HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-01/24/2007
James F. King, President
Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President
Peggy A. Dickerson
Dave Bergen
Bob Ghosio, Jr.
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes
RECEIVED
3',30rm
APR - 5 2007
('~on~
ulhola To~ferk
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
6:30 PM
Present were: James King, President
Jill Doherty, Vice President
Peggy Dickerson, Trustee
Dave Bergen, Trustee
Robert Ghosio, Trustee
Lori Hulse Montefusco, Esq.,
Assistant Town Attorney
Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Monday, February 12, 2007
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, February 14, 2007
WORK SESSION: 5:30 PM
TRUSTEE KING: Good evening everyone, welcome to our first meeting of
2007. I'm Jim King, elected to chair this program for the second year. I
would like to introduce the rest of the Board: Dave Bergen to my far left;
Peggy Dickerson; Jill Doherty, vice-president; myself; Lauren Standish is
our office manager; Bob Ghosio, newly elected trustee and; our legal
Board ofTrustccs
January 24, 2007
representative is Assistant Town Attorney Lori Montefusco, and we have
two members of the CAC with us, Mr. Peter Young and Mr. Jack
McGreevy. The CAC gives us their recommendations on different projects
that we both look at, and Wayne Galante is our court reporter here,
keeping track of what everybody says. Normally I try and give a quick
rundown on what we have been doing. But we have a pretty busy
agenda, so I'll move it along fairly quick. We have a lot of things on our
plate. We are coming up with a new mooring plan we have been working
on. We are revising the shellfish code. Two good things we got last were
two pump out boats, which is a giant step forward. And water quality
improvement, and we are looking at a lot of water runoff projects that we
could possibly get done to also improve water quality. So we have a lot of
work to do this year. We didn't accomplish as much as I thought we could
last year but I guess that's the way it goes. We are doing the best we can.
With that, we'll get going with the meeting. I would like to set the date for
the next field inspection, February 12. Do I have a motion?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Make a motion to set the date for February 12.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: Motion to approve?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just to note, Jim, we usually do inspections on
Wednesday. This is a Monday, to work around some dates. So it's
Monday instead of Wednesday.
TRUSTEE KING: The next meeting, February 14, at 6:30. Work session
5:30.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a motion to approve the minutes of August
and November? I haven't read either one of them. Sorry, I apologize.
Anybody else?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think I read them.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I read them and submitted last month the proposed
changes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think I did, too.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And I had a few changes to add.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So is that a motion?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve, starting off with the
August 23 minutes, I'll make a motion to approve the August 23, 2006,
minutes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Abstain.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the November 15,
2006 minutes.
2
Board of Trustees
January 24, 2007
TRUSTEE KING: Are there any corrections?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I submitted my corrections. I don't know if anybody
else had.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think I had a couple.
TRUSTEE KING: Is that a motion to approve?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Motion to approve. Do I hear a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor.
(ALL AYES.)
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE KING: The Trustees monthly report for December, 2006. A
check for $10,869.22 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the
General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE KING: Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's bulletin
board for review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE KING: State Environmental Quality Reviews:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby
finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VII
Public Hearings 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.
Christopher and Evelyn Conklin - SCTM#122-4-20
Joseph and Catherine Gentile - SCTM#90-4-21
WalterWilm - SCTM#137-3-5
Tom and Julia Fitzpatrick - SCTM#89-3-11.3
Christopher and Amy Astley - SCTM#13-1-5.2
Nancy Sue Mueller - SCTM#123-8-11.1
Ronald and Maria Smith - SCTM#1 07-7-2
Barbara and Albert Reibling - SCTM# 57-2-32
William Baxter - SCTM#111-9-11&12
Anthony Bellissimo - SCTM#87 -5-5
Marjorie Petras - SCTM#87-5-6
Mary Zupa - SCTM#81-1-16.7
Edward Fergus - SCTM#70-12-39.3
-'
Board ofTruslocs
January 24, ~007
TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Aye
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: On these resolutions and administrative permits, we can
group some of these together: One, four and five?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, just four and five.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can do two, four and five.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: What we try and do, these administrative permits,
resolutions, they are not public hearings. If they are really simple and we
all agree on them, there is nothing to them, we kind of group them
together to move the meeting along a little quicker. We can do two, four
and five?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, I looked at Raynor. It was fine. Just a
slight move.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve number two, Mary
Raynor, requests an Administrative Permit to reconstruct and relocate the
existing garage six inches to the south and six inches to the west.
Located: 575 Beachwood Road, Cutchogue.
Number Four, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of John Corbley
requests an Administrative Permit to make changes in the roof lines of the
existing dwelling. Located: 690 Mason Drive, Cutchogue.
Number five, Frank Uellendahl on behalf of Betty Rugg requests an
Administrative Permit to construct a second-floor dormer addition on the
landward side of the existing dwelling and replace the doors and windows.
Located: 1695 West Mill Creek Drive, Southold.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Number one, Vincent Scandole requests an
Administrative Permit to install railroad ties running along both sides of the
property and rear of property. Level rear yard from side to side with
topsoil, maintaining the front to rear slope. Ties by waterside will be set
back six feet from MHW and 6x6 inches high. Install plantings on both
sides of the property for screening, cut phragmites to twelve inches,
replace shed on north side of the property which will be 50 feet from the
wetlands and install a buffer zone of natural vegetation approximately six
4
Board ofTruslees
January 24, 2007
feet back from MHW. Located: 400 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue. Was he
going to give us a new drawing? Did he give them to us? (Perusing).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Here is the area of planting.
MS. STANDISH: Is it this one?
TRUSTEE KING: No. See, he wants to put the ties in. We said no. All
right, so I could put it on --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the shed is going this way.
TRUSTEE KING: There is the shed.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the metal shed. I believe that's here.
MR. SCAN DOLE: Good evening.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Hi. We are just looking at the surveys as far as the
buffer. We want to make that clear on the survey. And the proposed
shed.
TRUSTEE KING: We are just going through what we talked about in the
field.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to come up? I'll show you this. You had
originally wanted to put the railroad ties along here (indicating.) We said,
no, just have a non-disturbance buffer here. This would remain open
without the ties. And the little shed we want to set 50 feet back.
MR. SCAN DOLE: That's correct.
TRUSTEE KING: Is this the present location now?
MR. SCANDOLE: It was there. It fell apart. I was going to switch it to this
side.
TRUSTEE KING: To the opposite side and keep it 50 feet from the
wetlands?
MR. SCANDOLE: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: I can draw this in. All right? I'll draw it in.
MR. SCAN DOLE: The only thing the buffer area, how far back --
TRUSTEE KING: I think we figured in line with your little cutout. It's like 25
feet.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You need to stabilize that.
MR. SCANDOLE: That's a lot. If you go back six or seven feet, which I
have no problem with.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You don't have to plant that whole area. Just don't
mow it, don't put grass there, don't put fertilizer there. You can leave it
natural. Do some plantings on the edge.
TRUSTEE KING: This is almost like all high marsh and if you leave it
alone, a lot of that stuff will just naturalize itself and come in. It will kind of
take care of itself if you leave it alone.
MR. SCANDOLE: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: And you want the shed on the opposite side of the
property.
MR. SCANDOLE: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to make a resolution?
TRUSTEE KING: Sure.
5
Board ofT'ruslocs
January 24, 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can just say 50-feet back on the north side of
the property.
TRUSTEE KING: All right.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want me to do it?
TRUSTEE KING: You can do it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve Vincent Scandole's
request for an Administrative Permit to install railroad ties running along
both sides of the property and not in the rear, that's out. Along both sides
of the property, level rear yard from side to side with top soil, maintaining
the front to rear slope, and 6x6 ties; install plantings on both sides of the
property for screening; cut phragmites to a minimum of 12 inches, and
have a 25-foot buffer in the area as indicated on the survey; replace a
shed to be placed on the north side of the property at least 50-feet back
from the water and install -- the buffer zone should be natural vegetation
approximately six feet back from mean high water. I make that motion.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Number three, Edwin and Rob Radovich request an
Administrative permit to perform selective vegetation clearing. Located:
1400 The Esplanade, Southold. All right, we all looked at this. I was also
out there with Mr. Hamilton from DEC today and verified the Wetland line
and the house, because we measured it and I just wanted to verify what I
was doing, that I knew what I was doing. I have five pages of notes from
today from doing inspections with the DEC. We looked at a lot of stuff that
we all looked at last week, which is incredible because usually the DEC is
months after us, and there has been a lot of modifications from anyway.
We checked, the Wetland line is accurate, the house is 104 feet. So it
puts it out of our jurisdiction. I think the best thing to do with that piece is
to pot a row of staked hay bales at the 75-foot conservation area line and
leave them. That delineates that line where there should be no
disturbance from that, and you are home free. I would make a motion to
approve the application with those stipulations.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want me to do the duck blinds?
TRUSTEE KING: Sure.
V. MOORINGSIDUCK BLINDS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Moorings and duck blinds: Daniel Heston
requests a duck blind in Wickham's Creek. Access is private. This came
in last month and we already have two duck blinds in Wickham's Creek
{,
Board ofTruskcs
J anllary 24, 2007
and we went out and reassessed and made a determination with a couple
of people that do the hunting and also the bay constable that there is not
room for a third blind. Therefore I'll deny the application of Daniel Heston
for a duck blind in Wickham's Creek and put him first on the waiting list.
That's the motion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Brian Ringold requests an Onshore/Offshore
Stake in Arshamomaque Pond, replacing Stake #200 for a 20-foot boat.
Located: End of Grove Road, Southold. Lauren, on this Ringold, what
was the size of the boat there previously? Was it around the same?
MS. STANDISH: Yes, they are usually -- I could double check.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the request of Brian
Ringold for a 20-foot boat, replacing Stake #200.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
VI. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONSITRANSFERS:
TRUSTEE KING: Number six, applications for amendments, extensions
and transfers. Number one, Clifford Polacek requests an Amendment to
Permit #6482A to an additional 18-inches to the width of the garage to
accommodate a ten-foot door. Located: 2905 Westphalia Road, Mattituck.
We looked at this last month and approved it. He needs the extra width
because he has a trailer he needs to back in the garage and needs a
wider door to accommodate the trailer. I can't see it having any impact
whatsoever on the environment so I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you want to go down the table or this way?
TRUSTEE KING: We'll start with you, Dave.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two, JMO Environmental Consulting on
behalf of Belvedere Property Management, requests an amendment to
Permit #5193 for interior modifications to existing building and exterior
building modifications to the windows, gable vent and ridge vent. Located:
c/o First Street and Jackson Street, New Suffolk. The Board went down
and looked at this one. We had no problem with it. The only thing that we
were going to request was that we noticed that there are gutters and
downspouts but not going into any type of drywells, so we wanted to make
7
Board of Trustees
J anllary 24, 2007
sure in this renovation that's being done, that we include drywells in the
project to contain the roof runoff.
MR. JUST: Glenn Just from JMO Consulting on behalf of Belvedere. I'll
bring the revised plans back in showing there is no problem with that
whatsoever.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Not seeing any other comments from the Board, I'll
make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on
behalf of Leo Alessi requests an Amendment to Permit #6190 to relocate
the proposed pool location 15-feet further landward of the tidal wetlands,
than what was previously approved. Located: 1700 Cedar Point Drive
East, Southold. It looks like I originally inspected this and I believe that
this pool is going further landward 15 feet. If no other Board members
have any comments. Again, this is a pool that is going farther landward.
I'll make a motion to approve the request for amendment to relocate the
proposed pool 15 feet further landward at 1700 Cedar Point Drive East,
Southold. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number four, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc., on behalf of Edward Fergus requests an amendment to Permit
#6302 to include 152-square feet of clean fill for the installation of the
sanitary system, install two drywells to be connected to sump pumps
located within the proposed dwelling and the installation of a 160-foot
French drain located approximately 140-feet from the wetland boundary,
along the northern property line. Located: 1854 North Bayview Road,
Southold. I don't see that -- we had inspected it and we didn't have a
problem with it.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we had any serious concerns about it. The
French drain is out of our jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have letters of concern from neighbors. I'm
make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Number five, Costello Marine on behalf of Fred Pollert
requests an Amendment to Permit #6503 to remove 170-feet of existing
bulkhead and 12-feet of wet return and replace six-inches higher inlike
and inplace, and install a ten-foot non-turf buffer. Located: 375 Lighthouse
8
Board ofl'l1Jskcs
January 24, 2(J()7
Lane, Southold. This was approved last month. I believe it was to be
replaced with a vinyl bulkhead, if I remember right. It was a request to
reduce the size of the non-turf buffer. We went out and looked at it and
we were all agreeable to that. It was a slight addition to the height of the
bulkhead to reduce the size of the slope. I think we were all happy with
what it was, so I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, I believe that was going to be a six-inch rise,
just to be specific. Six inch rise and a ten-foot, non-turf buffer going with
that instead of what was originally proposed.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Did you look at that, Bob?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I didn't.
TRUSTEE KING: Jill and I looked at it.
TRUSTEE KING: Number six, Catherine Mesiano on behalf of Heribert
Orth requests an Amendment to Permit #6047 to add an 18x36 inground
swimming pool and increase the limit of clearing, grading and ground
disturbance and to Transfer Permit #6047 from Heribert Orth to Kurt
Freudenberg, as contract vendee. Located: 640 Willis Creek Road,
Mattituck. Jill and I looked at this a couple of times. We had it staked.
The proposed pool is landward of neighbor's pool, so it's not a problem.
It's consistent with LWRP and the clearing limitation. It wasn't closer to
the Wetland, it was just off to one side to give a little more room. I didn't
have any problem. I don't think you did either.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Bruce and Barbara Beaney request a Transfer of
Permit #86-7-1 to replace the existing wood decks and steps, in kind and
inplace. Located: 6200 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. If there are no
comments from the Board on this, I'll make a motion to approve it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Before we go any further, I would like to apologize to
everybody. We have some cancellations. I should have let everyone
know right from the get go. I don't want anybody sitting here waiting for us.
We already passed number seven, Mary Zupa, it was postponed. Under
Coastal Erosion Wetlands Permit, number two, the application of Ronald
Stritzler, has been postponed. Number 15, the application of Elizabeth
<)
Board ofTruslecs
January 24, 2007
Siddons has been postponed, Number 16, the application of Jonathan
and Andrea Parks, has been postponed, Number 17, the application of
David Shamoon, has been postponed, Number 18, the application of
Maria Trupia, has been postponed, Number 19, the application of
Christopher and Amy Astley, has been postponed, Number 20, the
application of Eve MacSweeney, has been postponed 20, Number 21,
the application of Nancy Sue Mueller, has been postponed, Number 22,
the application of Ronald and Maria Smith, has been postponed, And
number 23, the application of Grace Burr Hawkins, has been postponed,
These have all been postponed, I hope there is no one sitting here waiting
for these to come up, We are not going to be reviewing them,
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, are we ready to move on?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes,
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number nine, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of Claus Hertel requests a Transfer of Permit #6211 from Lewis L
and Grace R. Edison to Claus Hertel, as issued on Sept 21, 2005,
Located: 305 Cedar Point Drive, Southold, This is just of a simple
transfer, I believe everything is in order on this, (Perusing,) Yes, So I
make a motion to approve,
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second,
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor?
(ALL AYES,)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number ten, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of Joseph Manzi requested a Transfer of Permit #6213, from Lewis
L, and Lefferts P, Edson to Joseph Manzi as issued on September 21,
2005, Located: 405 Cedar Point Drive, Southold. Again, this is just a
simple transfer of a permit and everything appears to be in order in here,
so I'll make a motion to approve this transfer,
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second,
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor?
(ALL AYES,)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number eleven, Suffolk Environmental, Inc" on
behalf of Rockhall Development Corp., c/o Joseph Manzi requests a
Transfer of Permit #6212 from the Estate of Grace Edson to Rockhall
Development Corp" as issued on September 21,2005, Located: 355
Midway Road, Southold, Again, this is just a simple transfer and
everything here does look in order, so I'll make a motion to approve this
one also,
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second,
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor?
(ALL AYES,)
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Have you called number four, Fergus?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, it's been approved,
lO
Board of Trustees
January 24, 2007
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): It's been approved? If nobody was here how
could it be approved?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It wasn't a public hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: This was an amendment to an existing permit.
VII PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE KING: All right, we'll move on. I'll make a motion go over to
regular hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All if favor?
(ALL AYES.)
COASTAL EROSION AND WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: Coastal erosion and wetland permits, number one,
David Corwin on behalf of Thomas Yannios, requests a Wetland Permit
and Coastal Erosion Permit to replace 120 feet of existing bulkhead,
inkind, inplace, using CCA lumber and 25 cubic yards of fill from an upland
source. Located: 545 Glen Court, Cutchogue. I've just been reminded to
try and keep these comments limited to ten minutes or less so we could
move the meeting along. You were here last month, I believe.
MR. CORWIN: Yes, I was.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we recommended vinyl sheathing.
MR. CORWIN: That was the question, yes.
TRUSTEE KING: And you had changed this to specify vinyl sheathing?
MR. CORWIN: I did submit that but I would ask you to put that aside while
you listen to some additional remarks.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay.
MR. CORWIN: The question left over from last month is whether CCA
treated wood can be used on the Yannios bulkhead. If you look at the
Town Code chapter 275 Wetlands and Shoreline, Section 275-11,
Construction and Operation Standards, subdivision (b), shoreline
stretches; subdivision (f). In order to prevent the release of metals and
other contaminants into wetlands and waters of Southold, the use of
lumber treated with chromated copper arsenate, also as known as CCA, is
prohibited for use in sheathing and decking. If you look at the Town Code
Chapter 111, Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas, subdivision 11-15, Erosion
Protection Structures, subdivision (c), all materials used in such structures
must be durable and capable of withstanding inundation, wave impacts,
weathering and other effects of storm conditions for a minimum of 30
years. Individual component materials may have a working life of less
than 30 years only when a maintenance program ensures that they will be
regularly maintained and replaced as necessary to attain the required 30
11
Board of Trustees
January 24, 2()()7
years of erosion protection. I have to contend that vinyl has not been in
service in Southold Town on the Sound long enough to establish itself as
durable enough to withstand penetration by floating debris. The executive
summary of the United States Corpse of Engineers study dated August,
2003, entitled A Study of Longterm Application of Vinyl Sheath Piles found
published research data from five years of weathering have shown very
little degradation in flexuous properties but have shown some degradation
in impact properties. With regard to leaching of metals into the waters of
South old Town I have to direct your attention to assessment of the risks of
aquatic life from the use of pressure treated wood in water, from the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation website at
www.dec.state.ny.us/website/bfwmr/habitat/gridlife.cbf. a study done but
DEC which indicates leaching of metals into the water is not a problem. I
want to direct your attention to two bulkheads, I believe were constructed
from CCA treated lumber after the adoption of present Town Code, one
being the Bitner (sic) bulkhead in Peconic where wood replaced failed
vinyl and the other being a bulkhead at the Hashamomuck Beach area,
one quarter mile east of Southold Town beach where wood replaced
wood. I do not have all the details on these projects with respect to use of
wood. I'm not citing these as precedents because I believe every project
should be done on a case by case basis. I do want to say that wood has
been used before. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. Any comments from the Board?
