HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-03/21/2007
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
RECEIVi.:D rrl'
3: 30 hf}
Minutes
elf! . 1. /1 ~.
~ l.:t! u. J._ .
Onr.f"J~ T:. .. rt,,,!;'.
~r~.......,w \... '.. ...j~,iI\
-!J
Wednesday, March 21,2007
6:30 PM
Present were: James King, President
Jill Doherty, Vice President
Peggy Dickerson, Trustee
Dave Bergen, Trustee
Bob Ghosio, Trustee
Pat Finnegan, Town Attorney
Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, April 11, 2007, at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING Wednesday, April 18, 2007 at 6:00 PM
WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM .
TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone, welcome to our March
meeting. I'm Jim King, I have the pleasure of being the chairman
of this board. I would like to introduce the rest of the members.
To my far left is Dave Bergen; next to him is Peggy Dickerson; Jill
Doherty is the vice-chair; myself; Lauren Standish is our office
manager; next to her is Bob Ghosio and our Town Attorney Pat
Finnegan. We have a member of the CAC, Joyce Pagonis. Welcome.
And Wayne Galante is our reporter. He keeps track of what
everybody says. So when you do, please come up to the microphone
and identify yourself for the record.
We usually go over some of the things we have been working
on. As we go into this year, we have been working on a mooring
code and that's close to going, I guess we'll take that back to the
Town Board very shortly.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This Tuesday.
TRUSTEE KING: A revised revision of it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yup.
TRUSTEE KING: We have the shellfish code we have been updating and
changing. We had a public information meeting, I think a week ago
and all two people showed up for it. But that's pretty well
complete, so that will be going to the Town Board.
Chapter 275, Peggy has been working on, we are working on
upgrading that, some modifications. I think we'll have a public
information in the near future. Probably within two or three weeks
on that.
Storm water runoff has been a serious problem for us. It's
one of the focuses since I have been a trustee is trying to get the
water quality improved. I think the recent rainfalls we had, with
frost on the ground, showed everybody what a serious problem it
is. There has been a lot of flooding conditions. It's something
we are trying to address. It's just 50 years, 75 years of building
roads and draining all into the creeks, it's taken its toll and
caught up with us. It will be a serious issue for the next few
years. It's a very difficult thing.
Is there anything else you want talk about?
(No response.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are getting some of the major projects done
this year with the storm water runoff and we have the funds set.
That's another thing that has held us up. This year we have the
funds and are getting projects done so, little by little.
TRUSTEE KING: With that, we'll get going here. I'll set the date
for the next field inspection. Wednesday, April 11 , eight o'clock
in the morning. Is everyone all right with that?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Our next regular meeting is Wednesday, April 18, at
6:30 PM with a work session at 5:30.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion that we set it for April 25. Is
that the one you wanted or is that July 25? Sorry, I remembered
the 18th and the 25th.
TRUSTEE KING: Is everybody okay for the 18th?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that.
'.
,,)1'
\;1
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Approve the minutes of January 24. I have not read
them yet. I'm behind on my reading. Did anybody review them?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's the last ones we just got. Yes, I read
them. I have two minors corrections I could give to Lauren. The
only thing that I did notice that had been done in our past minutes
was the space between the applications it makes it easier to sort
of locate them, that's just a very technical correction but it was
done in the past and I found it harder to go from one permit to the
next. There was no spaces between it. Other than that, I have no
problem.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I read them and I had no problems
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I had no problems.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody want to make a motion?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the January 24
minutes with the inclusion of the minor changes that Peggy says she
has for Wayne.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE KING: Moving on to the monthly report, The Trustees monthly
report for February, 2007. A check for $3,733.36 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: We have a number of 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 Trustees
agenda dated Wednesday, March 21,2007, are classified as Type II
Actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations and are not subject
to further review under SEQRA.
Mark Gross - SCTM#121-4-12.2
George Koch - SCTM#31-18-6
Eric Schlaefer - SCTM#37 -5-18
:1.
:-.:1\ :;?007
Spyro Avdoulos - SCTM#44-1-5
Giacomo Chicco - SCTM#22-3-18.20
Vincent P. Basilice - SCTM#53-6-8
Edna McNulty c/o John McNulty, POA - SCTM#139-1-18
Christopher Pia - SCTM#118-1-2
Eve MacSweeney - SCTM#50-2-13
Ned Harroun - SCTM#56-4-17.1
Jonathan & Andrea Parks - SCTM#111-9-5.1 &5.2
Inger Boyajian - SCTM#35-4-28.12
Arthur Burns - SCTM#105-1-4
Allison Byers - SCTM#119-1-14.1&14.2
TRUSTEE KING: Motion to approve?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: We have a few cancellations tonight. I don't want
anybody sitting here expecting something to come up and it's not
going to be reviewed.
In the public hearings, under Applications for Amendments,
Extensions and Transfers:
Number eight the application of BRUNO FRANKOLA has been
postponed.
Under the public hearings number eight, the application of
FITF, LLC, has been postponed.
Number 12, the application of RONALD AND MARIA SMITH has been
postponed.
Number 19, the application of PAOLO AND JEAN BLOWER has been
postponed.
Number 24, the application of JAMES BAKER has been postponed.
And number 25, the application of ARTHUR R. TORELL is
postponed.
IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: The next section, resolutions and administrative
permits. These are not public hearings, if anybody has concerns
about any of these, you are more than welcome to state an opinion.
Do you want to try and lump these together?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have the first one in front of me because, if you
want me to, I'll go with number one here.
TRUSTEE KING: All right.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number one, LAWRENCE AND JEANNE HALL request an
Administrative Permit to convert the downstairs bedroom to into new
of'
entry; construct two dormers on the second-floor with no change in
the footprint or ridge height. Located: 575 Mill Creek Drive,
Southold.
I went out and looked at this. I don't know if there is
anybody here for Lawrence and Jeanne Hall. I had no problem with
this. The only issue that I see is there was a dock that is pulled
out of the water completely and lying on its side in the front of
the property and I just think we need to ask the applicants what
they are planning on doing about that.
But as far as the application itself for this Administrative
Permit I saw nothing wrong with it, with the inclusion of hay bales
and silt fence and a buffer, ten-foot, non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE KING: Motion?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I make a motion to approve this amendment.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to go through these one at a time?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think we have a problem with the rest of
them.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The only one is number six, there will be a
stipulation of a drywell.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have a problem with these. Let's just move
on. We can do the two Principi's together.
TRUSTEE KING: On the Principi, the first one, on the 10th, I think
we discussed. We had a discussion, we don't have a problem with
putting a tent up out there for weddings or whatever occasions he
wants to have, but we would like to see, I would say at least a
25-foot buffer around the tent, toward the wetlands on both the bay
side and the basin side. Other than that, I don't think any of us
had a problem with it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: To clarify for the record, we are talking about the
PRINCIPI application requesting an Administrative Permit to use the
southern portion of the property along the bay for catered
events/parties. Located: 64300 Main Road, Southold.
TRUSTEE KING: It's the location of the Old Mill Creek Inn and he
wants to use the outer portion of the property for events under a
tent. As far as the portable toilets, I imagine, at the site.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what he said. Draw it in there on the
plan.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is that the stakes of the tent, as per the
stakes of the tent?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, I think so.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I just want to make it clear it's the stakes,
not the tent itself.
21,20U7
5
i'
TRUSTEE KING: So that would just, I think that would be the
condition we put on it. The 25-foot buffer between all the way
around the stake line to support the tent.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's a good idea, around the stake line.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we do all four sides. Because there is
wetlands all up in here, too.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's true, you have the boat basin here.
TRUSTEE KING: Most of my concern is here, these three sides. This
side wasn't too much of a problem.
MS. STANDISH: That's so no cars park there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is no parking in that area.
TRUSTEE KING: So with that stipulation I would make a motion to
approve.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: RICHARD AND VIRGINIA PRINCIPI, JR., requests an
Administrative Permit to install deer exclusion fencing and
deer/cattle grates in natural stone driveway entrance. Located: 4
Shellfisher Road, Southold.
We all looked at this. It's a major fencing in to keep the
deer out and I don't think any of us had a problem with it. If
there is no one here to comment, I'll make a motion to approve the
Administrative Permit for the deer enclosure for Principi, 4
Shellfisher Road, Southold.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: SCOTT EDGETT requests an Administrative Permit to
restore buffer within 100 feet of the wetlands. Located: 570 Maple
Lane, Mattituck.
This was where he cleared and got a violation, and that has
been settled in court and now he's coming in with a replanting
plan. Natural Images Landscaping has given a list of plants; area
replanted at 50-foot non-disturbance line with (5) seven to
eight-foot eastern red cedar, (5) six to seven-foot eastern red
cedar, (9) 18-inch to 24-inch Bayberry, (26) one-gallon high bush
blueberry, (3) four to five foot sagro hickory, understory seeded
with native grass seed. So that's what they propose. They do have
a drawing.
TRUSTEE KING: It's basically what we asked for, no? Doesn't he
have cedar trees in there?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: He has cedar trees. We wanted the cedar trees to
continue along the line and we wanted everything else to be planted
interspersed. In other words, not one specific place. What he's
saying is, all this stuff is at the 50-foot line they were going to
plant everything.
TRUSTEE KING: No, we wanted the existing cedar trees, I remember
that, we wanted to extend that line.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We want to continue the line with the cedar trees
but then other things we wanted all through out.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And we wanted to stipulate before the closing --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, we had also talked about them being able to
remove the dead limbs but to leave the large trunk of that large
tree that was there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And do it by hand.
TRUSTEE KING: I want to move on this.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion that we, subject to receiving a
new drawing, approve a planting plan that shows cedar trees in line
on the 50-foot non-disturbance -- right? If cedars are along --
how did you say that, Dave?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The cedars are lined in with the cedars that are
there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Which I thought was at the 50 foot.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I can't make it out from these notes.
TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we approve this and I'll meet him in the
field and revise that drawing so it reflects what we want.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Fine with me.
TRUSTEE KING: Because I want to move forward with this.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Because we want it planted before.
TRUSTEE KING: Right.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, so I'll make a motion that we approve
restoration of this property as per Jim King meeting with the
applicant or the landscaper to explain how we want it planted and
what trees are to be removed and which ones to stay. And then
inspections are required after planting. What do we want, three
inspections; one after the planting and one a year later.
TRUSTEE KING: We should write some kind of survivability clause in
there on those plantings. We have to move forward with this,
because they are selling the house.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Before I make that motion, yes, they can figure
out what they want in the closing. If they are going to close
before they do the planting, then the new people are responsible
for the replanting.
TRUSTEE KING: Hopefully it's all going to get done before that.
He's got at least three weeks to get the job done. No reason why
they can't, in my estimation. I'll second that. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Number five, Abigail Wickham, Esq., on behalf of
21. .:()Wr
'frust(;';;'s
MATTITUCK PARK DISTRICT requests an Administrative Permit for
periodic beach maintenance; removal of debris from park beaches
from ten feet above MHW to bluff toe/bulkhead, for width of beach.
Manual or rubber-tired tractor only -- no treads, as needed.
Maintenance to be conducted four times a year - spring, mid-summer,
fall and one additional, as needed. Located: Bailie's Beach,
Breakwater Beach, Veteran's Memorial Park and Boulevard Ballfield,
Mattituck.
This is strictly beach maintenance, to be no regrading or
change of grade for the beach at all. Strictly a clean up and take
care of the beaches.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we are waiving the fees for this permit.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, there will be no fee because the Park District
is part of the town. I make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: McCarthy Management, Inc., on behalf of BERNARD &
CAROL KIERNAN requests an Administrative Permit to construct two
exterior entrances to cellar. Located: 1605 North Parish Drive,
Southold.
I saw this. No problem. Very simple project putting in a
couple of cellar entrances. It's all landward of anything that is
even close to the water. The only stipulation I would make is we
have them put in some drywells from the gutters. Everything else
is fine.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that a motion?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I make a motion we approve the amendment.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
V. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS:
TRUSTEE KING: The following are applications for amendments
extensions and transfers.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number one, HAROLD SCHWERDT requests an amendment
to permit #4664 to replace 14 pilings with larger pilings, 6 inches
or eight inches, in order to adequately support the dock. Located:
2720 Cedar Avenue, Southold.
We all went out and looked at this and our concern, I guess,
was that we didn't think that eight inch piles were needed for
this. What the applicant did have, there were 4x4s that had worked
,~, 1 2007
for years, so we are willing to go with six inch.
Is the applicant here tonight?
(No response.)
The applicant is not here tonight. Because we had talked
about whether he wanted to just go for a whole dock.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm comfortable with the six inch.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm comfortable with the six inch also, so I would
make a motion to approve number one limiting it to six rather than
saying six or eight; limiting it to six-inch piles to support the
dock.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did we get to the property on that?
