of Goldsmith Inlet to just west of Horton's point. It's on
that map there you just received from Lilian Ball.
Most of my adult career I have been a resource manager, I
work with stewardship. I've been doing that about 20 years or
so and I would like to pinpoint in on some of those issues
there. The report of 2005 showed this area that runs the
Page 27
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121306 southold
len~th between peconic and Horton's point. It's a rare and
vanlshing maritime dune habitat. There is not much left of
that. It's a very important spot for aquifer regenerations
recharge as the pine barrens is. We do have some threatened
and endangered species in that area, the least tern and piping
clover have actually help put up an exposure for clover that
was just west of that area in the past.
Today I walked over to our property and on the beach side
and I noticed that there are many survey stakes that literally
cover this site. The pool, I noticed is actually on the
primary sand dune. It's not even back to the secondary sand
dune. It's literally right on the beach. We have attempted
to put together an easement for our property but with all the
extended family it's really tough to pin the offspring down,
so it's not finalized and we are working on a conservation
easement for our site but I'm just wondering why we should
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
continue to do so if there is going to be a huge home
overshadowing this. So I guess that's the question I
you.
pose to
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Your question is --
MS. BOOTH: I'm just wondering should we continue with our
preservation efforts.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I can't comment on that. We haven't
voted on any application at this point.
MS. BOOTH: okay, but it's something we are wondering
whether we should continue to preserve that parcel.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That depends on the outcome of the
board's decision. Before we ~o any further with any further
comments, I'm noticing there lS a lot of repetition, maybe if
anyone else comes up, they would consider.
The LWRP review done by Mark Terry also mentions the
policies 4.1, 4.2 and also 6.3. I just want to read a few
parts of this because it's new information for me.
MS. BOOTH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The proposed distance from the house
and the pool to the natural protective feature is zero feet.
A minimum setback distance of 100 feet is required. It also
mentions Chapter 111 and 112 and the beach area. The comments
are that excavating, grading or mining which diminishes the
erosion protection afforded by beaches is prohibited.
There is also a comment that cleaned sand or gravel of an
equivalent or slightly larger grain size is the only material
which may be deposited within beach areas. Any deposition
will require a Coastal Erosion Mana~ement permit which may be
issued only for expansion or stabillzation of beaches.
It also mentions, as you said, the act of bird nesting
and breeding areas must not be disturbed unless such
disturbance is pursuant to special wildlife management
activity approved in writing by the department and all
development is prohibited on beaches unless specifically
provided for by this chapter. That was listed on 111-112
beach areas. So that comes under the LWRP Review.
Conservation Advisory Council doesn't support the
page 28
121306 Southold
20 application because the development seaward of the coastal
Erosion Hazard Area is prohibited as pursuant of chapter 111
21 of the Town Code.
I also have letters from neighbors. I have Mr. Booth's
22 letter, I have a letter -- I have an E-mail for the owners,
was this the E-mail -- I have Cadaris, Ferrara, Mohls,
23 Meyerson. That's E-mailed against the application. I have
another E-mail from George Bambrick to go on record strongly
24 opposing granting of the wetland permit. There is another
E-mail --
25 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Lauren is saying the first E-mail is in
support.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
31
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm sorry, should be. That's December
11, Monday. Debartello, Meyerson, Mohls, Ferrara and cadaris,
should be able to build whatever type of house. Bambrick was
strongly opposed. Geraldo, virginia Macabarara (sic) -- I'm
just skimming -- I urge you to turn down Bombara. Lynn
Normandy, please help us preserve our character and our
wetlands. Annette and Robert Nucheck, please don't grant
wetlands permit. And the last one was read by Mr. Meike from
the North Fork Environmental Council.
IS there anyone else here who would like to speak to this
application, for or against? Come to the mic please and state
your name.
MR. BAIZ: Christian Baiz, I'm a resident of southold and
also an interested party. My family is one of the original
seven families who own the adjacent lots originally in that
development from the late 40s. They were lots 18 and 19, tax
map number 20. But lots 18 and 19 in that development.
I just want to get an understanding. This guy has got a
pool that is going to be four feet from the lot line. You
guys issue me a wetland permit to put up a deer fence there,
so he doesn't step over, would you expedite a Wetlands Permit
for us so we could put up an eight foot high deer fence there
along the property line? That's my question to you right
now.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: First of all, I think the limit is six
feet but--
'MR. BAIZ: That survey I looked at sure doesn't look like
any six feet. And what assurances do I have that he's going
to have some running guests around there not running over the
property line. Can we put up an eight foot high wall?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we can't comment on an application that
is not before us.
MR. BAIZ: Let's go hypothetical here.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: one of the purposes and jobs of this
board is to consider what has been applied for and then
mitigate it and determine if there should be and how much or
how much less there should be. And so there is room for that
discussion here tonight. So we can't give you an answer on
that because we have this before us now.
MR. BAIZ: okay, let me understand something else in the
process. You denied the coastal Erosion Permit. okay, does
that mean that he cannot proceed without it?
page 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
121306 southold
22 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll defer to our board counsel.
MR. BAIZ: Does that mean the owner can't proceed with
23 planned construction without a Coastal Erosion permit on that
property?
24 MR. JOHNSTON: That is correct. And your next question is
how does he appeal that decision.
25 MR. BAIZ: Right.
MR. JOHNSTON: And the appeal of that decision, as Mr.
32
King and Ms. Doherty said earlier tonight with the coastal
erosion is to the Town Board which is a different appeal
procedure. And then it's beyond that. But that's the next
step.
MR. BAIZ: As opposed to Article 78.
MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. The first one is to the Town Board
and then four out of six, you know, the vote there decides
what they want to do; they can confirm, deny, whatever.
And then tonight we are talking about a wetlands permit.
Hypothetically, if the wetlands permit was granted for
something and you didn't like it, then it's an Article 78 to
the court, not to the town board. If you, if somebody else
doesn't like it, the procedure is an Article 78 as well.
Either denial or granting or whatever. This board's review
there is then to the supreme court, which is the lowest court
in New York State. It's not the Supreme Court in washington.
so that's why Jill and Peggy and others tried to explain
to the group the difference of these two permits, that they
still have to go to them for a building permit and they still
have to go for maybe the DEC permit and God only knows permit,
Health Department. Lot's of other permits. But these two
have to be given by this organization or then appealed or
overturned by some other organization. so mechanically,
that's what it is.
MR. BAIZ: okay.
MR. JOHNSTON: This is advice I'm giving to the trustees,
you just overheard it. I don't want to say I'm giving you
advice.
MR. BAIZ: On the one hand I simply want to reaffirm that
our families have been interested in preserving this area for
the sensitivity that exists there for conservation purposes.
In the same breath, on the back end of that, if something
like this is going to be allowed, that before us tonight, I
want to make sure that the adjacent property would not be
denied, okay? I'm just going on record that if you are going
to do this, I mean, let him go through the process and all the
appeals, but if you are going to do this, then we want to have
the same right that he's gotten from you.
TRUSTEE KING: You do. You absolutely do.
MR. BAIZ: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is
would like to speak for or
ask that you summarize the
you.
there anyone else here tonight who
against this application? I would
comments that are repetitive. Thank
MR. BETSCH: My name is John Betsch and I've appeared
before this board so my major concern is really consistent and
Page 30
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
24
25
121306 southold
equal application of the Town Code. That's my real concern.
L09king at the information that the applicant presented, just
pOlnts to you, you may not realize it when you look at it, he
identifies the property as being .57 of an acre. He talks
33
about area cover 24,OOO-square feet. If you go to the tax
assessor's office, the lot as was originally and what he's
paying taxes for is 19,000 square feet. So there is a little
difference.
Based on that square footage, there is -- and the way he
presents information, if you just take the survey he
presented, the pool, the house, the garage, the pool excluding
any decking because it's not shown, but the pool, the house
and garage and excluding any driveway, assuming it's not an
(inaudible) driveway, is almost 4,000 square feet. 4,000
square feet based on the tax paying acreage, is right on the
edge of 20%, which is maybe just approvable. It's right on
the edge.
My second question, really is something for me to
understand. I believe the Town Code or town has decided there
will be no fences on the beach at all. Along McCabe's there
used to be a snow fence. It was taken down. NO fences.
However, I believe the Town Code also says a pool requires a
fence. So there is a little inconsistency of how you could do
something, either have a pool with a fence or not have a fence
on the beach. So just points of information. I just want to
make sure all the lnformation is presented so everything is
consistent.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you.
MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Betsch, for the prior, were you denied
a coastal erosion permit on your property?
MR. BETSCH: Yes, I was.
MR. JOHNSTON: And did you do something like appeal it to
the Town Board
MR. BETSCH: Yes, I did.
MR. JOHNSTON: Maybe you could share it with him, the
procedure.
MR. BETSCH: I want to be sure that -- I'm not going
together with this property.
MR. JOHNSTON: I'm just saying you could share with him
the procedure, the appeals procedure.
MR. BETSCH: The way it was printed, if you read the tiny
small print, it says five to six bedroom house. I was
concerned with rebuilding a beach house to a permanent
structure.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you.
to speak to this application?
(NO response.)
Any board members?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: IS
(NO
DICKERSON:
IS there anyone else here
TRUSTEE
hearing.
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
at applicant here tonight?
response.)
I'll make a motion to close
the
BERGEN: I think we need to
DICKERSON: I'll sit back.
Page 31
talk about this.
Go ahead.
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
121306 southold
34
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: when we talked in the field, we felt
there was no room for the pool. That was one of our
concerns. And the garage --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I just want to make a comment. I was
not on the inspection, but from the field notes, there were
modifications that were mentioned was to remove the pool, move
the house landward, put on pilings was your suggestion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. I could summarize what we talked
about in the field. we first off said no to the pool, that we
could not recommend the pool. second, there was a discussion
of moving, putting the house up on stilts and in doing so,
that he would not need a garage, you could then park under
house. Third, was downsizing the house. Fourth was moving
the house and the septic system as far possible away from the
wetlands, closer to the road. so those were the items that we
had summarized in the field. The applicant is not here
tonight to even address any of those possibilities.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: By downsizing the house, you could
downsize the septic.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: possibly.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because if you are not going to have
five or six bedrooms, we don't need as many pools.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jim, anything to add to that?
TRUSTEE KING: He hasn't submitted. It's not going to
fly. That's the point.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So because the applicant is not here
to address those modifications, should we --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We should deny it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If the applicant was here to be able to
offer some mitigation, we could move forward. But the
applicant is not here.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My concerns are with the coastal fish
and wildlife habitat. um, the LWRP which specifically lists
specific concerns for this very, again, valued area. when I
went down to inspect it I stood at the property and looked at
the property that you speak of to the east and the property
that I was standing on, Mr. Bombara's and even as I turned
south, I don't know the history of that property but there is
a whole sort of swale area there that is obviously very
natural and very pristine and very valuable as far as
habitat. And also CAC recommendation. So my feeling would be
to deny it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: well, we made our comments. We could
close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't know if Jim or being Bob have any
comments.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I agree with pe~gy in the sense it is an
environmentally sensitive area and I m also, I'm taking into
consideration the fact that the applicant didn't even show up
for the hearing. I don't have a problem denying it.
page 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
25
121306 southold
35
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: DO you want to make a comment, Jim, or
should I close the hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: I would close the hearing and go for denial
without prejudice. He could resubmit something down the road
if he wants to submit a smaller project, something we want to
take another look at, that's fine. we are not shutting the
door on him.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to close the public
hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
I'll make a motion to deny the application under the
wetland permit to construct a single-family dwelling, detached
garage, swimming pool and associated water supply and sewage
disposal facilities. Located: 1725 North Sea Drive, Southold.
DO I have a second?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Denied without prejudice.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: TO deny without prejudice, yes.
MR. JOHNSTON: Could we just take judlcial notice that it
was advertised. Lauren, you are confirming that it was
advertised? I thought I saw it.
MS. STANDISH: Yes, it was.
MR. JOHNSTON: okay.
TRUSTEE KING: I believe the applicant had full knowledge
this meeting was on. Yes, definitely. It's not that they
didn't know this was going on.
MR. JOHNSTON: okay.
MR. BETSCH: Could I ask a procedural question. If this is
denied, he re-applies, he's starting fresh. It has to be a
brand new public notice put on the property and everything?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, starting from scratch.
TRUSTEE KING: This is not somethin9 that's been tabled
and carried over to next month. NO, it s a new application.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: we are going to our Wetland permits. Number
one, Docko, Inc., on behalf of Susanna Doyle requests a
wetland permit to construct 95 linear feet of four-foot wide
fixed wood pile and timber pier elevated to clear tidal
wetlands. Install a new 3x20 foot hinged ramp and an 8x20 foot
float all at or waterward of the apparent high water line, for
a total length of 125 feet. Located: peninsula Road, Fishers
Island.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this
application?
36
Page 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
121306 southold
MR. NEILSON: Keith Neilson, president of Docko, Inc., and
I'm here to answer any questions that you all mi9ht have on
behalf of Susanna Doyle and this application tonlght.
I think the hearing was being reopened at the request of
Mrs. Flynn, one of the neighbors, and so maybe it would be
best if she spoke first.
TRUSTEE KING: IS she here tonight; Mrs. Flynn or Mr.