MS. YANNIOS: Excuse me, I'm Mrs. Yannios, the property owner. I would
also like to make a statement. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, I'm
the owner of the home of the house on 545 Glen Court and Vista Lane on
the Sound. And I'm the lady that sends you the fat tax checks twice a year
faithfully. However, I'm here this evening to protest your decision to
enforce what will be a financial burden on me in repairing the damaged
bulkhead on our property with the very expensive material that you want
us to use. Gentlemen, I'm a disabled widow confined mostly to a
wheelchair, living on a limited income and high medical expenses. We
plan to repair the bulkhead the way it was. It lasted for almost 35 years
we've have been there. And I'm sure it will last for another long time,
again. So we implore you to take into consideration our circumstances
and allow us to rebuild the bulkhead the way it was with wood. That's it.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
MS. REUBENSON: I'm Elaine Reubenson, practicing attorney in New
York and Connecticut. I'm here on behalf of Tom Yannios, who can not be
here. Mr. Corwin had mentioned the research that was done in New York
and one of the things that the article talks about is the fact that when wood
is treated with CCA, and it will be for in-water construction, it needs to be
treated with a Type C CCA so that the leaching effect is really minimized
and I see you shaking your head so you know about that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm familiar with the research, yes.
12
Board 0 f Trustees
January 24, 2()()7
MS. REUBENSON: In addition, Mr. Corwin had stated there were two
exceptions you made to the provisions that require vinyl bulkheads being
installed now. I mean it seems to me that if you can make two exceptions
you can certainly make more than two exceptions. Mrs. Yannios is a
woman with limited funds and, as I understand it, to do a vinyl head
bulkhead will cost more than twice the cost of installing a wooden
bulkhead. And there is just no way that she can fund that kind of cost. If
you require her to do the vinyl bulkhead, she will be forced to just leave
the bulkheads as is which will, as you know, cause erosion of the property
and will impact on her and on the abutting property. So it's not just her
property that will suffer the consequences, but so will her neighbors. But
you can't force her to pay for something that she can't afford to pay. And
it's clear from the research that I did, that wood treated with CCA can still
be used for in-water construction. And if being used for in-water
construction and you allow two bulkheads to be erected recently, using
that type of wooden construction, so it seems to me that this is another
situation that requires an exception to the requirements that you are trying
to enforce. In addition, as Mr. Corwin stated, there really is no data
available as to the type of weathering a vinyl bulkhead can actually
withstand except the fact that he mentioned that areas where there are
impacts on these vinyl bulkheads, they suffer the consequences. So that
if you have debris hitting them with force, they obviously cannot withstand
the same kind of impact as a wooden bulkhead can. That's alii have to
say.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Could I ask what the two wooden bulkheads that
were allowed. Do you have names on them?
TRUSTEE KING: Bitner, which is probably not long for this world. That
was a replacement emergency, if I remember. The other one, I'm not
sure.
MS. REUBENSON: What will end up happening, this situation will also
require an emergency repair if it is allowed to continue. The property will
really erode and you have someone who is willing to install a new
bulkhead as soon as possible with the wooden bulkhead that she had
before, that lasted for more than 35 years.
TRUSTEE KING: My feeling is we are trying to use modern material that is
more environmentally friendly. Almost every bulkhead we approved in the
Sound recently has been vinyl and I think I'm staying with my first call.
MS. REUBENSON: But those individuals may also be in a financial
position to afford them and, (b), there is no data showing that vinyl
bulkheads -
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think that's a consideration of us, the cost.
MS. REUBENSON: What will end up happening if you force someone to
pay for that, you'll destroy the property line. You'll destroy the coast line.
And not only will it impact on her property but it will impact on her
neighbors as well.
13
Board ofTruslccs
January 24, 2()()7
TRUSTEE KING: I think the neighbor was just approved for a vinyl
bulkhead.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): I would like to ask--
MS. MONTEFUSCO: Excuse me, sir, you have to be recognized. Only
one person can speak at a time.
MS. RUBINSON: With all due respect, this bulkhead will require
emergency replacement if it's allowed to remain as is and, not only that,
the property is being eroded. You can go and look for yourselves and see
what is going on. And Mrs. Yannios' property is being financially impacted
and so will her neighbors' property be impacted. And it seems to me that
you can't just require someone to install something that they obviously
cannot afford, when you have alternatives available. You allow two
people to put in wooden bulkheads. What constitutes an emergency?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Have you looked into other materials that do not
have the CCA? Is there any other --
MS. REUBENSON: I spoke to Mr. Corwin about it. I don't think there is. In
this article talks about the CCA Type C, and it clearly states that if the
wood is allowed to age, if the wood is properly installed, the leaching
effects are really minimal
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm familiar with that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would like to mention we are in the midst of
revising 275, which is our Wetland Code and one of the major discussions
we are having is with the CCA lumber. That's not a decision that will be
made here tonight but that's why you are hearing with all the Board
members we are familiar with all the research. We are familiar with both
sides of the research and there is just as heavily and strong opinions on
the other side as there are on the side you are defending. So that is
something we are immediately involved in and my only thought is if you
want to, perhaps wait so see what this Board decides, it may deter or
make, you know, possible changes to the existing 275. But as it is now,
there is no CCA in bulkheading. So what I'm saying to you is, we are
doing the research along with you. We are finding research on both sides
and I'm not going to predict what decision is being made except that we
are in the midst of looking into the CCA timber.
MS. REUBENSON: Do you have any idea by when you'll have some type
of decision made on that?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We are having a discussion imminently, within
days, but I can't tell you as far as a definite decision. I can't tell you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: A the change in policy would take a while, wouldn't it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Right now, the current code as Mr. Corwin referred
to, clearly states it's prohibited in sheathing. That's our code, 275. It is
allowed in pilings and whalers, but it is not allowed, by code, in sheathing.
So what you are asking for us to do is go against our own code, make an
exception to our own code.
MS. REUBENSON: But you already did that in two separate occasions.
14
Board of Trus[ocs
January 24, 2007
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But I think one of them was an emergency repair.
MS. REUBENSON: This is an emergency repair.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hold on. No, it was not submitted as an emergency
repair and recently we did approve two emergency repairs where for the
emergency repairs, they were vinyl. They were not wood. So you are not
familiar with this because this was very recent. This was, I believe, last
month or probably the month before, it was probably the November
meeting. But anyhow, the point is even for emergency repairs we have
recently used vinyl for that or asked vinyl to be used for that.
MS. REUBENSON: But previously to that while you still had the same
coding in effect, you did make two exceptions for an emergency bulkhead
replacement. I mean, am I incorrect about that?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jim said he remembers the Bitner emergency,
but we don't -- we are not -
MS. REUBENSON: There is another one on a cove. You'll have to
excuse me for my pronunciation. Hashamomuck. There was a bulkhead
replaced there as well, with wood.
TRUSTEE KING: That was where we had all the erosion problems, is
what she is talking about. But they came in and got full permits for vinyl.
That was just a temporary thing then they are replacing them with vinyl.
They are replacing them with vinyl.
MS. REUBENSON: That was done in February, 2006?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MS. REUBENSON: Okay
TRUSTEE KING: There was some serious storm damage there. They
almost lost one of the houses.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, now I remember.
TRUSTEE KING: And they applied for emergency permits and then they
came in later and went through the full permit process. We gave them a
temporary permit just to shore things up so as not to lose anymore
property.
MS. REUBENSON: So it was just the Bitner property you made an
exception.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. And as I said, I don't think that is long for this world
because that bulkhead has been destroyed two, three different times and
will be destroyed again. Have you been out there to look at it?
MS. REUBENSON: Have I been out there? No.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm familiar with the area.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Touching back on what Peggy said, if we do
change the current code you can always come back in for an amendment
to the application. If we approve the vinyl --
TRUSTEE KING: I think any changes to the code are going to be more
restrictive, if anything.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just saying we are discussing it. We are in
the midst of discussing it.
15
Board 0 f Trustees
January 24, 2007
TRUSTEE KING: Don't have people have the idea we are changing to
code to use CCA. Don't get that impression.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just saying there was much research on both
sides. We are hearing research that ACO is not as damaging.
MS. Y ANNIOS: Are you going to wait to 35 years to see if the plastic is
going to be as strong as the wood or stronger?
TRUSTEE KING: Time will tell.
MS. REUBENSON: It seems to me that you have researched this
bulkhead has lasted a good 35 years and it was CCA treated. It was one
of the first bulkheads, Mr. Corwin was telling me that was actually put in
using CCA treated wood. And, you know, I haven't been able to find
research where they talk about the extreme leaching that takes place with
CCA wood.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When the bulkhead was originally built, there was
not a law on the books saying no CCA. There is a law on the books
saying no CCA now and that's why we made our decision.
MS. REUBENSON: Okay, but you did make an exception to that decision.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In an emergency permit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have been through this.
MS. REUBENSON: What constitutes an emergency permit?
TRUSTEE KING: When everything is falling apart and your home is in
danger.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: In one of those specific instances it was the
bulkhead in front of the home which was probably less than 20 feet from
the home collapsed. The home was in jeopardy of falling into the Sound.
We considered that an emergency.
MS. REUBENSON: I would agree with you, however--
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think at this point it's been more than ten minutes,
so.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: Counsel, would you be so kind as to provide a
notice of appearance.
MS.REUBENSON:Sure.
TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments?
MR. CORWIN: I would like to give you the name of the two bulkheads that
were emergencies. They were Guvier (sic) and Casengeorge's (sic) and
they are going to stay in wood until they get washed out again.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. Any other comments? Comments from the
Board?
(No response.)
TRUSTEE KING: There is no LWRP. It's exempt. And CAC made an
inspection, made their inspection and supported the application with the
condition no treated lumber is used and a certified best practice plan is
submitted. With that, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
16
Board of Trustees
January 24,2007
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the permit using vinyl
sheathing rather than CCA.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do we need to have the applicant agree to that?
TRUSTEE KING: No
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I'm saying is, I'm questioning whether we
simply deny this permit as written or we give the applicant an opportunity
to amend it to include vinyl sheathing, then we could approve it.
TRUSTEE KING: Well, new plans were submitted replacing with vinyl
which Mr. Corwin asked me to put aside when we started the hearing. I
guess it's the property owner's call.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mr. Corwin is the applicant, so. He could confer
with his client.
TRUSTEE KING: We could deny it as submitted orwe could approve it
with vinyl sheathing.
MR. CORWIN: Approve it with vinyl sheathing.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. GLADD: Can I ask a question about the rocks? Do they need rocks?
TRUSTEE KING: That's also in the code. All the new bulkheads that we
put on Long Island Sound now are being armored with stone.
MR. GLADD: That's not a new bulkhead. That's fixing up an existing
bulkheading.
TRUSTEE KING: Are you one of the applicants for anything?
MR. GLADD: No, but I live next door to one and I could be in the same
situation.
TRUSTEE KING: I asked if there were any further comments, nobody
came up. Now we closed the hearing, now he's coming up.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: The hearing has been closed.
TRUSTEE KING: Does anyone want to entertain reopening the hearing?
MS. MONTEFUSCO: It would have to be a motion to reopen and voted
on.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Could you just give a definition of the code's need
for rocks.
TRUSTEE KING: It's in the code, to protect the toe of the bulkhead. It
stops the scouring effect.
MR. GLADD: There is so many rocks on our beach already. Plenty of
rocks.
TRUSTEE KING: Not against the toe of the bulkhead. That's what causes
the scouring of the bulkhead when you have that straight face and you
have wave action against it, that's what scours it out. If you put a row of
stone along that, it dissipates that wave energy.
MS. VANGI: The stone damages the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm sorry, ma'am, could you just identify yourself?
]7
Board o[Trustecs
.I anuary 24, 2007
MS. MONTEFUSCO: Ma'am, you need to be recognized. Step up to the
podium and please state your name if you want to speak.
MS. VANGI: I'm Vangi, I live next door.
TRUSTEE KING: We just approved your bulkhead, am I correct?
MS. VANGI: Yes, you did. I'll go for vinyl bulkhead but rocks, I can't afford
it. How can we afford this. It's impossible. It's impossible. I mean this is,
I'm sick about this. It's terrible. We can't afford it. No matter what. I could
barely make the bulkhead in vinyl. Yes, I agree and I thank you. But
rocks? Buy rocks? I can't afford it. Believe me. I can't afford it. We pay
high tax already.
TRUSTEE KING: We are at loggerheads here. It's required by the code.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's required by law and required in the code and I
sympathize with you. There is other people that are in the same shape.
But it's required.
MS. VANGI: You sympathize with what is happening. I need help from
you guys. I can't turn to no place else. Rocks?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Ma'am, we have a long agenda and we need to
move on. If you need to speak to us, you can write us a letter and speak
to us in a different forum. Right now you are not on the agenda. You
have been approved last month.
MS. VANGI: I know, but, I did not understand about rocks.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: The hearing has not been reopened at this juncture.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The hearing is not open now. If you need to speak
to us, you can write us a letter or come into our office at a different time.
We need to move on.
TRUSTEE KING: If you like, you can come in and try to amend the permit
not to put the rocks in and we could review it again. If you didn't
understand what it meant.
MS. VANGI: I appreciate it if you make me come to the office and talk
about it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can. Because you are not on the agenda
tonight and other people are waiting.
MS. VANGI: I understand. Thank you.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Moving on to wetland permits. Number two, William
Baxter requests a Wetland Permit to repair area of bank that has been
eroded by storm damage. Stabilize top of bluff with retaining wall, repair
steps inkind/inplace and repair deck. Located: 4995 Nassau Point Road,
Cutchogue. I believe this was the bad blowout, right?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Would anybody like to address this?
MR. EHLERS: Yes. My name is John Ehlers, I'm a land surveyor and a
land surveyor on the job. Mr. Baxter hired Rob Herman. Rob is at
18
Board of Trustees
January 24, ~007
another meeting tonight and so I was asked to come down. I'm an old
friend of Mr. Baxter's so he asked if I could come and explain his case, so
that's why I'm here. As you probably know, this all started because of
water that came down and entered a drain which then went down through
and off the bottom of the bluff. And that big storm in October caused quite
a bit of water and it broke the pipe and then the bank came down. Mr.
Baxter was allowed to do some temporary things to shore up the bank and
we have now presented a plan to do a more final remedy.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: Sir, have you been retained to represent Mr. Baxter.
MR. EHLERS: Yes.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: Can you just file a notice with Ms. Standish that you
verify that you are retained.
MR. EHLERS: I believe it's in the paperwork.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: Thank you.
MR. EHLERS: I also have the engineer, Michael Mapes here, the design
engineer, in case you have any questions.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: As I recall, I think the only comments we really had
was going to request that the deck be moved. We wanted to move that
deck landward. And was there any discussion on the bulkhead at this
point?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, after the inspection I spoke to Rob who I think
spoke with you and submitted the plan, and for a ten foot buffer. I believe
we wanted that ten-foot buffer all the way across the entire length of the
property. That was my understanding. Not just the part you are repairing,
but we want a ten foot buffer across the entire length of the property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct, across the whole top of the bluff.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The whole top of the bluff. And the decking, we
wanted to move that so it's flush with the top of the bluff so it's not
overhanging at all.
MR. EHLERS: I spoke to Mr. Baxter about the deck and he's hoping not to
move the deck, but we are also hoping not to be granted the permit to fill
the crevice.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: To not be granted?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I didn't understand your second comment. You are
open hoping to be granted a permit not to fill?
MR. EHLERS: We don't want to miss out on the opportunity to fill the
crevice because it's a danger to he and his neighbor Mr. Barton. But I
don't want to --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If the Board is inclined to ask you to move the deck
back to the top of the bluff so it's not overhanging, would you be willing to
do that setback?
MR. EHLERS: Mr. Baxter told me he was not willing to do that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. Any other comments?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What about a compromise?
TRUSTEE KING: If he can't repair it inplace, he can't repair it. Leave it
alone.
19
Board of Trustees
January 24, 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What about moving it back part way, not all the
way. I don't know the dimensions.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's hard to tell what the dimensions are from what I
have here.
TRUSTEE KING: It's over vegetation, shades it.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: Mr. Ehlers, if I could clarify. We have in the file that
you are hired to do work but we don't have that you are hired to speak on
Mr. Baxter's behalf. So if you could just get us something in writing, that
would be great. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: CAC supports the application with the condition that
detailed engineered plan is submitted and recommend the land owners
coordinate with the Highway Department and the town engineer to resolve
the drainage problem in the area.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was accomplished already.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there any other comments to be made on this
application? How does the Board feel about the deck; any change in the
way we feel?
TRUSTEE KING: No change in my feelings.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What's the dimensions of the deck?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have it drawn on the diagram.
TRUSTEE KING: It's tougher to say off the top of your head. You don't
have it drawn to scale.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you were coming in to put a deck in the area, we
would not approve something that large. But if it's moved back we are
willing to let you keep it that large.
TRUSTEE KING: Does the survey have it?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Not on this survey. It shows it but it doesn't show the
dimensions.
MR. EHLERS: Can we break the deck out of the approval in some way?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Then it would have to be removed entirely.
MR. EHLERS: Mr. Baxter feels that he's spending quite a bit of money to
remedy a problem that is not entirely of his doing, that the town water
came off the town road, caused to some degree the problem of the bluff
falling.
TRUSTEE KING: It's almost 15 foot square.
MR. EHLERS: And now he's looking at spending considerable money.
He's already put in drywells on his property to contain some of that runoff
and looking at spending considerably more money --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How far is he putting it back?
TRUSTEE KING: He's putting it back about ten more feet.
MR. EHLERS: (continuing) to fix the problem. And feels that it's --
TRUSTEE KING: Just about ten feet. Bring the deck back ten feet to
make the front edge even with the top of the bluff.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So it's about 15 foot square -- excuse us, sorry.