TRUSTEE KING: I didn't go see it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I looked at it. Do you want me to do it?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No, I just had a note down here to check the
property line.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, it was done.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it was where we thought it was.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: GEOFFROY L. PENNY requests an Amendment to
Permit #6069 to construct a 3.5x45 foot timber access walk a
minimum of three feet above grade and install a 20-25 foot flagpole
adjacent to the existing deck. Located: 570 Mason Drive, Cutchogue.
We all looked at this. I think Geoff is here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, Mr. Penny is here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. There was a question when we went out the
first time with the property line, was there sufficient room
between the property line and the bank to walk through so that
there would not be a need for this walkway. And, no, there isn't.
The property line runs right to the bank, so without this walkway,
people would have to walk on the adjacent property in order to gain
access to this area.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I know one of the concerns of some of the Board
members when we were out there was the amount of structure that is
already there. We have an LWRP that has evaluated it as
inconsistent in our code; that we have only one dock or mooring is
permitted per residential lot. And a definition of a dock includes
a catwalk.
CAC supports the application with the condition open grading
is used on the walkway, and that actually was something that the
Board discussed.
Any comments, other comments from the Board members?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Since our last meeting, Mr. Penny did indicate he
would use the open grading and I believe you said you were going to
reduce the width -- if you want to come up.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Introduce yourself for the record.
MR. PENNY: My name is Geoff Penny. My initial application was for a
width of 42 inches. We would be willing to reduce that down to 36
inches. The grading, decking that I looked at comes in one-foot
increments so it would be 36 instead of 42 inches.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Instead of 45?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No instead of 45, it would be 42. And how was this
being --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It goes from 42 to 36.
MR. PENNY: It would go from 42 inches to 36 inches in width. It
would still be 45 feet long.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I misunderstood. The complete length is 45, but
it's 36 inches.
MR. PENNY: Yes, it would reduce the square footage by almost 20%.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm sorry, what was that again?
MR. PENNY: The square footage would be reduced by close to 20%.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. In the plans what were being used to
put this in, in other words was it six inch, eight inch piles, four
inch, six inch?
MR. PENNY: The plans had 4x4s and I believe it was four of them and
possibly six that were in the wetlands. Then there was two above
the wetlands. I think there was a total of eight 4x4s to be
placed. And if necessary we could put them in by hand so we would
not disturb any excess wetlands.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You would be willing to install them by hand in
order to help mitigate also the environmental impact?
MR. PENNY: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a problem with the flagpole but I have a
problem with excessive bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll repeat what Jim King just said. I don't
have a problem with the flagpole but, again, I do have a problem,
just because of the excessive structure, hardened structure that is
already there. Bob? Any comments?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I feel a little better if he had some, if he had
permission to access it by going across the property line, but I
don't think that's happened.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll read some of the LWRP. It does say the
proposed action involves the location of a second dock structure --
since a catwalk is considered under our code's definition for a
dock on a parcel -- where only one dock is permitted. That's
basically the LWRP inconsistency review. So.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: My feeling is that this is, I know, Jim, you had
said it's a dock. It's a bulkhead, I thought, what we are gaining
access to.
TRUSTEE KING: It's a bulkhead.
.'1 20f(;
~o
of' 'T'ruSf('CS
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, I just wanted to make sure it's a bulkhead we
are gaining access to.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But the structure itself is a catwalk.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The proposed structure is a catwalk, yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I know he has a lot there but at the same time he
can't utilize this piece of property without walking through the
wetlands and I feel if we could do a minimum, he's reduced it, he's
using timber decking, that way we with we can control they are
walking in the one location and not going through all parts of the
wetlands. Because he's going to utilize that piece of property, no
matter what, whether we approve this or not. So I feel we could
control how the wetlands are traversed by giving him the minimum
access to cross over to get to it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But he has right now a tremendous amount of
access to his waterfront already.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But not to this piece. And I agree, I think it's
important here to note that the CAC has voted to support this and
that also I think the applicant has done a good job of trying to
reduce the size of the structure, as he says, by 20%.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: How do you address our own code?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't know that I agreed with the fact that only
one catwalk should be allowed on a piece of property. That's an
interpretation of Mark's, correct?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Well --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Having the catwalk?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jim?
TRUSTEE KING: I questioned -- personally I questioned the need for
it. Does somebody want to make a motion?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Well, I opened it.
TRUSTEE KING: Make a motion.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to deny this application due
to the fact that our code requires that there be one dock only and
the catwalk falls under a dock and the LWRP is reviewing it as
inconsistent. I think some of the members of the Board have agreed
with me that there is a tremendous amount of structure already at
this property site and I'll ask for a second.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll second. All in favor?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on. I would ask for a moment, please.
TRUSTEE KING: This denial does not include the flagpole. He can
have the flag pole. That's no problem.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll allow the flagpole.
TRUSTEE KING: Any discussion on this from the board?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you want the page numbers?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have a copy here if you want it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Page 29 is the dock and the definition is on
page four.
21.
II
()
\hlccl1 I
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Only one dock or mooring is permitted per
residential lot.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: On page four, definition of dock.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The definition specifically says for purposes of
this chapter, this term, that being "dock," shall also include the
associated structures necessary to cross wetlands and adjacent
natural areas. The term "dock" includes the terms "wharfs,"
"piers," "fixed docks," "floating docks," "floats" or "catwalks."
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So then this Board or the previous Board have they
-- did they then approve two docks for this property?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't follow you, Dave.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This structure is completely separate from the
other structure. In other words, one catwalk to one dock would
make sense. This is a whole separate structure. It's a bulkheaded
area, okay. So there is no access to this bulkhead area for the
property
TRUSTEE KING: That's one of my questions. What's the need to
access a bulkhead? I'm looking at the entrance here. The entrance
is 25 feet wide. If you tie a boat to the bulkhead, you are really
restricting his own access.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What my problem is, if this was one continuous
dock, all the way around the basin, so to speak, then all you need
is one catwalk to get to it. What we have though, are two specific
structures. You have a dock and bulkhead in the majority of the
basin then you have a bulkhead on the other side that he's asking
access to. It's not connected to the first structure. So there is
no way to access this without a catwalk or in walking through the
wetlands. Or walking on somebody else's property.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: May I ask Pat a question? Pat, can I make a
motion to approve the flagpole separately?
MS. FINNEGAN: Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the request for an
amendment to permit 6069 to approve --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think we already have a motion on the table.
We have a motion on the table
TRUSTEE KING: We have a motion that has been seconded.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But in that motion I was going to deny this
permit. So I want to make a consideration that the flagpole --
MS. FINNEGAN: Why don't you withdraw the motion.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll withdraw the motion and restate my motion
to approve the amendment to permit 6069 to install a 20 to 25 foot
flagpole adjacent to the existing deck at 570 Mason Drive,
Cutchogue. For the flagpole. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: You are approving the flagpole.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm approving the flagpole only.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Then the legal question is if that's approved are
J2
_~L
we inherently denying the second part of the application without a
vote?
TRUSTEE KING: Can we approve the flagpole but deny the catwalk?
MS. FINNEGAN: You can approve the permit in part. You can approve
part of the application, which would be the flagpole, but deny the
other part of the application. All in one motion.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay. I withdraw my last motion and I will make
a motion to -- let me think.
MS. FINNEGAN: To approve the application in part.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: To approve the application in part, to amend the
permit to permit 6069 to approve an installation of the 20 to 25
foot flagpole adjacent to the existing deck and deny without
prejudice the access walk at 570 Mason Drive, Cutchogue.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(TRUSTEE DICKERSON, TRUSTEE KING, TRUSTEE GHOSIO, AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All opposed?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye. For the record, why don't we go down the panel
here.
TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Bergen?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No.
TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Dickerson?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Doherty?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No.
TRUSTEE KING: Trustee King. Yes. Trustee Ghosio?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Three affirmative, two nays. Motion carries to deny
the catwalk portion of it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: ROBERT SPITZENBERG requests an amendment to
permit #6292, to include the existing 32"x20-foot dock and to rescind the
resolution dated July 19, 2006. Located: 375 Elizabeth Lane, Southold.
We went out, all of us met out in the field this month and we
measured with the 32-inch by 20-foot dock on that bulkhead and with
the maximum of a nine foot beam, that measured a third across.
So I would be willing to approve the 32-inch by 20-foot dock
with the condition that if a boat larger than a nine foot beam is
utilized, it cannot be docked at this dock. It would have to be
docked on the bulkhead, so it does not exceed the one-third width
across the canal.
MS. FINNEGAN: That the boat and dock together don't exceed
one-third?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: We talked to the owner. He agreed the primary
purpose of that secondary dock is for loading and off-loading a
boat and if he gets a larger boat he would tie the boat to the
.'
I
bulkhead, which moves it in.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So he could dock the boat while he's loading and
off-loading and then when he's done, he has to move it forward or
backward on, so it does not exceed the one-third across.
MS. FINNEGAN: So the precondition is it does not exceed one-third
across.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Correct.
MS. FINNEGAN: It would not have to reference the size.
MR. JUST: It would not have to reference just the beam of the boat,
just the fact of the one-third.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, it does not exceed the one-third.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Excuse me, if you could introduce yourself for the
record.
TRUSTEE KING: I beg your pardon, what did we measure the width as;
was it 39 feet?
MR. JUST: Glenn Just, JMO Environmental Consulting.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 37 feet.
TRUSTEE KING: The width of the canal we measured -- I know we
measured it. Do you remember what the width was, Glenn? I think
it's 37 feet. Something like that.
MR. JUST: 37.8, something like that, 37-and-change.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I remember 37 feet. Because Don Pesinkowski
measured it on Google to be 36 feet.
MR. JUST: Right, and when we pulled the tape I think it was a foot wider.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it was mentioned in the field that the
bulkhead across the creek was leaning into the creek and the
applicant thought that made the width shorter. So, you know, we
said that we just had to go with what there is now, what there is
that day.
So I make that motion.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: I'll do the next two together.
Number four, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of JAMES
ECKERT requests an Amendment to Permit #6172 to reduce the height
of the walkway to 18 inches above grade and use grating material
for the decking. Located: 1635 Meadow Beach Lane, Mattituck.
And number five, Proper- T Permit Services on behalf of HAROLD
BAER requests an Amendment to Permit #6170 to reduce the height of
the walkway to 18 inches above grade and use grating material for
the decking. Located: 1425 Meadow Beach Lane, Mattituck.
I believe these were two requests made by the DEC to lower
,'I,
14
'rrU~;lCCS
these down and use the open grate. So I'll make a motion to approve
these two amendments.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number six, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on
behalf of FRED POllERT requests an Amendment to Permit #6503 to
install (4) two-pile mooring dolphins. located: 375 Lighthouse
lane, Southold.
I think on this one he wanted to have consideration to maybe
put two single-piles instead of four two-pile mooring dolphins,
right?
TRUSTEE KING: John, what's the purpose of the four dolphins?
MR. COSTEllO: The four dolphins were because of ice conditions in
the creek, as you are all aware of, and you must be aware of the
pilings that were pulled by the ice already this year and let me,
for the record, my name is John Costello with Costello Marine
Contracting. That is the only reason for doubling them up. But if
you put the pilings butt end down and put them in long enough and
drive them it's a possibility that you could do the same thing with
four. You could do it with four single pilings instead of four
double pilings. The only problem is Mr. Pollert does not live on
this site seven days a week, he's in the New York area all week and
the reasoning to put the four piling in is so he could safely tie
off the boats, him and his children, and know that they are
secure. Because he's had damage before and they would like to try
to minimize that. It could be done with four single pilings
instead of the double except -- I could put them in but many other
contractors couldn't, unless they double them up.
TRUSTEE KING: Could it be done with two, John?
MR. COSTEllO: Not adequately, no.
TRUSTEE KING: Midway, tie balance to the one pole?
MR. COSTEllO: No, not properly. I mean, you could do anything but
if you are going to design it to hold the boat off properly, you
need the spring line, you need the bow line and you need a stern
line. As you well know. I certainly don't have to tell anybody how
to boat. But we could minimize it by using four. We could use them
smaller but they would have to be long and they have to be driven
in order to sustain the ice damage or you'll be going there and
resetting them each year.
TRUSTEE KING: That's good for you.
MR. COSTEllO: No, it's not. I don't need that work. I got more of
those calls lately than I -- can't do them.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments?
TRUSTEE KING: Comments from the board?
"' I
15
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As a compromise to go down to the single piles.
TRUSTEE KING: I think the docks on either side have dolphins,
right?
MR. COSTEllO: Yes, they do.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Singles, doubles, does it really matter if we are
putting four in?
TRUSTEE KING: Single is less structure.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, single is less structure so I think that's a
compromise to go single.