Hamm?
MR. HAMM: Steven Hamm, 38 Nugent Street, Southampton. I
represent Anne Flynn.
TRUSTEE KING: Are you an attorney, sir?
MR. HAMM: I am, yes. First time before this board.
Glenn Just usually comes for my clients.
TRUSTEE KING: Are you going to give us a brief rundown of
what's happened in this situation?
MR. HAMM: well, I'm appreciative of everybody's time
here. I don't want to take much time. I just want to point
out that my client has deeded rights, I have certified copies
of the deed, I'll put it into the record, to a 38-foot portion
of the Doyle waterfront. I can provide more copies later but
I'll put these in tonight.
This dock was built already, as you know. My client
received no notice of it last year when the hearing was held
and found out about it only this summer. I pointed out in a
letter that I submitted or sent to the Doyle's and gave to Mr.
King that they are well aware of her rights. Today I heard
from her lawyer who has offered somewhat of an olive branch to
possibly settle with her as far as her rights are concerned.
So I just want this board to be aware of those rights and if
this application is resurrected and a dock built, especially
in its location where it is now, that a condition to any
approval would be the consent of my client who owns the
property immediately adjoining on the south in an LLC. I think
it's tax lot 5.5.
I'm told Dick Strauss, the surveyor who was with Mr. King
today, informs me that the dock is precisely centered in the
middle of this portion of the waterfront where my client has
rights.
As I say, at this point, she is willing to discuss this
with the Doyle's, just if you could 9ive us a condition, if
you do reapprove this, that a conditlon be her consent to
that. And even if it's moved in some respect to another part,
to have her consent if it would interfere with future rights
of her or future owners of her property to exercise those
rights.
So let me put this into the file, into the record. These
are certified copies of the Doyle deed and the deed to which
it refers and the survey which, just to point out briefly,
this is a survey that was prepared for the Doyle's. It's in
my possession because I represent the seller of this
37
1 property. And the surveyor noted on the survey itself that
there are rights to this adjoining owner. It's under Haynes,
2 the former owner, her former husband.
page 34
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121306 southold
TRUSTEE KING: Just a note, I believe by code on
residential properties we only allow one dock. So it's not as
though Mrs. Doyle could move the dock over and your client
could build a dock in that place. That's not going to
happen.
MR. HAMM: In that case we would ask a condition to any
dock that is put there would be with her consent so that she
could settle her legal rights with the Doyle's.
TRUSTEE KING: We have reopened this because Mrs. Flynn
was never notified, which she should have been, and probably
if she had been notified a lot of this would have come to
light and we would have known. We did not know about this
deed of right of way.
MR. HAMM: I appreciate that you would not have known.
TRUSTEE KING: our town attorney reviewed it and she
hasn't seen anything like that, really a deeded right to build
a dock.
MR. HAMM: That's why I put the certified deeds into the
record; the Doyle's deed, which I prepared, and the subject --
I mean it couldn't be any clearer.
TRUSTEE KING: It going to have to be some serious review
of this. Because usually we issue a dock permit to the owner
of property. NOW, Doyle is the owner of the property. So the
way we have been doing things, Mrs. Flynn would have to get
permission from Mrs. Doyle to begin with to put the dock
there. This is a tan~led web we are dealing with here.
MR. HAMM: The rlght that she has, has to mean something
so, if anything, would have to be construed in her favor, not
in favor of the Doyle's.
TRUSTEE KING: Like you said, I was over there today and
another issue that came up, this dock was built without DEC
permit.
MR. HAMM: We are aware of that as well.
TRUSTEE KING: It was also built with CCA decking, which
is prohibited by code. We have a lot of problems here with
this dock. Any other comments?
(NO response.)
TRUSTEE KING: Like I said, there is a lot of baggage
here. I think technically it's a violation to build a dock
with CCA decking. It's also a violation to build a dock
without the necessary other agency permits. It's in our
code.
I think we can close the hearing and I want to give the
rest, all this information to our attorney and we'll reserve
decision on what we are going to do with this.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have another comment?
MR. NEILSON: I was just going to say if there was any
38
1
2
3
4
technical questions, I would be happy to deal with them.
Legal issues, I guess would have to be addressed by MS.
Doyle's attorney and so on
TRUSTEE KING: Like I said, the town attorney will have to
take a long, hard look at this to see what we are going to do
here.
MR. NEILSON: I understand.
Page 35
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121306 southold
TRUSTEE KING: AS far as the decking goes, the decking
should have to be removed, really. who knows, the entire dock
may have to be removed. I don't know.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: what does the DEC say?
TRUSTEE KING: He's not a happy camper. Not at all.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Make a motion to close?
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll second the motion to close
the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING:
going to do here.
And we'll reserve decision what we are
All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: That's the best I could do. It's
unfortunate but these things happen sometimes.
TRUSTEE KING: Does anybody else want to say something?
MR. NEILSON: I just had one thing I want to add for the
record. The notices for the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
MR. NEILSON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Good night.
TRUSTEE KING: Number two, Harolds, LLC, on behalf of
George Guimaraes requests a Wetland permit for the existing
deck and an Administrative Permit to remove the Japanese
Knotweed and repeat cuttings over next three growing seasons.
Located Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island.
This has been ~oing on for a while. what happened here,
they went to the BUllding -- it's my understanding they went
to the Building Department to apply for house renovations and
to build a deck. The survey that they gave to the Building
Department did not have the pond on it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I remember this one. we all saw this
one. Do you remember this? It was right on the road. You
weren't there. Dave knows.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I do remember.
TRUSTEE KING: This was the survey given to the Building
Department. This pond was not on the survey. So we went out
there and looked, I forgot now when it was. As a matter of
fact, I think there is pictures in the file.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was August.
TRUSTEE KING: There is some pictures in the file where
the Knotweed is.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was right under the deck, wasn't it?
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
TRUSTEE KING: And as you can see, the deck is still being
built. And it's right, the footings for the deck are almost
in the pond. So they built this deck without any wetland
permit whatsoever from the trustees. NOW they want approval
for it as an administrative as built. I don't think we would
ever have approved this deck if they applied for it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's right on the edge of the pond.
TRUSTEE KING: I remember goin~ out here about four or
five years ago. None of this decklng was here. In toward the
old foundation of the house, I don't think it shows it, there
was like a little brick patio way back under here. So they
Page 36
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121306 southold
did these extensive renovations.
it. So does the DEC.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let's see if there is anybody here to
discuss it.
TRUSTEE KING: IS there anybody here to comment on this
application?
I have a real problem with
(NO response.)
KING: I'm inclined to deny the application as
TRUSTEE
submitted.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Make a motion to close the hearing
first.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to closes the hearing,
being no other comments.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to deny this because I
think the deck should be cut back in size and they can apply
down the road for something else here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: second.
TRUSTEE KING: AS far as the Knotweed goes, right now most
of it is going through it's phase for the summer and it's
basically all shriveled up. But there is some real problems
with that pond. The neighbor, I guess would be to the north,
there are three cesspools on this steep bank going down and of
course old Jim has to be curious, the last one closest to the
pond, which is about from me to Bob, I picked the cover up and
it was full. So the pond is being filled. So there are some
problems here. DEC is aware of it. There is probably going to
be some enforcement actions there. On both these properties.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You made a motion there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I seconded it.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
We'll deny both until we get this whole mess
straightened out.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number three, patricia Moore on behalf
of Norman and Adele Grudman requests a wetland Permit to
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
construct an addition over the existing dwelling, a new wood
deck with steps to grade, a new ~arage addition and two
one-story additions to the dwelllng. Located: 630 North Drive,
Mattituck.
It is found inconsistent with LWRP, 6.3 protective
proposed distance to the proposed building garage is 50 feet
from marine wetland. Minimum setback distance of 100 feet,
and that was, that's the only reason on that. And CAC
supports the application with the condition of drywells,
gutters are installed. CAC doesn't support the wood decking
as proposed because of the close proximity to the wetlands.
CAC recommends the 75-foot setback is maintained from the
wetlands. And this was inspected last month and we tabled it
from last month.
Is this anyone here to speak on behalf of this
page 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
121306 Southold
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
application
MS. MOORE: This was in the dark or close to being dark.
This one was actually, the creek is about 40 feet on a
45-degree angle down. So this property is really, while as
the crow flies on the survey, it looks closer, but in fact if
you were to look at this based on angles and where the
wetlands are, all the activity is way up high off the creek.
So really there is going to be no impact on the
wetlands.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This was tabled because we did not
receive LWRP.
MS. MOORE: That's right. We were -- I think you were
ready to act on it, then the LWRP was not available.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: According to our notes in the file and
what I recollect, I don't think we had a problem. You angled
the deck so the one tree would not have to be taken down and
there is minimal disturbance around the construction, so.
MS. MOORE: And I would also point out the garage, which
the LWRP coordinator made a point of, is actually on the
landward side of the house, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But still within our jurisdiction.
MS. MOORE: Everything is within your jurisdiction because
of the distance, yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments?
(NO response.)
I don't think there is any room to really -- the
house is existing so it's no room to move the deck back. It's
attached to the house, so it's not like we can really -- and
like pat said, with the slope of land. You really did a nice
job fitting the deck to the land.
MS. MOORE: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any comments from the board?
TRUSTEE KING: I didn't see it, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments from
anybody?
41
(NO response.)
I'm 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 the
application of Pat Moore on behalf Norman and Adele Grudman as
read before. And I think on here there was already drywells
and gutters.
MS. MOORE: Yes, it's already on the drawing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does the board feel they need hay bales
down during construction?
MS. MOORE: I think we showed them.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, I'm sorry. It shows the hay bales
and the CAC felt that it should be 75-foot setback. The
decking. Jack?
MR. MCGREEVY: I'm not familiar with this. I didn't do
the inspection.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They didn't want to seeing decking at
page 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
all.
121306 southold
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I didn't know if there was a possibility
of shortening --
MS. MOORE: Actually, the wood decking is landward of the
patio.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is the patio there and then wood
decking between the patio and the house. Because of the
drywells and gutters and leaders, dry wells and hay bales
during construction, I feel that mitigates this project which
brings it into consistency with LWRP. I make a motlon to
approve this application.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
(TRUSTEE KING ABSTAINS.)
MS. MOORE: Back to Fishers Island, Jim.
TRUSTEE KING: I abstain on this one because I didn't look
at it.
Number four, pat Moore on behalf of FITF, LLC, requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling with an
attached porch. Located: Reservoir Road, Fishers Island.
IS there anyone here to speak to behalf of this
application?
MS. MOORE: Yes, patricia Moore on behalf of the
applicant.
This project is actually in order to complete a sale of
the larger parcel to the Town of Southold as part of their
preservation effort on Fishers Island.
What we have is the balance of the piece and a proposed
house and porch with a sanitary that has been placed on the
42
property with a square footage that has actually been
negotiated as part of the purchase price. So the contract has
as a condition that we can have a house that is of this size
with a porch of this size. Everything has been,
contractually, my client has to accept this contractual
condition when he builds and the town has agreed this is an
appropriate development for the property.
This piece of property has an existing commercial
building. The town board had rezoned it on their own motion
from an M-2 zone to an R-40 zone because of the residential
character of the area and also in order to make it a simpler
application with the town agencies to get approval for this
development. Otherwise everything would have been
nonconforming as an M-2 zone.
TRUSTEE KING: Has this swap taken place yet?
MS. MOORE: Everything is contingent on all the permits
bein9 in place. We are actually almost to the end of the
permlt process.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm familiar with this property. These two
properties, we issued a permit for a house on this piece a
couple of years ago, or more than that. It was a while ago
now.
MS. MOORE: Steve Hand, actually, he's not here anymore.
Page 39
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121306 Southold
TRUSTEE KING: This piece of property has an old,
dilapidated dock that I'm sure they'll come in for to be
built.
MS. MOORE: That's one of the things we have to do. I
didn't want to delay the process with a dock.
TRUSTEE KING: we are looking at a low profile, open
grade?
MS. MOORE: I don't know that it's defined. If you tell
me what you want --
TRUSTEE KING: That's what we'll be looking at down the
road with this. I think they unloaded oil or something here.
It was a commercial facility. It was zoned M-2 and there was
soil contamination here. The DEe has gone in and cleaned this
whole area up.
MS. MOORE: At my client's expense.
TRUSTEE KING: This has all been cleaned up. I looked at
this. It was found inconsistent with LWRP and I'm sure it's
because of the --
MS. MOORE: Because of the setbacks.
TRUSTEE KING: The distance to the porch is 38 feet from
the wetland line. They moved the house. The house was moved
another 20-odd feet because they got a variance on the set off
from the road, so. The house has been moved further away than
where it was, according to Dick Strauss.
MS. MOORE: okay. NO, well, that's almost right. what I
asked Dick Strauss
TRUSTEE KING: what Mark has, he has 38 feet from the
43
1
2
3
4
wetland to the proposed house. It's much further than that
now. That's the point I'm tryin~ to make.
MS. MOORE: Well, I'm glad D1Ck has this. I E-mailed him
today saying what was the measurement because I don't have
it. I have a meeting tonight. please give me the
measurement.
TRUSTEE KING: Hang on a second. I have notes here.