And it's hanging over about ten feet. Would you consider bringing it back
five feet?
20
Board ofTruslecs
January 24, 2007
TRUSTEE KING: That would put it in line with the non-turf buffer. We
wanted the non-turf buffer to go the entire length. So why don't we -- we
have a proposed ten-foot non-turf buffer, but we want to see it extended
the total length of the property. Why don't we just slide the deck back so
the back of the deck is even with the edge of the non-turf ten-foot buffer.
That puts the deck hanging over a couple of feet. It makes the back of the
deck even with the back of the non-turf buffer. I think that would work out
pretty good. I'll draw on this.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That sounds good.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mr. Ehlers is here, he can draw on it.
TRUSTEE KING: I can draw a straight line. Come up and take a look, see
what we did. This is the ten-foot non-turf buffer. We want to extend it and
if you could just slide the deck back so the deck is here. It would still be
overhanging a little bit but it would not be as severe as it is now and it will
stop a lot of the shaving effect. I don't think it interferes with his lawn
because then you have a straight line. And this can be, you know, this
could be planted up with natural plantings. It doesn't have to be -- it's just
non-fertilized type of things. It's just much better for runoff problems from
the lawn.
MR. EHLERS: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Is that reasonable?
MR. EHLERS: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Bob, carry on.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make the motion that we to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion that we --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Were there comments from CAC there?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I read them already.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's consistent with LWRP.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It is consistent with LWRP and I would like to make a
motion we approve the application to repair the area of the bank that has
been eroded by storm damage, stabilize the top of the bluff with retaining
wall, replace steps inkind inplace, repair deck with the conditions that the
ten-foot non-turf buffer be extended the whole length of the property and
that the deck be moved back to the rear border of the non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Could we clarify that that will stick out no more than
five feet over the bluff?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sure. And stick out no further than five feet over the
top of the bluff. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
21
Board of Trustees
January 24, 2007
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Christopher and Evelyn Conklin
request a Wetland permit to construct a 22x28 foot second story addition
and a 1,026 square feet second-story addition to the existing dwelling and
to replace the existing 283 linear feet of bulkhead inplace, as needed.
Located: 3400 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. Is there anybody here to speak
on behalf of this application?
MR. CONKLIN: My name is Chris Conklin and this is my wife Evelyn.
see what the Board would like after a visit to the property. We talked
about the drywells, I believe the non-turf buffer, the fence.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. All right, before we get to that, is there
anybody else who would like to make any comments?
TRUSTEE KING: CAC has a comment.
MR. YOUNG: We inspected that and I think it's a little unclear. The
statement there is to replace the existing 283 linear feet. When we were
out there most of it is already done. So we are only talking about
replacing --
TRUSTEE KING: There is about 65 feet left to be replaced.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll address that in a second.
MR. YOUNG: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, is there anybody else here who would like to
address this application? If not, we need to change the description of this.
We met out there in the field and we measured out, it was 65 feet of
replacement that really had to be done. 65 feet plus or minus that needed
to be replaced. And then there needed to be two returns, one on each
end, on the boat ramp end because there is a distinctive boat ramp on one
end and the property line at the other. The boat ramp end, for the sake of
argument we'll call the south end, and an 18 foot return. The other end of
the property line, for the sake of argument call it the north end, a ten-foot
return. I just wanted to make sure we are understanding on those two
items. We had also asked for the split rail fence to be removed along the
bulkhead. So now this is a modification on the northern part of the
bulkhead. I don't know that we saw that there needed to be hay bales for
the construction of the second floor because it all was inkind, inplace and
it didn't seem to slope down. I don't know if the Board --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We just had a comment when we saw it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. And we had asked for a non-turf buffer, to be
placed in front of the new bulkhead, of ten foot. And that's a pervious,
non-turf buffer that we are looking for there. Let me just see here. Bear
with me for a second. And the CAC resolved to support it, to construct the
addition as stated and with a condition of a non-turf buffer also. And the
amendments that we had already talked about here. Is there anything I
missed? And we want to make sure when the second floor addition is put
on that there is also gutters, downspouts and drywells to collect the run off
from the second floor. And it is exempt from the LWRP. If there are there
are no other comments?
').-')
~L
Board of'Truslees
January 24, 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have a comment. If we can add another thing. If
during construction they find that the first floor, part of the first floor has to
be taken down and rebuilt, inkindlinplace, that we can add that in now, so
that way they don't have to come back for an amendment. Just to prevent
what we have had in the recent past with the three different ones we had
in the past when they asked, you know, for an addition, they start
construction then they find out they need to take something down then
they have to come back for an amendment. And we've had these
violations where they have not come back for the amendment, they've
done the work.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't know.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know how you feel about it. I'm just trying to
prevent what we had in the recent past.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The intention of the homeowners is just to put a
second-story up. You don't have the intention of taking the house to the
ground, correct?
MR. CONKLIN: No. We are residing on the first floor and it would be
consistent to brace the weight of the second floor.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just thought of it, we hadn't discussed it. I just
figured I would throw it out there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's not the whole house anyway, so the whole house
would never come down.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No.
MR. CONKLIN: I'm not getting down to one stud.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it's necessary.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments on this application?
(No response.) If not, I make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I make a motion to approve the application of
Christopher and Evelyn Conklin at 3400 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck with the
changes we described here tonight.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we need is a new set of plans to submit to
show these new returns on here, the removal of the fence, the location of
the drywells.
MR. CONKLIN: How many drywells do you want?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That gets determined by the architect
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The architect will work that out. So we'll need the
drywells. We'll need the returns, we'll need the non-turf, pervious buffer,
all on the new plans.
MR. CONKLIN: Okay, thank you.
0'
"';'.:'l
Board ofTruslecs
J al1uary 24, 2007
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: A.M. Sutton Associates on behalf of Jack
Dasilva requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story 3,500 square
foot single-family dwelling. Located: 470 Tarpon Drive, Southold. Is there
anyone here who would like to speak for or against this application?
MR. SUTTON: Alfred Sutton. I'm the architect. Actually I'm only assisting
for the permit renewal. There is another architect that designed the home.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay.
MR. SUTTON: We are renewing a permit that recently expired for a 3,500
square foot home, single-family residence. We have DEC approval
currently on the project. The Health Department application is also being
renewed. I'm here tonight with the owners. They are sitting in the
audience. The home is, we are planning it's a two-story, 3,500-square
feet. The first floor including the two-car garage attached is 2,800 square
feet. 14% of the lot is covered and complies with the zoning laws. There
is no change from the original application and other than for the financial
reasons, the owner, it would have been under construction and probably
completed at this time. His financial picture has improved and they want
start their construction. If there are any questions.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I want to see if anyone else here would like to
speak.
MR. BRITMAN: Good evening, my name is Mr. Britman. With respect to
the property that Sutton Associates wanted to put up, I just want to make it
known to the Board that we have a problem on Tarpon Drive. I think you
people have been there. It's a very sensitive area, and Bob has been
there. The gentleman has been there.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: May I just ask, sir, where is your residence to
this property?
MR. BRITMAN: Right across. Mr. Sutton is building here. I'm over here.
It's right across the street.
TRUSTEE KING: Across the street. It's on the left as you drive down.
MR. BRITMAN: Now there were two homes built on our block. One is on
the way of being built by Alese Edmington (sic) on the corner as you come
in Tarpon Drive and also one that is already built adjacent to my property.
Now, what has happened, when the house was built adjacent to me, they
put a fantastic basement in there. They excavated unbelievable. He did it
right. He did it good. They'll never get water there. They really put down
pilings, which they shouldn't have done, but they did. But what they did
was when they graded, when they excavated, they took all the clay and
they made one big mountain. Then they took the top soil, whatever top
soil was there and they made another mound. Now, after the house was
built, they backfilled everything, they took all the clay, they put all the clay
back on the ground. Then they took a little bit of the top soil, they put that
on, then they brought in some good top soil. So now you have all that clay
on the bottom, you have all that dirty top soil on top with a little bit of good
24
Board of Trustees
January 24, 2007
top soil. So what has happened is -- and then, to add insult to injury, what
he does, is he puts an asphalt driveway. So now what we've got is I'm
getting washed out. And what he also did, he didn't put any drywells in.
Now, the drywells would not really have done anything but, you know
what, he made a condition worse. I know when I built my house, I had the
good sense of taking out all the dirt. I took out everything. Because that's
the way the architect wanted it. And I replaced everything with sand and
loam. Then they dug out for the foundation. There should be some sort of
regulation where you can't put back clay. Now, just like you have people
that come in and inspect the house when it gets, when the foundation
comes in, when the framing gets up, when the roof gets in. But nobody
comes to inspect when they start to backfill. And that, to me, is wrong. I
have pictures here of the flooding conditions. You can look at them if you
want.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you want us to put them in the file or do you
want them back?
MR. BRITMAN: No, you can keep them. And it just seems like you made
a bad condition worse because it sort of, the left hand don't know what the
right hand is doing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How does this play into this gentleman's application?
MR. BRITMAN: How does this relate to this gentleman's application. Now
I'm getting into his application. This man wants to put up a 3,500-square
foot house. You know what, I don't care how big his house is. He could
put a Taj Mahal there. I don't care. But he has to contain his water. He
can't contain it all because it's a sensitive area. But you have to make
provisions to hold some of your water where if you don't put down an
asphalt driveway, you put in a drywell or drywells. I, on my hand, when I
built my house, nobody told me, but I had the good sense of putting in a
drywell, even though I had all that sand there. I put in 1,400 gallon drywell.
And you know something, I still get water in my backyard. But if I didn't do
that I would be floating away.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Sir, I think many of the Board members are
familiar with this area. And we are getting much better at requiring
pervious driveways and leaders and gutters.
MR. BRITMAN: I know. But I just wanted it on the record. This
gentleman, Mr. Dasilva, has to know, just because he owns a piece of
property that he can't do what he wants. You have to conform to the area.
You have to conform. And being I'm talking about conforming, that fence
has to come down.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's a different issue. We can't address that at this
hearing.
MR. BRITMAN: I know. I just threw that in. That's a freebee.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Good one. You got it.
MR. BRITMAN: So please make a consideration. You can't let these guys
do what they want.
Board 0 r Trustees
J anuury 24, 2007
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think there was a violation, I believe, that was
written on that fence.
MR. BRITMAN: It ain't helping me any. My wife gets up and she says this
wall has to come down. So.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: One step at a time.
MR. BRITMAN: I just think that maybe -- I know you people work hard.
You do a good job. But I think you being part of the trustees should be in
contact or the Building Department should be in contact with you people a
little more. I mean, you go into the Building Department, they have a big
beautiful office. You go into the trustees office, it's like a hole in the wall.
It's like they just stuck you there. Like they didn't know what to do with
you and they put you there. Am I right?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: They still don't know what to do with us.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll tell you what. Mr. Edwards, one of the council
members, maybe you can bring it up with him.
MR. BRITMAN: I think I made enough enemies. So please take it into
consideration.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you, sir. We will. We are getting better at
it.
TRUSTEE KING: The town is working on a drainage code where the
property owners have to maintain runoff on their property. We are trying.
MR. BRITMAN: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Also, if I could address, the house that you have
been referring to so much with the fence and the other thing, did not get a
trustee permit for that house. And we are addressing that. Because it is
within our jurisdiction
MR. BRITMAN: Don't address it. Take it down. But there is one there that
is falling down.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We are working on it. Is there anyone else who
would like to speak?
MR. SHIVET: Bob Shivet. I also live on Tarpon Drive. I live next door to
this property. I'm also President of Southold Shores Community
Association. My concern is --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Mr. Shivet, is this your letter that we have dated
December 11, 2006?
MR. SHIVET: Yes, it is. I just wanted to add a few things. I had gotten a
call from Mike Wilson who is also living in the neighborhood. He also is
one of the owners of the canal area in the back which abuts that piece of
property. He just had a few concerns that I just want --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is this in addition to your letter?
MR. SHIVET: Yes. It was in the back there is a couple of dimensions,
100.6 feet and 101.1 feet that goes over -- I'm sure that is not to the end of
the property. I'm sure the property ends before that. So it's going to the
Wetlands mark, he's questioning what that might be. The other thing was
in this, in the survey, it shows lot 43 as vacant. I'm sure it was that way
when this was originally put in the first time. But my house is there now.
26
Board of Trustees
January 24, Z007
So we can't consider that a vacant lot any longer. Why I'm bringing that
up is the fact that my septic system is off to the Dasilva side now and I see
that they have theirs off to my side. I don't know what the footage needs
to be between the septic systems, but we need to just look into that.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't know.
MR. SHIVET: So the main thing is lot 43 is not vacant anymore. My
house is on that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What year was your house built?
MR. SHIVET: 2004.
TRUSTEE KING: When you built your house, did you bring in fill?
MR. SHIVET: A minimal amount offill.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you remember how much?
MR. SHIVET: I could look on the papers.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just looking here.
MR. SHIVET: I'm looking at this. This looks like we are not doing, you
know, the up to date work. We are using something that has been there
from the past, like I said in my letter, where, you know, as a matter of fact,
we just had the Filkowski (sic) house on the corner. They just put in a
water line. Actually electrical line and a water line. But where the electric
line is, the trench was no more than two foot below road level and they
had water seeping into that. So I mean, as far as the, you know, maybe a
test bore, something like that like I had in the letter.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We actually had quite a discussion with the
Board and we have quite a few things we were concerned with so when
everyone is finished speaking we'll cover that.
MR. SHIVET: Everything else I would go over was in the letter so I don't
want to take up your time. As long as you've gone over this letter,
everything on here is quite important.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There are quite a few concerns. Right. I just
want to mention also that LWRP has reviewed as consistent however it
does say the applicant provided evidence that the proposed action will not
result in any adverse impacts to the adjacent properties due to flooding. It
says that the proposal doesn't fully support policy 4.1 which is minimizing
losses of human life and structures from flooding and erosion hazard. So
there is a concern by the LWRP also about the drainage issue. LWRP is
recommending to further policy five, that it require native landscaping to
minimize irrigation and fertilizer applications and require a large non-turf
buffer adjacent to the wetlands. And goes on with some other
recommendations. So there are things that we'll be addressing.
MR. SHIVET: And the height of the first floor is very important.
MR. SUTTON: The height is at elevation 12. If I could start in reverse
chronological order. That is mandated by the flood zone that it's in. The
house is constructed on a slab, it has 100% containment of all the roof
runoff with drainage pools on the site. The test hole that was done for this
property is significant. It was augured to 57 feet down. There is a 45-foot
thick layer of clay between all of the property in this area. That's why the
27
Board () f Trustees
January 2007
water that you see on the surface, it's essentially perched or trapped water
that is on the top. It's not technically the water table. I spoke with the
engineers that did the work. The reality of the sanitary system and the
way they work is that the Health Department during the construction will
make the inspections and they regulate exactly the height based on that
water that is at the site during the construction that they see. They watch
tidal issues -- right now the tidal, the water table is stated to be six feet
below the ground. That's there now. The sanitary system in any two
single-family homes adjacent can be within ten feet of the property line.
Two of them could be 20 feet apart. That's just how they regulate it. We
don't -- we kind of follow the rules. We read them and then just follow
through like that. So the basis on the water table rising or test hole being
too old, are not actually realistic, they are not supported by the basic, we'll
say governing bodies. They recognize this test hole as completely
legitimate only because of the significance of it. It goes down into six feet
of sand which allows within the test hole when they are taking the sample
where the water table to balance out. They don't just hit the top water and
assume it's the water table. They have to get to clean fill. The sanitary
system itself, they have to excavate that clay or bad soil to a depth of, I
think it's six or seven feet below and take it off the site and replace it with
clean fill so that it percolates into the ground gradually. That is just
governed by, again, the county mandated that. That's on these drawings.
It will be done that way. Again, there is no basement. This house is
intended to be constructed on a slab. The Dasilva's have been in
construction for years and years. They are very sensitive to their
neighbors and this is essentially a retirement home for them. We are just
hopeful that we can accomplish the permit renewal. I think that, you know,
certainly if one of the neighbors is being flooded out, from other
construction, I certainly that could be addressed. But I don't see that as
relevant to what we are proposing here tonight. And I'm trying to
remember the other points that you brought up but I think that covers most
of it.
MR. SHIVET: I think the relevancy is the area we are talking about is a
very environmentally sensitive area.
MR. SUTTON: No question about that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me. If I could point out the two of you are
supposed to be addressing the Board and not each other.
MR. SHIVET: Lastly, as far as the new boring, that has to do quite a bit
with whether it was going to be a basement and the other thing was as far
as the septic, because we have a few situations with the septic, was
actually more or less above the ground which causes, you know, a runoff
back into the Wetlands area which at some time in the future we might
have like a situation that they have in Islip where we have carcinogens
going into that area. So those are the concerns we are having as to how
high it should be.
28
Board of'Trustees
January 24, 2007
MR. SUTTON: I could add the sanitary system that is designed for this
home is what they determine a high water system, so it is absolutely -- the
pools are distributed so that the bottom of the lowest pool is three feet
above the water table. And it is -- we watched when the inspectors come
out from the county and they make the contractor install a pipe in the
bottom of the leaching pool, which is the end of the line for the septic tank.
And if that pipe, if there is water, that pipe has to be three feet long, and if
they see any water in that, they make them dig the whole thing and raise
it. I think that's your concern.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Excuse me. Can I just see if there is anyone
else here that would also like to speak because I think we are addressing
a lot of issues the Board is taking into account. I'm just going to also
mention CAC review is that they support the application with a non-
disturbance buffer. That's also something the Board discussed. You have
addressed a lot of the concerns. We do take field notes so while the
trustees are out at the site, any concerns they have are recorded so we
can try to deal with them and you've addressed the possibly of no
basement with the house being on the slab. You addressed the drainage.
Um, now, Jim, you had mentioned a new test hole. Are you satisfied with
the evidence that he's given as far as the current --
TRUSTEE KING: I know now there is going to be no basement. That's
kind of helped me out.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So that's been addressed. The actual, the past
permit that did expire did ask for a 25-foot non-disturbance buffer and I
believe the feeling of the Board was to continue that 25-foot non-
disturbance buffer.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think what we were saying, Instead of the 25-foot
non-disturbance buffer, we'll let you have a lawn 25-feet from the house
toward the Wetland. Beyond that 25 feet shall not be disturbed.
MR. SUTTON: No objection.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The next door neighbor had used wood chips back
there which we thought looked nice and that would satisfy the need.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: I just had one concern about how much fill is going to be
bored and how much that is going to raise the grade. It's only around 750
yards, approximately?