MR. COSTEllO: We could try to reduce the size. But the length is
one thing we can't reduce.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What's the size on the description there? I missed
it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is no size on the description.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What size is the applicant--
MR. COSTEllO: I would say eight inch, but I have to have the
length. Minimum size is eight.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: In other words, if there are four single piles, it
would be eight-inch piles. I just want to make sure it's clear to
what we are approving here. If that's what we approve.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, I'll make the motion to approve this
amendment with the stipulation it be changed to add four single,
eight-inch piles for the mooring dolphins.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: Four single, eight-inch piles.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
MR. COSTELLO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of
ALLISON BYERS requests an Amendment to Permit #6383 to install
steel sheet piling in front (seaward) of the existing timber
bulkhead along the eastern shoreline of subject property, extend
the southernmost return with steel sheet piling and a rock
revetment. located: 10355 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
We've seen this before. I think it looks worse now.
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for
the applicant. I want to just hand up three sets of photos. The
bulkhead now has failed. And we need to move quickly and the last
alternative left to us is the alternative that we made in this
application. I'm hoping it is acceptable to you. We look forward
to closing this matter.
The contract is also here if you have and questions regarding
the installation.
J (\
21 2007
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is consistent with lWRP. CAC has also seen
it and supported it. Any Board members' comments?
TRUSTEE KING: I was out there with the contractor. I realize what
is going on here. I have no problem with it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the amendment to
permit #6383 to install the steel sheet piling of the existing
timber bulkhead as per the description, at 10355 Nassau Point Road,
Cutchogue.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: I just have a question for John. What's the
thickness of that sheathing, John? And what's the life
expectancy?
MR. COSTEllO: The life expectancy is over. It collapsed.
TRUSTEE KING: I mean the steel sheathing.
MR. COSTEllO: 3/8th's of an inch thick. And the life expectancy,
we are going to purchase the mariner grade, which will probably
give you 40 years or slightly more than 40 years; if it's properly
backfilled. If it has water on two sides, you cut it in half.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. I know there is a couple in Mattituck up there.
They have been there many years.
MR. COSTEllO: If they used mariner grade steel, what they do is
they rust, then they stop rusting, so they don't keep on
deteriorating. But regular steel, rusts, flakes off and continues
to ru st.
TRUSTEE KING: Mariner steel, is that similar to core-ten steel?
MR. COSTEllO: Core-ten is a mariner steel.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm familiar with that. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number nine, RICHARD E. BONATI requests a Transfer
of Permit #6164 from Biel Associates, llC, to Richard E. Bonati, as
issued on July 20, 2005, and amended on August 23, 2006, and to
amend Permit #6164 to place approximately 150 cubic yards of sand
from foundation behind bulkhead. located: 1315 Watersedge Way,
Southold.
We all went out and looked at this and we had first off no
problem with the transfer. We looked at it as far as the area
behind the bulkhead to see if there was any problem with that and
we didn't see any issue with regard to putting the fill in behind
where the bulkhead where the fill has disappeared due to storm wave
action there.
So I would make, first ask if there are any comments from the
Board on this.
(No response.)
If not, I'll make a motion to approve.
J7
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number ten, Suffolk Environmental Consulting Inc.,
on behalf of ENZO MORABITO requests a one-year extension to Permit
#6114, as issued on April 20, 2005, Located: 895 Glen Court,
Mattituck.
Nothing has changed in the plan so he's just asking for an
extension. Unless there are any comments from the Board, I make a
motion to approve this extension.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Costello Marine Contracting, Inc., on behalf of
RENE PONCET FITZPATRICK requests the last one-year extension to
Permit #5919 as issued on May 26,2004. Located: 360 Wiggins Lane,
Greenport.
I didn't see any problems, just an extension. Nothing has
changed. No reason not to allow it, so I make the motion to allow
the one-year extension as stated on number 11.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Number 12, John Bertani Builder, Inc., on behalf of
W. BRUCE BOLLMAN requests the last one-year extension to Permit
#5901, as issued on April 21, 2004, and amended on December 21,
2005. Located: 1755 Truman's Path, East Marion.
This was a rather controversial one at the time, if I remember
right. It's simply an extension of the permit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Part of this, there is a new wooden walkway proposed
and there is an existing partial wooden walkway. We were out there
and noticed there is awful lot of erosion under the walkway there
now and I think the best thing, the walkway, make a wood chip
walkway, bluestone, something pervious like that, and do away with
even what is existing as far as the wooden walkway. Do away with
that. And I think it's going to be beneficial to that property to
stop the erosion. With that change, I would recommend approval of
this extension.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
~I
18
\1 L
TRUSTEE KING: We'll go off our regular meeting to public hearings.
Does anyone want to take a break or anything? It's warm in here.
I'll make a motion to go off our regular hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
(After a recess, these proceedings continue as follows.)
TRUSTEE KING: We'll go into our public hearings now. We have quite
a few. But I don't think there is anything outstanding here. If
you have any concerns or comments about these public hearings as
they come up, please come up to the microphone and identify
yourself. Please try and keep it brief. We would like to keep
these meetings moving along so we don't drag things out. I
appreciate it. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We try to limit the comments to five minutes or
less. So we are ready to go.
COASTAL EROSION & WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll start with number one under Coastal Erosion
and Wetland Permits, Patricia Moore on behalf of SPYRO AVDOULOS
requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to
remove/demolish portion of house located within CEHA and retain the
existing foundation within CEHA and converting it to a patio. Back
of house (new walls) constructed outside CEHA with
alterations/repairs/modifications to existing basement and first
floor of house landward of CEHA and landward of proposed patio.
Demolish existing second floor and construct new second floor.
Construct new two-story addition landward of existing residence.
Construct new garage and renovate existing garage. Install hay
bales along top of bluff during construction and drywells, gutters
and leaders added to dwelling. Install new sanitary system landward
of existing structures, if required. Install a new driveway,
walkways and landscaping landward of existing structures. Located:
54985 North Road, Greenport.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MS. MOORE: Good evening. Pat Moore on behalf of Mr. Avdoulos.
I think that pretty much covers it all. I'm really here to
explain any part of this application that is not clear. The house
is there. What we were trying to do is actually, the existing
foundation is being maintained. We want to create as little
interference with the foundation and its proximity to the coastal
erosion line, so all construction is occurring landward of that
line. We are keeping -- the survey shows it best. The house right
now is, where it goes across the coastal erosion line by that small
corner. What they are going to do, based on the roof line, they
are going to cut the house where the roof line actually ends and
keep the foundation and just, keep the foundation, make that
foundation just the decking so as to not disturb anything, and then
build the rest of the house behind the existing structure.
So it sounds very complicated but it's actually simplifying
everything.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. Is there anybody else here to
speak with regard to this application?
(No response.)
Okay, a couple of items before we get into some questions.
First off, it was found consistent under the LWRP, and CAC supports
the application with the condition of drywells and gutters
installed, which is already, I saw, on the description. We went
out and looked at this and walked around it for a while and we
couldn't find anywhere where the septic was staked on the plans.
Did we miss something, Pat? Because I don't see anything here
where --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The proposed building was not staked either.
MS. MOORE: The building itself we are cutting away, so the portion
is actually on the landward side, probably beyond the 100 foot
jurisdiction of the trustees. But we included everything so that
there is no argument later on.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The new building was not staked. We felt it was
100 feet but we could not measure it because it was not staked.
MS. MOORE: The existing building is 55.9 feet and the house itself
is 33. So that's how we came up with that hundred feet.
The sanitary, I don't know that we exactly know where the
sanitary is. I think when they start doing -- we know the flow
pipe goes out to the front. It's in the landward side of the
house. But the exact location of it we are not sure.
We don't think we actually need to replace the sanitary but in
the event that the Health Department says, you know, we recommend
that you replace it, we want to include it in this application.
Again, everything is landward of the existing house. The
sanitary is not on the waterfront side of the house.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, if there is the need for a new sanitary
system, would the applicant be willing to state that it will be
landward so it would be outside our jurisdiction? Because if it's
going to be inside our jurisdiction, we'll have to see that.
MS. MOORE: Yes, I think it actually will be. It's the corner is 63
plus 33.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But from coastal erosion.
MS. MOORE: No, coastal erosion, the line is where it is. That's on
21,
the survey. The wetland line is falling from the high tide, from
the tide line and that is presently at 63.9 to the corner of what
we are cutting off. Plus the 33 that is existing, plus another
ten, so I think clearly we can be outside of your 100 foot jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are measuring from the top of the bluff not the
high water mark.
MS. MOORE: Sorry, I'm still going with the previous code. No, I'm
sure it's going to be within a hundred feet. I have to believe
it's going to be landward of the new garage. Between the garage
and the existing house is most likely where it will be.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we could probably do is if we are going to
approve this pending the location --
MS. MOORE: That's fine. I'll get the surveyor to see if he could
make a better effort at identifying it. He may have already done it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If the septic is fairly close to wetlands, is it
possible that you could move it anyway and get it out of our
jurisdiction?
MS. MOORE: I think the Health Department may -- I think there is --
do we have public water on this? I have a piece of the survey cut
out so I don't have the full one. We have, may have to comply with
150 foot separation. Let me double check. If we have public
water, I don't think it's a problem. But if it's a private well, we
may have a problem.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking here for either a well or public water.
Water supply and septic system is unknown, it says here.
MS. MOORE: I have a survey here that shows the sanitary landward
between the house and new garage. There is public water in this
area.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have a well pit on the survey here.
MS. MOORE: That's why I'm confused. I'll get that answer to you.
I don't want to give you misinformation.
So what we can do is you can keep the sanitary out since it's
not really going to hold up -- our construction can proceed and I
can amend the permit for the sanitary if it's anywhere within the
house and the garage, if I have to. Right now it's proposed --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If we approve this with the stipulation that the
septic is 100 feet, beyond 100 feet and out of our jurisdiction,
would you have a problem with that?
MS. MOORE: The only problem is I think technically he is putting a
sanitary system, you can't put a sanitary under a driveway and you
have two garages with a driveway. So I don't think technically we
can put a sanitary anywhere other than between the garage and the
house.
TRUSTEE KING: Pat, about halfway between the garage and the house
is 100 feet.
MS. MOORE: That's within that general area, so it might be 98, you
2L
\)
know.
TRUSTEE KING: Just halfway between the two is right underneath that
proposed walk, halfway between the two garages and the house,
proposed house. That's a hundred feet there
MS. MOORE: So I don't think it's going to be possible without
keeping it to the 98 to 100 range.
TRUSTEE KING: I would say keep it at 100.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are saying you don't know where it is. I just
want to make sure it's not seaward.
MS. MOORE: No, no. It's definitely not seaward and it is going to
be on the landward side of the house.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think what Jim is saying here, he measured it.
Right now. You have the room between the house and the garage to
put the sanitary where it will be at least 100 feet away from the
bluff, so it will be outside our jurisdiction.
MS. MOORE: You see your survey where is shows the drywell, right?
The proposed drywell. I gave you a survey with a proposed drywell
there. Do you have that in front of you?
TRUSTEE KING: Not the one that shows the drywell, no.
MS. MOORE: Okay, I have one that does.
TRUSTEE KING: It shows the framed garage and proposed garage.
MS. MOORE: Let me bring it up so we make sure we have the same
one.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: February 1,2007 this is marked.
MS. MOORE: I had a newer one. This is the drywell. That's the
drywell. I guess we could relocate the drywell and put it on the
side.
TRUSTEE KING: There is your 100 feet here. So the septic here is
outside of our jurisdiction.
MS. MOORE: I might have to move the drywell to the side.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I know the garage is outside of our jurisdiction
but what's the purpose of the second garage?
MS. MOORE: As esthetic.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let's get back to the microphone before we get on
that one so it picks it up on the record.
Just to handle one issue at a time, the septic, there seems to
be enough room to put the septic there so it's outside our
jurisdiction between the house and what is listed as the current
located frame garage and that would require the movement of the
drywell to the western side of the property, right? Would that
work for the applicant?
MS. MOORE: Probably. Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, next question we had was the purpose for
another garage because this will now create three structures on one
piece of property.
MS. MOORE: The client wanted the symmetry. He designed it that
21
way. That's what he wanted. The existing garage you see is the
one that is to the right. So rather than enlarge that, he thought
it would look -- he preferred that. He just wanted to put, you
know, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's outside our jurisdiction, we just had the
question.
MS. MOORE: That was his choice, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, and the other question we had in looking at
the house, have you had an engineer look at this house to see if
the proposed second story, if the first story can hold a proposed
second story?
In other words we don't want to run into a situation where the
whole house, when you remove the second story, all of a sudden the
whole house to has to come down to the ground because the first
story couldn't hold the second story.
MS. MOORE: An architect has looked at it. An engineer has not. I
know it's been looked at several times for that issue because I'm
always emphasize that with everyone. And to our knowledge it can,
that it's structurally sufficient, the house is in good shape and
the foundation is a sturdy foundation so I don't believe it needs
to be demolished. If it does, we have to come back and amend the
permit first, before it's demolished.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think one of the reasons it came up is if it gets
to that point we would like to see you consider move the house
landward a little bit away from that bluff.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. The last issue that we had was we wanted
to have a non-turf buffer installed landward of the bluff. Right
now there is grass going right up to the bluff and we want to know,
we realize it's not a lot of room there so if a ten foot non-turf
buffer would be okay for the applicant. That's a pretty minimal
non-turf buffer we are asking for.