MS. MOORE: Just for the record what we were trying to
accomplish is with respect to this setbacks --
TRUSTEE KING: I didn't get the measurement. The house
was moved landward.
MS. MOORE: Yes. However, the amount it could be pushed
landward depends on the average setback of the adjacent
properties.
TRUSTEE KING: It was much closer than it is now.
MS. MOORE: But I don't have the exact measurement because
I was waiting for the drawing.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't have it either. Sorry.
MS. MOORE: What I could do is, subject on getting it, it
will be slightly closer to the road. I just don't know the
exact measurement, as I said.
TRUSTEE KING: I think it was around 20 feet.
MS. MOORE: I think that's about right. I don't know
precisely. So I would ask that we --
TRUSTEE KING: 52 feet sticks in my head from the wetland
line to the corner of the house. 52 feet sticks in my head.
That's all I could say, Pat.
Page 40
5
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
121306 Southold
MS. MOORE: I'll write it down.
TRUSTEE KING: That's what I remember it being rather
than 38.
MS. MOORE: okay. What I would ask is, if that's
agreeable with the board, that's fine, but subject to getting
a survey that confirms that because -- I don't know -- I only
was dealing with the front yard. Remember that I had to worry
about the front yard setback and I asked him to make it as
close to the front yard as possible but they couldn't -- he
gave me a measurement but I didn't have the dimension of the
house when they gave me the measurement.
TRUSTEE KING: I looked at this with Mr. Hamilton and
neither of us had a problem with this project.
MS. MOORE: It's a town-sponsored project.
TRUSTEE KING: The existing building there will be removed
and the only thing I mentioned was they have a hey bale line
now where they've done all this clean up, there is a hay bale
bail line along the top of the bluff. We want to see a
25-foot buffer area landward of the hay bale line that is
there now.
MS. MOORE: Does this survey show where the hay bale line
is accurate?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, it does
44
MS. MOORE: You want 25 feet.
TRUSTEE KING: 25 feet landward of the hay bale line will
be a buffer area. And I have some recommended plantings to go
in there also.
MS. MOORE: Non-turf buffer, you said?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, non-turf, I'd like to see some Rosa
Ragusa planted in there, in one-gallon containers, two-foot on
center. I would like to see some three to four foot cedar
trees, ten to 12 feet on center.
MS. MOORE: That will block the view.
TRUSTEE KING: Three feet won't block the view. Three to
four foot cedar trees on ten to 12 foot center. Ten to 12
feet apart
MS. MOORE: Three foot cedars, 12 foot on center. okay.
TRUSTEE KING: And maybe some small Bayberry plants four
feet on center. That would make a nice little buffer along
there.
MS. MOORE: The only thing I think, if I was an owner of a
waterfront piece, cedar trees are not really the best thing to
put in front of the waterfront. I don't have an issue of some
evergreen of some bush variety but to have a cedar that grows
this way, why have waterfront?
TRUSTEE KING: well, this was the recommendation.
MS. MOORE: Okay. whose idea was it? Mr. Hamilton's?
TRUSTEE KING: Mr. Hamilton chipped in a lot of this
information
MS. MOORE: well, Mr. Hamilton sometimes has good ideas
and sometimes he doesn't.
TRUSTEE KING: And we want to see gutters and leaders
MS. MOORE: That's not a problem. HOW about if I provide
you a landscape plan and we'll have the landscapers provide __
Page 41
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
121306 Southold
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim noted it's a recommendation.
17 TRUSTEE KING: These are recommendations
MS. MOORE: Bayberry, Rosa Ragusa, that's very standard.
18 That grows well.
TRUSTEE KING: personally I felt this was a nice project.
19 MS. MOORE: Let's hope a cedar tree doesn't ruin it.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm sure it won't.
20 It was found inconsistent, with the house being moved and
drainage provided for.
21 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: With that mitigation, it's deemed
consistent.
22 TRUSTEE KING: It's consistent, yes. Erosion control is
already there. The driveway is pervious material. Everything,
23 so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just mentioning it for the record.
24 TRUSTEE KING: Being no other comments, I'll make a motion
to close the hearing.
25 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
45
1 (ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: And I'll make a motion to approve the
2 application with the stipulation that was set in it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
3 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Patrlcla Moore on behalf of Nancy
Carroll requests a Wetland permit to demolish the existing
dwelling and construct a new dwelling with a second-floor
addition, new 16x24 foot garage, 8x58.3 foot front porch and
13x39 foot raised patio, and repair foundation. Located: 350
West Lake Drive, Southold.
Before I ask if anybody is here, I will note that there
is an existing violation that has not been taken care of and
the reason we are opening it in the first place is to, the
applicant's request to dlscuss; our normal procedure is not to
act on anything that has a violation until the violation is
taken care of. So with that, pat?
MS. MOORE: Thank you. I appreciate the board's
willingness to open this hearing. I have with me Nancy
Carroll who is the property owner. We have Bob Tass, the
architect, and; Frank Finkel, the contractor. What I wanted
this board, the circumstances here, unfortunately, she didn't
have anybody representing her to advocate her position last
time and quite frankly everybody was quite surprised, the
action the board had taken.
So what I want to do is create a record, establish a
record, because I'm hoping that after I complete explaining
the process, that, one, we don't have a violation; two this
should have been fact been an amendment and the board had an
opportunity to consider it as an amendment. The board now has
it as an application, a full application, but, again, it
should be considered an amendment.
I'm going to start with explaining what happened.
Page 42
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
121306 Southold
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And if you could be as brief as
possible.
MS. MOORE: well, I waited hours for the other guys to
finish. I have to put a record in.
Nancy Carroll and her contractor did the right thing.
They did exactly what the board wants people to do, which is
get a permit. And in this case they had this permit issued
since 2002. It was reissued in 2003, and then again issued in
2006. And remember, the board's issues, when you deal with a
Wetland Permit is, how does the construction, how does the job
affect the wetlands.
In this instance, the property is bulkheaded, the house
footprint, the house is there, was there, now the foundation
is there. The houses are, there are five houses on this block
and they are all in the same area. what she did is, with a
46
permit in hand, with all the permits that she finally had in
hand, she started construction.
The permit that she was working under was 6316. That was
the one that was issued March 22, 2006. That permit request,
when you read it carefully, it says, construct a front porch,
a one-car garage, a second floor over the existing structure,
renovate and alter the existing first floor within the
existing footprint. okay? That is what she did.
what happened is, during the construction, I have the
contractor here, and you are welcome to ask him any questions,
but during the course of the construction he starts -- think
of this as you are building your house. You have the
contractor there. You are going to put a new second story on.
You have to take the roof off. You excavate the roof. The
building permit that was issued had notations on the building
permit, I have the document here so you could see it. The
notations on the building permit said inspect the walls and
inspect the joists because we don't know what we are going to
see when we start taking out the wood. That's precisely what
happened. when the contractor took the roof off and exposed
the walls, the wall structures had rot, complete rot on it,
and Nancy pointed out she has had mold on her walls for many
years, and that was a problem.
The walls sit on floor joists, okay. The floor joists
had rot. And when they started removing the wood, little by
little, what they were finding is that the cement blocks, this
foundation consists of cement blocks, and the house had been
built by the prior owner himself. So it's not the best
quality construction. And what the, again, the architect and
the contractor will testify for you, verify this, what you saw
out there was a foundation that is still there, and why you
saw a shelf and another dent in the foundation is because when
the original owner, who decided to put a basement here, they
had the original structure, the original foundation is a crawl
space and then it comes in by about four feet, which is the
slab you saw there, and then it goes down again another four
feet. So what you see there is a real haphazard structure.
The contractor really panicked when he saw what was the
condition of the foundation and the existing walls, he
Page 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
121306 southold
21
22
23
24
25
stopped.
He ran to the Buildin9 Department; he spoke to Lauren --
MS. STANDISH: He didn t speak to me. He spoke with
Heather that said he had to reapply to take the house down.
It wasn't me because I never talked to him.
MS. MOORE: I'm sorry. I said who was it and he said a
pretty young girl and I assumed you were the pretty young
girl. Heather is a another pretty young girl. There are two
pretty young girls in the office.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If everybody could speak one at a time,
please.
47
MS. MOORE: I'm sorry. The contractor confirms -- I
apologize. Based on the description, I thought it was you.
But it was Heather. Heather instructed him to put in an
amendment to the permit. That's what they did. Immediately.
Immediately being within days, they filed for an amendment to
the permit. All the construction had stopped at that point.
The contractor that was there, all that he could do was, there
were walls -- remember, the structure was to make alterations
to the first floor walls and to do a new -- there are parts of
this foundation that had to be replaced. The original
structure was the garage was part of the original structure.
The garage was on a slab. YOU can't, you couldn't construct a
new buildin~ inside the slab. So what you saw out there was
the excavatlon for the slab that was removed and there were no
walls on the garage part of it. But you certainly do still
see the walls of the rest of the building.
The exact same footprint is in place. The walls are
still there, and there has to be remediation to the existing
foundation because the structural integrity of the structure,
which could not be identified until after some of the wood was
out of the way. That is why you have a procedure in your
code, and I'm glad have you it, which says that if you need a
change or if you need an amendment, you come in for an
amendment. That is what they did. They tried to do it the
right way.
What happened is, at that point, they came in, submitted
the plans for the new foundation, she went conservative and
said, okay, I need a new house. The foundation is actually
going to remain. The plan that the architect and the
contractor propose here, in order to make the foundation
stable because there is a lot of building that is going to be
leaning on this foundation, is that the blocks, because there
are blocks, is to take the first two courses of the existing
blocks, remove them, replace them with good blocks, fill it
with cement, fill the blocks with cement, and they didn't know
another these blocks were filled cement blocks or hollow
blocks at the time. This is the way you do it, you fill the
blocks and you put rebar to make it structurally strong to
hold up the rest of the structure. What happened is that when
you are taking the parts down, had they walked away as some of
the board members would suggest, that no, you stop everything
at that point with sticks sticking out, half of the foundation
up, half of the walls up, you would have a major issue of
page 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
lS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
23
24
25
121306 Southold
liability ~nd not only negligence, but stupidity. Because you
are not gOlng to keep walls that are leaning against a
foundation that is unstable, stay up there for any period of
time, because you guys when you go out and inspect, kids,
trespassers, we don't care, whoever goes there could be
injured if the walls that have nothing to support them are
left up.
48
That was the only difference between the permit that was
issued and the permit that they needed amended, is that the
first floor walls were inadequate. They could not sustain the
strength of the rest of the structure and the sills and the
footings were inadequate.
So now they come back to you, at the last meeting in
November, and at that point the board, without notice, without
discussion, rescinds the original permit, the 2006 permit,
denies the amendment, and tells them to come back. okay?
I would submit to this board that that was not the proper
procedure. There is no procedure in our code right now to
rescind or revoke an existing permit. That procedure does not
exist in 275; in Town Code 275.
In fact, I'm going to give you the case of Masenobile.
The Masenobile case, you guys did the exact same thing. And
while it was, the permit denial was thrown out for other
reasons, the court specifically said that petition should have
been afforded due notice of the possibility of revocation of a
permit to have an opportunity to present evidence in defense
of the claim and that in Masenobile, which had been a permit
that had been issued twice before, in our case we have a
permit that was issued at least three, maybe four times
before. You don't revoke a permit. people are relying on
these permits. They spend an awful lot of money and a long
time to get here to get a permit. You can't just revoke it.
That's not the proper procedure. So I have the case for you.
I know you have it but I'll submit it to the board for your
records.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: what did -- I know you spoke to Lori
Montefusco. What was her opinion regarding the violation?
MS. MOORE: The problem was, she gets her orders from the
trustees.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What was her legal opinion as far as a
violation, as far as a resolution of this.
MS. MOORE: She didn't give -- she said the resolution of
this would be up to the board. That's what she said to me.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: She didn't give any legal --
MS. MOORE: She has, as a lawyer, you mow, she is not
going to tell me this is the worse case I ever heard. Our
choice is --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What was her choice as far as the
violation?
MS. MOORE: The violation choice that you give us or that
she gives us is a thousand dollars flat fine and plead
guilty. That's the only choice. Or trial.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What you said in the beginning is you
feel the violation, that there is no violation. So what was
page 45
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
121306 Southold
Lori's feeling?
25 MS. MOORE: Lori had -- I actually learned of all of this
procedure and the code revision, I had calls into Lori since
49
Monday. I called Monday, Tuesday, left messa~es and I have not
heard. The last conversation I had with Lorl on Friday was
that my suggestion to the board to resolve this prior to
getting here was an ACOD, adjournment in contemplation of
dismissal which is saying, llsten, we are not ~oing to argue
the issue who is right, who is wrong; was it rl~ht to rescind,
was it not right to rescind; was there a violatlon, was there
not a violation. Remember, my client came to you, told you he
had a problem.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand that. My question is
TRUSTEE KING: I think you are belaboring this whole
thing.
MS. MOORE: What?
TRUSTEE KING: You are belaboring this whole thing.
Look, Pat, let me just try another vein of thought.
Let's say you had a permit to drive down the Expressway down
here at 50 miles-per-hour. The state gave you a permit to
drive 50 miles-per-hour. You want to get out here a little
faster so you drive a hundred. Do you think a cop has a right
to stop you and give you a ticket?