MR. SUTTON: Correct.
TRUSTEE KING: My question is how much will that physically raise the
lot, you know what I mean?
MR. SUTTON: It's a function of how far that's distributed across the 115
feet but we are anticipating 18 inches, something like that, across the
front. But it's probably, and I think that the fill and sand requirements are
referring to essentially the coverage over the sanitary system and all that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was my question, how much of that fill was
for the sanitary system.
29
Board ofT'ruslccs
J anllary 24, 2007
MR. SUTTON: I think this work was Bill Jaeger's and I'm just kind of
interpreting.
TRUSTEE KING: This says 280 cubic yards for sanitary. Dwelling and
regraded is 469 yards for a total of 749.6.
MR. SUTTON: So total.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are you questioning it's too much, Jim?
TRUSTEE KING: I'm concerned you start raising the grade way up, you
are flooding the road and flooding the next door neighbor.
MR. SUTTON: It's distributed across the face of the property, 750 yards
would barely impact a foot on the property, on the top. We could, you
know, calculate it out now if you like. It's not, I mean it's a lot to carry on
your back with truck or, but when you distribute it over a property of this
size, 20,000 square foot property, just on the front part of it, it's, you know.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We could put on condition to contain any runoff not
only from the roof runoff but from the property. I mean that's what's going
to happen hopefully this year with the new drainage code.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is another code being worked on.
MR. SUTTON: That's why we are hurrying.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's another code and that should take care of
the problem eventually. But we want to make sure we put it and stipulate
that it retains any water. I just want to also make a comment, sir, to your
concerns. The DEC permit that they have here, it addresses the sanitary
system. It addresses the driveway that it be constructed with pervious
material. It addresses the road runoff must be directed to drywells.
Necessary erosion control measures, they talk about hay bales and silt
fences. I'm just paraphrasing briefly. It also mentions that any debris or
excess material from construction has to be removed. It can't be
deposited or dumped into freshwater wetlands and during construction
concrete or leachate shall not escape or be discharged. So DEC has
quite a list of things they have to conform to.
MR. SHIVET: How about the removal of trees, is there any limitation on
that? Because there are a lot of trees there.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Not that I see in the DEC or the CAC or the
LWRP.
MR. SHIVET: Because I know the property next to me, he hacked them all
down.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We just talked about the non-disturbance, which
would be anything past this 25 feet, past the house, they can't touch.
Nothing can be touched beyond that point. That's in our permit.
MR. SHIVET: Okay. And then you people are aware that on Tarpon Drive
there is a catch basin. You are aware of that?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We have been down there many times. Multiple
times.
MR. SHIVET: And I imagine you can't get runoff going in that because it
will go into, wherever it goes,
30
Board ()fTrustees
January 24, 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That area is on the storm water runoff committee's
list to make corrections. We have quite a long list. I don't remember
where on that list it is but that area is talked about frequently in our storm
water run off.
MR. SHIVET: Because I myself am very, very careful.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What we would like to do in that area, the storm
water runoff committee, in that area, the area of Budds Pond where there
is also a lot of clay is try to use that new system they used in Huntington,
that filtration system. We are looking into that now to see how feasible it is
for the town and see if it will work. And we know it would be approved but
DEC because they have done it in Huntington. So we are working on that.
And I can't tell you any timeframe because, we don't have it.
MR. SHIVET: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Let me find out if there is anyone else here who
would like to speak to this application, any comments or questions from
the Board? From anyone here? (Negative response.) If not, I'll make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jim, do you want, besides stipulating that any
runoff from the property be contained to the property, is there any other
stipulations you would like to see?
TRUSTEE KING: No, just the non-disturbance buffer. Maybe the lawn
area, 25 feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want hay bales?
TRUSTEE KING: They have a row of hay bales.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want it moved up to the 25 feet?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just figured if you didn't want that disturbed, just
put the hay bales there.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I agree with that. We are just going to ask you
to move the hey bale line up.
MR. SUTTON: Got it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Then I'll make a motion of A.M. Sutton
Associates on behalf of Jack Dasilva to grant a Wetland permit to
construct a two-story 3,500 square foot single-family dwelling with the
stipulation that all run off water be contained on the property and that the
hay bale line be moved to 25 feet from the house that can be lawn and
that the hay bale line be along that 25-foot line that would then determine
the non-disturbance area.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you have plans to indicate it's on a slab and not a
foundation?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What would indicate on the survey that it's on a
slab?
31
Board of Trustees
January 24, 2007
MR. SUTTON: Well, the documents that are approved, that were
previously approved, it's slab construction. The proposed work, when a
surveyor is doing the future and they say "proposed," sometimes they'll
indicate it. He doesn't do so here. If you would like, we could add that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll add it as a stipulation. I'll add the stipulation
there be no basement and this house be constructed and built on a slab.
Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. SUTTON: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Meryl Kramer, Architect, on behalf of Barbara and
Albert Reibling requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct exterior walls
inplace; raise existing foundation height eight inches; add loft; add
leaching pool to existing sanitary system; and reconstruct deck
inkindlinplace. Located: 75 Island View Lane, Greenport. Before I ask if
anyone wants to speak, LWRP is exempt and CAC supports the
application with the condition of a pervious driveway and drywells and
gutters are installed to contain roof runoff. Is there anyone who would like
to speak?
MR. TOHILL: As you could see, I'm not Meryl Kramer. She is seated
behind me. I represent the Reibling's. My name is Anthony Tohill. I
presented the case to the Zoning Board of Appeals a few weeks ago. I'm
the fellow who sent $1,000 to Lori Montefusco -- not to Lori but to the
town.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me. Are these the Reibling's behind you?
MR. TOHILL: That's the contractor. He's the fellow who after the
Reibling's lived there for 40 years, was hired to do the second-story
addition. That followed your issuing a permit to add a second story, not to
take down the house. It did include raising the height of the silt on the
elevation, on the foundation to comply with the base level requirements
found under the flood damage prevention law. So that was permitted. So
we had your permit, we have the DEC permit. We had the Zoning Board
approval. And we had Health Department permit. But only to add a
second story. When he was there at the job, he started by taking the
asbestos shingles off, which was part of the project. He was to make sure
the vertical members of the 2x4s on the first floor would become 2x6s
because there had to be insulation added. This is the retirement home.
They were to be on 16-inch centers. What he discovered after he
removed the skin of the shingles is that the carpenter ants had been there
for some time during those 40 years and they also had done their share of
removing the vertical members, the 2x4s. They also were not on 16 inch
centers. They also were not 2x6s. There was to be a rewiring under the
approved plan. As three days went by, and that's all this took, the house
"j"
..L
Board oCfrustccs
January 24, 2007
ended up in the dumpster. The contractor then proceeded using the
existing blocks, the existing footings, largely existing footings, to put rebar
into the blocks. He re-parged the existing blocks. He added footings
where there would be bearing requirements under the approved plans and
he raised the elevation, the top of the blocks some number of inches
connecting the rebar to the existing blocks, parged it up. It looks like a
new foundation. It's the exact same old foundation that has been there 40
years. It just looks new because it has a new face on it, new skin on it.
And it's just raised up. He then, insensitive to the local need to come back
for an amendment, called Gary Fish to come look at the foundation
inspection. Those of you who know Gary Fish can imagine the expression
on his face when he pulled up and he could see much more of the bay
than he thought he was going to see. And I'm not sure, again, those of
you who know Gary Fish, I'm not sure he even got out of the car. I'm not
sure even of what he said and I'm not sure if I knew what he said I could
repeat it in front of you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It sounds like you know Gary well.
MR. TOHILL: I do. He issued stop work order. We had to start all over
again. We went back to the DEC. We have a modification permit which
I'll hand up at the end of my remarks, from the DEC approving starting
now from the sill plate. We went back to the ZBA, they were very nice to
us. They issued a decision, again, allowing us to do what we need to do
which is reconstruct the house, inplace, including the second story but
also including the first story. We didn't have to go back to the Health
Department because there was no Health Department issue. Now we are
back here. And we are here with the understanding that we should have
been here to get an amendment. It's exactly what Jill pointed out before
on the other application. The contractor is not local. He does do work
locally. He's doing more and more work locally. You could understand
he'll never do this ever again without coming in for the amendment to the
permit. It would have been so much easier. But this is the way it actually
happened. So bottom line is that we are asking you to do something that
is interesting and it could be convenient for me to say just reissue one of
your old approvals, because as a matter of fact, we didn't know this, I
presented the case to the ZBA, didn't know this, didn't learn this until a few
days ago, you actually did approve in 2002 an application to remove the
entirety of this house, believe it or not. Artie Foster repeatedly said in the
minutes, as long as it's exactly where it was before I don't have a problem
with the application. I don't remember what other members, maybe AI
Krupski, it's not a big deal. It seems minor to me. That actually happened
in -- I have a copy of it. I'll hand up a copy of it. It's not a primordial
artifact. It's only five years ago. But we are not pushing that at you. We
didn't even know about it. The house came down with no knowledge of
that. It's simply something that happened in history and we are not really
proud of it. I don't think under the language of chapter 275 there is an
undo adverse impact on the wetlands for the reasoning is this property is
33
Board of Trustees
January 24, 2007
real unique, It's 10,000-square feet but it's completely bulkheaded. The
returns on one side are around 25 feet. The street side. And then
probably 40 feet on the other side. The second thing is about 25 feet
landward of the bulkhead along the shoreline is another concrete wall and
that does serve to prevent the runoff. In addition we are putting in two
drywells. They are part of the approved plans. They are going to be
guttered from down spouts, the surface water runoff on the roof will be
guttered to the rings and we would agree to change the driveway exactly
as the CAC recommended from present asphalt, we'll remove it and put in
pervious.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was one of our comments. Let me interrupt
you. Another one of our comments is put a ten-foot non-turf buffer in line
with the deck that is out, right on the bulkhead. Just continue that with
what I believe is ten feet across and not have lawn up to it.
MR. TOHILL: Right. So they would go from that deck in a northerly
direction parallel to the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MR. TOHILL: Okay. No problem.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I think that's a couple of the comments that we
had. And drywells.
MR. TOHILL: Okay. The drywells have been staked out on the south side.
They are on the drawing. They are on the plans. John Metzger is doing
two of them and they are on the south side of the house. So they are
landward of both the concrete wall and landward of the bulkhead. We
have hay bales in place and have had them in in the beginning and we
also have a limiting fence to catch debris and prevent it from reaching the
bay. And that will remain throughout the CO.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: Mr. Tohill, could you please give a notice of
appearance to Ms. Standish. Thank you.
MR. TOHILL: Okay. I'll do that tonight.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does the Board have any other comment?
(No response.)
MR. MCGREEVY: Jim, is there any problem with the existing fence that
runs east and west, parallel with the roadway? I think it's a chainlink
fence. Is that a problem? I haven't seen the property in a while but I recall
I had to get through a fence to get in on the property.
TRUSTEE KING: It's on the roadside, isn't it?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, but it goes all the way down to the bulkhead.
MR. TOHILL: Okay. The fence I'm told it to prevent the public -- there is a
public beach there. The public tries to use this driveway. Just trying to
keep the privacy of the property.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the driveway is how far back?
MR. TOHILL: Okay. The driveway is -- it's probably 50 feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The fence only goes to the first. The fence is only
going to the cement wall, according to the survey.
MR. TOHILL: Okay. Correct.
34
Board of Trustees
January 24, 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not going down. It's in our jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a huge problem with that, no. It's not
blocking any beach access or anything like that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, it's not. And it's on their property. Here's the
property line. Totally on their property.
TRUSTEE KING: Technically, it should have a permit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can add the fence to our permit description.
Should we -- it is in our jurisdiction. Usually fences in our jurisdiction, we -
_ I think the code, what does the code say, on the beach? Because this is
not on the beach. I think it says on the beach we require split rail fence.
But this is not on the beach. Even though it's in our jurisdiction, it's on
upland and it's on their property. I don't have a problem leaving it the way
it is.
TRUSTEE KING: No.
MR. TOHILL: Okay. So non-turf buffer heading north and drywells.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the pervious driveway.
MR. TOHILL: Okay. Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any other comment? (No response.)
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
MR. TOHILL: Okay. Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Meryl Kramer, Architect, on behalf of Barbara and Albert Reibling for the
request for a Wetland Permit to reconstruct exterior walls inplace; raise
existing foundation height eight inches; add loft; add leaching pool to
existing sanitary system and reconstruct deck inkind/inplace. Located:
Island View Lane, with the drywells that are shown on the survey; pervious
driveway; the ten foot non-turf buffer along the bulkhead. Even with the
existing wood deck. And the chainlink fence can remain as existing. I
would make that motion.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
MR. TOHILL: Okay. There is a deck that is part of the house. Did you
mention that? Inplace/inkind?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, that's in the description.
MR. TOHILL: Okay. Thank you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of
Paolo and Jean Blower requests a Wetland Permit to construct an
elevated timber catwalk 4x205 feet situated within the central portion of
the subject property, as well as pathways four feet wide maximum,
connecting said catwalk from both the existing dwelling and the top of the
35
Board of Trustees
January 24, 2007
bluff. Located: 5865 Soundview Avenue, Southold. This is found
inconsistent by the LWRP and if there is anybody who would like to
address this application.
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson for the applicant, the Blower's. This
application was brought to you in the Fall and we had a hearing, I believe,
I would say December. This is a continuation of that hearing. I am in
receipt of a memo from Heather Cusack to this Board dated January 22
and I'm going to spend most of my time addressing that memo, which you
should all have a copy. Hopefully you are familiar with its content.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is the environmental impact review report.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. And I'll tell you that, just to warn you in advance,
that my it is my opinion that most of the information contained in here is
factually inaccurate and that the application as proposed should be
approved. I would start from the beginning, and this is the letter that
begins with a statement of facts and findings. And the first is that it is
identified as an interdunal freshwater wetlands swale; a distinct ecosystem
that is seasonally flooded throughout the freshwater wetland area. It goes
on to describe that and it is in fact an interdunal swale, although the
descriptions that follow are inaccurate. I'll pass up to you what is called
the Ecological Community of New York State and this is a document
prepared by a natural heritage program in connection with the nature
conservancy, Department of State and US Fish and Wildlife Service and
this identifies what an interdunal swale is, which is essentially what we are
looking at. And it is in fact the wetland in question is a mosaic of wetlands
that occurs in low areas between dunes along the along the Atlantic coast.
Low areas or swales are formed either by blowouts in the dunes that lower
the soil surface to the ground water level, which is what we have here. Or
by a seaward extension of dune field. Soils are either sand or peaty sand,
which is what we have here, and water levels fluctuates seasonally or
annually also here reflecting changes in groundwater levels. It goes on to
list the dominant species. They go on to tell you these wetlands are quite
small, ranging from usually a tenth of an acre to a quarter of an acre and
that species diversity is low. That's important to note. They give it a rank
of G3-G4 which is transcribed here as either very rare throughout its
range, within a restricted range, but possibly locally abundant, which is the
case. And G4 is apparently secure through its range. So throughout this
memo you'll keep hearing that this system is globally rare, globally rare. It
simply is not. And in fact it is locally abundant. But the best examples
where these are most numerous is the stretches on the south fork known
as Napeaque where you really have a dune that begins at the Atlantic
Ocean and extends all the way across to Peconic Bay. Montauk Highway
cuts it in half. The railroad tracks cut it in half. The high power tension
lines cut it in half, and there are numerous houses interspersed within this.
Further to the west is the Atlantic Dunes of Amagansett. And so you have
dozens of these wetland pockets just like you find here throughout. This is
not -- these are in fact locally abundant and there is probably, you know,8
36
Board ofTruslccs
J al1uury 24, 2()()7
absolutely dozens of these types of wetlands. So I wanted that made
known.
TRUSTEE KING: Bruce, can I interrupt you for a second? Has this been
upgraded at all since it was written?
MR. ANDERSON: No, the definitions remain the same. They are simply
applied newly in databases. But this is the habitat descriptions that relate
to interdunal swales.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just wondering if this has ever been modified
recently.
MR. ANDERSON: No, it's habitat. It's a description of a habitat.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just thinking of another area where we had some
very descriptive things of what an interdunal swale was.
MR. ANDERSON: We then go on to discuss what is there in this, which I
must tell you when we start with the wetland trees, we listed Red Maple,
Pitch Pine and Pin Oak, none of which is present. Scrub Oak occurs but it
is not in the wetland because it's an upland plant adjacent to it. Eastern
Red Cedar is also an upland plant not occurring in this wetland. Black
GumfTupelo which occurs by the road and not in this wetland. That's
associated with Red Maple and Shadbush which is really not a very good
indicator associated with because it's more associated with heavy soils,
and really what we have here is porous, sandy soils.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So let me get this straight. What's the ones that you
did not feel are there?
MR. ANDERSON: It's not what I feel. They are simply not there at all.
They can't be there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You are basically saying the environmental
technician was wrong?
MR. ANDERSON: The plants are wrong.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Which ones are wrong?
MR. ANDERSON: Red Maple, Pitch Pine, Pin Oak, Scrub Oak, Eastern
Red Cedar, Black Gum. There may be Shadbush there. So almost all of
them. Because the trees that are all listed here are all Red Maple
Swamps, and those are found up by the road. If you drove in the driveway
and look left and right and you look on either side of Soundview Road,
you'll see Red Maple Swamps. The dominant trees will be Red Maples
and Black Gum or otherwise known as Tupelo Nyssa Sylvatica. And that
forms your dominant canopy. Underneath those trees, what you find
typically throughout this whole area is these Red Maple Swamp, is
Highbush Blueberry, Sweet Pepperbush, Swamp Azalea. Those will be
your dominant shrubs. You mayor may not find some ferns. You mayor
may not find things like skunk cabbage. So what's happened here is we
just downloaded a bunch of stuff about wetlands and sort of packed it in
here, apparently being observed, and they couldn't be observed because
number one they don't exist there and number two they can't exist there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you have proof that they don't exist? And I ask
that because I was very specific when I asked Heather this morning if she
37
Board ofTrustoo5
January 24, 2007
indeed did see these and she assures me that when she was there the
other day that she indeed saw these species there.
MR. ANDERSON: They are not there. I'll make it easier on you, though. If
we go down to -- let me just go down furthermore, to wet meadow
vegetation. Because the wet meadow vegetation is dominated by
herbaceous plants. These would include things like the Meadow Rue, it
would include the Jewelweed, it would include Yellow Eyed Grass, the
Round Leafed Sundew, the Little Bluestem, the Bugleweed and the
Meadow Beauty. You can't observe those in January. Because they are
not there. They are only observable during the growing season. So to say
that all this exists in this wetland is just, I'm sorry to tell you, its impossible.