MS. MOORE: I think in the past on tight areas we may have done five
feet because I think it's a little easier, as you said, there
really is not a lot of room here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: How does the Board feel about that?
TRUSTEE KING: There is about 30 feet between the house and the top
of the bluff. It's more as you go to the west. This ranges between
30 and 40 feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would like to stick with the ten feet.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would, too.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
MS. MOORE: Fine.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We'll stick with the requirement of a ten-foot,
non-turf buffer. Were there any other comments from the Board?
(No response.)
Not hearing any, then I'll make a motion to close the public
2i.
fL
hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve number one, Pat Moore
on behalf of Spyro Avdoulos as described.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: With the inclusion of the non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the septic to be out of our jurisdiction.
just want to make that in the permit.
MS. MOORE: Are you going to want an updated, revised surveyor are
we going to just do it by way of written language in the permit?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we should have a survey showing the septic
on it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We'll need a revised survey to specifically show
the new septic and also show the movement of the dry well, the
subsequent movement of the drywell, just for clarity for everybody.
And the non-turf buffer in there also.
MS. MOORE: That's fine. If it was only for that issue I would have
said draw it in.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Okay, thank you.
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number one under wetland permits, DONALD J. PETRIE
requests a Wetland Permit to repair the existing stairs to the
beach. Located: 16215 Soundview Avenue, Southold.
Is there anybody here to comment on this application?
MR. PETRIE: If necessary. We would prefer not to have any other
people comment. But if necessary, sure. I suggest I start and see
where we go.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you would introduce yourself for the record.
MR. PETRIE: If the Board approves, I have a statement; short;
one-page.
TRUSTEE KING: We just need your name.
MR. PETRIE: That's part of my statement. I am Donald J. Petrie. I
live at 16215 Soundview Avenue, Southold, and I'm applying for a
permit to repair our existing stairs to the beach.
The stairs were built for our daughter's wedding, August 7,
1982. A while back. They were ruined by a week of virtually
steady rain in October, 2005. We built our house in 1973 and
worked hard and continuously to stabilize the face of the cliff and
to preserve and enhance the natural beauty of our property. We
arranged for underground electric service to preserve the beauty of
our property before the house was built. We have regularly planted
Rugosa Rose, autumn olive, flowering locust trees and a special
species of pine on our cliff. Saw one this evening. Still
existent. Particularly designed to halt erosion.
We consistently have driven in pilings at the base of our
cliff. The pilings have to be seen to be believed. We are in a
point of land where we get a lot of jetsam and flotsam. We have
taken what is appropriate and driven them into the base of the
cliff. Belief it or not, it works. We have developed greenery in
back of where we planted those pilings.
Our family are enthusiastic and active conservationists. We
have arranged for a local contractor to repair these stairs. MJ
Construction, Southold, Jerry, is the owner of our construction
company.
My wife Jane Petrie and I are here tonight and are pleased to
answer any questions the Board have on our request for a permit.
would emphasize that we think it's a good thing that the Southold
Board of Trustees guards the beauty of its natural resources with
such dedication. My wife and I are completely in sympathy with
your aims. We wish you well and hope that we can work together
tonight and in the future. We have completed all the necessary
paperwork to apply for a permit to repair the stairs. May we have
the permit?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, very much. Is there anybody else that is
here to speak to behalf of this application?
Yes, sir, if you would come up and introduce yourself.
MR. BOOTH: My name is Edward Booth, I'm a neighbor. And actually I
was invited to that wedding on the spur of the moment. It was a
great wedding. So I'm quite sympathetic with their desires. These
have been wonderful neighbors. They are folks who really like to
be on the beach. I have seen him on his own and with his children
and with his grandchildren puttering about, making heaps of stones
and bringing in driftwood and all that good stuff.
I have looked at the place today, actually, probably you have
too. And there is a erosion, let's face it, that's going on.
Those steps were put in there in 20 years, I doubt they'll sink,
but that's the same for my steps and the steps next door. That
whole area is eroding at about a one foot a year rate. I don't
know if you are aware of that. But I'm aware of it. I lived there
75 years and I can tell by stones that have come up to the beach,
where they are now, I have pictures of my parents and so on taken
from the beach which show a sort of a gradual, grassy slope going
on to the top of the bluff. Now it's a cliff. So something is
happening there.
But for these folks, I think it's very important that they be
.'1.
rustccs
21 200!
given a chance at this late date in their lives to be able to get
down to that beach and have a little more fun. And as far as the
damage that goes into that, you can't put a hole in the ground
without actually putting a hole in the ground. That's certainly
going to happen.
The statement you heard about his desire to keep up the nice
looking area is quite true. In fact a couple of years ago they
came over and said why don't we preserve this land the way you are
going to. And we did. My family put an easement on our property,
on the eleven acres next door.
So I think this is the right kind of guy and right kind of
family and I sure hope you can see your way clear to letting him
get his way to the beach. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else in the audience who would
like to speak pertaining to this application?
MR. PETRIE: My bride suggests our contractor add something here.
If that's pertinent, he would be delighted, otherwise time goes on.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Why don't we go through some questions and if we
need the contractor, maybe you can answer the questions or maybe
the contractor can.
First off, before we get to that, this was found exempt under
the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Committee tabled this
application because the applicant had already started the work and
recommended the applicant cease all work and submit a plan. When
we went out and looked at it we had the same concern last month and
subsequent to that I had some conversations with Mr. Petrie over
the phone and so we had the identical concerns and what we came up
with was to move the stairs over to a location to the west of where
it was originally proposed so that the stairs will connect with the
deck and that way will include in the permit the deck itself so the
deck becomes permitted as well as the stairs to the beach were
approved. So that's what we proposed and you said you agreed to
that. Correct, sir?
MR. PETRIE: I do agree to it. I'm not an engineer and to be
perfectly honest, I can't see how it makes an awful lot of
difference. It if it's going to get us the permit, you got a deal.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Again, just another example of a fine way to
approach the Board.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Connected with this was we had discussed something
to address the erosion problem were you had started to construct
the stairs and what we are asking for, and I notice you submitted
in a letter March 15, that you have on order 200 planting of Rosa
Rugosa and beach plumb to plant in that area to help stem the
erosion, correct?
MR. PETRIE: Exactly.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And you will then remove the beginnings of the
"lnrch I ~O(('
stairs that had been put down already in that other location, now
that we are abandoning that location.
MR. PETRIE: Why would it not be useful to leave them where they
are? It would seem to me from a neophyte's view, that that would
be a plus rather than a minus.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But there was no permission granted for those
stairs, the beginning of those stairs to be placed there and what
we would like is what was there, unless I hear other comments
otherwise, there is no purpose for them and we would just like to
see that, it's a very short, we are talking about a very short set
of steps that you had started to construct there and we would like
to see them removed because it was not permitted. There was not
permission granted for that.
TRUSTEE KING: I think by code you are only allowed one stairway per
property.
MR. PETRIE: Fine.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments from the Board?
(No response.)
If not, I'll make a motion.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there going to be any cutting of trees down
through there?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: A question for the builder, rather than remove
them, just cut them?
MR. MISIUKIEWICZ: My name is Jaroslaw Misiukiewicz.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If there are any trees to be cut down in order to
install, build these steps, we are asking that the trees, if there
is any vegetation or trees to be cut down, that the stumps would
all remain in the bluff to hold the bluff, to help retain the
bluff. We don't want to see them removed.
MR. MISUIKIEWICZ: They won't be removed.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So they'll just be cut to grade. Thank you.
If there are no other comments I make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve Donald Petrie's
request for a wetland permit to repair the existing stairs as per
the plan submitted on March 15 that depicts the stairs being moved
over to the platform, and in doing so will permit in that platform
also. And it will include the planting of 200 plants of a mixture
of Rosa Rugosa and beach plumb in the bluff area that started to
collapse and the removal of what was the beginnings of stairs that
were constructed to the beach in that same location, that would be
to the east of the platform and approved stairs.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
27
21 2007
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number two, NED HARROUN requests a Wetland
Permit for approximately 80 foot of existing bulkhead, fill low
spots with 45 cubic yards of fill, place dead men and tie-rods
landward of the existing bulkhead, replace 12-foot retaining wall
to be even with seaward face of house foundation, remove Maple tree
and roots landward of the bulkhead, replant area, install a 12x18
foot brick and sand patio in rear of dwelling and install a
three-foot wide walkway along landward side of bulkhead. Located:
63745 Rt. 25, Southold.
Is there anyone here who would like to speak for this
application?
MR. HARROUN: Yes, I would. My name is Ned Harroun.
MS. HARROUN: And good evening, Trustees, my name is Maryann
Harroun.
MR. HARROUN: First of all, you were out there the other day and Jim
asked me to draw some additional drawings, which I have done, and
my wife deserves a lot of credit. She's helped me a great deal on
this. She wanted to buy this house. So if you look at the
bulkhead, Maryann has taken some pictures of the bulkhead from
across the creek with a zoom-in lens. The bulkhead itself is in
relatively in good shape. Barring that it has about two oak spiles
holding it up. It retains a great deal of earth. The property is
on a slant, probably running a foot every 12, it drops. So there
is a great deal of pressure. The house in some points is seven feet
away from the bulkhead. So to try to build something at this time
inside that bulkhead, I think we would disrupt the house. I think
we would have it in the drink. Because I would have to do it
myself. I lived here all my life. I ran a business here for 35
years, a tree company, and I'm not a wealthy man. And I took that
place on thinking that I could use my hands and make it into
something. And I don't know much about what goes on in town and I
found out that I can't do just anything I want. So I want to do it
correctly. And at this juncture, what I had said is, I would like
to stiffen it.
I do do a lot of construction. I put up the Christmas tree in
Greenport for 20 years. That's a 40-foot tree. It has to be tied
and moved and erected in the park. And I do it each year.
I moved the garage out of Smith's corner down here, and your
father has pictures of it Peggy. He was there that morning when I
moved it. It was about six o'clock in the morning.
So I do some pretty wild things and I think I'm capable of
putting that bulkhead in acceptable condition. In acceptable
"rruskcs
"
~.. 1 ,
condition. And it preserves a thoroughfare for people that are
coming out of Mill Creek. That's the only channel that is in front
of me that brings them out under the mouth of the bridge. And I
just think it needs to be supported.
And when we get down the road, I either flip this house and
get out of there come find out that I can't afford to have it.
Right now I'm sanding it down. We are in the process of
re-shingling it. We are trying to paint it. We are carrying two
mortgages. We still have our other place in Greenport. I'm
standing here with angina. I got nitro in my pocket. That's a
fact. Nitro glycerin.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We just have a few questions. This is looking
good. We just have a few questions. Jill?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You show three dead men here. Is that, you just
plan on doing three here?
MR. HARROUN: No, I showed you that to show an idea of what it looks
like. I thought you had to get a idea of a cross-section.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We do. How many do you proposed to put in?
MR. HARROUN: At present it has locust deadmen behind it. That's
basically what's holding the bulkhead. And the slippage of the
bulkhead is the result of the small oak piles rotted away. So
where the piles sandwiched the front of the bulkhead, that allowed
seven inches of space where the tie rod used to go through that.
So it fell forward seven inches. And that's the only crime that
bulkhead has committed. If it has done something wrong.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are asking how many dead men do you plan on
putting across?
MR. HARROUN: Right now there is 11 so I think I would put one every
other pile. There is 14 piles. And I would also like, it's finger
jointed. I don't know, do you know who built that bulkhead, John?
MR. COSTEllO: I'm not even sure where you are talking about.
MR. HARROUN: On the main road, by the old antique shop.
MR. COSTEllO: Ralph Krupski, I believe. It's before me.
MR. HARROUN: It's creosote. I worked for him. It's not that long ago.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are saying eight deadmen. You are doing every
other?
MR. HARROUN: Yes, and there is an existing stone wall that I'm
starting to uncover as I rake in the area. I would like to extend
that a little bit to put that patio on that we spoke about so there
is not additional pressure on the bulkhead. The bulkhead has about
a foot of reveal and some settlement over the years. I'm not
asking to fill that reveal because I don't want to add extra
pressure to the bulkhead. So if that's a given, I would like to
give that back.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, well just to let you know, CAC has
reviewed it as consistent. No, wrong initials. CAC does support
29
the application with the condition appropriate materials are used
in the construction of the bulkhead. And LWRP reviewed it as
consistent with the request that CCA not be used in the
construction of the three-foot walkway. So let me just see if is
there anyone else here who would like to speak to this
application.
Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to speak
for or against this application?
(No response.)
Any other Board members with questions?
(No response.)
I think between what we saw as a full Board out there and Jim King
our president speaking with you, I think you answered all of our
questions.