MS. MOORE: That's a completely irrelevant point.
TRUSTEE KING: That's exactly the same thing. Exactly the
same thing
MS. MOORE: NO, it isn't. Sorry. I think based on the
fact here, you have a permit and your issue is wetland. HOW
is the removal of a first floor that is going to fall down
around you because the foundation is not as strong as you
thought it was, how does that affect the wetlands that are the
jurisdiction that you have to address. And I understand --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we didn't get the chance to make that
decision.
MS. MOORE: you've done it three times already.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We didn't get the chance to make the
decision if you demolish the whole thing on the amendment
because it was already demolished.
MS. MOORE: But the only demolition that was absolutely
necessary, because you couldn't keep it up, was the first
floor.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Pat, I don't think we are arg~in~ that
knocking it down needed to be done. we are not questlonlng
that the wood was rotted. we are not questioning that the
decision was made to knock it down. we are not questioning
any of that. what we are questioning is at that point, our
office should have been notified and an amendment should have
come in at that point. That's not what we are hearing
happened.
MS. MOORE: That's exactly what I said. If you are taking
down -- the excavation was already permitted. That was on the
permit already. So all the excavation that was done was
already part of the permit. The only part --
Page 46
121306 southo 1 d
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
TRUSTEE KING: I'm not so sure about that.
MS. MOORE: I'll put it on the record. The excavation --
look at the footprint. It's the exact same footprint. The
original -- let me pullout the drawing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: pat, the issue here is --
MS. MOORE: I'm trying to answer the questions as we.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we have a violation.
MS. MOORE: The violation as it was written is that they
tried -- I'll try to paraphrase it right -- is that they did
the work without a permit. okay? They had a permit. They
had a permit in hand. The excavation that was done all within
the footprint, there has been no expansion of the footprint at
all. None.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me interrupt you. The reason a
violation was given was the whole board was out there and when
we went out there we felt that the work was done outside the
scope of the permit. And that was our original -- because the
permit said to renovate the bottom floor, not to demolish it.
MS. MOORE: It was renovate and alter.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you could let her finish.
MS. MOORE: I'm sorry.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we were out in the field. It said to
renovate; to put a whole new top floor and renovate the bottom
floor. we went out there. There was nothing but foundation
there. so we felt that this was outside the scope of the
permit. That's why we issued the violation.
MS. MOORE: I understand. The only reason you went out
there was because they came in for an amendment because the
bui 1 der --
TRUSTEE KING: The reason we went out there was because a
stop work order was put there by the Building Department.
MS. MOORE: NO. No. The stop work order was issued after
the contractor went to the Building Department, told the
Building Department of the problem and asked the Building
Department what should I do.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you are saying if you didn't apply
for the amendment you would have gotten away with it and then
we would have done the compliance check and realized you did
the first floor and not just the renovation.
MS. MOORE: The structure would already be there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Can I make a suggestion?
TRUSTEE KING: Table it.
MS. MOORE: NO, you have people waiting two months to
continue.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could make a suggestion, please.
This has gone on for 15 minutes already. what I would like to
do is give her the opportunity to wrap this up, have other
people have the opportunity to make comments, then I would
like to make comments on this one.
MS. MOORE: okay. Thank you.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
page 47
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
121306 southold
51
I'll point out the sections of the code, all right.
There is a provision in the code under Wetland ordinance and
it's what is an administrative review. And in an
Administrative Review there is specific language that says
remodelin9' renovation or reconstruction of a structure. That
is an Admlnistrative Review. And in the definition of
Administrative Review is that it has no environmental impact.
It has no impact on the wetlands. so given that, they came in
to amend a permit for the reconstruction of the first floor.
That was more than what was actually necessary. They could
have come, and you should have this procedure for everybody
that facing the same problem out in the field. And I'll tell
you that the chuck Hamilton, the DEC is not often the easiest
animal to work with but chuck Hamilton prides himself on
saying that he has a hot, like a toll free or direct number if
you have a contractor out in the field who finds a situation
or condition that he did not expect, that you can - he's not
here -- that you can call him and they will make provisions
for it. There has to be some flexibility by this board to deal
with existing conditions as they develop.
In a case like this, my client had no intention of
down more of the structure than she absolutely needed.
would be happy to have the least amount removed because
the least amount that she has to reconstruct. But the
contractor and the architect, really, they, the situation
structurally required it.
So now you have the Wetland ordinance provision says
Administrative Review. A modification and amendment of the
existing permit shall be reviewed in accordance with the
standards of the chapter. And, again, the standards under the
code is no impact on the wetlands, navigation, habitat,
lateral support of adjacent properties. There is no impact by
this revision to the original permit. I'm supposed to
finish.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: please wrap it up.
MS. MOORE: Again, I have given you the Masinobile case
which states the original denial and rescission was legally
incorrect. And we tried to revolve it, we really did, prior
to getting here. But it's unfair to have somebody have to
plead guilty to something that they try to do the right way in
order to then proceed with an application when they are the
ones who came to you. And at this point if you want to have
the next comment, come on over and you tell them the
timeframe.
MR. FINKEL: Frank Finkel, I'm a contractor from shelter
Island. I'm involved with the project.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. If you could limit your
comments, please, to five minutes or less. Thank you.
MR. FINKEL: Very limited. As we took the building down,
as we even took the top down and everything else, we found out
taking
she
it's
52
page 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
121306 southold
basically that as we were taking things down that the
foundation itself is a block foundation wall, was crumbling on
us. Basically. Because the top part of the blocks were loose
and as we took them off, it was really a problem. And I
contacted, I went right away to the Building Department as we
were actually taking the building down. And we are talking
about how we could reinforce that.
I don't know if you know --
MS. MOORE: Excuse me. I think it's important that you
hear this, that he went to the Building Department --
TRUSTEE KING: He also came into our office and was told
to apply for an amendment.
MR. FINKEL: I did.
TRUSTEE KING: Did you tell Heather you did not do
permits. That it was up to the owner and you were not even
sure if it had to be knocked down?
MR. FINKEL: The girl told us. I'm not familiar with
southold. This is my first job here. They said, listen, it's
fine that you are coming down here. we have the paperwork to
basically get an amendment.
TRUSTEE KING: Before you took it down.
MR. FINKEL: Right.
TRUSTEE KING: But you took it down anyway.
MR. FINKEL: But we were in the process.
TRUSTEE KING: You are not in the process.
MS. STANDISH: You never applied for the amendment to do
that.
MR. FINKEL: Let me just ask the board. The point of it
is don't you want a customer who has a sound building?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's not the point.
MR. FINKEL: The point is -- I don't understand --
MS. MOORE: Believe me, it would have been the same
procedure for us to ask for repairs to the foundation and
reconstruction of the first floor as the ori~inal permit. so
it was not the intention of the owner to avold a permit with
you. It never was that the intention.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And what you could have done is called
the office and said this structure has to come down right
away, someone come and look at it. we are in the midst of
applying for an amendment. This is unsafe. Can someone come
down and give us permission to take this down. One of us
would have gone out and looked at it.
MS. MOORE: He was the one that came and was told do it as
an amendment.
TRUSTEE KING: They didn't do anything.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They were told it was an amendment, then
he took it down and then he applied.
MR. FINKEL: That was the same day. That was done in the
same day. It's a small building.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm not saying the same day.
23
24
25
53
1 MS. MOORE: But you understand that you can't --
TRUSTEE KING: I talked to Lori about this. She went out
2 to the site and she said, yes, this is definitely a
violation. That's what she told me.
Page 49
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121306 Southold
MS. MOORE: That's her subjective opinion. A judge
decides these things.
TRUSTEE KING: I spent a lot of time with your applicant
on a Friday mornin9' I spent a lot of time with her,
explaining everythlng to her, she was helped filling out the
paperwork. She was told and informed to take care of this
violation before the date because we don't work on it if there
is a violation in place. She chose to go and hire you and
fight this thing. I'm sorry, there was a violation.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on.
MS. MOORE: This is Nancy Carroll.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hold it. This gentleman is
as speaking right now. I would like to let him
we'll go on to other comments. we have to keep
here, folks.
MR. FINKEL: I respect the technicality what you are
entitled to. Say, listen, you didn't come in time, you didn't
do the right thing and everything else. I understand that. I
think we are probably at fault of doing this. But there was
nothing malicious done about this. we basically felt the
foundation cannot hold the new structure. I mean this is just
the way it is. I can go further into steel and everythin9
else, what I don't want to do, and I feel that you are r19ht
of saying, okay, you didn't go by the book. But I think ln
other respect, I think we should settle somehow that this
woman gets her right foundation to build a house. I mean, you
know. That's simple as that.
TRUSTEE KING: It would have been very simple. what
complicated things. It would have been very simple to take
care of the violation, we would have worked on this tonight
and done it. And she was told that. she was informed that.
MS. MOORE: wait a second. Aren't there le9al rights?
She has a license and to have somebody plead gUllty to a
criminal violation and pay a thousand-dollar fine, isn't there
a presumption of innocence still in this country? I guess
not. And it would require you to prove that at the time they
did the work, there was no permit in place. And it's a
subjective call.
TRUSTEE KING: Was there a demolition permit in place?
That's what you need
MS. MOORE: It was subjective call on whether or not the
first floor -- the permit allowed alteration to the first
floor to the extent that it was done. It says in the permit
application request to alter the first floor. At the
construction drawings always showed, at most, 20% of the first
floor there. That was barely enough to keep it.
on the record
finish, then
some order
54
1
2
3
4
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: please come up to the mic and state your
name. Thank you.
MS. CARROLL: Hello. Nancy Carroll. AS far as the
violation went, I did not find out about the violation until
December 1, when I picked up a certified letter that was dated
November 14 but it did not get to me until November 30. I
picked it up immediately and that was December 1.
The hearing for the violation is December 15. That's
page 50
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121306 southold
after this hearing and that's after the initial hearing that
was held on the 15th where I did not get the amendment. So
the violation itself did not come to my attention until
December 1. So I could not have cleared up the violation if I
have a hearing on the violation on December 15 before being
here tonight. I would have willingly cleared up the violation
but I didn't have the opportunity.
MS. MOORE: And we were offered, we were offered an ACOD
to resolve this.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm sorry, she most certainly did. She most
certainly had the opportunity to clear this up before the
hearing tonight.
MS. MOORE: I worked on it on Friday. Friday I sent you a
letter and I spoke to the Town Attorney. She was only
speaking with Jim King and Jim was adamant, to my knowledge,
Jim was directing her that it was going to be a denial and it
was going to be, we had to pay a thousand-dollar fine.
TRUSTEE KING: Denial of what?
MS. MOORE: I'm sorry. You rejected our offer for an ACOD
to resolve the matter before we got here. That, in all
fairness, given what they tried to do --
TRUSTEE KING: This was just on Friday when I talked to
Lori. Just this past Friday.
MS. MOORE: Yes, Friday. Here we are wednesday.
TRUSTEE KING: What happened from before that?
MS. MOORE: I called Monday, I called Tuesday and left her
a message. I actually went to the office --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's getting into argument back and
forth.
MS. MOORE: No, I want you to know I tried to get Lori to
act on this and she was in court on a supreme Court matter I
think all day either Monday or Tuesday and never came in, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The fact remains that we have a
violation here and we can't act on it at this moment. IS
there any other comments from the board?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. I would like to make some comments
regarding this. It seems like a lot, approximately, probably
20 minutes of the last thirty minutes of conversation is all
talking about what's happened in the past that nobody can
change. I thought our goal here was to try to, if
appropriate, allow a permit to be granted if it meets the
conditions of chapter 275. I went out there saturday and took
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
the time to look at this site and I would like to get off the
issue, temporarily, get off the issue of the violation and get
to the application that is before us tonight.
I have looked at this. I have looked at the plans and I
do feel that this work is within the, all the work that is
done is within the plans, within the scope of the plans. And
it's my personal feeling that at this point we can't control
what is in the past, that is going to be decided with a
violation. So I would like to propose that we act on this
toni~ht as an application and make a decision tonight with the
condltion that this matter be resolved in court before the
permit would be granted.
page 51
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121306 southo 1 d
That way the applicant can at least, possibly, if this
board approves it, grant her the application here tonight so
that the project is not held up beyond settling the
violation.
TRUSTEE KING: We've made it a practice of not moving on
the easement if a violation was taking place. The opportunity
was there to take care of it.
MS. MOORE: NO, sorry, there wasn't.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on. what I'm saying is the work
could not proceed until the matter is resolved with the
court. So it's not that there is going to be any advantage of
moving forward with the project. All I'm saying is there is a
lot of ar9uing going on over this and that part could be
resolved ln court, what happened in the past. I would just
like to be able to act tonight on the application and I know
-- well, that's all I have to say.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Dave, what I've heard from Lori before
is the reason she recommended that we not act on any
application that is existing as a violation is because that
can be interpreted in different ways by the court.
IS there any possibility we could reserve decision until
the court date?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And then --
MS. MOORE: If I could offer something --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: wait. wait. Let the question be
answered. Then we would not have to wait another month.
MS. STANDISH: we would have to then have a special
meeting.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You would have to have it on
MS. STANDISH: At a meeting that is recorded.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: IS that, I would not agree to voting
on a violation.
MS. MOORE: May I make a sU9gestion?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are you flnished, peggy?