Because they are no not observable. Let me give you an example. This
one I found peculiar. The Round Leafed Sundew, you probably don't
know what that is, but that's actually from the Venus Fly Trap family. What
it is, it's a delicate little herbaceous plant and it has, its nectar attracts
insects. So the insect will fly into this flower and the flower will close on
top of the insect and it will digest the insect. That's how this plant lives.
Such a plant can't be there today because it's sub zero temperatures.
Because we are out of the growing season. It's simply not there. It can't
be there. It's not observed there. It's impossible.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It may not be observed in it's growing state but there
could be evidence of it.
MR. ANDERSON: Impossible. Impossible.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Why?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't know, it's been 60 degrees.
MR. ANDERSON: Because they rot to nothing. You couldn't identify it. I
couldn't identify it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I mowed my lawn three weeks ago. This is an
exceptional year. It is possible that there could have been evidence of
these plants there.
MR. ANDERSON: I'm here to present to you that they are not there and
they could not have been observed. The wetland shrubs also are not
there in large measure because they don't fit in this particular wetland.
Their biology does not lend them to be present. Period. And that includes
things like the Swamp Azalea. The Huckleberry, at the bottom of the list,
is an upland plant found in the Pine Barrens. We don't have Pine Barrens
here. Okay. Bayberry is a field plant. It's a shrub that grows in fields. It
is not a wetland plant. Highbush Blueberry is here. The Sweet
Pepperbush is above it. As I a explained before, that's found in Red
Maple Swamp and you'll see that on the road where you see the tall
Tupelo's and the Red Maple Swamps. They are up and down Soundview
Road all over the place, but they are not in an interdunal swale where this
catwalk is proposed. It's just, they are not there. They can't be there. So
then you have the ferns and the rest of it which honestly, you simply can't
identify. You can't tell the difference between a royal fern and a large fern.
You can't. You would have to be there with a microscope scope during
38
Board ofTruslees
January 24, 2007
the growing season to see how it reproduces to physically know those
plants. What I think I'm looking at here is just a downloading of a bunch of
wetland vegetation stitched together in a list. So we do take exception to
those descriptions. Now, as I just read you, that the species diversity is
poor in these interdunal swales and that's because it's a harsh
environment. And that's just basic ecology. That makes a lot of sense
because, when you think about it, ask yourself, what's the richest aquatic
environment known to man. The answer is the tropical coral reef.
Because you are in the tropics. You have steady weather conditions, you
have steady sun, you have steady temperatures almost all year around.
The richest terrestrial habitat in the world is the tropical rain forest. For the
same reason. Constant temperatures. That's what creates bio-diversity.
Here you have an interdunal swale that is beaten by the winds and rain
and nor' westers. It's got salt spray going into it making the waters often
brackish. That's where cranberries grow. That's what this habitat is. And
because of that salt spray, and if you see it, it's a thick type situation, you
then go into your animals here and you must rule out the freshwater snail
because it's not going to be there. Bullfrog, Green Frog, Eastern Newt,
Spring Peeper, Spade Foot Toads; so all the frogs are not there. And that
makes perfect sense because those frogs would be using fresh water
habitats as ponds. If it had any salt in it, the eggs laid by the frogs would
desiccate. And that's why those types of frogs are not attracted to this
type of habitat. We don't have the frogs. If you look at the thicket there.
It's impossible.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So the next statement is that there is a freshwater
wetland of 1.21 acres is incorrect?
MR. ANDERSON: That may be correct. It doesn't matter to me. I'm
crossing an interdunal swale.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, we are into disbursed freshwater wetlands,
perhaps. There may be some freshwater wetlands disbursed in there.
MR. ANDERSON: The wetlands we are talking about here as shown on
the survey, this gray here (indicating.) That is your freshwater wetland
where the catwalk is.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I understand that. But there could be the event of
some freshwater pockets in there.
MR. ANDERSON: What I'm trying to say is the interdunal swale is subject
to salt water. It's all, if you go down there, it's all aquatic. So the salt
water is going to be, the salinity is going to be the same whether I take a
sample on the east side, west side, north side or south side.
TRUSTEE KING: Or you could taste it.
MR. ANDERSON: Or you could taste it. You could do that. But if you
have an area subject to all this salt inundation because of the proximity to
the Sound, it's not going to be a breeding ground for frogs, nor is it a
habitat for Snapping Turtles. Why? Because if you do go down there
you'll see the shrubs are so thick, anyone who knows anything about a
Snapping Turtle, they need open water. There is no open water anywhere
39
Board oCfrllstees
J anllary 24, 2007
in this wetland, So there is no Snapping Turtles there, Furthermore, there
is no Painted Turtles, Painted Turtles also need open water. When you
see a Painted Turtle you see them crawled up on a rock and sunning
themselves, You want to look at Painted Turtles, look at the ponds at the
North Fork Country Club, Look at the pond at Yennecott You'll see them
literally sun themselves, but you'll never find one in this particular habitat
That's not where they live, They are not there, It's impossible that the
Spotted Salamander is there because again, using it as a breeding pond,
You are not going to see a Salamander lay eggs in brackish type water
because the eggs won't survive, So I object to all of that because I know
as a biologist with a masters degree in biology that the vast majority of the
species listed here either don't occur or can't occur. Next, let's get to the
meat of this, the guts of this, We are talking about a -- the interest here is
to establish a right to get from the house to the water, which is their
absolute right, which I think we all agree we all have the same premise we
grant people stairways down the bluff to get to the beach, The idea is that
you are a waterfront owner, you can go to the beach because you own the
beach. That's what this application really is. The catwalk measures 205
feet by four feet which accounts for the 820-square feet of coverage.
What's important to know is that it's a raised catwalk. And any modern
nature preserve that is open to the public that you'll ever go to, you'll see
these raised catwalks, and the reason is they are built that way because
you want to take the access and you want to confine it to that four-foot
space, rather than have people trample wetlands and cut paths and
bulldoze wetlands, which is what has been going on down here. For
example, if you go to the east, you have the Peconic Dunes. What is
Peconic Dunes' solution to it? And I know it because I spent a weekend
there at a Boy Scout camp out What they did is bulldoze a 12-foot swath
through this same precious interdunal wetland and placed a foot, foot-and-
a-half of fill on it So now you walk across, through the swamp on the
bulldozed and filled thing. If you go to the west side, that's owned by Tim
Gray who I spoke to today at great length. And it was done before he
owned the property. But it was the same thing. They would bulldoze right
through the wetland and fill it And that's still there. If you went down and
inspect it, you probably trespassed on to Tim Gray's property because you
have a fence that is along the property side of Peconic Dunes. That's how
you got around these things. Look at the seaward stakes. That's how
access was achieved in the past I submit to you it's far better to be doing
it in the way we are doing it By the way, the only thing that is touching the
ground is the actual piles and the square footage of the piles touching the
ground across this interdunal swale is nine-and-a-half square feet So we
are not covering 205x4 feet And I'll go and explain why that is. In a
statement in here about the four-foot high, we enter a series of questions
and there is interesting to note as to what the path is to this. Let me just
clarify that by saying that the path is just a meandering path. When you
walk across this property you'll generally stay on the sandy areas. You
40
Board of Trustees
January 24, 2007
won't walk through shrubs when you could easily walk around them. And
I'm sure when you walk on the property yourself you can probably confine
yourself to the sand because that's where it's easiest to walk. So it's a
meandering path. It's shown on the survey because I had to show
something, but it's not intended to be improved in any fashion. In fact
before I brought the application in I met with Heather to discuss how it
best should be and I was instructed at that time to limit my catwalk to just
the area crossing the wetland and that it should be done where the
wetland is narrowest, which is what is before you. The second point is the
applicant has not received a DEC permit. And I want to talk about this
because I spoke to Mr. Blower. I spoke to Mr. Gray, I spoke to Mr.
Blower's attorney. There is an issue in here about the topping of trees.
Jim, you might recall you and I discussing this in November. There was
trees, there was also burnt out trees that we both saw down on the
landward side of this and I had told you then that I assumed that probably
lighting struck and that a brush fire occurred. I have come to find out that
is not the case. For an extended period of time, the Blower's had rented a
home to a fellow named Greg Palast P-A-L-A-S-T, which is a rather
famous case down in Justice Court. Greg Palast P-A-L-A-S-T, actually,
had the, I know who this person is, I actual actually had one conversation
once with this creature. And what he did was he rented it and then
stopped paying rent, and then he refused -- then he wrecked the place.
And then he decided he wanted a view so he hired a local gardener and
assured the gardener that he had permission to top these trees and take
down the trees and with that, not only on his property but on the adjoining
property of Tim gray. And so Tim Gray shows up at his house. He turns
around and says, oh, my God, someone just cut down my trees. So he
goes racing over to the Blower's -- and by the way, they are friends, the
Gray's and the Blower's, and this Greg Palast, P-A-L-A-S-T, says, oh,
well, that was just a mistake. And so we then find out, well, who is the
gardener. Well we talk to the gardener. The gardener says, no, it was no
mistake. I have it on my answering machine. I was instructed to cut down
your trees as well and it's all okay. That was done actually three or four
years ago is when the trees went down. And Tim Gray obviously was very
upset. But what's done is done. And this thing eventually involved into a
Justice Court, an eviction case. In that eviction case this creature then
threatens the parents of the Blower's, threatening to break the legs of the
father who is 76, which is on tape as a matter record in the Justice Court
here in town, and finally the local judges did what all local judges should
have done and that is to evict him and he is no longer there. So to answer
the question of the DEC permit, we are now in enforcement proceeding
with the DEC due to the irresponsible actions of Mr. Palast. P-A-L-A-S-T.
I urge you to go to his website and you'll -- it's quite interesting. You
should Google him and you'll see what I mean. So the path is
meandering. The DEC is bogged down. The construction of the catwalk
will not require a removal of a large wetland shrub vegetation. The
41
Board ofTmskcs
January 24, lOO?
intention here is construction in sections and install it Obviously there will
be trimming, The plants will grow back but it is, has to be done by hand,
We anticipate it being done by hand, I expect a condition that it will be
done by hand and that's how it will be constructed, So there is not that
removal and it's certainly preferable to how folks have gained access to
the beach up and down that stretch. Now we get into the possible
mitigation. I want to show you something because some of the mitigation
in here, you know, made me think that there is some good suggestions in
here. So I'm not here to really beat up anyone. Let me tell you what is a
bad suggestion. That would be the second paragraph which says, oh,
take wood planks and put it down on top of the marsh. Then it says, that
will be okay, access the beach through this type of temporary, seasonally
placed planks (during the summer months it will be a lot drier through
there) walkway than a permanent structure where vegetation is removed.
Again, we are not removing vegetation and it's not preferable because the
drier points of the season is the season after the growing season. That's
where you want the plants to survive. So if you smother the plants during
the growing season, that type of approach will kill the wetlands. I
understand and agree this Board doesn't allow the residents to take their
floating docks and drag them up and place them over the marsh, because
it kills the marsh. You don't want boats over the marsh. Why would you
put planks over the marsh? It doesn't make sense. But I'll show you
something that may be of interest to you. And that's the flow-through
panels which I think may be an improvement over what we are asking
here. This is what they look like (indicating.) This is how you would cross
a large marsh area today using -- and that's considered really the best
management practice. We used this these on a couple of docks and so
forth. These are the ones we installed. If you look closely through this
you'll see the vegetation does indeed survive directly underneath it And
you'll see the pictures of the marsh where it crosses the wetland and you'll
see the wetland is equally healthy under the catwalk than they are to
either side. So I do think that maybe revising that application to show that
is probably a pretty good idea, and I'm quite willing to do that The fact is
there are no, it's not the structures that should be the principal concern in
precedent setting items. What should be the concern is the impact and I
submit the structure is the least impact way of accessing the shore line.
It's better than walking through vegetation and crossing it It's better than
laying planks on it It's better than bulldozing it and the vegetation will
survive underneath it The statement that, you know, it's a very long
distance and that the owners may not want to access the beach is people
buy waterfront property so they can access the beach. So I don't even
really, I'm not going to spend any time with this.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That was actually taken out of the report. You don't
have the final --
MR. ANDERSON: Good. Then the rest talks about globally rare and I
think that's also a stretch. Keep in mind we are here to exercise an
42
Board of Trustees
January 2007
absolute right. We have a right to get to that beach. We think it's the best
way to do it. Keep in mind we are talking about a Type II action, which
doesn't have a significant impact on the environment. Keep in mind, I
have never seen anyone's bearing rights taken away. Steps down the
bluffs. Bluffs are sensitive. We do it all the time. Because we realize we
have the right to get to that beach. And I think this structure is the way to
go, although I think modified with that surface, I think that may be the
answer and I think you ought to consider our permit with that modification
in hand and I'm here to answer any questions you may have.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you. Any other comments on this
application?
MS. MURRAY: I'm Anne Murray from the North Fork Environmental
Council Land Use Committee. Given the fact that this has been noted to
be inconsistent with LWRP, we would not be in favor of you granting this
permit. And I would also like to know more about the environmental
technician's report. As from what I can remember from a previous
decision by the trustees this summer, in the Sy (sic) matter, that was an
interdunal swale as well and I know there has been controversy about that
decision and I would like to see a copy of the report and that way we can
judge whether it's accurate or not. Obviously you are speaking for the
applicant here so I would question as to whether your information is
accurate as well. Thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: Just to say, one thing I did forget to point out, there was
a statement that we not use treated lumber for this and that's of course
acceptable to the applicant. As far as the plants and animals, I'm very
confident they are not there. It's not a question of advocating, it's a
question of whether it's there or not there. It's not there because it can't be
there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments? Any comments from the
Board?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have a couple of questions. Why do you say,
and I'm not specialized in these plant species but why do you say they
can't be there? Is it simply because of the salt spray you are saying
certain things can't survive there?
MR. ANDERSON: Because it's not a habitat that they live in. Most of the
shrubs there are all associated with Red Maple Swamps. What happened
here is we took descriptions of Red Maple Swamps and just mixed them
all together.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No, I don't know how you could say that's how it
happened when you didn't write the report. But my comment is you keep
discounting and discounting all these species and I, again, I question that
this is a potential habitat for some of those species, whether you don't see
them in January or not, is questionable. But that it is a habitat that is
potential for many of these species that are listed, I would debate with you
and -
43
Board 0 f Truslees
January 24,2007
MR. ANDERSON: Let me answer that, then. The answer is that you can't
have a Red Maple Swamp, which is what is described, largely, in those
occurring on the beach, because Red Maple Swamps don't occur on
beaches.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm not saying that. I'm saying some of the listed
species that you are simply saying can't be there, there are some specific
species that have a potential of surviving in that habitat and you seem to
discount all of them.
MR. ANDERSON: If we agree that it's an interdunal swale, which is what
is stated in that report, one way to get to the bottom of this is to compare
what is the nature conservancy, the heritage program, the DEC, the US
Fish and Wildlife description of the plants that occur in interdunal swales
as I have given you, against the list provided by your environmental
technician and you'll discover that the majority of them simply don't occur
in this habitat.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I want to make two other comments. One of the
other comments that you made is you refer to Montauk where there is
similar habitats and how there is railroad tracks and roads. Those were
built many, many years ago when we were not as aware as we are today
and when the world was not as it is today. And how we have lost many
unique, critical habitats. And too many times during these hearings we
hear of justifications because there is a building there or there is a railroad
track. And those things were done many, many, many years ago when we
have progressively learned better ways of doing things. And so to refer to
Montauk and, you know --
MR. ANDERSON: Napeaque and the Atlantic Dunes. The answer is this.
That these places in Napeaque and Atlantic Dunes are still designated
significant coastal resources today. Despite what is there.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Because that's been there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Just because you ran a road through it means it's no
longer a significant habitat?
MR. ANDERSON: But just because I put a catwalk across an interdunal
swale doesn't make it less of an interdunal swale. That's the point.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But we have that opportunity to decide if that
should be done or not in this particular area. And just to make my last
point, and again, I may have interpreted some of your comments
incorrectly, but I kept hearing you sort of discount this habitat as a harsh
habitat with very little diversity and I don't know if you meant to imply that
because of that it's not a valuable habitat.
MR. ANDERSON: I didn't make that --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Let me finish my statement. There are severe
habitats as in desert habitats and interdunal swales and pine barrens that
are very, very harsh and have very limited diversity, however they are still
very, very critical to our overall global environment. And those are just
three comments I wanted to make.
44
Board of Trustees
January 24, 20()7
MR. ANDERSON: The statement that bio-diversity is low, I read to you
from the heritage nature conservancy document.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But my impression is you were discounting it as
an important habitat.
MR. ANDERSON: I think it's a very interesting habitat. I'll give you that.
What I'm saying is when I read reports that list a plethora of species and
seem to glow with diversity I have to go back to my training, my
undergraduate, my masters degree in wildlife biology and I have to ask
myself, are those statements true and my inescapable conclusion is they
are in fact false. So you may figure out a better way for me to access the
beach. Maybe it is bulldozing. I don't think I'll get a DEC permit for it. But
I have the most environmentally sensitive way of doing it. But regardless
of that, you know, a plant is a plant. A habitat is a habitat. I don't need to
come in here to tell you what my opinions are. Alii need to do is tell you
that based on my training, you know, these particular plants, these
particular animals, cannot exist in that particular habitat. It doesn't make
the habitat uninteresting or valuable, but it's not the great bio-diverse --
what you are being led here, what you are given in this report is simply
factually inaccurate. And that's how I started my presentation. I want you
to understand that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: You said that property was rented when all that damage
was caused?
MR. ANDERSON: It's vacant now. He's evicted.
TRUSTEE KING: Is the property now for sale?
MR. ANDERSON: It is for sale. I want to mention something else, too.
One of the reasons for this, for many years the Blower's would simply go
to the, to Tim Gray's, you know, use that existing access. That's no longer
an option. I told you, Tim Gray, it's preferable for him. That's why he
supports this, because he had so many problems with trespassers on his
property. That's why he supported it. Give area homeowners their own
access so they are not walking across my property. And I'm convinced
that he set fire to that property. Because that was, I asked him. You
know, out here, if we had a fire in this town, if you live out here, I don't
care if you're in Mattituck to Orient, these firemen are on it. And there is
no record of any fire department going down there. It wasn't some sort of
natural fire. It was a set fire. The guy tried to burn the property down.