MR. HARROUN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And we'll keep these copies in our file. If
there is no one else here tonight to speak to this application,
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve Ned Harroun's
request for a Wetland Permit for approximately 80 feet of existing
bulkhead, to fill the low spots with approximately 45 cubic yards
of fill, place deadmen and tie-rods, approximately eight of them
landward of existing bulkhead; replace 12-foot retaining wall to be
even with the seaward face of the house foundation; to remove Maple
tree and roots landward of the bulkhead; re-plant area, install
12x18 brick and sand patio in rear of the dwelling and install
three-foot wide walkway with no CCA landward side of the bulkhead
and replace an old existing stone wall that has been uncovered and
is to be replaced to go to the extent of -- as per the diagram.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It would sure help me if there was a measurement on
that diagram as to that. If the applicant could come up --
MR. HARROUN: Sorry, when I put in for the patio, I had put in 18x12
but actually it's 18x21. The courtyard in the house, if you look
at the house, it has a courtyard where these two branches come
out. And what I had planned on doing was eliminating the grass in
the backyard so there is like no mowing, fertilizer and what have
you. And that would actually be 21 feet, that wall. That would
assist the patio, that wall. Because as you come out the back
door, the property drastically drops toward the bulkhead. So that
wall is at the end -- are you looking at a picture of the house?
TRUSTEEBERGEN:N~
2\ ~~007
21 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Basically what we want to know, is the patio going
to the walk?
MR. HARROUN: There will be some heather planted between the patio
and the wall.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it will be pervious patio?
MR. HARROUN: Right, brick and sand.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And it's 18 by--
MR. HARROUN: 18x21. The 12, it goes up to the wells of the house,
I would only have about six foot of patio.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How long do you estimate that wall to be? We are
looking for a dimension.
MR. HARROUN: I would say 24 feet. Something like that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we'll do 24 plus or minus.
MR. HARROUN: There is an evenness to the grade as you walk to the
side of the house.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll put 24 plus or minus.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: To replace the rock wall.
MR. HARROUN: Okay.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mr. Harroun, so you know, we approved the bulkhead
also so in the future if you need to do repairs to the bulkhead you
can come in for an amendment if you need to change something. You
don't have to go through the whole permit process. That's included
with this.
MR. HARROUN: We don't have to do the angina anymore?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. No. You just have to let to us know what
you are doing
MR. HARROUN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number three, Thomas E. Christianson on behalf of
BOB MARSTON requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing dwelling and
construct a new 862 square foot dwelling and sanitary system. Located: 7065 New
Suffolk Road, New Suffolk.
Is there anyone gone here who would like to speak behalf of
the application.
MR. CHRISTIANSON: Yes. I'm Tom Christianson and I think pretty much
we have gone everything. One thing that came to me since your site
inspection that maybe was not as clear as it should have been with
the filing of the permit, this permit had been approved by the
Trustees of Southold and due to on oversight it expired, but we
still had DEC and Health Department permits for this project in
place and the trustee one did expire. The other two have not, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: LWRP finds it inconsistent for policy four,
'I
""
minimize loss of human life and structure from flooding and erosion
hazards. It says remove existing development structures as far
away from flooding and erosion hazards as practical. Maintaining
existing development structures and hazard areas which functionally
require a location on the coast or any coastal waters,
water-dependent uses which can not avoid exposure to hazards.
Sites and areas with extensive public investment, public
infrastructure and major benefit.
The first inconsistency is, I believe the setback. Sorry, I
want to read this. I don't quite understand it. (Perusing.)
Basically it's saying it's in Flood Zone 8 -- AE-8 and it's
recommending the residential structure be located outside the flood
zone to the greatest extent practical.
In the previous approval the house was moved at the furthest
location. It was a small property and it was moved at the furthest
location from the wetlands as possible. The septic was put up in
the highest corner and closest to the road as possible. It is a
tiny lot. There has been a house there for many, many years. And
the DEC permit is in here. CAC supports the application. We have
the previous building permit. DEC, demolish existing dwelling,
construct new dwelling, porch, septic system and gravel driveway.
All work must be done according to plan dated 3/15/05, which I
believe is the plan that was previously approved by this board.
And there is no conditions. That expires 2010. Just the regular
conditions.
As we talked about in the field, the current location of the
driveway is on the north side of that huge tree. And we talked
about maybe moving it on the south side of the tree or I'm
wondering if it's possible if you can do an indentation in front of
the house and park alongside the road. Instead of going in like
you normally would, just have it on the side of the road and park
parallel to the property.
MR. CHRISTIANSON: I think we could. I don't know it would make
much difference in the number of square foot of coverage per
property line.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's going to be further away from the wetlands.
You could just be -- if you want to come up here, I'll show you
what I'm talking about the on the survey. (Perusing). Here is the
tree. Instead of going in this way or this way, just be right here
so you come down the road and you just pull in and park this way.
That way it's further from the wetland.
MR. CHRISTIANSON: So as long as there is no problem with the -- the
trees have to be saved. As long as it doesn't interfere with the
septic or the county water.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The trees have to be saved no matter what. I think
you have enough room there.
21
MR. CHRISTIANSON: If there is enough room that would not be a
problem.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What does the Board think?
MR. CHRISTIANSON: I think between the tree, the big tree and where
the county water is, is probably, not much more than my pick-up
truck. So I don't know that there is sufficient space.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, it would be one car. Well, I would like to
see it on the south side of that tree, to move it over here.
MR. CHRISTIANSON: If it makes more sense, too.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we'll move it on the south side of the tree, as
far as south as you can.
MR. CHRISTIANSON: Right. Understood.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Was there any discussion, Jill, when you were
out there, about restoring the wetlands?
TRUSTEE KING: I'm trying to find part of the old permit that we
issued.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our permit is right here.
TRUSTEE KING: I think there was some stipulations there about --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The old permit was approved with the conditions of
placement of staked hay bale line prior to construction at the four
foot contour line to remain in place after construction in order to
establish a non-disturbance buffer, which he has the hay bales
there now, and submission of planting plan to improve the shoreline
and all as depicted on plan survey by Joe Indigno and drawn by
Nancy Spielman, October 4, 2004.
TRUSTEE KING: All those conditions will bring forward on to this.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. The thinking is the phragmite area, if it
could be restored to a more indigenous species would further
mitigate this to improve the proposed application.
MR. CHRISTIANSON: I'm sure that's not going to be a problem with
the new owner. But I greed to it in the beginning and he'll have
to agree to it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because we never got the planting plan. We don't
have one here that I could see. So we'll definitely need that.
MR. CHRISTIANSON: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any or the comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jill, I do have a comment. I realize that the
previous board had approved this and had granted a permit that has
expired. Now it's open to a reevaluation. In my opinion, this
proposed house is very close to the end of School House Creek
estuary and where it's at the end there, the tidal flow is very
limited and this is a very difficult one but I have a serious
concern about approving this application. I just think this lot is
too small for the placement of a home on it. I just think it's way
too close to the end of School House Creek.
21.
'frustccs
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I tend to agree. It's a real postage-stamp type
parcel. There is really any other wetland right in that little
proximity there. It might be a good opportunity to, you know, help
restore that piece of wetlands there. I don't know.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I want to speak for the past Board that approved
the first permit. It was a serious consideration and it was a very
big concern with the area and with the size of the lot, but a large
part of the decision being that this person owned this piece of
property, owned a home there and if they had come in for a permit
to simply restore it, they would have still had a house there. So
the consideration when we looked at it with the past Board, and Jim
can comment on this if he wishes, was when we did move it and
changed the location of the cesspools and the location of the
house, we felt we were mitigating and making as much of an
improvement as we could, especially with the replanting.
As it is not an ideal area for construction, it is a
pre-existing home, and I agree with Bob and Dave, it's a very
difficult decision, but again, the Board's original permit was
because this person owned this home and wants to have a home
there.
TRUSTEE KING: If this had been a vacant lot, it would be a
different story, in my opinion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree with that.
TRUSTEE KING: But because it's habitated, he has a house on it, a
small house.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And it's going to be a small house.
TRUSTEE KING: It is. It's a minimal-sized house, 862 square foot
footprint. Almost the town minimum.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: One question, it's not the original owner. This
property has been sold so this is a new owner in the process of
purchasing or has purchased this property.
MR. CHRISTIANSON: Purchased though when there still existed the
house on it and, as Peggy said, the implication is he would still
be able to put a house it on it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Did he purchase it when the permit was still good?
MR. CHRISTIANSON: Yes, I think so.
TRUSTEE KING: I think so, yes. He had a valid permit when he
purchased it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So when the person bought the property there was a
reasonable expectation to be able to do a project.
TRUSTEE KING: That he would be able to build a house, yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
"
.,.1
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I will make a motion to approve the application of
Thomas Christianson on behalf of Bob Marston for a wetland permit
to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new 862 square
foot dwelling and sanitary system. Located: 7065 New Suffolk Road,
New Suffolk, moving the pervious driveway to the south of the big
tree and to seed and to have updated plants before we approve that
so it's a little more clear than just "south of the big tree." And
all the previous conditions of the previous permit still apply.
And with drywells, I don't know if the drywells were a condition of
that previous permit, but the drywells as per plan.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm quite sure we asked for drywells.
MR. CHRISTIANSON: I think the drywells were shown on the plans.
TRUSTEE KING: I assume there is no basement there.
MR. CHRISTIANSON: There is no basement.
TRUSTEE KING: Is it on a slab or on piles?
MR. CHRISTIANSON: It would be on a slab but with whatever they call
it for the ability for the water to flow and all that good stuff.
TRUSTEE KING: And there is no fill to be brought in there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No fill. And planting plan is part of the
condition; the hay bales, planting plan, drywells, pervious
driveway. And I don't know what other conditions. That's all in
the other. That's all in there. So I make that motion.
TRUSTEE KING: The entire back should be just a non-disturbance
area.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. And no lawn. I think that was understood
with the planting plan. No lawn. And with the mitigation, it
makes it consistent with LWRP. As I said, CAC supported the
application. I make that motion.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Opposed. For the record.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Note for the record, Trustee Bergen is opposed.
MR. CHRISTIANSON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Number four, L.K. McLean Associates on behalf of
ARTHUR BURNS requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing
timber staircase starting at the top of the bluff to the existing
bulkhead. Located: 3450 Private Road #13, Mattituck.
Anybody here to speak on behalf of this application:
MR. BURNS: Arthur Burns. Good evening.
TRUSTEE KING: I believe this is exempt.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, it is.
TRUSTEE KING: This is exempt from the LWRP. And the Conservation
Advisory Council, CAC, supports the application with the condition
of the top of the bluff is stabilized and horizontal stringers are
f'Irusfr'rs
2f
used in conjunction with the staircase to prevent erosion.
What do you mean by horizontal stringers?
MS. PAGONIS: I think they are talking -- I didn't go on this
inspection, I was not in the group. I assume they are talking
boards on the bottom of the uprights.
TRUSTEE KING: That's what I'm thinking. A cross piece. That would
help. That would probably help. Jill and I were out there looking
at this. It's pretty state forward, straight on down.
MS. PAGONIS: I don't know if you remember. I think they even said
1 x12s.
TRUSTEE KING: There is no size in here.
MS. STANDISH: They were doing it to stop the erosion.
TRUSTEE KING: They mean here, behind the post supporting it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And if any trees are to be cut down, cut them down
to grade and not remove them.
It mentions drawing number three in here. I don't think we
had that.
MR. BURNS: That may have been a typo. We can resubmit that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because we just have the one drawing, and then the
survey.
TRUSTEE KING: The drawing was a little bit confusing to me because
it shows existing grade, and then this -- can somebody come up
here.
MR. DWYER: Christopher Dwyer, L.K. McLean Associates. That was
just a support detail, cross sectional view of what the owner was
proposing for construction.
TRUSTEE KING: Take a look at this. I'll show you why I'm a little
confused when I looked at it (Perusing). This says existing grade.
What does that line represent?
MR. DWYER: This is existing.
TRUSTEE KING: This is mismarked. Okay. That clears that up. That's
wrong.
MR. DWYER: There is no sill, actually, it's three to five yards. I
can resubmit that.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay. It looked pretty straight forward to me. Are
there any other comments on this application from anybody?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
36
'frUSLGCS
MS. PAGONIS: Can I ask a question, what makes it exempt from LWRP?
MS. FINNEGAN: Stairs on the bluff are exempt. There is a list in
the code of the things that are exempt.
I'll recuse myself from this next case. I'll be outside.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number five, Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubin,
Reale & Quarteraro, LLP, on behalf of EVE MACSWEENEY requests a
Wetland Permit to construct 4x160 foot access stairway with two 4x6
platforms and five 4x4 platforms. Construct removable eight foot
section at toe of bluff. Stairway to maintain 3.5 feet above grade.
Existing vegetation will be protected and new vegetation will be
planted along length of stairway. Located: 1250 Soundview Avenue,
Southold.
Is there anybody who would like to speak on this application?