MS. MOORE: only because I think I could solve it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let peggy finish.
MS. MOORE: I would say to you that given, that my client
is most nervous about the way things were because let's say
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
she had pled guilty, and I don't know how I would have done it
because I didn't have Lori available at all this week. And
you could please look at the documentation, the telephone
records at the Town Attorney office.
But it's offensive but she would plead guilty and pay a
thousand dollars fine if she knew that there was a permit in
place.
The problem is that the way things have been working, how
do you trust government when you think you have a permit, when
you go into making an amendment, when you get the permit --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What is your suggestlon?
MS. MOORE: My suggestion is that tomorrow, I could have,
if Lori calls me back, I could have a check from her and a
plea and we could resolve the whole thing. But she wants to
know that this is clear and we have the permit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You have that opportunity. I thought
page 52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121306 southold
that was relayed to you a couple of weeks ago?
MS. MOORE: I tried. The only day I was be able to reach
Lori was Friday. That was the only day. And this matter, I
spoke to you, I saw you on wednesday, Thursday. You know. So
right away, and I sent you a letter saying, listen, if Lori,
the only thing Lori can do is agree to a thousand-dollar fine
and a ~uilty plea, it's offensive because it takes away
people s rights to have their day in court.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have a comment. procedurally, what we
may decide may ultimately may be procedurally correct. Part
of what we should be doing, at least in my mind, is taking
into consideration what is ri9ht and what is wrong.
Having been in constructlon most of my life, I can
understand where the contractor is coming from and how these
events took place. So I can understand where perhaps
inadvertently, the procedure was not followed. If part of
what we do is to be just or do what is right, I think perhaps
we might need to go ahead and do something about with this
tonight. particularly since the applicant is willing to pay
the fine and deal with the violation tomorrow. Just in the
interest of doing the right thing. That's my opinion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand what you are sayin9 and
with the circumstances on this, because they're applYlng for
the same exact thing that has already been approved, I don't
think I would have a problem doing somethin9 subject to the
court date. It's not, they are not coming ln with something
else after the fact. But at the same time we have really been
steadfast in saying nothing until the court date is settled.
MS. MOORE: But do you understand the penalty that
imposes?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Maybe we have to change our procedure
now. Maybe we should look at the procedure.
MS. MOORE: Maybe you should. It's a seriously-flawed
procedure when -- the criminal court system is very bogged
57
down. Anybody who wants to have a trial, to have their day in
court, you can anticipate a three-month delay before one of
the judges will give you a trial date. That's a duress. You
are pleading guilty and paying a fine under complete duress
because you have a construction schedule that most of these
things occur in the midst of a construction schedule.
You hold up a permit for three months to give her her
trial date which she is well constitutionally entitled to
have, she might as well forget building this year and you have
a hole, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just saying I think we have gone
around and around on this enough and I agree with what Bob
just said. And that is, again, you know, I feel comfortable
going forward with acting on this even though it's outside of
what we practiced before.
TRUSTEE KING: I have one other question. where is the
septic?
MS. MOORE: It's in the front yard. There a sanitary pipe
that goes right out the front. There is a pipe in the
foundation.
page 53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
121306 southold
11 MR. FINKEL: That's in the front.
MS. MOORE: In fact, we may have to come to you for an
12 amendment or administrative, I don't know which you'll send us
to but I don't know what's going to happen with the sanitary
13 if they make us expand the sanitary.
TRUSTEE KING: That's an old system in there. Because
14 that house was built in the early 60s.
MR. FINKEL: we'll build a new one.
15 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Come to us before you do that.
MR. FINKEL: I will.
16 MS. MOORE: we would need to get a Health Department
approval to do that. And we need your permission as well. But
17 we don't know. I mean it may have been replaced along the
way. We just don't know. we don't want to muddy the waters
18 today.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The same thing has been approved three,
19 four times, as Pat said, and they are not applying for
something different.
20 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But we talk all the time about being
consistent. we talk all the time about -- I mean it's been
21 our legal advice, talking all the time about being
consistent. I sympathize with your situation and where you
22 are but I don't feel the process was followed and I do think
it could have been averted and I would not agree to move on
23 this tonight.
MS. MOORE: I don't think there was any way of averting
24 this problem, but, okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: what is your feelings, Jim?
25 TRUSTEE KING: I had my say.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Close it, make a motion.
58
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: IS there anyone else who would like to
speak on behalf of or against this application?
MS. MOORE: Bob Tass was just pointing out the amendment
was filed before a violation was ever issued. so if we treat
this as an amendment, which it should have been from the
beginning, given the code, it would have predated any
violation.
MR. TASS: We filed the amendment and that was in process
prior to the violation, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We understand that.
MS. TASS: So the obvious intent was to do the right
thing. The amendment was filed.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. And we went out on the inspection
for that and that's when we realized there was a violation.
Act actually Jim and I just discussed one similar that we went
out to and we realized there is a violation on it and they are
going to be getting a violation.
so we do that often -- not often, but it's been done
before where people have come in and we go to the property for
one thing and we realize there is a violation and we say,
wait, you can't do that. So that really --
MS. MOORE: But understand your procedures. The violation
is dealt with by the bay constable and the courts. For you
guys to get yourself in the middle of a violation and
Page 54
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
121306 southo 1 d
essentially find that there is a violation is mixing apples
and oranges.
You have a court proceeding that handles whether or not
there is a violation. You should be unbiased on whether or
not there is a violation. You have an opinion there is one
but ultimately only a judge can decide if it's true or not.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's why we like to wait until after
the court date.
MS. MOORE: But that procedure doesn't work given the
court system, and I think you need to change that procedure.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can revisit this with our attorney on
the procedure, but the procedure is in place now.
Are there any other comments? Bob?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: NO.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Anybody else?
(NO response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This one is difficult, procedurally,
because like I said, we have been steadfast on stickin~ to our
procedure. But given the circumstance that it's a proJect
that has not changed, it's been approved, it seems like it
would be approvable again. The court date is the day after
tomorrow. I don't have a problem with approving this subject
59
to recelvlng -- subject to the court date with the note that
this does not become the norm and it's done by a case by case
on each property, just as we review the environmental impacts
on each property. I guess that's my motion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm a little confused on the motion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Basically, approving it subject to --
holding it until the court issue is resolved.
MS. MOORE: Either by trial or by motion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Whatever it is.
And if it's not resolved Friday, whenever it's resolved,
the permit doesn't go out until it's resolved. DO I have a
second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm sorry, was there another comment?
MR. JOHNSTON: could you define what "resolution" means?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I said I approved --
MR. JOHNSTON: No, when you say that it's resolved. How is
it going to be resolved? DO you want some parameters how it's
resolved?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: well, it's up to the court to resolve
the violation. So whatever the decision is, as long as, once
there is a decision in the court, whatever the decision is,
once that is final.
MS. MOORE: Can we say plea; plea or decision or action?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Could I make a suggestion here? To make
a motion to approve the application of patricia Moore on
behalf of Nancy carroll on the property located at 350 West
Lake Drive, southold, subject to the adjudication, the
completed adjudication of the case in court and that the
Page 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
121306 southold
15 permit will not be issued until the case is adjudicated in
court.
16 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I was trying to say.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll second.
17 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aye
18 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Aye. opposed?
19 TRUSTEE KING: Nay.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Nay.
20 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For the record, it's three ayes and two
nays.
21 MS. MOORE: Thank you, very much. Sorry, I promised to
put this in the record.
22
23
24
25
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number seven En-consultants, Inc., on
behalf of Hugh Lee Switzer Irrevocable Trust requests a
Wetland Permlt to construct two one-story additions to an
existing two-story dwelling located no closer to the wetlands
than the existing structural areas. Located: 3180 Mill Road,
peconic.
Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this
60
application?
I inspected this, I believe I inspected it a few years
ago.
MR. HERMAN: Did you?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I believe so. A while back.
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-Consultants on behalf of the
Switzer's. If the board has any questions, I'm happy to
answer them.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: LWRP deems this inconsistent. The
proposed distance from the west end to the marine wetland
boundary is 93.1 feet. The distance from the east addition to
the marine wetland boundary is 71.7 feet.
CAC supports the application with the condition drywells
and gutters are installed to retain roof runoff and stringent
runoff control measures taken during construction.
That was my comment also is that the elevation is so
steep there. But you already have hay bales on the survey.
MR. HERMAN: Yes. If I could respond quickly to each of
those, the CAC ones and your concerns first. we do show a
line of staked hay bales with silt screen fencing along the
24-foot elevation contour. It should be easy to keep that in
terms of the construction methodology because the additions
are simply expansions of the existing structure. so there is
no real need for work much beyond the actual footprint of the
additions. There are drywells proposed. They are on the site
plan, actually a drainage design was prepared by Joe Fiscetti,
professional engineer. so we did take that into account as
well.
with respect to the LWRP, peggy, I have one question.
Because this is, I keep hearing thlS coming up and up and,
David, don't worry I'm not going to make general comments with
respect to the LWRP. we have to fill out these LWRP
page 56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121306 Southold
consistency assessment forms that ask the applicant to address
specific policies. could you tell me which policy the
planning board has deemed this project not to be consistent
with?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: 6.3 is what he references.
MR. HERMAN: Protect and restore the quality and function
of the Town of southold ecosystems including significant
coastal fish and wildlife.
okay. The practical problem, obviously, here, was
staying outside of the hundred foot wetlands jurisdiction.
And David, I will sneak in the fact that if we were outside
the hundred foot wetlands jurisdiction, we would not be here
asking for your permission. But be that as it may, the
existlng house is within the hundred-foot jurisdictional
area. So the additions are expansions of existing rooms,
there is no additional habitable space being added.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I didn't have a problem with this.
MR. HERMAN: I know. But we keep hearing we have to make
61
sure that on the record we have to explain why the project is
in fact consistent with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And I was going to say that I felt the
conditions had been met and that the additions were fairly
minor. The additions were 15x18 on a directional northeast of
an existing home and with the drywells and gutters and hay
bales, I felt that that mitigated it.
MR. HERMAN: I couldn't agree with you more, thank you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Therefore, I would make a motion to
close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And I'll make a motion to approve the
wetland permit to construct two one-story additions to
existing two-story dwellings located no closer to wetlands
than the existing structural areas for Hugh Lee switzer,
located at 3180 Mill Road.
DO I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number eight. En-consultants on behalf
of James and Justine weeden, et al, requests a Wetland permit
to remove and replace (inplace) approximately 26 linear feet
of bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead; remove and replace
(inkindjinplace) approximately 26 linear feet of existing
timber retaining wall in front of existing concrete headwalls
underneath bridge; backfill with approximately ten cubic yards
of clean sand flll to be trucked in from an upland source and
plant backfill area with Baccharis Halimifolia and Myrica
Pensylvanica. Located: Bridge Lane, cutchogue.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-consultants, on behalf of the
page 57
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
121306 southold
applicants who in effect include James and Justine Weeden and
the et al is also Robin and Michael Drews, patrlcla and Don
Brennan and; Mildred and walter Silvernagel.
This was the bridge on Bridge Lane as I'm sure all of you
are familiar with that gets you from the north side of the
bridge to the several properties on the south side of the
bridge.
Some of the work exists beyond the property boundaries of
the right of way. James weeden and Robin Drews are the
petitioners so their consent is, I assume presumed, as they
have signed an authorization for the work to be done. And we
also submitted an additional letter from catherine poretta at
Hedda Cusak's request, so hopefully the office got that and
you have it in your file.
62
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MR. HERMAN: With respect to the work itself, it's really
to just maintain the integrity of the structures, to protect
the footings and headwalls of that bridge. The bulkheading
will be replaced in the same locations and underneath the
bridge they are really more retaining structures; horizontal,
railroad tie type structure where the wood will be actually
bolted into the existing concrete headwalls which will remain
i n place.
If the board has any questions, I'll try to answer them.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This project was deemed consistent under
the LWRP. And the CAC resolved to support the application.
when we went out and looked at it, it was a question of
ownership, which you now addressed. And I see these letters
here. So it looked like a pretty straightforward project.
The only concern we had that we wanted to make sure we
addressed as a part of this is on the property of James
weeden. It appears as though lots of leaves and yard debris
are going into the wetland adjacent to the pond and that he
please not be depositing leaves and yard material in the
wetland area.
MR. HERMAN: If that is in fact coming from the weeden
property, I'll be sure to pass that along.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Anybody else wish to make comments on
this application?
(NO response.)
If not, any comments from the board?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No.
TRUSTEE KING: Has the ownership question been answered?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: That's the only question I had.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If not, I'll make a motion to close the
public hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
I'll make a motion to approve number eight,
En-Consultants on behalf of James and Justine weeden, et al.
All. Location: Bridge Lane, Cutchogue, as per the plans.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
page 58
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
121306 southold
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: En-Consultants on behalf of Christine
Howley requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace
(inplace) approximately 23 linear feet of existing timber
bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead; construct approximately 102
linear feet of vinyl bulkhead immediately landward of existing
timber bulkheading to be cut to grade and backfill with
63
approximately 15 cubic yards clean sand to be trucked in from
an upland source. Located: 320 sailor's Needle Road,
Mattituck.