That's what he did. Now he's out of there and now there will be someone
else there. The house is a wreck and has to be fixed up. But as part of
that it should have its own access to the beach. It doesn't matter if it's for
sale. Someone will live there and someone will need their access.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I thought there was a question also, the
environmental technician brought up about the fact that she thought from
aerials of this proposed path was not on, in fact on the Blower property.
Has that been resolved that this proposed path is or is not on the
property?
45
Board of Trustees
January 24, 2007
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No, that was a question that we, that she came, and
I asked her about that and she did say that if you, the survey wasn't to
scale and if you take a look at the aerials and you compare things, it does
look like it's not on the property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So my question is, is the proposed path on the
property? Is it on the property? Do we know that? Because I think that's
critical here. It becomes a moot issue if the proposed path is on the
neighbor's property and not on the Blower property.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: She tried to find the property markers but it was --
you probably won't find them there.
MR. ANDERSON: The catwalk was staked out by a licensed professional
engineer both at the landward terminus and seaward terminus. All of the
path and all of the catwalk is on the Blower's property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: When was that staked out, Bruce?
MR. ANDERSON: That was staked out in August. They are still there and
readily available.
TRUSTEE KING: Were any property markers identifiable, cornerstones or
anything?
MR. ANDERSON: I didn't really look. It's a very large piece of property. I
didn't stake it out. I had the surveyor. And the survey says, staked by
surveyor.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just wondering what did he use for a reference point.
He had to find the property line somehow.
MR. ANDERSON: Oh, sure.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm thinking are there corner markers that we can look
at.
MR. ANDERSON: You'll see the monument up by the Sound. You'll see.
There is two monuments adjacent to Peconic dunes. You know, there are
monuments up and down the property line. He shows them on the survey.
I didn't go look for them, quite honestly. And we have devised it so it
would be 20 feet off the westerly side lot line as determined by the
surveyor.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob, what's under the LWRP and under the CAC
comments?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: LWRP finds it inconsistent. It might be worth
pointing out perhaps one or two items here. According to -- and it's listed
right here on this report even from the Planning Board. I believe it's from
the Planning Board office. No, I'm sorry, it's from Mark Terry. It's LWRP.
Note the catwalk is not permitted over vegetated wetland pursuant to 275-
11. It goes on to say later on, the proposed action will result in significant
impairment and physical loss of rare habitat where the catwalk is placed in
the freshwater wetland, vegetative species, loss will occur. The
introduction of treated timber, construction materials will result in a
leaching of hazardous materials. Chemicals known to be toxic to
freshwater organisms. The proposed action will result in a fragmentation
of New York State Fish and Wildlife habitat area setting a precedent that
46
Board ofTruskcs
January 24, 2007
would result in continued physical loss of a globally rare ecological
complex. And I'm just picking snippets here.
MR. ANDERSON: That's fine
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Chapter 275 defines a dock including in the definition
of a dock is catwalks and that catwalks are not permitted over vegetated
wetland as per 275-11. So that was just some snippets.
MR. ANDERSON: Let me quickly say we processed hundreds of docks
and all the catwalks go over vegetated wetlands. That's how we get there.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: If I could just add something. Mr. Terry spoke to me
about this. What he was referring to is the language under 275-11 that
reads as follows, where it says: No new docks will be permitted over
vegetated wetlands or such that it cause habitat fragmentation of
vegetated wetlands in Downes Creek. When he asked me about the
interpretation, in my view, the clear language of that is that it's a separate
over vegetated wetlands is one thought and such that it causes
fragmentation in Downes Creek was read by Mr. Terry as a separate
requirement. So he didn't read over vegetated wetlands in those specific
areas. He read over vegetated wetlands generally speaking. So when he
read it that way to me I said that's what it looks like but let's talk to Ms.
Finnegan and she clarified the intent of the trustees was to be specifically
in those areas that are listed. It's just the way it was worded was
confusing to Mr. Terry and he said -- and he's right, I think.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: In other words, it's not specific to Downes Creek.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: He read that it wasn't specific. Exactly. So he read
that it was not specific because of the way the code is written. Which I
would have to agree. He has a point. It's written such that you could
interpret it by the clear meaning to be separate. But I think it was cleared
up when we discussed what the trustees intent was, that it applied to
Downes Creek. So I just want to make that clarification.
MR. ANDERSON: The second one is the impairment question. Everyone
agrees the man has a right to get to the beach. The question is what is
the least impact way of doing it. It can't be bulldozing. It can't be laying
timber directly down on top of the marsh during its growing season. It has
to be some sort of elevated way to get there.
TRUSTEE KING: Could be a path. Could be a foot path.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, if you do that and you've been down there and
see how thick it is, you are talking about taking out major vegetation and
you are talking about walking through water to get there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If it's a path on this property, it's going to need
clearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm saying that the alternative was the raised.
TRUSTEE KING: From the aerial in the file it looks like there is some sort
of a path going through. In that aerial.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, this is an aerial that shows a foot path.
TRUSTEE KING: It sure looks like it to me. As far as I'm concerned, I have
to take another look at this thing; another hard, long look
47
Board of Trustees
January 24, 20()7
MR. ANDERSON: I encourage you to do that. You'll see that -- you'll see
the stakes right there, Bob, on the front part of the photograph. Those are
the stakes that mark it. And I defy anyone to walk through this thing from
one end to the other without clearing it. It can't be done. As to the treated
timber, I stipulated we would go all natural. That removes that objection.
And as for the fragmentation, well, look left, look right, the path practice
has been to fragment it. By doing the raised catwalk you are maintaining
the water flow underneath it. You are maintaining the plant material that
would grow underneath it and I think the photos amply demonstrate that.
And as far as the globally rare, I think I covered that already.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, just because it's not locally rare doesn't mean
it's not globally rare. Eric LaMonte seems to think it's globally rare and
Eric is pretty good at that stuff. I think.
TRUSTEE KING: What do you want to do with this?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would say look at it again.
TRUSTEE KING: My preference would be to table it and go out again and
take a long, hard look.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think I would also support going out, tabling it and
going out there and looking again, because I'm interested in the property
markers and where this is to see if it is in fact absolutely we're sure it is on
the Blower property, since there was doubt in Heather's mind that it was.
So if, for no other reason, I think we have to do that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have to say I don't where we go from here as far as
the environmental report that we have from our office. I mean, how do we
go and are we supposed to go back and have somebody else look at this?
TRUSTEE KING: Heather will be with us on the field inspection so she
could explain what she saw and what she didn't.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Was Mark there in December? Did Mark look at
it with you?
TRUSTEE KING: No. Jill and I looked at it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Maybe if Mark and Heather went with us. That's
what I'm saying, make sure the two of them so you have more than one
person's opinion there.
MR. ANDERSON: What I will do, if it helps, is I'll physically, as you drive
into this property, I'll put, attach orange ribbons as to what is Red Maple,
what is Tupelo, what is a Highbush Blueberry, what is a Sweet
Pepperbush, and I'll label them and simply look at them. Go down and
see if you could find those same plants down there. You will not.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The code does allow, and I need help from, in
particular Jim and Peggy on this since you have more experience. The
code does allow when there is under certain circumstances difference of
opinion between a town's opinion and an assessment and the applicant's
assessment for another assessment to be done at the expense of the
applicant. And, again, I don't know if that would include an environmental
assessment such as this. I know we dealt with that with a septic system
before and it was helpful for us to get that third-party assessment donet
48
Board 0 f Tl11stecs
January 24, 2007
there. Is there an opportunity for that here with regard to an
environmental report?
MR. ANDERSON: My preference would be no, just because it's a catwalk.
On the case I think you are talking about, you are talking about a much
larger investment.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think if we had Mark with us.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, I'll label those plants and you can tell us where
they are and you'll discover they can't be there. The Snapping Turtle can't
be in there.
TRUSTEE KING: I would like you to be at this field inspection.
MR. ANDERSON: Sure.
TRUSTEE KING: let's get everybody on the same page here.
MR. ANDERSON: Because they are simply not there. So I object to that.
I think we have to be honest and we have to be completely straightforward
as to what is there. It doesn't mean it may not be important to you. It
doesn't mean it's not interesting. But it's not that. That I know.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to entertain a motion to table this so we
could do another site evaluation, get all interested parties down there and
let's find out what is really down there before we make a final decision.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
MR. MCGREEVY: Jim, can I make a recommendation that a CAC
member accompany you on that inspection, for our own information really,
as a learning process?
TRUSTEE KING: Sure.
MR. MCGREEVY: Because we'll be facing this issue quite a bit, I could
see it.
TRUSTEE KING: So we'll table that.
TRUSTEE KING: Next, number seven, Costello Marine Contracting Corp.,
on behalf of Phyllis Schaffer requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
four-foot wide set of stairs up to a 4x23 foot fixed catwalk with a seasonal
32x12 foot wooden ramp onto a seasonal 6x20 foot floating dock, and
remove remains of the old existing dock. located: 1725 Smith Drive North,
Southold. Mr. Costello?
MR. COSTEllO: My name is John Costello, I'm with Costello Marine
Contracting and we are the agents of Phyllis Schaffer. And I'll try to make
this as brief as possible.
TRUSTEE KING: We have some questions on this.
MR. COSTEllO: I had a brief discussion with one of the trustees in
regard to an objection to the dock going straight out, which takes up
slightly more than the allowable distance across the creek, which is
approximately 104 feet. We measured it. It's 104 feet. And we, I revised
plans and have revised plans here, putting the dock in aT-configuration
which allows it to be ten feet off the property line. If the Board so wishes
49
Board of Trustees
January 24, Z007
to be more than 15 feet, we could put it in an l-configuration, and I would
have to revise the drawings. But I would like to submit these revised
drawings for the Board.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay. I remember the first time we went out there. One
of the questions we had was why couldn't you use the old dock location.
And I'm bringing this up because I was there today with Mr. Hamilton. Mr.
Hamilton wants to see the new dock put in the same place as the old dock
was in an l-configuration. That's his take on it. He went out there and
checked the water depth. He was in his waders.
MR. COSTEllO: The water death is very minimally from one location
because of the depth, to maintain that one-third distance across the creek.
But if that's what the consensus of the Board is.
TRUSTEE KING: Like I say, I was the only one that went with him. I'm
just making my report on what I saw with him and what he'll approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Mr. Costello, Bob and I also went out on
Saturday and I think we had more of the same opinion that we would
rather see it in the old location as opposed to moving it over some of the
vegetation in the new spot
TRUSTEE KING: It's already been disrupted.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. So if you are going to disrupt the dock to
take it out.
MR. COSTEllO: I would just have to supply a revised drawing because
the revised drawings that I just submitted to you indicated where it is just
slightly deeper, point two tenths of a foot. But that was, if it's the Board's
desire because of the disturbance of removing the old one, if the Board
feels that that would be the proper location, and to put the dock there in an
l-configuration, we'll make that revised drawing and accept that as the
Board's decision.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is that correct, Bob, we discussed that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes.
MR. COSTEllO: Particularly where the DEC has visited the site, too.
TRUSTEE KING: I was amazed, the same day. We had a lot today. I
was with him all day.
MR. COSTEllO: No wonder I couldn't get hold of him
TRUSTEE KING: So the l-shape would go to the right, if we could see a
new set of plans indicating that.
MR. COSTEllO: Okay, we'll accept that.
TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments? (No response.) I'll
make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application based on
what we just reviewed, the dock to be built in the same place as the
existing old dock and --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: let's finish the vote to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
50
Board oCI'rustees
January 24, 2007
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Make a motion to approve the application with the new
dock being constructed in the same place as the old existing dock in an l-
configuration with the "l" -- facing the water, the "l" will be going to the
right or in an easterly direction. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
MR. COSTEllO: I'll provide those drawings for the Board.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Number eight, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of
Tom and Julia Fitzpatrick requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x16
foot ramp up to a 4x20 foot catwalk continuing with a 4x42 foot catwalk
section onto a 4x20 foot fixed dock section with a 32x20 foot seasonal
aluminum ramp onto a seasonal 6x20 foot floating dock, secured by two 2-
pile, eight inch diameter pilings. located: 1030 Clearview Road, Southold.
Is there anyone here for this application?
MR. COSTEllO: Again, my name is John Costello, we are agent to Tom
and Julia Fitzpatrick. My only comment is the offshore end of the dock as
designed, originally was trying to meet and stay within the constraints of
the existing docks of both neighbors; one to the north and one to the
south. Moving backwards from that, the original design that we had was
to try to minimize the length in the interference of structures in the
wetlands, and we minimized, tried to minimized it. I believe when the
Board went to the site, they would rather have, instead of walking through
the wetlands areas, high marsh, they would rather have a small catwalk
go over the marsh and go past any inshore in a direct straight line. Again,
I revised the plans. I hope I don't drown you in plans, but we revised the
plans. After discussion with Mr. Fitzpatrick, he was willing to go for the
additional expense to put it in a straight line. Did Mr. Hamilton see this
site?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, he did. It's not good news. I got my notes. He
was very concerned about the two docks you mentioned on either side,
about the size of the structures. He was very concerned about
segmenting the rest of that marsh. It's about two, two-and-a-half acres of
marsh. He wants to see the catwalk to stop ten feet landward from the
edge of the marsh
MR. COSTEllO: Ten foot landward. Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Of the edge of the marsh. Seaward edge of the marsh.
In other words you'll have a long walk to the high marsh with no catwalk.
MR. COSTEllO: Can you mark one of these plans.
TRUSTEE KING: He would want that to start ten feet landward of the
marsh. He's saying this is all high marsh. Nothing should be segmented
with another walkway (indicating.)
51
Board of Trustees
January 24, 2007
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So nothing in the high marsh.
TRUSTEE KING: No.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So he's recommending people to trample the
marsh?
TRUSTEE KING: He's recommending walk through it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Maybe he figures if you do it a couple of times you
won't do it anymore.
TRUSTEE KING: He says it's less disturbance. He pointed out another
long walk catwalk and he said if you go over there you'll find that marsh
underneath that, even though it's elevated four feet, you'll find no marsh.
On the way away from here, going to another thing he sees a bobcat
doing some work so we stopped and it was right near the catwalk, so I
went on my own and walked over. Sure enough, there is nothing left
under the catwalk.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What about the use of the grading he talked about?
TRUSTEE KING: He said there is some plastic mesh you could put down?
MR. COSTEllO: let me tell you, I have photographs of the adjoining
dock that just came in, in the summertime. It's not devoid of any
vegetation. It's less vegetation but there is vegetation.
TRUSTEE KING: What I saw is a lot less. We've have some other
problems out there. I not going to go into it because it doesn't concern this
case.
MR. COSTEllO: As you well know --
TRUSTEE KING: These were his findings in the field. This is what he's
going to approve, just to give you a heads-up
MR. COSTEllO: Okay, well, I appreciate the heads-up and I respect Mr.
Hamilton and I have gone with Mr. Hamilton on many different occasions
and I know Mr. Hamilton quite well, but this Board is an independent
Board and with the recommendations of this Board, it makes no
difference, I could only build, what is approved by all agencies. If one
agency has less and this Board has more, guess which gets built. The
lesser of the two. So I would rather ask this Board --
TRUSTEE KING: I don't like to be put in a position. I do a joint review and
it overrides what he says he's going to approve --
MR. COSTEllO: That's not a joint review. A joint review is right here and
now. This Board. If you give me whatever you give me, or whatever you
permit, and he permits less, guess what, I'm going to build less. I'm not --
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just reading through some of this. lWRP has been
found inconsistent. This dock is not permitted over vegetated wetland.
We already went through that issue. That's not every place in town.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Did mention the use of locust posts instead of CCA?
MR. COSTEllO: Here's another position of the Fitzpatrick's. First of all,
they want to try to use all untreated materials, because they want it. And I
had some discussion. They do not want the plastic. They don't want the
individual imitation put in there. They want natural untreated woods. They
52
Board of Trustees
January 2007
want locust if I could get the locust. They want it all untreated. They want
it as natural as possible, for the same purpose
MR. MCGREEVY: How about the catwalk?
MR. COSTEllO: The catwalk, too. They want it all natural, if I could do
that. And I can. I'm certainly capable.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I was concerned when we walked that marsh. If
that's what DEC is expecting I would be inclined to go along with that. I
can't, I mean, I would agree with everything that the DEC has said as far
as the fragmentation and the fragile marsh.
TRUSTEE KING: He was very, pretty adamant about it.
MR. COSTEllO: I still need a permit for the New York State
Environmental Department of Environmental Conservation to get it done,
as you well know, and the Army Corps and the Department of State.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm sorry but I think it's going to be much more
harmful for the person to be traversing back and forth across that marsh,
trampling it down throughout the summer -- or throughout the year. It
doesn't have to be the summer. I went out there and I agreed that it
should be changed and should be straight back and I think it's, as been
proposed, is the correct way to go. And I understand Mr. Hamilton feels
differently but I also agree with what Mr. Costello says. We are an
independent Board from the DEC. And we do not have to always work in
concert together. There could be times we'll disagree. So for myself
personally, I'm in favor of the proposed plan as amended here tonight, to
straighten it out
MR. COSTEllO: I could assure this Board that I'll make a concerted effort
to lobby Mr. Hamilton and any of his staff to agree, but whether I succeed
or not, I only succeeded on occasion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And give you the opportunity to do that. And if not,
we are back to exactly as you said.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What was Mr. Hamilton's justification, did he give
any?
TRUSTEE KING: Segmentation of the marsh. That was pretty much it
MR. COSTEllO: It's fragmentation any time you use the marsh.
TRUSTEE KING: It's disturbance of the marsh. So this is going to be,
what you re-submit, is a 172-foot catwalk?
MR. COSTEllO: Yes.
MR. MCGREEVY: What was the CAC recommendation on this, Jim?
TRUSTEE KING: I'm looking. Hang on. CAC supports the application,
however recommends the applicant re-designs catwalk into straight line
and avoids the use of treated lumber on the entire structure.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think if that's the case, use that and maybe we
can have them space it out, you know, to get more light in. I'm not entirely
convinced that would be worse than trampling through the marsh
naturally.
MR. MCGREEVY: You'll notice on the diagram, Jim --
TRUSTEE KING: If this is four feet, it will be elevated four feet?
53
Board 0 f Trustees
January 24, 2007
MR. COSTELLO: Yes. Or if this Board so desires, do it three-and-a-half
feet. The only trouble is if I do three-and-a-half foot -- I'm as
environmental as anyone else here. I would probably recommend spacing
the decking slightly larger. You also know that the sun changes angles
and it does penetrate underneath the dock at certain times of the year.