MS. DALLI: Yes, I would, members of the Board. Catherine Dalli,
Twomey Latham.
The application is still pending with the DEC, unfortunately
they are a little short staffed there. But we have been in contact
with them. They have asked us to reduce the size of the platform
at the bottom of the bluff from 4x6 to 4x4 and we have done that.
We have submitted new drawings to the DEC and I just handed up new
drawings to the board showing the reduction in size from the bottom
platform.
We had a conversation with Clare Warner at the DEC who says
that she has reviewed the application and all is in order but it
needs to be sent up to technical review. But we are expecting the
approval shortly.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments?
(No response.)
Any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Just that we had those concerns with the
replanting that it be stabilized with hay bales. The replantings
that you had already done, a lot of the top soil is being washed
away.
TRUSTEE KING: You need a row of hay bales at the top of the bluff
seaward of the new plantings because everything is being washed
down the bluff now because it simply has not started growing. So
you need something to retain that until the growth starts.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you want to leave the hay bales there after the
growth, that's fine or you can take them away. Leaving them there
is probably better, if they can handle it esthetically.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: A couple points, the project is considered
consistent with the LWRP provided that the following best
management practices are applied. No CCA is used in construction
of the handrails; revegetation plan is provided for the bluff
following construction to control erosion; existing vegetation on
2 L .'007
37
1)('
l\/lnrch:21 ?OCl7
the bluff is protected during construction. Any applicant limits
to clearing of vegetation to the area necessary to construct the
access stairway; any trees that are removed should be cut at the
base and stumps to remain. The Board also wanted to recommend
that.
The CAC revolved to support the application with the condition
that the stairs are engineered with appropriate materials.
Are there any other comments from the Board?
(No response.)
I would like to make a motion that we close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion to approve this
application noting that there is a change of the bottom platform
from 4x6 to 4x4. Not to remove the stumps and put hay bales at the
top of the bluff. And no CCA used in construction of the
handrails.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number six Bryan Villanti on behalf of INGER
BOYAJIAN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family
dwelling, garage, and decks. Located: 3590 North Road, Greenport.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. HILL: Good evening, I'm Ronnie Hill with RLH Land Planting
Services and I'm here on behalf of Bryan Villanti who could not be
here and would have been here on behalf of his mother, Inger
Boyajian, and I'm here to answer any questions the Board may have
with respect to this project.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we need something in writing from them
stating that you can act on their behalf.
MR. HILL: I have a letter of authorization
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, we just need that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. This was found inconsistent under LWRP
because the proposed construction is within 100 feet minimum
setback. The CAC supported the application with the condition the
floating docks are not stored in the non-turf buffer area.
So we had a couple of questions regarding this. First off,
right now, there is a drainage issue with an asphalt, we'll call it
an asphalt driveway going from North Road down to not far from the
bulkhead and the canal, so that the drainage is coming down from
that driveway directly into the canal. And we would like to have
that asphalt driveway removed as a part of this project. Because I
notice you have, part of that is the proposed driveway, in other
words proposed driveway overlaps in part this area I'm talking
about
MR. HilL: I see. It is what exists there today.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we would like to see done is the proposed
driveway become totally pervious as it says on the plan so it would
be no, essentially that whole asphalt area that is there right now
will be removed.
MR. HilL: I don't believe my client has any problem with that. He
did mention that was something he was agreeable to.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is a non-turf buffer obviously that we would
want to see maintained all the way around this property around the
corner of the canal there, in other words, and right now there are
some plants in there that probably were not supposed to go in
there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think they put lawn all the way down.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we would like to see that be turned into a
non-turf buffer.
MR. Hill: Where there currently are plants.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, there could be some lawn material there. And
also as CAC had recommended that -- looks like what remains
floating docks that are there, not be stored there in the non-turf
buffer.
We did notice on here that you have drywells so we want to
make sure that as a condition of this proposed house there are
gutters, leaders and drywells to help mitigate the hundred foot
setback, since it was determined inconsistent under lWRP. And that
all drainage will remain on the property. Obviously we'll need,
because there is some contouring down to the canal, we'll want hay
bales and silt fence during construction between the house --
probably if it will work for the applicant, I see a 50-foot contour
line there that it could just go along the 50-foot contour line.
It looks like that leaves plenty of room there to get equipment
into the project. Right now there are cedars down there near the
non-turf area. We'll want to make sure the cedars are maintained.
No removal of the cedars.
MR. Hill: If we could go back there for a moment. What I have
written is in the area where there may be turf, you are asking the
turf be removed and maintain a non-turf pervious. Any particular?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: How does the Board feel about the width?
MS. PAGONIS: It was smaller. I think it was 15 feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Stand by for just a second (Perusing.)
MR. Hill: It was my understanding this was previously approved by
the Trustees and, unfortunately, I don't know why it expired, but
the permit expired and that's why he's back before you with this
application.
"
,.;.,1.\
2L
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry, it is 15 foot. That's what was approved
previously.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't think they actually did what was permitted
to begin with.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's why we want to make sure that the non-turf
buffer is as approved originally, which is 15 foot.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Whatever non-turf pervious material you want to
use, could be planting, stone, woodchips. Whatever pervious. We
don't want cement or grass.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you take those measures it will mitigate and be
determined to be consistent under lWRP.
Any other comments from the Board?
(No response.)
If not I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve number six, Bryan
Villanti on behalf of Inger Boyajian to construct a single-family
dwelling, garage and deck at 3590 North Road, Greenport, with the
conditions as we discussed; drywells, gutters and leaders around
the house; hay bale line and silt fence line at the 50-foot contour
line; to make sure the 15-foot non-turf buffer is in place with the
retention of those cedar trees. Total removal of the asphalt old
driveway so that the proposed driveway will be pervious. I think
that was it. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
MR. HilL: Thank you. Have a good evening.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me. Did we need new plans on that, Dave?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think -- what we'll do is we'll draw in on the
plans the hay bale line at the 50-foot contour so there is no need
to submit new plans in
MR. HilL: Fine with me, otherwise I would have submitted another
plan that would have shown the hay bales at 50 foot.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Why don't you do that so it will also show the
removal of the asphalt driveway and the planting plan
MR. Hill: It will be clearer.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, that's fine.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: JMO Environmental Consulting Services on behalf
of CHRISTOPHER PIA requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct in place
approximately 194 feet of timber bulkheading utilizing vinyl
sheathing and to backfill structure with approximately 200 cubic
40
yards of clean sand. Upon completion of the project, the are
landward of the reconstructed bulkhead shall be revegetated.
Located: 5900-6000 Vanston Road, Cutchogue, however it can be
viewed from an alternate place.
Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this
application?
MR. JUST: If there are any questions from the Board or the public.
Glenn Just, JMO Environmental Consulting.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Let me just see if there is anyone else from the
audience who would like to speak.
MR. JUST: We also have Eugene Berger here who is our construction
manager, if there are any questions.
(No response.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The Board looked at this and it was asked that
the jog be taken out. Is that going to be replaced?
MR. JUST: The what?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The return.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: On the bulkhead there was a very slight jog. We
are not talking at the end where there was a major change, but just
a slight jog with the most western portion.
MR. JUST: Yes. And to be replaced landward of the intertidal
marsh.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There was also a question from the Board about
the fill and where the fill is coming from. Is it coming just up
from the upland?
MR. JUST: We are also proposing to dredge immediately, ten feet
immediately offshore of the bulkhead and use that spoil as well.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what we thought but it was not clear in the
application.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Will there be fill coming from someplace else?
MR. JUST: I don't think so. I think there will be excess fill.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think we have a problem with that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And the fill spoil site was to the west, west of
the inlet along Mr. Pia's beach.
MR. JUST: Correct. There is also another maintenance dredging
permit that is approved for the one, Pond Association is about to
commence. That's why we'll go into that same location as well.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And revegetate with beach grass?
MR. JUST: We modified it. DEC had asked to see spartina patens, 12
to 16 inches in height, six inches on center and bacharus three
foot tall three foot on center.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else to speak?
TRUSTEE KING: Do patens grow there?
MR. JUST: You get a lot of that spray there. That's why you see a
little bit of fine patens there. I think it's just top wash over
the top of the bulkhead, there is a small, narrow band of it there.
_21 :::00'7
'fru:;;tccs
I 21li17
You see them landward of bulkheads along the bay once in a while.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No one else from the Board or public to speak,
I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. Second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I make a motion to approve the wetland permit
for Christopher Pia to reconstruct in place a timber bulkhead with
200 cubic yards of clean sand and to remove the jog at the western
end of the replacement. Upon completion of the project the area
landward reconstructed bulkhead shall be revegetated.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number nine, Patricia Moore on behalf of
GREGERSEN'S KEEP, LLC, RICHARD & ANTOINETTE BECK-WITT AND
HENRY QUINTIN requests a Wetland Permit to repair the existing dock and
add a 6x40 foot floating dock extension and two 10 inch by 35 foot
pilings. Located: 1960 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport.
We did get a revision and the revision is changing the wind
dock to four-and-a-half by 26 foot with five 10 inch by 35 inch
pilings, and to repair existing structure as needed, which is a
4x14 ramp, 4x16 fixed dock, a 3x16 ramp, 6x30 float and construct a
new "L" of four-and-a-half by 26 float with five pilings. That's
what has been handed in. We got this on March 9.
First, is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this?
MS. MOORE: This is a continuation of the prior hearing. We had
come in with something larger and you had asked that it be reduced
down to -- your standard is 6x20. The code reads with respect to
square footage no more than a certain square footage. The owners
wanted to modify it slightly because of the size of the boats and
last time we were here it was discussed we could shrink it down but
possibly put the piles in order to stabilize the boat that is going
to be located there. So that's how it's been designed and
resubmitted to you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Maybe this could be a question for Mr. Costello.
Could eight inch pilings be utilized there instead of ten inch? I
know larger boats are usually docked there.
MS. MOORE: My client is here, too. I think that was the request of
Mr. Quintin.
MR. CLAUDIO: If I can, I would like to address the Board.
MS. MOORE: Yes, why don't you come up to the microphone. Because he
had the personal conversation with Mr. Quintin. If you recall,
this is a joint agreement among two property owners that already
had the dock and the landowner who needs no modify the dock, add
the slip for the landowners themselves.
MR. CLAUDIO: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, Bill Claudio. If I
rnl;~tccs
lvll1rch 21. 2007
can speak on behalf of Mr. Quintin as a partner in this venture,
the size of the pilings, I think because the water is so very well
protected, I don't think it would be an issue reducing it to
eight I don't know why you want to go from ten to eight
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Less structure. It mitigates it a little bit
MR. CLAUDIO: I don't think eight inches is going to be a problem.
The Queen Mary will not be docking there. I think eight inches
will be fine.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. It's consistent with LWRP. And CAC
tabled it because the project was not staked and a proper survey
should be required and that was I think when the original
application came out And since then we got more information. Let
me look at the notes to see if we have any other questions.
Are there any others comments?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Just to make it clear. The floating dock is 6x20?
MS. MOORE: No, six-and-a-half by -- sorry. Four-and-a-half by 26.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to see the drawings, Bob?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm just curious because I know the code says --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 120 square feet
MS. FINNEGAN: No larger than 6x20. It says here no larger that six
feet wide and 20 feet long. It does say that
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So I don't know if we can go past 20 feet
MS. FINNEGAN: That's what the code says for residential dock.
MS. MOORE: I think we were reading it as depending on the
circumstances based on square footage, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, if it says no larger than 20 feet
MS. FINNEGAN: I'm not sure where you got the square footage. Yes--
no, I did find that the square footage was specifically dictated so
I just, I would have to go look for it and I don't have it
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Top of page 30.
MS. MOORE: You have the code. I don't have it with me.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No longer than six feet wide and 20 feet long.
MS. MOORE: It does say no larger than that
MR. CLAUDIO: Having gone through this scenario in Greenport with
our own docks, which are quite significant, the biggest problem
that is faced by the DEC by Fish and Wildlife and by all of those
is coverage. And the primary concern as I understand it is that
the coverage, that the sun does not reach the bottom to help
perpetuate life is the thing that is the most important So we
thought that by going to four-and-a-half feet by 26, we have not
increased the coverage, we have not covered any more of the bottom
than 20x6 does. So the mitigation is the same. I'm not covering
any more of the bottom than would have been covered originally.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And going out that extra six feet will change
navigation.
MS. MOORE: This is quite a large channel and it's seven feet in
depth in that area.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There are large boats traditionally in there
MR. CLAUDIO: That makes it a heck of lot easier, I can tell you, to
put a boat up along 26 feet as opposed to 20.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, you'll have 32 feet the way it's attached to
the six foot wide float going out.
MR. CLAUDIO: There is a piling there. I don't want to back into
the piling.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have a problem with it. He's right in the
sense the coverage is the same.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It may be something we want to amend to that
piece that says for "equal square footage."
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Not to exceed the square footage.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So it may be something while we are in the
process of doing this.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Put it on the list.