Jim inspected this and he --
TRUSTEE KING: I didn't have any problem with it
whatsoever.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there anybody here who wishes to
speak on behalf of this application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-Consultants on behalf of
Christine Howley. I don't have any comments beyond what the
application states. I only wonder, Jim, if you noticed the
twist to this now, that this is sort of a new requirement of
DEC for these bulkheads where the marsh goes right up to the
bulkhead, they want to see the bulkhead going in on the
landward side with outer wall cut to grade. I assume you
discussed that with DEC and that's what we are doing here.
TRUSTEE KING: It cuts down on the disturbance.
MR. HERMAN: Other than that, pretty straight forward.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments from the board?
TRUSTEE KING: No. I just recommend a 15-foot non-turf
buffer and I believe that was a CAC recommendation also. And
it was found consistent with LWRP.
MR. HERMAN: Can we establish the non-turf buffer as about
12 feet in line with the approximated backfill disturbance
area? It's pretty, sort of a tight yard back there. only a
few foot difference, but you often require ten.
TRUSTEE KING: I can live with that.
MR. HERMAN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments?
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments.
(NO response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the
application as submitted with a 12-foot, non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. HERMAN: Thank you. Happy New Year. Happy Holidays.
see you next year.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You, too.
Page 59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
121306 southold
23 Number ten, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf
of Breezy Shores community, Inc., requests a Wetland Permit to
24 remove and replace inkind/inplace eight existing jetties.
Dredge basin inlet to minus four feet below AMlW
25 (approximately 800 cubic yards) and use spoil as beach
nourishment. located: Sage Road, southold.
64
IS there anyone here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. COSTEllO: My name is John Costello, Costello Marine
contracting. We are the agents for the application of Breezy
shores community.
And as of the meeting, last monthly meeting, we staked
the job as required by the board. we staked the elevation of
the proposed Jetties and we measured the distances down from
the bulkhead, down to the shoreline now. we staked out the
four jetties that we would like to have reconstructed and I
appreciate peggy's position on trying to reduce the structures
in the bay. And I appreciate that the OEC made us lower the
jetties, they made us shorten all the jetties, and by reducing
the four, the four jetties instead of proposed eight in the
application, at least we can stage it in and find out the
effects in an attempt to keep that beach stable.
certainly the offshore ends of those jetties are
nonfunctional. So by reducing the lengths we would like to
and we staked out number one, number two, number five and
number eight, trying to get the best distances --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: say that again.
MR. COSTEllO: one, two, five and ei9ht. I'll give you a
chart, if you like. Each of them are gOlng to be 18 inches
above the existing beach so that they don't interfere with
public access along the beach. You could step over any of
them.
Jetty number one will only be 17-and-a-half feet in
length. The second jetty will be reduced to 27-and-a-half
feet. That's 27-and-a-half feet in length. Number five will
be constructed 20 feet in length. And number eight will be
constructed to 31 feet in length. And I'm sure one of the
conditions is going to be submitting drawings, and we did
submit contingent upon this board's approval, lowering them.
They were staked out, I don't know if the board went to them
and saw the stakes. we staked the beginning, the ends of each
of these four.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Unfortunately it was high tide when we
got there.
TRUSTEE KING: Did you measure from the top of the
bulkhead to the top of the groins?
MR. COSTEllO: Yes, I measured every different location.
I have the top of the bulkhead. (Handing).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are you planning on removing the other,
what's left of the other?
MR. COSTEllO: I think the ends that are basically almost
removed, we've got to take them out of there for safety
reasons. The ends of them. We want to try to keep the
location, should the other jetties, you know, not stabilize
Page 60
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
121306 southold
25 the beach and we come back and say, hey, it would be nice if
we had one more between the big space, at least we know where
65
they were located.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we have plenty of documentation
of what was there, you know, so.
MR. COSTELLO: You asked the question, Jim. There is the
elevation from the top. You could have that. But that's the
top of the bulkheads. They'll be 18 inches above grade, so
it's a subtraction of that number.
TRUSTEE KING: I was looking for 24 inches myself.
MR. COSTELLO: They changed it. There isdifferent
positions but we try to keep it consistent in 18-inch steps so
you could walk over the top of any jetties now. Hopefully,
the jetties will be slightly functional and allow a little of
the sand to hold in the pockets. That will reduce that step.
That beach has been reasonably stable over a period of time.
NOW that it isn't is the reason they are willing to spend the
money. But by staging it in as a partial, we'll see the
effects. It's lower, shorter, and less of them.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: DO you feel, I know you really can't
answer it because you'll have to wait and see. Do you feel
you'll need to come back to request more?
MR. COSTELLO: It depends upon how long -- when we fill it
with the 850 cubic yards, you may not even see most of these
jetties. You may not even see them for a period of time. If
we do come back -- my opinion, you might come back for one.
It would be a stretch that is left a little more exposed to
weather conditions than others. But that's -- I hope not. I
hope not. And they hope not, because of the cost.
But taking the dredge material out of that pond and
putting eight-hundred along the beach, hopefully that will
disperse the wave energy on the beach so it doesn't hit the
bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And normally when we give the dredge
permit, it's a ten-year permit.
TRUSTEE KING: what I was looking at is the measurement
from the top of the bulkhead to the top of the jetty, the
groin.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: TO be sure if it's going to be long
enough; is that what you are saying?
TRUSTEE KING: Taking jetty eight, if this is 18-inches
above grade -- is this the new one or the old one?
MR. COSTELLO: The new one.
TRUSTEE KING: So the top of the jetty is 18-inches above
grade.
MR. COSTELLO: YOU have the only numbers. I don't have
the numbers.
TRUSTEE KING: The top of the existing bulkhead to beach
grade is 27-inches. So that means the top of that jetty is
only going to be that far below the top of the bulkhead. when
I was out there, I wanted to see a true low profile would have
been much lower than that, down near to where that whaler is
page 61
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
121306 southold
66
~oing along there, where it's almost the beach elevation where
1t 1S now.
MR. COSTELLO: The only reason you would not want to do
that, Jim, is because when you put that 850 yards on the
beach, you don't want it to just disappear. YOU want to try
to keep it between some structures. so each one is slightly
different.
TRUSTEE KING:
of the beach quite
MR. COSTELLO:
TRUSTEE KING:
raise that a lot.
MR. COSTELLO: Absolutely. And you are raising it with
short groins and hopefully they'll hold it for a period of
time.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: YOU may not see the groins.
TRUSTEE KING: I had the feeling from everybody here it
was adequate beach there. At its present condition.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But their dredge, it's their land.
TRUSTEE KING: That was my misunderstanding. I didn't
realize the grade was going to raised that much from what is
there now.
MR. COSTELLO: AS you could see, it's short and that 850
yards is going to go a long way along that beach.
TRUSTEE KING: I had in my head maintaining what's there
now. I didn't have it in my head they were actually raising
the grade.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we could always put a stipulation on
that part of the permit after the work is done to get an as-is
survey. Maybe that's a good idea, to get the measurements,
after everything is completed, get the measurements of an
as-built survey. And that's another way to measure it and
monitor it, and give us a copy in our file.
MR. COSTELLO: We are doing that at other locations to try
to monitor over a period of time.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we should try to do that and each time
you do it we can stipulate how often we want you to do it and
put it in our file so that when you do come back we already
have the data.
MR. COSTELLO: I think that would certainly give you the
record you are looking for, so that if any applications are
ever made again, you will certainly have the baseline.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Good suggestion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any other comment?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only comment I have is, I agree with
what Jim was saying. I am not a fan of jetties. unless they
are saving inlets from being filled in. And I really was, I
mean as people will remember, I was against -- I was only in
favor of one and eight and none of the others. so this is a
You are actually going to
a bit.
Absolutely.
This present
raise the grade
grade now, you are going to
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
121306 southo 1 d
67
compromise going to four jetties in here. And you know, I do
share Jim's concern with building the beach up this much.
TRUSTEE KING: I didn't real a have a concern about it. I
just didn't understand it was actually going to be built up.
I never had a big problem with the groins, especially low
profile, when you have a piece of property this long that is
fully bulkheaded and you'll get a lot of action along that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: oh, yes.
TRUSTEE KING: And I think the groins help.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments?
(NO response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
Like Dave just said, we originally wanted the jetty
one and eight and I think this is a fair compromise that I'm
willing to live with, with the latest plan. So I will, I just
want to make sure I have the right description and I'll just
take it from the latest survey.
MR. MCGREEVY: Excuse me, Jill, was this reviewed by
LWRP?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In the interest of getting done with
this meeting tonight, I'll move. The LWRP did the original
review of the original permit with the eight jetties
replacement and they said the proposed action is generally
consistent with the policy and standards and therefore is
consistent with LWRP provided the best management practices
are applied. The further intent of LWRP and the policies
determine the feasibility of employing and floating turbidity
screen silt boom during reconstruction activities of the
structure to control turbidity in the water column.
And CAC, if I'm not mistaken --
MR. MCGREEVY: I think we were pretty much in line with
what Dave had mentioned. But I think we said to retain that
number one jetty.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Here it is. CAC recommended
disapproval of the application to replace eight jetties,
however would recommend approval of an application to remove
and replace number one jetty on the south end of the property,
complete removal of remaining seven groins and to place the
dredge spoil on the south ana east sldes of the number one
jetty. That was the CAC recommendation.
MR. MCGREEVY: But LWRP doesn't find any inconsistency
with the four?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With the eight. This is April 18, 2006,
is their comments. And there are a lot of comments.
I'll make a motion to approve the application of Costello
Marine Contracting on behalf of Breezy Shores community for a
wetland permit to remove and replace inkindjinplace four
68
1 existing jetties, dredge basin inlet to minus four feet below
Page 63
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121306 southold
AMlW, approximately 800 cubic yards and use spoil as beach
nourishment. located: Sage Road, Southold. And this is as per
plan dated December 7, 2005.
MR. MCGREEVY: Jill, is inkind/inplace correct? Because
from what I understand the new application is shortening --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You're right. I just was reading --
that was the original. okay, so to approve the wetland permit
of Breezy Shores to replace four existing jetties as per plan
dated December 13, 2006, and to dredge basln minus four feet
below AMlW, approximately 800 cubic yards and use spoil as
beach nourishment. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
MS. STANDISH: Is this ten years on the dredging?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Ten years maintenance on the
dredging. Is everybody okay with that?
(Board members respond in the
affi rmati ve.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you, Lauren.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number eleven, Costello Marine
contracting Corp., on behalf of Iskender Erey and Angelica
Bengolea requests a wetland Permit to construct 70 feet
plus/minus of new bulkhead immediately in front of existing
bulkhead. Backfill void between old and new bulkhead with
approximately 22 cubic yards of fill. Remove existing stairway
and replace in-like, inplace. located: 680 South lane, East
Marion.
Would anybody like to speak to this application?
MR. COSTEllO: Yes. My name is John costello, costello
Marine contracting, and we are the agents for this
application.
I would like to try to address to the board, any
questions, I'll try to answer. And as you could see on page
four of the six, we are attempting to leave the existing
sheathing which is on the cliff and if we took it out we would
lose a lot of the material on to the beach. But we are
removing the piling and we are only going out approximately
five-and-a-half inches in front of the existing walls.
we are going to take a small excavator and relieve some
of the pressure behind the existing bulkhead and put new
bulkhead immediately in front of it.
It is not going to be the regular vinyl bulkhead but it's
going to be a plastlc -- recyclable plastic sheathing, tongue
ln groove.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I was out there and I took a look at it
and I think the only thing that we, the board, was concerned
with, was replacing it inkind and inplace rather than building
69
1
2
3
in front of it.
MR. COSTEllO: The only trouble is the height of the
cliff. The existing bulkhead is creosoted. Again, I made
this, tried to make this point a couple of times. Behind the
creosoted bulkhead the material has some oil contamination in
Page 64
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121306 Southold
it. It's a hydrocarbon. It's aromatic hydrocarbon. And when
we have a creosote bulkhead we try not to let that migrate out
on to the beach. But, there have been several occasions when
I had to do it. And by only goin9 out that five-and-a-half
inches, I thought in taking the p11ing off, excavating, and
one of the reasons because of the slope of the cliff and the
vegetation that is on the cliff, we are going to minimally
disturb it. We are going to put helical screw anchors in it.
TRUSTEE KING: I was going to ask you that, John.
MR. COSTEllO: Because we would do more damage. It's
heavily vegetated. So what we'll try to do is just relieve
minimum pressure off the existing sheathing so we can take the
piling off. whatever backing system is in there, is in there.
we'll put in a new helical screw so you don't have to excavate
it and screw it into the earth to hold the new bulkhead up.
Again, we are going out five-and-a-half inches,
unfortunately, but we are trying to minimize it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our concern is all the bulkheading in
that area is in line and we let you go out five-and-a-half
inches, then the next guy and next guy, and the next guy wants
to go out ten inches
MR. COSTEllO: When we are done with this, because of the
bow in the bulkhead, ri9ht now, they are not all in line.
Within five-and-a-half 1nches you will not even notice it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, this is out quite a lot. There is a
20-foot return on the guy next door.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, that's true.
TRUSTEE KING: There is an awful lot of disturbance if he
pulled the last one out.