MR. MCGREEVY: You'll notice the dotted line on that diagram, Jim,
indicates the high water mark, indicates the wetlands. If you'll notice that
to stay on dry land to reach the original drawing, you would have to go on
to the other person's property to avoid walking on the wetlands. So that's
a situation that has to be addressed.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I'm saying. To walk through it all the
time will be worse.
MR. MCGREEVY: It would be less detrimental to the wetlands to have
that elevated catwalk. And I recommend using the vinyl graded to allow
more light to come through.
TRUSTEE KING: Mr. Costello said he doesn't want that. If you use the
graded system, you go a foot above grade. Eighteen inches, keep it right
down low.
MR. COSTEllO: I'm trying to be reasonable but what I would do is take
the natural wood. They really don't like the plastics. Plastics may be here
for decades. Natural woods do not pollute. We don't know about some of
the plastics like some of the other hearings earlier. I don't want to go on
and on, but the owner of the property would prefer all natural materials.
And it can be done. Whether we space it, we space them out three-
sixteenths of an inch on decking or space them out half-inch on decking.
You can open up the spacing. Also, the sun will come down on an angle.
Some of the plastics the light penetration on plastics when the sun is
directly overhead they have a 70% penetration of sun, when the sun is
directly overhead. A few moments later when the sun isn't directly
overhead, you go across the decking, you don't have the same
penetration of sunlight. The sun will only be under the deck certain parts
of the day and not under on other parts of the day.
MR. MCGREEVY: Would the decking run east and west?
MR. COSTEllO: You could do it either way. Or you could do it across
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If these comments are for the record, we have two
conversations going on here.
MR. MCGREEVY: I have a question, Jim. The catwalk, if it's aligned
parallel with the existing property lines, a new suggestion, does that run
east and west? Is that catwalk, as we are saying over the wetlands, would
that be an east/west decking? The catwalk itself.
MR. COSTEllO: It's almost southeast/northwest.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. MCGREEVY: So it would have very little shading because of the sun
moving. So that's another factor you have to take into consideration, Jim,
the alignment of a straight catwalk over the wetlands, it would possibly
have less of an impact on the wetlands.
54
Board ofTl1lstecs
January 24, 2007
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think one of the considerations also has to be,
and there is no way of us knowing how much Mr. Fitzpatrick will utilize
this, but if this person is traversing the marsh once a weekend, it's
probably not going to be any effect. If this is a family that is using it twice a
day, it's going to have a different effect. I think that's a consideration in
not having anything there and just leaving a walking path. It may not be
utilized that often or frequently.
MR. COSTEllO: I think in the summertime it would be. It's a large family
and in the summertime it will be utilized.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think that's one of the considerations in saying
leave the marsh and leave it for a walking path.
MR. COSTEllO: But, again --
TRUSTEE KING: And you realize there is a dock on either side, very high,
on an elevated walkway. Sometimes we look back and say maybe we
shouldn't have done that. If somebody wants to make a motion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Make a motion to deny it if he wants to.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: He's offering, if someone wants to make a
motion to approve it.
MR. MCGREEVY: Another thing, Jim, whatever decision you make on this
one sets precedent to the one you had previously. It's very, very similar.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: To Blower? No, completely different. Entirely
different.
TRUSTEE KING: I would make a motion to approve the catwalk starting
ten feet landward of the seaward edge of the marsh but, if that's
unacceptable to the applicant.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: He didn't say that. He said he'll have to comply
with it anyway.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just don't see -- walking over it, I'm just picturing
the family kids running out. That won't stay on the same path. They'll go
all over the place. I know, I've seen it. And I just think it's more controlled
if we let him build this catwalk and that's the only place you are going to
go.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think we should make a motion one way or
other and vote on it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So, make a motion, Jim, or someone else make a
motion.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the catwalk starting ten
feet landward from the seaward edge of the marsh.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aye.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: Any nays?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Nay
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Nay
55
Board ofT'ruslecs
January 24, 2007
TRUSTEE KING: For the record, two nays. Jill voted nay and Dave voted
nay.
MR. COSTEllO: Now, if I lobby and get the DEC to approve the
additional walkway.
TRUSTEE KING: Come back and amend it.
MR. COSTEllO: Why would you put me through that?
TRUSTEE KING: I spent all day with him. You know what he's like.
MR. COSTEllO: I know what he's like better than you do. And, you
know, I had more experience.
TRUSTEE KING: Well, I rest my case.
MR. COSTEllO: But I also know -- so if I come back three more feet,
then I have to come back for an amendment? Well -- as far as a vote, as
far as I know, did somebody close the meeting; close the hearing?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, it's done.
TRUSTEE KING: We voted on it. That's what's approved.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number nine, Liberty Permit and Research on
behalf of Joseph and Catherine Gentile requests a Wetland Permit for
the existing wood deck approximately 12x28 feet with steps to grade and
existing conversion of an attached carport to attached garage 13.9x29.4
feet and 6x19.5 feet wooden deck with steps to grade. located: 685
Oakwood Court, Southold. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. MCHENRY: Good evening, members of the Board, on behalf of the
applicant, Tom McHenry, Liberty Permit and Research. Here we are
requesting to legalize existing improvements on the site. The carport
outlined on the original CO has been converted to a garage and front and
rear decks have been installed. These improvements have been in place
for several years and we feel they don't endanger the environment or
effect property values in any way. I'm open for any questions the Board
may have,
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Is there anybody else here who would
like to speak on behalf of or against this application? (No response.) Not
hearing any, the CAC supports the application with a condition of a 15
foot, non-turf buffer. lWRP found it inconsistent because the proposed
conversion of the carport to garage, is 85 feet from the water and the rule
is everything has to be 100 feet from the water. We went out and looked
at this and we -- this property had already been before the trustees for a
permit several months ago.
MR. MCHENRY: Yes. We withdrew that application, He was going to put
a second story on and decided in fact to move. So we looked at the CO's
and in order to sell it you need to CO the garage conversion, which is
existing, and the two decks.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right. With the two conditions we had, that we
were concerned about, one was there is a boat float in addition to a
floating dock. And according to Town Code you can have one but not the
56
Board of Trustees
January 24, 2007
other, That would have to be removed, And we also wanted a non-turf
buffer, And what is interesting is there was recently a permit for work to
be done on the house next door. We asked for a non-turf buffer on this
house and what we want to do is make it consistent so there is a non-turf
buffer of the same width which was 15-feet all the way across the two
properties.
MR. MCHENRY: That would work great, I think.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And that way it would be consistent.
MR. MCHENRY: We would go along with that. That's fine. I told Joe
about that. It was one of the temporary jet ski things he put there for the
kids. We'll make sure that's gone.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was noted the first time around we asked for
that.
MR. MCHENRY: I saw it, too, when I was out there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aside from that, this is a conversion of an existing
carport to an attached garage. So it's not something we can just pick up
and move. Since it is existing, I don't have a problem recommending
approval of it. Are there any other comments from the Board? (No
response.) Then I make a motion to -- and, I'm sorry. In order to become
consistent with the LWRP, bring it into consistency, we'll ask to make sure
there is gutters, downspouts and drywells off of all the roof runoff. We just
need to make sure that is done.
MR. MCHENRY: If not, we'll install them. I believe they may already be in
place. I think Joe put them in already.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. We just need to make sure that's there. I
made a motion, I believe, already, to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Make a motion to approve the application with
addition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer so it matches the next door neighbor's
non-turf buffer and; the removal of the jet ski float and; to make sure that
we have gutters and downspouts to drywells. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Number ten, Liberty Permit and Research on behalf of
Walter Wilm requests a Wetland Permit to re-face approximately 70 feet
of existing wood bulkhead with C-Loc vinyl sheathing and install a 12-foot
return and a 20-foot return. Located: 4605 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue.
Is there anyone here to spoke on behalf of this?
MR. MCHENRY: Once again, for the applicant, Tom McHenry, Liberty
Permit and Research. This application requests to re-face existing
bulkhead with the polymer vinyl C-Loc type sheathing that has been
discussed all evening and install two returns to prevent future erosion of
57
Board of Trustees
January 24, 2007
the sides of the property. Upon completion of this project we'll provide or
offer to provide a ten-foot wide non-fertilized buffer of the wild grasses
behind the bulkhead. At this point, actually, if I may, submit some photos
to you, Mr. Chairman. You could see, however, through the years, it's
beautiful grass right down to the bulkhead. Manicured. Once we do the
re-facing project, he'll restore that area with wild native grasses, non-
fertilizer dependent. The house is up higher on the hill so anything that
grows won't get in his way as far as the view. He has no objection to
putting a buffer in. I'm open for any questions that the Board may have.
TRUSTEE KING: We went out and looked at this. I think the feeling of the
Board is to put the bulkhead behind the existing bulkhead.
MR. MCHENRY: I think we asked to put it, because I spoke to the
contractor. We were out there and he wanted to keep the wood sheathing
in place and put the poly-sheathing in front of it; put the silt curtain in front
of this and the C-Loc in front of it.
TRUSTEE KING: It's not going to happen. This was another one I visited
today with DEC also.
MR. MCHENRY: That would be kind of strange to put it behind the old.
TRUSTEE KING: We have been doing that a lot lately. After the new
bulkhead is in place, then the old one is removed. That stops any
spillage.
MR. MCHENRY: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: This was our recommendation. It was also the
recommendation of the DEC to install new bulkhead behind the old
bulkhead and once the new bulkhead is in place you can either remove
the old bulkhead or you can cut it off at mud level.
MR. MCHENRY: Okay. Yes. That accomplishes the same thing, perhaps
better, even.
TRUSTEE KING: You have the option of doing either one. And the
equipment is to be brought in by land only, no barge. There is an
extensive muscle bed right in front of that bulkhead. DEC doesn't want
any barge equipment coming in there that is going to damage that.
MR. MCHENRY: South Bay Marine Construction has a clam boat size
boat he brings in.
TRUSTEE KING: This was explained. The owner was there when we
were there today. The gentleman's wife, we explained everything to her.
And also the husband, he came later. So they understand what is going
on here. And I think he wanted a ten foot, non-turf buffer behind the
bulkhead.
MR. MCHENRY: Yes. I spoke to the applicant, Walter Wilm, and he was
agreeable to that.
TRUSTEE KING: And no problems with the returns. The returns are fine.
Put them right back. And I think that was it. So if we can get a new set of
plans indicating replacement of the bulkhead with vinyl behind the existing
bulkhead and the existing bulkhead is to be removed and a ten-foot non-
fertilized buffer landward of the bulkhead.
58
Board 0 f Trustees
January 24, 2(J()7
MR. MCHENRY: Absolutely. No problem. Originally we had shown the
buffer. I think we have to redo the cross section diagram to show --
TRUSTEE KING: And the construction is to be done from the landward
side. Not by barge.
MR. MCHENRY: We are in agreement with all those conditions.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other questions or comments from the Board? (No
response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with those
new conditions.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. MCHENRY: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number 11, Catherine Mesiano, Inc., on behalf
of Anthony Bellissimo requests a Wetland Permit to construct landward
of the existing bulkhead and 12 inches higher 57 linear feet of bulkhead
and place 30 cubic yards of backfill. Remove existing bulkhead upon
completion of landward bulkhead and install a ten-foot non-turf buffer.
Located: 600 Koke Drive, Southold. Would anyone like to speak to this
application?
MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant. I think it
pretty much describes itself. It meets the criteria that you just discussed in
the earlier application. The DEC has approved this application. The new
bulkhead will be installed landward of the existing. There is a ten-foot
non-turf buffer to be installed landward of the bulkhead. If you have any
questions I would be happy to address them.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like
to speak to this application? (No response.) It is exempt from LWRP.
CAC supports this application. And from the field notes it looks like the
Board that was out there looking at it had no problems with it. If there are
no further comments, from the public or from the Board I'll make a motion
to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the application for
Wetland Permit to construct landward of the existing bulkhead and 12
inches higher 57 linear feet of bulkhead and place 30 cubic yards of
backfill. To remove existing bulkhead upon completion of landward
bulkhead and install a 10-foot non-turf buffer. 600 Koke Drive. Do I have
a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
59
Board () r Trustees
January 24, 2007
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number 12, Catherine Mesiano, Inc., on behalf
of Marjorie Petras requests a Wetland Permit to construct landward of the
existing bulkhead and 12 inches higher 65 linear feet of bulkhead and an
eight foot return and place 30 cubic yards of backfill. Remove existing
bulkhead upon completion of landward bulkhead and install a ten-foot
non-turf buffer. Located: 700 Koke Drive, Southold. Is there anyone here
who would like to speak to this application?
MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant. We have
the same scenario. The two applicants worked in tandem in the permit
process. DEC permits are in place for the project as you just defined. If
you have any questions?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There was something about stairs. When we
were in the field we noticed on the survey it shows the stairs but in your
description you don't.
MS. MESIANO: I didn't list it in the description.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Two steps coming off the bulkhead.
MS. MESIANO: If we could modify my request.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, just add the stairs, to replace the stairs
inkind. It's just two steps coming off the bulkhead. And it's on the survey.
MS. MESIANO: Okay.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And the ten-foot non-turf buffer is already there.
CAC supports this application and, again, it's exempt from LWRP. If there
are no other comments from the public or the Board make a motion to
close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: ALL in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve Petras' request for
a Wetland Permit to construct as per the description with adding also to
replace the stairs inkind.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MS. MESIANO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Catherine Mesiano, Inc., on behalf of Mary Zupa
requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge approximately 190
cubic yards of shoaled material from the mouth of the canal at Paradise
Point to maintain minus four-feet MLW at maximum of 1:2 slope. The
dredge activity is proposed to be conducted by barge crane with a
clamshell bucket. Place plus/minus fifty cubic yards of dredged materials
along plus/minus 1 DO-feet of shoreline (+MHW) of property owned by
Mary Zupa. Dredge material to be used for beach re-nourishment. Onsite
containment of excess dredge material on a temporary drying site on the
upland portion of the subject property. Located: 580 Basin Road,
Southold. Is there anybody who would like to address this application?
60
Board of Trustees
January 24, 2007
MS, MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant This Board
may recall that we have been before you on precisely this matter in the
past The Board denied the application without prejudice in favor of the
Paradise Point Association who was given a permit for the activity that we
requested be performed, That permit was granted with conditions,
Neither the conditions nor the dredging was conducted, That permit
expired, We are now in the same spot that we were a year ago, The
mouth of the basin is shoaled over and we are proposing to do the
necessary dredging to open up that water way, If you have any questions
I would be happy to answer them,
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is there anybody else who would like to address this
application?
MR BOYD: Good evening Chairman King, members of the Board,
Edward Boyd, Southold, New York, My family has lived on Paradise Point
for 49 years, Many years ago my mother had the foresight to buy a lot on
the lagoon that is in question, We have attempted to live there in harmony
and use that property for all of that time, Within the past eight or nine
years there has been a very discordant group of property owners that has
come in and has made things extremely difficult for those of us who own
property on the lagoon, I have received a copy of a letter that was sent to
this Board by the attorney for the Paradise Point Association which
expresses the association's displeasure with the Zupa's application, The
letter mentions, and I quote here, the association represents the entire
Paradise Point community, I wish to take serious issue with that point
The association does not represent the entire Paradise Point community,
It certainly does not represent me as an owner of a piece of property on
the lagoon and it doesn't represent other owners of properties along the
lagoon, The association has attempted to somewhat halfheartedly get
approval to do this maintenance dredging for several years. The promises
are made to those of us who have boats in the lagoon: Oh, it will get
done, We are working on it Well, it's not being done, I don't know how
much they are working on it And I'll tell you, for the last two years, I have
been unable to use my boat the way I should be able to, In the 2005
season, I struck bottom several times going in and out Last year, 2006,
I'm unable to get in and out except at half tide or better. And those of you
who know the area down there are aware that when you are coming in to
the lagoon in an afternoon, you have a strong breeze blowing, and you
have a current going from west to east, it can be sort of a difficult thing, I
am able to make it Some of the people who go in and out of that lagoon
may be not be as adept of the navigations of the steering of their boats,
The association appears to be objecting to the Zupa's application here as
a way of forcing the riparian owners to adhere to the association's line,
There is no reason on earth for them to object to this application because
this application is going to do exactly what they say they would like to do.
That is to maintenance dredge the lagoon, the entrance to it, and make it
available for boating use, That's all I'm here to urge; that something get
61
Board of Trustees
January 24. 2007
done and something get done early enough this your to allow us to do
dredging, allow me to get my boat in and out. I make no grief for either
side in all of the litigation that is going on in Paradise Point. That is not
why I'm here at all. But I am here to tell you that I, as an owner of property
along the lagoon, and several other people who own property along the
lagoon, are absolutely hamstrung by this ridiculous situation. I want to be
able to use my boat. I have not been able to. I think it's time that we get a
permit to do the dredging here, open up the mouth of the lagoon and allow
the boats to be used the way they should. Thank you.
MS. COLLIER: Hi. Andrea Collier. We have a home in Paradise Point and
the reason that I wanted to go after Mr. Boyd is because I ditto everything
he just said except in 2006 we now have a damaged boat. And I sit here
and I'm just astounded that somehow this -- first of all, I have the same
line of this letter underlined that they, the association, represents the
entire Paradise Point community. And I take serious exception to that
because they know full well that the basin owners had a meeting and we
all agreed we were aligned as property owners. They are mere easement
holders. So the fact that they would hold up any of us getting dredging is
just, it's a curious situation that has been created here. Somehow this
group of people has convinced you that they have all the rights down there
when they don't own any property.
TRUSTEE KING: I take exception. Nobody on either side has convinced
me.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll take exception, also.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Me, too.
MS. COLLIER: Is it clear that we are property owners that need to get out
of the basin with our boats?
TRUSTEE KING: All I'm convince of is this Paradise Point thing is a
nightmare. And we keep getting our hands and feet tied on these issues
with all these court proceedings and everything else going on there.
MS. COLLIER: Well, I have my opinions about that and I won't share them
with you at this point.
TRUSTEE KING: And don't think for a second I favor anyone in this whole
deal. Don't think for a second I favor you or I favor them. Please, don't
insult me.
MS. COLLIER: I don't think you do, but what has happened here is there
is a situation -- and I don't think you favor anybody. But what the
association does is they claim as they do in this letter which I find this
sentence that we represent the whole Paradise Point community, what
does that -- that's irrelevant. It's one basin that needs to be dredged. We
have an applicant, we met, all the basin owners met and we decided Mr.