MS. MOORE: I think there is the flexibility given the size of the
boat and so on, as Mr. Claudio very eloquently stated.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments from the Board?
(No response.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Patricia Moore on behalf of Gregersen's Keep, LLC, Richard and
Antoinette Beck-Witt and Henry Quintin to repair the existing dock
and add a four-and-a-half by 26 float with five pilings not to
exceed eight inches in diameter. And that's my motion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MS. MOORE: Could I interject one thing. On FITF, I thought it was
adjourned but Glenn Just is actually doing the dock but I'm
involved with the subdivision and we are very close to the end of
that process and if you recall, that's being sold to the Town of
Southold so we want to finish up, have him finish up the dock. I
think it's all intended to be wrapped up at the same time, so if
you could keep that in mind. I think it's on for next month
TRUSTEE KING: Are you trying to tell me I'd better get over to
Fishers Island?
MS. MOORE: I would say it's time for another trip over there.
Sorry. But we are ready to close. We are close to that point.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay.
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
21.
Truswes
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Pat, if you can give us the new plans showing
eight inch pilings
MS. MOORE: No problem.
TRUSTEE KING: Number ten, En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of EDNA
MCNULTY c/o JOHN MCNULTY, POA, requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a fixed timber dock, consisting of a 4x90 foot fixed
timber catwalk (elevated four feet above grade of marsh); a 3x20
foot hinged ramp and a 6x20 foot float supported by two eight-inch
diameter pilings. Applicant also requests a letter of
non-jurisdiction to construct a single-family dwelling, swimming
pool and associated activities. Located: 875 Westview Drive,
Mattituck.
Is there anyone here to comment on this application?
MR. HERMAN: I'm Rob Herman, En-Consultants on behalf of the
application. I just handed up to the Board some revised plans that
were just revised to correct the adjacent owner indicated to the
west, which should be J.K. Weiner. It was incorrectly shown as
Doherty, et cetera, which is across the street.
TRUSTEE KING: Are the plans the same, Bob?
MR. HERMAN: The plans are identical. It's just a change in the
name of the neighbor.
The application is for a fixed dock that we have proposed on
the west or southwest side of the property where the width of the
vegetated wetlands is its narrowest. We stay generally within the
pier line of the adjacent dock to the west or to the southwest and
extend the dock only out to where it reaches 30 inches of water at
low tide as required by the DEC.
TRUSTEE KING: I think you mean a dock to the north.
MR. HERMAN: To the north, sorry. I think I said southwest. I
meant north or west, depending on how you look at it.
There is also not a subject of the application before you but
the proposed development of the parcel with a dwelling pool and
associated activities, but there is no clearing proposed at this
time closer than 100 feet, actually a little bit distance farther
than 100 feet from the wetlands, we have asked the Trustees' office
to issue a non-jurisdiction letter for those activities, as you are
probably interested, we have proposed a project limiting fence with
hay bales to maintain that clearing limit to ensure compliance.
Drywells equipped to the house, et cetera, all the standard things
the Board would be concerned about.
Obviously if someone did want to come in and clear any closer
than what is shown now they would have to re-approach the Board for
a permit for that purpose. But before the Board this evening is
only under the code, the proposed dock.
TRUSTEE KING: Rob, are you saying there will be no clearing seaward
11,
45
of this line?
MR. HERMAN: Seaward of what is shown as the limit of clearing
grading and ground disturbance. It's a theoretical development. At
some point if there is a specific plan, it may change from
precisely what is shown and if somebody does wish to clear down to
a 50-foot buffer or something that the DEC or Trustees would
normally require, it would require a permit from this Board.
But the Board can't issue a permit for what is proposed here
because it's beyond the 275 jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE KING: I had thoughts of the 75-foot non-disturbance buffer
but they exceeded that. Which is good. Is that written in the
deed? How is that going to be complied with?
MR. HERMAN: The way this is proposed now, is just to represent that
this is a parcel that can be developed with a typical house, pool,
et cetera. It actually could be developed in a way that all
construction and clearing would remain out of your jurisdiction.
It is not meant to represent or imply either tacitly or explicitly
that no one would ever seek to clear any further than this on this
property. Somebody could, under your code, come in and seek to
clear but they couldn't do so without first specific Wetlands
Permit from this Board which at that time would, I presume, you
would mandate some sort of non-disturbance buffer. But right now,
legally, you can't comment on the development because it's beyond
your jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE KING: But I think we could put a non-disturbance buffer in
at 75 feet from tidal wetlands, along with this dock application,
make that part of the dock application.
MR. HERMAN: It would be highly irregular for a Board to impose a
non-disturbance buffer landward of a proposed dock.
TRUSTEE KING: But I think we could do it.
MR. HERMAN: You could do a lot of things, as long as Pat says it's
okay. I'm just saying that I would think --
TRUSTEE KING: This is a really deep lot, and as you could --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He already has 100 feet.
TRUSTEE KING: But there is --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why can't we just say 1 DO? If we say 75 and they
are showing 1 DO, they'll think -- why don't we just say 1 DO?
MR. HERMAN: The answer is because you are seeking to impose a
buffer on activities you don't have any legal jurisdiction over.
So unless you are suggesting that a buffer of some width is being
imposed as mitigation for the dock, what I'm suggesting is you
don't have proper legal standing to impose a buffer in response to
this particular application. Coming from someone not licensed by
the bar.
TRUSTEE KING: I have just seen so many times the trees get all
whacked down so we get a view of the creek. It's happened how many
21 .;(J07
n
I 2007
times in the past year or so. We've had two or three perfect
examples that the house is out of our jurisdiction
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When we impose the buffer it would be put into the
deed so anyone who purchases the property would have it in the
deed.
TRUSTEE KING: It would be with this dock permit. Non-disturbance
buffer, 75 feet landward of the tidal wetland line. I'm just
looking for something to stop this nonsense that we have been
seeing the last couple of years. We don't want to mention any
names.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: My question, Jim, though, is wouldn't they have to
come in to us for some type of permit to do any modifications to
the vegetation within our jurisdiction, which is 100 feet?
TRUSTEE KING: Right, but lots of times they don't.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But if they violate it, they'll violate it whether
we put a restriction on it or not.
TRUSTEE KING: Knowing you have a 75-foot non-disturbance, and then
you go in and whack it, then it's a different story claiming
ignorance, well, you gave me letter of non-jurisdiction on the
house. I didn't realize I could not go down there and cut some
trees down.
MS. FINNEGAN: You are saying since you are not asking for anything
within the 100 feet that they don't have the ability to put the
buffer?
MR. HERMAN: What I'm saying is unless the Board is going to set a
precedent to impose non-disturbance buffers whose very purpose is
to buffer construction activities upland from the wetlands on dock
applications, what I'm saying is that I think you are treading
precipitously there. Because you can't, if somebody challenged you
on it I don't think you could justify a buffer for the construction
of a dock over the wetland. There no nexus between the two
activities. So what I'm saying here is you might even want to
impose a buffer of different widths based on what construction
would eventually come before you; in other words right now you are
looking at a house that is it proposed 164 feet away from the
wetlands. Somebody could propose a house up to 100 feet from the
wetlands and still be out of your jurisdiction. So what I'm saying
is there is going to be some clearing associated with this lot at
some point in time that will invariably require the owner or future
owner of this property to come back to this Board. Unless they
really only do clear up to this point. In which case it's still
not your concern because it's out of your jurisdiction.
Any clearing that occurs within 100 feet requires a permit.
So I understand, Jim, your philosophy, that you are trying to grab
some sort of enforcement tool while you have a foot in the door,
but I agree with Jill. I mean, one cannot legally clear within 100
47
feet of this wetland without a permit.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I agree with Jim, if somebody wanted to build
out of the 100 feet but closer than where you have it planned, they
could still, as Jim says, go down and clear trees and make a view
for themselves
MR. HERMAN: Not without a permit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What if we do 75 --
MR. HERMAN: You can't assume that all --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: One at a time, for the record.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think if we are going to do anything we should
do 100 feet because 75 will just confuse it. What if they clear
between 75 and 100, it's still a violation if they don't come to us.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Good point.
TRUSTEE KING: This is one of the few vacant large lots we have come
across. I'm just, maybe I'm paranoid, but it just seems so many of
these clearing issues and once you cut down a 12, 14-inch oak tree,
you replace it with a shrub, you know.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What I'm saying, if we do anything we should do
100 feet, not 75. Because 75 will confuse the issue. Especially
because he has 100. That just drives home --
MR. HERMAN: But you can't preemptively prohibit somebody from doing
something that is allowed under your code. They could propose a
house 100 feet from the wetland and the only thing they'd need a
permit from your board for is to clear. If you set 1 DO-foot buffer
in association with a dock, you are basically telling somebody they
can't conform to your code, they have to do better. And I don't
think the Board can properly do that when it's not in front of
you. The only thing in front of you is a dock.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why can't we approve for now a walkway to the,
pathway to the dock and if they need to do other clearing, they
have to come to us.
MR. HERMAN: You could write a caveat.
TRUSTEE KING: If they do any activity within 100 feet of the
wetlands, they need a permit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What I'm saying, instead of doing the buffer like
you said --
TRUSTEE KING: I just want to give them fair warning.
MR. HERMAN: So then write it into the dock permit. What you could
do is you could do it in two places, and you have done this
before. You did it on what was the former Lindermier site (sic)
where you actually wrote into the non-jurisdiction letter, this was
before the Board had jurisdiction up to 100 feet from the crest of
the bluff. You wrote in that any clearing closer than 25 feet to
the crest of the bluff would require a permit. So you covered
yourself in the non-jurisdiction letter.
TRUSTEE KING: That's what I think we'll do here.
I.
"frUSLeCS
MR. HERMAN: So what you would do here, before we even get to the
permit, is in the non-jurisdiction letter you would clearly state
in, I don't know, big font and bold letters, that any clearing
within 100 feet requires a permit. But you could also write the
same language into the dock permit, that any clearing whatsoever
requires an additional wetlands permit or amendment or whatever.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I'm saying, in there specify they can
clear a five-foot wide path to the dock or four foot, and any
further clearing needs a permit.
TRUSTEE KING: We beat it up enough. Let's move on to the rest of
it
MR. HERMAN: Correct. I think that way you cover yourself without
creating a potential problem.
TRUSTEE KING: Just know where I'm coming from. I'm not trying to
bust chops. I just see what goes on.
MR. HERMAN: I absolutely do. Nor am I. I just want to make sure
it's done the right way.
TRUSTEE KING: You didn't go out there at low tide, did you?
MR. HERMAN: Did I? Yes. The pictures that you have in your file
are at low tide.
TRUSTEE KING: Recently? Like last night or this morning?
MR. HERMAN: No. These are pictures at low tide.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we are getting at is we are in the presence of
a new moon low tide. It's extremely low right now.
MR. HERMAN: It was pretty low while I was there. This was the
stakes that is now only about that high above the ground
(indicating.) The stakes that you would have seen were just put by
the surveyor in the water. This is where the --
TRUSTEE KING: It's just about as much water at those stakes as
there is at this stake, believe it or not.
MR. HERMAN: I try to go to those places at as Iowa tide as
possible. That's when the DEC goes.
TRUSTEE KING: The tides in Mattituck Creek are the lowest I have
ever seen.
MR. HERMAN: Right now?
TRUSTEE HERMAN: Right now. Your stakes were bare this morning at
8:00. Absolutely bare. Nothing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's unusually low tide right now.
MR. HERMAN: That's frightening. Was the adjacent dock entirely --
TRUSTEE KING: High and dry. Exceptionally, exceptionally low
tides. And for the past week. I have seen bottom I haven't seen
in I can't remember when.
MR. HERMAN: That is startling because there was quite an exposure
here.
TRUSTEE KING: It's because the new moon, I guess.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, it is.
21
4')
"frUSlCCS
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): It's like that every new moon.
TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments on this application
before we proceed any further?
MR. WEINER: My name is Norman Weiner, I'm the adjacent property
owner to the north. I just respectfully request that they move
this planned fixed timber catwalk and the whole of the dock to the
south just so that it's more central to the property and not so
close to the joining property, which is mine. I'm sure they'll
have to clear a path to get to that dock and woefully close to the
treed border. That would mean removing some large trees right
alongside the edge of the property. Whereas they could do the same
thing right down the middle. They would still retain the 100 feet.
TRUSTEE KING: What do you cut, about 25 feet off the property line?
MR. HERMAN: The dock is proposed where the two titled properties
are at 25 feet. If you had an imaginary extension of the property
line out into the water, the float is about 20 feet or between 15
and 20 feet from that imaginary extension
TRUSTEE KING: Technically, no. It's more than that.
MR. HERMAN: Well, it probably is but I don't want to overstate
it. I would rather understate it.
TRUSTEE KING: There has been a lot of discussion on these property
lines getting extended into the water and there is a complete
process of doing it. These lines here would be perpendicular --
MR. HERMAN: In terms of doing it at a right angle.