MR. COSTEllO: Normally we try to build ~he~ straight, so
it will visibly be much better in line than 1t 1S now.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think the only other concern was just
adding some dry wells. You have the one leader there coming
right off the gutter pointing right down into the wetland
there.
MR. COSTEllO: I think that's justifiable. we told the
owner of the property that they should do that without your
approval. Just to try to relieve the water pressure that is
building up behind the existing wall.
If you want to make that a condition.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: lWRP is consistent, says it's
consistent. CAC--
MR. MCGREEVY: 20-foot, non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: CAC is suggesting a 20-foot, non-turf
buffer and improve control of runoff with gutters and drywells
70
1
2
3
4
5
MR. COSTEllO: The buffer, there will be a veritable
buffer but it's the whole cliff, you know.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's graded and stepped up.
Any other comments from the board?
(NO response.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
Page 65
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121306 southold
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion that we
approve this application of costello Marine Corp., on behalf
of the Iskender Erey and Angelica Bengolea requesting a
wetland permit to construct a 70-foot plus or minus of new
bulkhead immediately in front of existing bulkhead. Backfill
void between old and new bulkhead with approximately 22 cubic
yards of fill. Remove existing stairway and replace inlike,
inplace, with the condition that drywells are added to catch
the runoff from the roof, and this is located 680 south lane,
East Marion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Number 12, Costello Marine contracting
corp., on behalf of Fred pollert requests a wetland permlt to
construct 170 feet of new bulkhead immediately in front of the
existing bulkhead and replace 12 feet west return inplace.
Fill vOld between old and new sheathing with approximately 21
cubic yards of trucked-in sand. located: 375 lighthouse lane,
southold.
IS there anyone here to comment on this?
MR. COSTEllO: John costello, again, from costello Marine
contracting. we are the agents for Mr. pollert. If the board
has any questions or suggestions, I'll be happy to try to
address them.
TRUSTEE KING: I looked at this with our friend Mr.
Hamilton and it was our decision to put the bulkhead behind
the old one and then remove the old one. And I think we have
a 15-foot non-turf buffer. There is a lot of vegetation right
uptight in front of that. If you could cut that off at the
mud line that was that would be acceptable to me. But I don't
know how you are going to do it with all that vegetation
backed up so tight. so, that's what we decided on. put it
behind the old one.
Does the board have any comments?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I agree. looks like a good plan.
TRUSTEE KING: If you look at the shoreline, this was kind
of like a land grab from years ago. They put the bulkhead out
quite a ways. To put the new one in behind the old one is not
a sacrifice. There is turf right down behind it. So we need
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
to see at least a 15-foot, non-turf buffer.
Any other comments?
MR. COSTEllO: I would, again, I just want to state for
the record that the bulkhead lS creosote and, you know, I
would like to keep any of the leachate from going in and
entering the waterway or the wetlands or anything else. But
where there is a little more room on this particular
application where we didn't have room on the other
application, you can excavate and try to retain and put a silt
boom around and try to minimize the migration of any of the
creosoted material. But, you know, I certainly would like, I
appreciate the, that technique, but I think where there is
room, we could do an inplace inkind in this particular case,
Page 66
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121306 Southold
you know, instead of putting it behind.
If you put the silt boom there, you accomplish the same
thing as putting it immediately behind it. It's an
inch-and-a-half difference. See what I'm trying to do, Jim --
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, yes.
MR. COSTEllO: I mean to excavate it and then pull the
other one out, it just saves another stage. Because the other
creosote, by pulling it out, you are going to have some degree
of creosote leachate going into the wetlands area. Now, put a
silt boom there and just try to minimize that, where you have
the upland enough to excavate.
TRUSTEE KING: If you could do it right inplace, remove
the old one and do it inplace, I don't have a huge problem
with it.
MR. COSTEllO: The other one has to come out anyway.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't know how DEC is going to -- that
was the suggestion.
MR. COSTEllO: Mr. Hamilton is reasonable, so.
TRUSTEE KING: But if you could do it right inplace, I
don't have a huge problem.
MR. COSTEllO: okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else?
MR. MCGREEVY: what would be the sequence in doing that
inplace; putting the new bulkhead in in front of the old and
then removing the old or how does that work?
MR. COSTEllO: No. You would excavate first. Because the
soil behind there has some oil residues in it. Move that so
it doesn't go out into the wetlands. Then you take the old
bulkhead out and put the other one right back in the exact
same place with a silt boom because the vegetated wetlands, we
are trying to protect it and minimize whatever goes into it.
MR. MCGREEVY: YOU are talking about vinyl here, Jim?
MR. COSTEllO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: CAC recommended approval with a 20-foot
non-turf buffer. It's a pretty big yard you could probably do
it.
MR. COSTEllO: we went through this. There is two
72
1 properties away, Devor, we did keep a non-turf buffer. They
did have a non-turf buffer, but it was consistent with
2 whatever the board had ruled. I mean, I would rather have the
board stay reasonably consistent on the non-turf buffer
3 areas.
TRUSTEE KING: we are trying to adjust the size of the
4 buffer to the size of the lawn. Some people only have a
30-foot lawn. You don't want to put a 20-foot buffer on
5 them. This is really an extensive lawn and it slopes down
pretty steeply.
6 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the 20 foot is very minimal. I mean
it's very, very minimal.
7 MR. MCGREEVY: At one point the CAC recommended where
let's say you had a 100-foot lawn which would be in the back
8 to the house and the bulkhead, even going to half the distance
of it was acceptable. But 20 foot, 15 foot is really
9 MR. COSTEllO: water percolates down. on a flat lawn like
page 67
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
121306 southold
this, it's a sand filter. On a cliff it's a grade, different
circumstances, and I could tell you about half the pollutants
that enter the waterways come from leaves. That's where the
fertilizer goes into the water system, go up into the leaves
and out into the bay.
MR. MCGREEVY: Never thought of that. Yes
TRUSTEE KING: There's nothing else. I'll make a motion
to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
Motion to approve the application, replace the
bulkhead inplace with vinyl, with the silt fence put in place
during construction and 20-foot non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: what about a silt boom?
TRUSTEE KING: It doesn't have to be. It could be planted
up with native vegetation, but non-turf.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
MR. COSTEllO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: catherine Mesiano, Inc., on behalf of
lee and Marie Beninati requests a wetland Permit to construct
a 626 square foot attached garage and second story addition,
install a 14x20 foot in~round pool and revegetate buffer area.
located: 855 oakwood Drlve, Southold.
we were all out there and we met cathy out there. And
before we start, the lWRP finds it inconsistent and on policy
6.3, proposed setback off the garage to the wetland is 51.5
feet. So it's a 100-foot setback. They would like to see
subsurface drywell for drainage of pool. Require erosion
sediment controls, hay bales, silt fence; gutters, down
73
spouts, subsurface drywells for storm water runoff on
impervious surfaces.
And CAC supports the application with the condition of
gutters and drywells are installed to contain roof runoff and
drywell to contain pool backwash.
That's pretty much the comments that we had. we had
additional ones but is there anyone here to speak to behalf of
this application?
MS. MESIANO: Cathy Mesiano on behalf of the applicant.
I believe Mr. Beninati provided new surveys to your
office which shows the drywells, the hay bales as
containment. we do have the drywells and we can note, if you
would like, gutters and leaders to the drywells. But it's the
purpose of the drywells. Drywells for the driveway, and with
respect to the lWRP comments on the distance being
inconsistent, we are maintainin~ the existing setback from the
wetlands, so we are not increaslng the degree of nonconformity
and to further that, our proposal for the vegetation
throughout the entire adjacent area on the perimeter, wetland
perimeter of the property I think more than mitigates the fact
that we are keeping -- we are not consistent with the code,
Page 68
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121306 southold
however we are keeping in line with the existing and we are
tryin~ to give back as far as the plantin~s are concerned.
And w,th respect to the plantin~s, one th'n~ that I didn't
have in my application but we d,d discuss, 's that would be
ability to hand cut the phragmites in order to give our
plantings a little bit of an advantage.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Hand cut to a foot high?
MS. MESIANO: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have a problem with that, to add
that into the application. Does anybody else?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just depict it on the plans.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The phragmites are on the plans, yes,
but she is just adding to --
MS. MESIANO: As part of the revegetation plan to just cut
the phragmites to give our new plants a competitive edge.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's just a planting plan. (perusing.)
This is schneider, the one next to it. I remember we have been
to it several times about the dock.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I was down there trying to figure
out
MS. MESIANO: Are you thinking schneider or RuSSO? RUSSO
was the project --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Russo, then schneider. schneider was at
the end. That's the only way they can fit it.
The only other comments we had is with the planting plan
is that there will be no excavation and no fill. Obviously
excavation to plant but not any other --
MS. MESIANO: They'll be planted by hand, there will be no
excavation or digging of the earth in general. They will be
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
hand planted.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we realize that you don't have to
upgrade your septic and sanitation now but if you ever do in
the future, consider moving it back.
MS. MESIANO: The only problem with that is the proximity,
wherever we put it, we are still, the proximity is still the
same. The only -- we certainly will take it under
advisement. The only thing that I could suggest would be if
we were able to put it closer to the road and have an ejection
system.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, whatever, you know, just to
consider if you ever have to move it to consider the
location.
MS. MESIANO: somethin~ more environmentally sensitive,
certainly, would be a cons,deration.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I mean we can't make that a requirement.
I just wanted to note that. Because they are so close. I noted
it was built in the early 70s, so.
MS. MESIANO: Right. we have no problem with that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And you are not adding a bedroom so we
know you don't have to upgrade the septic, so.
Are there any comments from the board?
(NO response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
page 69
14
15
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
121306 Southold
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I feel with the planting plan that was
submitted and all the drywells they had placed around and the
drywell for the pool backwash, the hey bale line, I feel it
makes the LWRP consistent with this mitigation in place here.
So therefore I will make a motion to approve this application
of catherine Mesiano on behalf of Lee and Marie Beninati for a
Wetland permit to construct 626 square foot attached garage
and second-story addition, install a 14x20 foot inground pool
and revegetate buffer area without any excavation or fill, cut
phragmites to a foot high and to make sure the drywells are
there as noted on the plan dated, last dated December 5, 2006.
I make that motion.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MS. MESIANO: Thank you. Can I just ask one question?
John costello was here for McGowan. would you mind taking
them out of order so he could, because he was --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't think this will take too long.
If I could ask him to wait five minutes.
MS. MESIANO: okay.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: catherine Mesiano, Inc., on behalf of
75
carol Freda requests a wetland Permit to remove a 14x22 foot
wood deck and step, construct a 14x22 foot one-story addition
in its place; construct a 12.1x7.1 foot proposed second-story
addition over existing screened deck with part of deck to be
removed; construct 30x28 foot two-story addition and remove
existing sanitary system and install new sanitary system.
Located: 7715 Indian Neck Lane, peconic.
IS there anyone here like to speak for this application?
MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the
applicant. I think the survey pretty much speaks for itself.
we are very close to your limits. I think our closest point
is 74.4 feet and that's at the point of the addition that
replaces the existing wood deck at 74.1 feet. Everything else
is greater than 75 feet.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Even though our jurisdiction is 100.
MS. MESIANO: Yes, but you usually require 75-foot
setback.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. The LWRP does have it
inconsistent due to those measurements. It says proposed
distance of the wood deck from the marine wetland boundary is
96.1 feet and the distance to the proposed second story is
95.1 feet. I think the entire board saw this. CAC supports
the application with conditions gutters and drywells are
installed to contain roof runoff. Hay bales during
construction. I didn't note, are they on the plans?
MS. MESIANO: NO, you are right. That was not added to
the plans. certainly make that part of your conditions.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And one of the comments was there was
a walkway that was in the wetlands.
page 70
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121306 Southold
MS. MESIANO: can you tell me where?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That was removed.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It wasn't there.
MS. MESIANO: I didn't walk the entire property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We checked it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's been checked and it's not there.
Anyone else who has any comments to make for this
application?
Board members?
(NO response.)
(NO response.)
If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland permit for
carol Freda for the deck, one-story addition, proposed
second-story addition, and two-story addition and removing the
existing sanitary system, install new sanitary system as per
plans, survey plans dated November 20, 2006, and; with the
conditions that drywells for roof runoff and hay bales are set
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
during construction which would mitigate this and deem this
consistent with LWRP.
DO I have a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MS. MESIANO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 16, Catherine Mesiano on behalf of
Andrew McGowan, Jr., requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct,
using C-LOC 4500 vinyl sheathin~, two west jetties
(low-profile) inplace, at existlng elevation; extend two
jetties landward, maximum 18 feet at six inches below existing
elevation using C-Loc 4500 vinyl sheathing; replant beach
grass upon completion of construction. Located: 13350 New
Suffolk Avenue, cutchogue.
IS there anybody here to speak to this application?
MS. MESIANO: catherine Mesiano on behalf of the
applicant.
I'm basically here to address the board's concerns. Mr.
Costello is here also to answer any technical questions. The
problem that we have is that erosion has occurred on the
landward end of the existing jetties. we recognize that the
problem has occurred in part because of the deterioration of a
neighbor's jetty, which we have no control over. So we need
to do what we need to do to protect our property. And if
there are in any questions, comments?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The board did go out and look at this.
First off, it was exempt, found to be exempt under LWRP and
the CAC resolved not to support this application as stated.