Zupa would apply for this dredging permit. That was our plan as basin
owners. And we want to see him get this dredging permit. We are having
material harm to our quiet enjoyment, our peaceful enjoyment, our boat. I
have two children. They are toddlers. I'm not going to have my husband
jump off the boat every time we are going through the canal and leave me
62
Board oC"frustees
January 24, 2007
and my two kids on the swirling waters while he takes oar we had to buy
because the association won't dredge the damn thing. Excuse me. I'm
not waiting any longer for this to be dredged. You should issue this permit
to Mr. Zupa. It's the right thing to do and stop the favoritism that goes out
to this association. Take your civic duty and give him his permit. That's
what needs to happen here tonight. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments?
MS" MESIANO: I'll be brief. I would just like to respond to some points in
the letter that Mrs. Collier referred to by Mr. Pastor, the attorney for the
Paradise Point Association" First of alii think I said earlier his permit
expired in April or May of last year. So we don't have the issue of dual
permits. So I think that problem that existed last year is no longer a
problem. Further, if it is appropriate to have duplicate permits, then the
Paradise Point Association I think should withdraw its DEC application.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think that's the issue, ma'am.
MS. MESIANO: Okay. The prior dredge approval didn't result in dredging
or the conditions were never met that were placed on that permit.
Furthermore, conditions that were requested did not occur and I'm
referring to the use of the dock. The dock was not to be used until certain
conditions were met. That was patently ignored. The dock was used all
last summer. The Zupa's have DEC and Army Corps permits. They are
riparian owners. They are ready, willing and able to conduct the activity.
Paradise Point -- I won't repeat that. It's already been said. The dredging
benefits all the basin owners and anyone who docks at the legal docks in
Paradise Point. It doesn't just benefit the Zupa's. And the easement
holder's rights, again, I don't understand how the easement holder's rights
are surpassing the rights of the fee owner. So I would request that this
Board make a decision that the dredging is necessary and we are asking
that you give us that consideration.
TRUSTEE KING: Maybe I misunderstood you. Did you say the
association permit expired; the dredge permit expired?
MS. MESIANO: You extended their permit last May until the 21st. They
had until -- I have a copy of the old permit. They had until May 1 to
conduct the conditions and the activity. And unbeknownst to the Zupa's,
that was extended to May 21 st. None of the conditions were met. The
dredging was not done. And the dock was in use for the summer. That,
to me, I would interpret as being an expiration.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think so.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The expiration date on the permit is April 30, 2010.
The dock adjustmentss were supposed to be done by May 1, 2006, which
apparently was extended to the 21 st. But the permit itself is good until
2010.
TRUSTEE KING: It hasn't expired. Not in my mind. I understand were
you are coming from on it.
MS. MESIANO: I guess that if there are conditions which are not met, the
permit is moot. The point is they are ready, willing and able to perform the
63
Board ofTrus(ccs
January 24, 2()()7
activity that benefits not just them but everyone who uses that basin,
which I must reiterate is under, as the courts have found, is trustees land,
not privately held land. The basin is trustees land, not privately held land.
The land outside of that is state waters, not privately held land.
TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments?
MR. ZUPA: Victor Zupa. It's not just the last two years that we had a
problem with the dredging, although that's the most serious. Even four,
five years ago, my Fortier, the wheel was bent when I tried to come in one
time, at half tide or toward lower tide. The association has not been
dredging on a regular basis since I have been a resident there. And so we
would be, the people who are most affected, want to do this on a regular
basis and do whatever else is necessary to maintain the entrance to the
basin as well as the basin itself. If you have any other questions for me, I
would be happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: CAC supports the application with a condition that
precautions are made not to undermine the west bulkhead and correct the
wash out on the east bulkhead within the basin. LWRP says it's
consistent and I think the Board felt that the spoils are to be put into the
parking area rather than where it was originally outlined on those rocks.
Are there any other comments? Anything from the Board?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let them comment first, then I'll add my comments.
MS. MESIANO: We agree that we need to relocate the spoil area because
at the time that map was drawn was before the rocks were dropped.
There has been a lot of things that have occurred since that point in time.
So we could certainly do that. But I do take exception to that being
referred to as a parking area. Because it is not a parking area. I just want
to make that clear.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. There is an awful lot of tire marks there.
TRUSTEE KING: Let's call it a denuded area. It used to be vegetated. It's
pretty denuded right now.
MS. MESIANO: Yes, and it stays that way because there is so much
vehicle traffic there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So what are we calling it?
TRUSTEE KING: Cleared area. Cleared area south of the existing rock
pile or proposed spoil site. Of the proposed site, it would be south of it.
We could almost just take that and flip flop it to the south, I think. Maybe
move it a little east and get it away from the bulkhead.
MS. MESIANO: We'll keep it in front of the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KING: Cathy, I'm still concerned about the area where the loam
silt bulkhead is and where that return comes in there, we want to see that
replanted, regraded, those spoils removed from the front of the loam silt
and put back on the upland. Why can't we get going on that?
MS. MESIANO: DEC won't let us.
64
Board of'frustecs
January 24,2007
TRUSTEE KING: Do you have something in writing from the DEC saying
you can't work in that area and do that work? Because I had a long
discussion with Mr. Hamilton about it today.
MS. MESIANO: I would love to have a long discussion with him.
TRUSTEE KING: And he asked me, do you have anything in writing
where he said you can't go there and restore the area.
MS. MESIANO: He asked us, told us to stop work and we pointed out to
him that we didn't have a stop work order and he said he would go through
the process if we wanted it and we said, no, that would not be necessary,
as long as they would act on the situation. It's been over a year. It's been
13 months since that lovely day last December 14, a year ago, and we
stood out there for two-and-a-half hours. Mr. Hamilton has refused to
allow us to proceed. Do I have at that in writing? I'll go through my files. If
it's in writing it would be with respect to my communications to him
because he doesn't put too much in writing.
TRUSTEE KING: That one particular area I'm very concerned about
because there is no reason why it shouldn't be fixed.
MRS. ZUPA: Mary Zupa. I would like to respond to Mr. King's comments.
Perhaps you don't recall. In November when I stood here and told you
that Mr. Hamilton instructed me, that I will do what I'm told to do by him,
when he tells me to do it and not, I'm not to touch a thing before then. And
since I have been threatened with jail sentencing because interfering with
the association, what they consider their rights, I am with all respect for
you, because I do think you know that I have all of the plans stamped and
approved by you, everything has been sent to the DEC, not once,
because they claimed they lost it, not twice, but a third time when Cathy
Mesiano drove down there last year in a snowstorm and actually left them
there. And they will not acknowledge them. I have had no response from
them. And no one is more anxious to revegetate and to get on with
making the property beautiful and taking care of it. That was my whole
point in even doing that side of the bulkheading, which is Paradise Point
Association's responsibility. It's not even mine. On the canal. So as irate
as you are -
TRUSTEE KING: I'm not irate. I'm just disappointed that we can't get
these things done and let's do what is best for the place. Personally I'm
going to focus on this one little area --
MRS. ZUPA: That's wonderful. I appreciate it.
TRUSTEE KING: (Continuing) and see if I can get him to say fix this.
MRS. ZUPA: And we have the application in, because you approved it for
us to do the return. Absolutely. That's what we discussed with you two
months ago here.
TRUSTEE KING: Because it's a mess and it's just got to be fixed.
MRS. ZUPA: Because as soon as -- I think Mr. Bergen had said, let's get
on with it now because the growing season is right. I said of course, as
soon as we get the approval.
65
Board of Trustees
January 24,2007
TRUSTEE KING: We are not doing any good by doing nothing. That's
where I'm coming from.
MRS. ZUPA: I agree with you. Absolutely.
TRUSTEE KING: Let's just move on with what we are dealing with now.
MRS. ZUPA: Thank you, I appreciate it.
MR. ZUPA: I don't want to belabor this. What happened, a year ago
December, Chuck Hamilton came in and issued violations. We continued
work. He came back and said you are not to start work again. We were
supposed to stop. And our contractor Tom Samuels won't do any work
until it's resolved and to the extent that you can, we are trying, Tom
Samuels is trying to get a meeting with Chuck Hamilton to resolve all this.
We would like to resolve all the issues in the until area that you entioned.
So we are trying to get things done, too. Sorry to interrupt you, Dave.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: My question was, has an engineer looked at that
west -- I hope I get it right -- the jetty that has not been repaired, I think
that's the west jetty?
MS. MESIANO: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Has an engineer looked at that? Because as I
recall, I don't have the diagram in front of me, it was a proposed 1:2 slope
for the dredging and there was a concern will that jetty hold up because
there is no -- will it hold up with this dredging; will it not collapse. And I was
wondering if an engineer has looked at that.
MS. MESIANO: We have not taken that step because it's not our property
to access. When the association proposed dredging they were not
concerned and did not have an engineer look at it. I couldn't make any
representation.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was just asking.
MS. MESIANO: I'm sure I could confidently say that a contractor that the
Zupa's would hire would be responsible enough to take the appropriate
action.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. That was exactly what I was going to
recommend. My other question, I apologize. I know that there is a
proposed drying site for the spoil. Where is the spoil proposed to be taken
after that?
MS. MESIANO: I could only refer to the terminology that an approved
upland site. Latham will be doing the dredging so it would be consistent
with their customary.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
MS. MESIANO: Also, one other comment, Jim. I know you spend a lot of
time with Mr. Hamilton, you made reference to that. And anything you
could do to help us get over that hump would be greatly appreciated. We
have made many good faith attempts to get everything resolved so that
we could conclude this. The unfinished state is not a choice of the Zupa's.
The fact that there is runoff and deterioration is a result of the fact that
they have not been allowed to complete the project. The state that the
property is in is not the choice of the Zupa's.
66
Board of Trustees
January 24, 2007
TRUSTEE KING: I understand that.
MS. MESIANO: So any help you could give us.
TRUSTEE KING: I have a question. How are they going to get the dredge
spoils to the drying site. Are they going to do that from the barge also?
They can reach that far?
MS. MESIANO: Yes. They tell me they can.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay. I think there were also some controls on the site
itself, staked hay bales surrounding the spoil site. There are certain
controls. I'm just thinking with the DEe permit, there was some conditions
on the site. Those would all apply.
MS. MESIANO: We would ask your permit be consistent with theirs and
again if you could help us in getting that minor modification to relocate the
drying site.
TRUSTEE KING: I talked to Mr. Hamilton today about that. He didn't have
a problem with moving that site.
MS. MESIANO: Would I handle that most appropriately as a contractor's
modification at the time the project is started, or--
TRUSTEE KING: I would do it now. You need the spoil site.
MS. MESIANO: Because they want to get in there as soon as possible.
TRUSTEE KING: I would dot my i's and cross my t's first.
MS. MESIANO: I try.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Why don't we address the charge for the spoils.
TRUSTEE KING: That's another issue.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. There is a charge for spoils that are trustee
land so the applicant will be charged $10 per cubic yard.
MS. MESIANO: I don't know that the area of the dredging is considered
trustees land.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, in the other permit that we gave we
determined it was and we charged them and they paid the fee already.
So, you know --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We had another project recently that we gave a
permit for another location that we also charged.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was in the same area.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It was an inlet. Same thing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it was determined that we own it.
MS. MESIANO: I don't know that I would acquiesce that you own that
bottom because it's outside of the headwaters. But that would be up to Mr.
Zupa. It's his call.
MR. ZUPA: It's actually part of the Southold Bay but if you insist on this
being in the fee, I know when I was here last time you talked to the
association and they were saying or, you know, we'll pay the fee, I think
that's what I heard when they were there. But it is actually part of Southold
Bay because it's past, you know, that point. When we come into the
basin, obviously, that's different.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think as a middle ground here, from the start of the
outer edge of the basin inward, is what I would say would be our area.
67
Board ofTruslccs
J al1uary 24, 2007
From the outer edge of the jetties, box jetties outward, that is, in my mind,
would be state water. So what we could say from that bed area from the
end of the box jetties into the inlet.
MR. ZUPA: That sounds like a compromise, to not charge us for that spoil.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct. I believe that's how we did it
MR. ZUPA: So anything from the head of the jetties in.
MS. MESIANO: It just seems, how would you quantify that. .
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's much easier to quantify from the inside of the
inlet in. That's what I'm saying. I guess you could quantify it out in the
bay, also.
TRUSTEE KING: It's a legal question, who owns that bottom.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The end of the box jetty in I think would be ours.
Out into the bay I would not think would be our bottom.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When I spoke to Pat Finnegan she said it would be
hard to do that and we should just charge them for the cubic yardage, ten
dollars per foot. If we want -- she didn't say we should charge them, she
said that we could charge them.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I guess let's go back and see what we charged for
Paradise Point. But for myself, personally, I would favor going from the
end of the box jetty in.
TRUSTEE KING: We charged them for 190 yards. I remember that.
MS. MESIANO: If I could ask, could we produce the invoice from the
contractor to quantify the yardage?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe that's what we do anyway. I think that
was what we did with the Paradise Point. Part of their condition was to
pay the fee up front, which I don't know if that's what we'll do here. We
might.
TRUSTEE KING: That's what we do.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It could be changed afterwards.
TRUSTEE KING: If you come back in and you can prove to us this is state
land, you'll get a rebate on that section.
MS. MESIANO: Could I also, just for the point of discussion, in the event
Paradise Point Association decides to file an Article 78 to stop the Zupa's
from dredging and they pay the fee for the dredging that they are then not
allowed to conduct this boating year, would that fee be refundable?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Not for that reason.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's a legal question.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I mean, you would still have a valid permit from us.
MS. MESIANO: Not if there was an Article 78 and we were stopped.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That would be a legal question, then.
MS. MESIANO: I don't even want an answer because it's too many things
to consider. I just want it out there that it's something that you would
consider.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let's not assume there is going to be another
lawsuit.
68
Board ofTrus(ccs
January 1007
MS. MESIANO: I'm trying not do. But in the event, that it's open for
discussion. That's alii ask.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments from the Board? (No
response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. I make a motion that we approve the
application made by Catherine Mesiano on behalf of Mary Zupa
requesting a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge approximately 190
yards of shoaled material from the mouth of the canal at Paradise Point
and I just want to add to this that we, with the conditions that we are going
to have the spoils moved to the cleared area south of the proposed site
and that there will be a charge for the spoils $10 a cubic yard from the
head of the jetty into the inlet, as we spoke. Do I a have a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: And 50 cubic yards would be put on the beach above
the high water mark to the east, as indicated on the DEC permit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll make our permit consistent with the DEC permit
with the exception of the spoil site being moved to the south.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MS. MESIANO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 14, Catherine Mesiano, Inc., on behalf of
Robert Seeley requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 16x32 foot
inground swimming pool, patio and fence. Construct a one-foot high berm
with 3: 1 side slopes at the base of the lawn where presently mulch area
exists between the natural buffer and the sod and restore three gullies on
the face of the bluff, fill seed and plant with three plantlets every 12 to 18
inches apart in a grid pattern. Located: 1250 Sound Drive, Greenport. Is
there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MS. MESIANO: At the last hearing we discussed the fact that the Soil and
Water Conservation Board had issued a report pursuant to my application
to the Zoning Board. There were some issues that the Board was not
clear on, nor was I. The Seeley's engaged the services of Young
Engineering and Doug Adams, an engineer with that firm has inspected
the sight and revised our plan for the proposed pool. I realize that you are
getting it at this late hour. I only picked it up at five o'clock tonight when it
was ready. Basically he has refuted on a number of issues in the soil and
water in court with respect to the erosion on the base of the bluff. There
are some older historic photographs that show that the erosion that was
the subject of the soil and water Board's comments were there prior to the
construction of this house. Topographic survey was done. The water, the
69
Board ofTruskes
January 24, 2007
rain water that would fall on this site does not float over the lip of that bluff.
The topography is such that the ground slopes downward and away from
the bluff. The erosion that you see, the gullies that are created, appear to
be from the deer that are using the non-disturbance area as a bedding
site. That has been witnessed a number of times. So as far as the
restoration of the bluff planting, et cetera, the engineer's looked at it
carefully and believes that we should do nothing. We should leave it
alone because I don't know how to deter the deer. If I did, I would be very
rich and I wouldn't be here right now. The run off over the bluff is not an
issue because the topographic survey shows that it would flow in the other
direction. The non-disturbance area is just that. It was not disturbed. It
was topped but the ground vegetation root system has not been disturbed.
So to make a long story short we are asking for an approval for a modified
plan for a swimming pool, inground swimming pool to be setback 77 feet
from the edge of the bluff with the appropriate drywells, et cetera; brick
patio at grade would be necessary; fencing under code.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Is there anybody else here to speak on
behalf of the applicant? (No response.) CAC supports the application
with the condition that drywell is installed to contain the pool backwash.
And I'm looking for here on the new diagram and I do not see one unless
I'm missing one. Are we missing it?
MS. MESIANO: As long as you make it part of your resolution, I'll provide
you with a survey with the drywell clearly shown.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That would be great. LWRP found it inconsistent
because the pool was only 79.48 feet from the bluff. And as I recall that is
when we went out in December and since then with these revised plans
you have moved the pool back closer to the house. So in doing so this
would mitigate the LWRP inconsistency. As far as, I'm looking at our
notes from back in December, it says the buffer here is great. And just
question the drainage for the pool. So if we take care of that, again, if we
take care of that drywell and you come back in with plans that would
provide for that. As far as the issue with the deer on the bluff, I join you, I
don't know what you can do with that. So I wish you the best of luck with
the deer because they are destroying my bluff also. If there are no
comments from the Board, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Make a motion to approve the permit application of
Catherine Mesiano on behalf of Robert Seeley as proposed at 1250
Sound Drive, with the addition of a drywell for the pool drainage, and you
will submit plans that will depict that. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, very much.
70
Board 0 f Trustees
January 24, 2007
TRUSTEE KING: Before we close the meetings, I have something I would
like to say. Lori, I'm glad you were with us for these meetings. And I
would also really like to express my extreme disappointment that Brownell
Johnston was not reappointed as our legal advisor. He spent a lot of time
with us and we'll miss him an awful lot. I'll miss him. He gave us a lot of
support. And I know you'll give us the same kind of support. I appreciate
it.
MS. HULSE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: That's alii have to say. Make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
RECEIVED
3 :.30prl')
APR - 5 2007
~'~n~
T c..(. -'1/".
Southold Town Clerk
71