They do support the application to extend two jetties landward
and replace beach grass. But they did not support
reconstruction to two western jetties.
page 71
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121306 Southold
The board went out and looked at this and the far western
jetty we felt was nonfunctional at this point in time. We did
not see the reason to replace that one. We did agree with the
replacement of the other, going from west to east, number two,
and we were okay with the extension of, again, going west to
east, I'm numbering number three and four jetties, going
landward, and with the condition that, as you stated, dropping
down six inches below existin~ elevation.
one of the concerns a nelghbor had with this was the
ability to walk the beach. So we wanted to make sure that
either it's a low enough profile so it's not a problem to get
over this jetty or there are stairs put in place that allow
people to be able to walk the beach; stairs up, obviously,
above high tide mark so that people are able to walk the
beach. Those were our feelings.
I don't know if there was anybody else here that wished
to address there application.
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
MR. COSTEllO: John costello. I just want to make a
couple of points. AS you noted, the furthest west jetty,
which you said is nonfunctional, but you'll notice anything
but that. Two-thirds of that jetty is totally functional.
Because that beach, if you want talk about a stabilized beach
with a low-profile jetty, there is two examples; the inshore
two-thirds of that jetty, the offshore end, absolutely, it's
been nonfunctional for the last couple of winters. Because
two winters ago he wanted me to come in and fix some piling at
the end of it, and I never did get there. And it's gotten a
lot worse.
The second jetty was also damaged at that time and he
wanted me to come and add a couple of new pilings at the end.
well, the piling was not, there is some sheathing that was
broken off. The length of those, absolutely, the offshore end
is nonfunctional. But you talk about the two-thirds of that
jetty, the inshore end, it's the perfect example, whether you
classify it as a jetty or a groin, let me tell you. And Rob
Herman before when he said, these actually could be considered
groins and any of these short, little, perpendicular things
are, technically, groins. But everybody refers to them as
jetties in the trade.
But the inshore end of the west one, certainly nobody
would take it out, because it is working. There is a beach
there. And you talk about public access, there is perfect
public access to that area. You run into the larger, newer
groin, the only problem with that is the inshore end. What is
happening is by the failure of the neighbor's jetty, the tide
is coming up in there and filling in the creek which, again,
needs dredging periodically. If that was extended inland and,
again, you are right, if you could walk over the first two
jetties, you could certainly walk over them. You could walk
around them. YOU can do anything you want with them because
they are less than six inches out of the ground.
From that point on, you could put stairs in there, you
probably have to be seasonal because as that beach disappears
because nobody is doing anything with the neighboring jetty,
page 72
20
21
22
23
24
25
121306 southold
as the storms in the winter with the northeast winds, will
take the stairs away. In the summertime, not a problem. But
you can only walk to the adjoining next door neighbor's
property, then you are in the creek again. unfortunately.
The debris and the concrete, this gentleman wanted to try to
help his neighbor but I guess, as you know, some neighbors are
a little more difficult than others.
But the debris and the concrete and the ripraping in the
Highway Department placing along that shoreline, is not a
pretty site. But hopefully that will be corrected some time
in the future. In the meantime this guy is just trying to
maintain and make sure that it doesn't get behind the ~etty
and continually lose more behind the middle jetty. WhlCh will
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
happen. So I mean, it was my suggestion that it's a
possibility that by removing the ends of those first two,
because it is nonfunctional, shortening them up, I don't
believe it would be a detrimental to the beach dropping in
elevation. So, I mean, it would be my recommendation to the
owner that no matter what he does, is not fix the ends of
those up, is remove the offshore ends. Save the money and put
it on the other ones.
MR. MCGREEVY: And do what with the two west jetties?
MR. COSTELLO: well, I mean, they would have to be
rebuilt. They are old. Rebuild it in the same elevation that
they are. Because they are working at the elevation. Because
the sand is goin9 right over the top of them and feeding each
other. And that s the idea. And all three of those are
working. But it's not working because the whole system has
got the big leak in the east end. unfortunately.
MR. MCGREEVY: Makes sense.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay. Thank you.
MR. COSTELLO: when they dredged, they used to replenish
that whole beach down. But it hasn't been done in a little
bit, unfortunately, and I would hope that Mr. Bergen would get
on that and get them dredging all the creeks. To keep these
beaches. But the public access is still going to end. If
they dredge the creek, that east jetty is, that's where it's
going to end anyway. Hopefully they would take enough of it
and put it along that beach and hopefully they would cover
some of that concrete debris or remove some of that concrete
debris because the road, somewhere along the line, the road
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: well, the whole stretch of the road
along the side needs work; it's lost plantings up by the
bridge and everything.
MR. COSTELLO: The concrete is stable. That's saving the
road, but unfortunately.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. There is another comment in
the back.
MS. WALGREN: My name is Trina walgren. I'm the one who
wrote the note. I live at 300 Short Road.
We have access to the beach from that community that has
access to that beach. And I beg to differ with Mr. Costello
because people fish all the time. YOU are saying where the
concrete is is ugly. people fish all the time off that
page 73
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121306 southo 1 d
little, tiny piece of beach. Into even into the Fall. And
you can walk. It's a little difficult. YOU have to clamber
over those groins. But I'm also speaking for Mary Holland who
is at 400 Short Road because she couldn't be here tonight, but
we would like to have some kind of, with your policy in mind,
continue to have access, not just summer stairs, as he's
saying, because I'm on the beach every day the whole year. I
bought property in that area because I love the bay and I love
the beach. And I love to go down and watch people fishing,
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
too. And I'm hoping that there can be some kind of a
resolution. I'm sure it's agonizing for the McGowan's to just
watch it all disappear in front of them. But by the same
token there has been public access between the, that's been
for many years, between the low and the high water marks. And
I would like to see provisions be made for that. And I did
not see provisions made on the plans for that. And I don't
even know if you are in trouble, I mean the McGOwan's have
never bothered anybody, but you have to climb up and over.
Anyone who has been down there knows, but I suppose you are on
the MCGOWan's property at that point. But the high water mark
goes like this. (indicating). So what do you do.
I hope this can be done in such a way that we do continue
to have access so we can walk down to the bridge. Yes, the
concrete is ugly but, yes, the fishing is good. So there you
are.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
MS. WALGREN: And also, I don't know anything about this
except that the horseshoe crabs come in there in the spring
and they mate and I don't know if you change the currents or
not, if this would change the currents to the point that they
might not like it and they might not come anymore. I don't
know if it will have any impact on the horseshoe crabs or not.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Because mostly the sandy beaches, they
are drawn to.
MS. WALGREN: Yes, they are up a little bit west. But I
didn't know if chan~ing the flow a little bit would deter them
from coming. I don t think so, but I'm raising that
possibility.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay. Thank you. Anymore comments?
MS. MESIANO: If I could have one last comment. It
appears from my calculation that the height of the jetty, the
two easterly jetties, we are proposing to drop them six inches
below the existing grade.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct.
MS. MESIANO: The change in elevation from low water to
high water appears to be approximately, maybe two feet,
two-and-a-half feet, at best. so if anythin9' we are
improving the situation because we are reduclng the height.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand that.
MS. WALGREN: I just can't get over it, as a practical
matter. It's imposslble, because of the drop on the other
side.
TRUSTEE
BERGEN: Thank you. Any
(NO response.)
page 74
comments from the board?
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
24
25
121306 southold
Again, we had talked about the removal of that western
jetty because we felt it was nonfunctional and only approving
three of these. you've heard Mr. costello say, and I see the
western most jetty is a 60-foot length, takin9 off one-third,
shortening it by approximately one-third meanlng it would be a
80
40-foot length. I don't know if people are more
then with allowing the reconstruction of that as
at 40-foot versus 60-foot in length or not. I'm
some feedback from the board.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't have a problem with that. I
do think the access definitely has to be addressed. Haven't
we done where the property owner acknowledge the access --
you were saying that you can get access but you end up walking
on the person's property?
MS. WALGREN: I'm not a law breaker, you know, and my
neighbor is worried about the same thing I am. You are going
down the beach between high and low water mark. If you look
at the diagram, there is this jog like this and in order to
get around that, because the jetty is this high, you have to
climb up the dune area. It is vegetated there. You have to
climb up on the side. And you can see, if you've been down
there, it's all, the grass is not growing there because
everybody has to do that and you have to go up and then kind
of jump over and back down. And that's not really public
access. I mean that's the way it is now, but if they are
90ing to be fixing, if Mr. Costello is going to be fixing it
ln some manner, maybe part of it should be to improve the
public access and it would be better for the MCGOwan's, too, I
would think, it terms of people going on their property, in
terms of liability situation.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And again, just to reiterate what Ms.
Mesiano was saying, if this is approved as stated here, it's
what the proposing is to drop the existing elevation of that,
as she said, you know, could be up to close to two feet. So
you might not be facing, the new jetty will not be the same as
what is there right now. And if you let me finish. what we
could do is as a condition after it's done, review to see if
steps are needed. It could be steps are needed, it could be
steps are not needed because with the reconstruction it will
be lower down so you won't need steps. But we could review it
at that time and put in as a condition of the permit the need
for steps. Because I agree that public access is important.
I a9ree with you, the public access is important. I'm just
saYlng there might not, with this construction as planned, if
approved, there might not be the need for steps.
MS. WALGREN: That's fine. But it needs to be in such a
way.that there will be public access. That's all that I'm
asklng.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And the board is agreeing with you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Correct
MS. WALGREN: That's fine. That's great.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could back up now to what I started
talking about a minute ago, is to receive the board's input on
this idea of decreasing the length of the western jetty by 20
Page 75
comfortable
low profile
looking for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
121306 southold
feet and then approving that as a low profile jetty.
81
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: YOU are talking the two western
jetties. I think that's a good compromise and I wouldn't have
a problem with doing the fourth, the most western one.
MS. WALGREN: I don't understand how you get the sand back
behind the eastern side of the jetty where you have the jog.
I don't know how the sand comes back there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: NO. They are going to extend it back and
it will naturally come in. It will naturally come in. The
literal drift does move in that direction. we know that
because of the way that creek fills in, that the literal drift
does move in that direction.
MS. WALGREN: I realize that because I walk down there
every day. Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If there are no other comments, I'll make
a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
I'll make a motion to approve number 16, Catherine
Mesiano on behalf of Andrew McGowan, Jr., located 13350 New
Suffolk Avenue in Cutchogue as per the plans submitted on
November 20, with the modification that will require new plans
that the two western jetties be shortened by 20 feet from the
seaward end and that upon completion of the construction, we
will review, this board well review it or representatives of
the board will review it to determine whether or not stairs
are required for public access over any of these jetties.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And that they can be added as needed
without any permit?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. The stairs will be included in this
permit.
MS. MESIANO: Thank you. May I just add one thing, Dave.
As far as defining the shortenin~ of the two west jetties, can
we say to be shortened to the pOlnt at which they become
functional or at the point that the deterioration ceases?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I certainly don't know how you determine
what point they become functional. I would rather go with
what the professional here says with dropping back by 20
feet.
MS. MESIANO: If John's okay with it, I'm okay with it.
MR. MCGREEVY: Did John say 20 feet, Dave?
MR. COSTEllO: Approximately one-third on the first one.
The west one is one-third is damaged. The end is damaged
one-third. which is approximately 20 feet. The second one, I
think it's 16, but it doesn't make any difference if you take
four feet off. we'll reuse the piling to try to reinforce the
end.
The other thing is Mr. McGowan is certainly for public
25 access and that was one of the reasons he wanted to keep those
two jetties to make sure that the beach is there because it's
page 76
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
121306 southo 1 d
82
a nice beach and it certainly does. The drop off on the other
side of the larger jetty, I'm also told, had discussions with
him. I wouldn't want to come back to this board but I asked
him maybe somewhere along the line we should try to cut a
window in the larger jetty. Once we get it extended inshore,
you can take one plank partially out and let some of that sand
drift down toward the entryway of the channel. You'll see it
gets stuck between the two jetties. The beach will elevate
ltself. which is going around now. The trouble is the third
jetty, the furthest to the east, you can't cut a window in it
because there is no sand there right now. But it would be
going into the creek from that pOlnt because the nonfunctional
Jetty of the neighbor. That's dangerous to walk over that
one, but. But, you know. It is hazardous.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I made a motion. DO I have a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
That's it. It's approved.
MS. MESIANO: Thank you.
RESOLUTIONS:
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have a couple of resolutions.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. The organizational meeting date.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The organizatlonal meeting date, we
talked about it and we'll do it Thursday the 4th at 6:00 at
Down's Farm. Does anybody have a problem with that?
(NO response.)
The 4th is okay with everybody, 6:00 at Down's.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: DO we have a motion to adjourn?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: DO we have to do a resolution on that?
or does it matter?
MS. STANDISH: NO.
TRUSTEE KING: why don't we just do it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a resolution to hold the 2007
organizational meeting on wednesday, January 4th at 6:00 PM at
Down's Farm.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
I make a motion to accept the 2007 regular meeting
date as amended.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
(ALL AYES.)
(The time noted is 11:00 PM.)
Page 77
RECEIV::O 't- ~d'
I . 00 (Nt)
r c ., ? " 2007
,~, u
~~~n17:;:J~