TRUSTEE KING: You would actually turn and go at a right angle into
the channel. So you would have more room there.
MR. HERMAN: The reason why we proposed it where we proposed it,
again, is due to the extent of wetlands. This is where we can get
the smallest dock with the least coverage of the wetlands. For the
vegetated portion of the wetlands we are only about between 40 and
50 feet. If you move this dock even 40 feet to the south you are,
you would increase that expanse to almost 80 feet and to get out to
the same depth as you go south you are almost doubling and tripling
the structure. Under the policies and regulations and laws of the
Army Corps of Engineers, Department of State, DEC and this Board,
to put this dock any other place on this property would be the
wrong place to put it from the perspective the protecting
wetlands. I understand the neighbor's concern. Any neighbor would
like to see any structure farther away from them rather than
closer. But that argument is not going to hold water with any of
the agencies. Again, in this area, all that would be cleared is a
four-foot path. We could certain direct the path away from the
neighbor's property so, in other words, instead of starting it 20
feet or so from the property line and going straight down, it could
go, it would not curve around but it could head toward the center
of the property. The only thing you have, you would never have
21 ~~Oo7
this area here cleared. The only thing you would have is a
four-foot path that would access the dock directly.
MR. WEINER: The four-foot path will take down some major trees
MR. HERMAN: That's going to be the case no matter where it goes.
MR. WEINER: I don't think that your actual water mark is shown
properly on this. It's much more parallel to the high water mark.
So it really wouldn't matter if it's moved over in that context.
MR. HERMAN: That's not the case. The location of the marsh was
surveyed and it does get quite a bit more expansive as you go to
the south. You can see that from the photographs.
TRUSTEE KING: The only thing I noticed this morning -- I was there
this morning. I been there a couple times. If that was just moved
to the south maybe six feet, you go right between some of the
vegetation, there is an open spot there. Where it is now you would
have to cut down some bacharus.
MR. WEINER: That's the direction we are looking for to leave as
much vegetation as possible.
TRUSTEE KING: But as far as the path goes, I would think like a
meandering path to wander around the trees, not whack off some big
trees. You could be creative with a path and make it attractive.
Not just a thruway down to the dock. Just almost the width of the
dock to the south would jog it between the vegetation.
MR. HERMAN: What you are talking about is a 4x12 foot ramp. We can
angle the ramp if that avoids cutting down a bacharus bush, but the
way the dock is proposed doesn't require the cutting down of any
trees and any path running through here could go around. I mean
nobody is looking to just take a bobcat and just drill a four foot
-- I mean --
TRUSTEE KING: You would be surprised. You would be surprised. But
my point.
MR. HERMAN: But my point is we could cover that in the permit in
terms of you could put in the permit that there is no felling of
any trees with a diameter greater than four inches to get to the
dock. I don't see that as a problem at all if it's satisfies the
neighbor's concern. Because the dock portion of it doesn't involve
any clearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you think you could get a path staked out for us
to look at?
MR. HERMAN: Sure. All you would have to do is create a foot path
that avoids --
TRUSTEE KING: Flag a path going down to the dock.
MR. HERMAN: It's probably about a thousand dollars worth of
staking.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we stipulate no trees or vegetation.
MR. HERMAN: That furthers your original goal of making sure nothing
gets cut.
",I.
51
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Stipulate any pathway --
TRUSTEE KING: I hate to be picky.
MR. HERMAN: It's fine. It's not objectionable to me at all.
TRUSTEE KING: You show six-inch piles. That might be--
MR. HERMAN: Six-inch pile over the marsh and eight inch piles over
the open water which is typically what we show.
TRUSTEE KING: You just show two eight-inch piles?
MR. HERMAN: We show six-inch piles.
TRUSTEE KING: What do you get between piles?
MR. HERMAN: Landward of the low water line and then there is
probably a couple of bends of eight-inch pilings over the open
water and two eight-inch pilings for the float.
TRUSTEE KING: You get ten feet between the piles; ten or 12?
MR. HERMAN: Eight feet on center.
TRUSTEE KING: Can you stretch them out to ten? I'm trying to
reduce some of the impact with the six-inch piles because I know
what's going to happen when you apply to another agency.
MR. HERMAN: Um --
TRUSTEE KING: Stretch them out to ten feet. It's doable
structurally, as far as I'm concerned
MR. HERMAN: I understand where you are saying. You are saying for
the six-inch pilings over the marsh. I don't see why that's a
problem. If the DEC were to require a reduction in the scope of
those, then that would be the other way to handle it. I just got a
decision, not a decision but request for change for a similar dock
in Shelter Island today with 4x4s over the marsh and eight inch
pilings are okay over the open water, which of course varies with
what you have been told on others.
The problem is we are having, not that this is a new story but
we are having trouble getting consistent, completely consistent
decisions from the DEC.
TRUSTEE KING: I notice the next door neighbor's dock, those are
six-inch oak pilings. How long have you lived there?
MR. WEINER: Over 20 years.
TRUSTEE KING: How long is that dock there?
MR. WEINER: It preceded me.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll bet the oak pilings were there long before that.
The oak pilings are still in pretty good shape. They are getting a
little thinner at the bottom, but I figure that dock is between 40
and 50-years old. They are oak piles and they are still there.
And are only six inches. And stable.
MR. WEINER: And stable. Not falling apart. But, in any case
TRUSTEE KING: If we can stretch that spacing out to ten foot on
center.
MR. HERMAN: I don't think that's a problem. You are talking over
the marsh area.
,I
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. And the last three-pile bend at the seaward end
MR. HERMAN: I would have to give you a revised plan to show both of
those things.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, sir? Anymore comments?
MR. WEINER: Could this be moved southward?
TRUSTEE KING: Very little. Because I agree. It's the smallest
part of the marsh he's impacting by putting the dock at that
location.
MR. WEINER: I respectfully request it move that very little bit,
whatever it is, please.
MR. HERMAN: To me, it's not a justifiable request with respect to
the standards for this Board. I mean moving this dock two feet is
not going to have any material impact on the neighbor. What is
relevant is the clearing of any sort of path to the dock. That
seems to me to be a legitimate concern and I feel we've addressed
that. I can not make a case to any other agency or hopefully to
this Board that we should build a bigger structure over a greater
area of wetlands because a neighbor would rather have the structure
-- excuse me, let me finish -- be located farther away. Because
if the Board is going to listen to that kind of request, then it
has to listen to the same kind of request of esthetic desirability
trumping wetlands concerns from the applicants.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, my feeling on this, I was going to say exactly
what Rob just said. I understand the esthetic issue from the
neighbors perspective but we have in our code it has to be 15
feet. It's more than 15 feet from the property line and if it's
going to compromise the environment with the move I would not
compromise the environment for the esthetics of moving the dock a
few feet. If it was not going to compromise the environment then I
could see something maybe being worked out here. But I would not
want to compromise the environment.
TRUSTEE KING: According to this, you have really pretty good
separation. You are looking at 170 feet between the two docks. I
mean that's good separation, in my opinion.
MR. HERMAN: I hear the neighbor's concern. I think what the primary
issue is, understandably he would not want to see a big area of
clearing happen right next to his property line to get to the
dock.
MR. WEINER: I don't want to see any.
MR. HERMAN: And we are saying we would not fell any of these large
trees that provides wood cover in that area for the purpose of
getting to the dock. We have absolutely no objection to adhering
to that.
MS. FINNEGAN: Are you asking for a path as part of this permit?
MR. HERMAN: That's what we are talking about now is adding a path
to the application under these specific conditions that we would
::1
1 20i!j
then represent in some way on the plan.
MR. HERMAN: In other words, Pat, it's not necessary to clear to
build this dock. At some point you would have to have access but
that would be part of whatever permit would eventually come to the
development. So we deferred that part for that. But we can
address it now in order to satisfy this concern is what I'm
saying. It's not a problem.
TRUSTEE KING: Rob, what if that starting point with the dock is
moved 20 feet to the south. In the end, the seaward end stays in
the same place.
MR. HERMAN: What does that accomplish?
TRUSTEE KING: I think it's a little less marsh for starters and
gets the dock a little further away from the neighbor. It would
just be a matter of canting that inland in 20 feet.
MR. HERMAN: 20 feet to the south is about 45 feet of marsh. Here
it's 40 feet of marsh.
TRUSTEE KING: I know, it's nitpicking. How does the Board feel?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Myself, again, not if it's going to cover more
marsh.
MR. WEINER: I don't believe it does.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If it doesn't cover more marsh, I don't have a
problem.
MR. WEINER: That's what I would ask, that it moves over to the
south just to cover as little marsh as possible but at that, as
it's shown, but moving the whole of it to the south. If that
wetlands boundary is as drawn, it should work fine, to be
consistent then.
MR. HERMAN: I'm stupefied.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just have one comment. I want to disclose my
in-laws live across the street from this house. Just to put that
on the record.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other questions here? You have the new plan
showing the extended spacing between the piles on the dock?
MS. FINNEGAN: I want to make sure it's clear about the path because
initially we were not doing anything about that and now we are
talking about a path.
TRUSTEE KING: We always allow an access path down to the dock. I
would really like to see --
MR. HERMAN: What I'm saying is, we were deferring any of the issues
of clearing until the larger clearing issue but to satisfy the
neighbor's concern and to satisfy the Board's concern is what I'm
suggesting we do is since I have to give you a revised plan anyway
to address the piling situation, is that we can indicate right on
the face of the permit and the notes that the path will not cut any
trees, whatever standard you want to set for that, we can do that,
and you can write it into the permit. If you want it to be
o
depicted very specifically, we would have to go out there and
actually map out a walkway, which we could do. I mean we could
have that staked out and put on the plan if that's what you want us
to do
MR. WEINER: Is there an intention in this request to put a walkway
in here as well?
TRUSTEE KING: No, we usually allow a path, could be a woodchip chip
path going down to the dock. Not a structure. No structure.
MR. HERMAN: Absolutely not.
TRUSTEE KING: It's strictly for access.
MR. HERMAN: Nor would that be approved. I don't think.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have no problem with the way it is.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have no problem. If it was not that drastic
MR. HERMAN: I'll show you, just to make sure, because my intent is
not to disregard the neighbor's concern. The area of the marsh
that goes straight out here, that scale, from the wetlands line to
this point, is about 45 feet. Now I think what you are talking
about is swinging it some way like that.
TRUSTEE KING: Just go 20 feet from here.
MR. HERMAN: If it goes 20 feet to where that point is, that would
then go from that point to there is about 46 feet. I mean it's not
that much more marsh we are covering but we are not moving the dock
appreciably farther away from the property line.
MR. WEINER: You are moving one very small portion of it 20 feet
away but the rest of the dock is still going to come right through
there.
MR. HERMAN: Whether the dock is built like that or like that.
MR. WEINER: It would matter to the person next door, I could assure
you.
TRUSTEE KING: And you are looking at the landward end, you are
looking at 120 feet of separation.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we are spending more time on this than we
need to.
TRUSTEE KING: That's pretty accurate. I think we'll move along
here.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The other consideration we are not talking about
people who are not there yet but we are talking about people who
are there now. So I think people who are there should get the
consideration.
TRUSTEE KING: Make sure people talk loud enough to get it all on
the record. That's alii ask.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a huge problem with the dock, where it
is now.
MR. HERMAN: I can toy with the angle of the dock and see if I can
come up with something.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Does he have to do another survey?
.:1
:5
MR. HERMAN: I'm just trying to figure out, to make this worth the
while, I have to know that there is some fruitful purpose at the
end of it. Is it that we are worried about clearing, which the
neighbor originally stated and we said we won't do any clearing.
Now the concern is just move it over to move it over. But what are
we moving it over for. The portion of the dock that's seaward of
the wetlands boundary is going to look exactly the same 200 feet
away, whether it's here or slightly like that.
MR. WEINER: Except that 20 feet over is a lot more vegetation.
Every foot over is a lot more vegetation. At the place you are
proposing the dock now is pretty sparse.
MR. HERMAN: Sir, for the record, sir, there is no vegetative cover
in this area. This is all marsh here. Wore not building a catwalk
through the woods. We are building a catwalk over the wetlands and
water. That's exposed regardless.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have to say, Jim mentioned that when he went
there this morning there was a more visible clearing area to the --
MR. HERMAN: That's why I said, if you want we can turn the angle of
this 4x12 ramp because that ramp is the only thing that is actually
going to be constructed in the woodlands.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what I'm saying, if you are willing to do
that. That's a clear opening and that's what the neighbor is
requesting.
MR. HERMAN: In other words, Jim, I think what you're saying is the
way it's staked, if we are running into a bacharus bush, but if we
shift it slightly we would not be going into that bush and then
perhaps that would provide some concealment for the neighbor where
otherwise it requires cutting of material, that's absolutely fine.
MR. WEINER: That's what we are requesting. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Anything else?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application based
on revised plans showing what was discussed, which will be
stretching out the space between the 16 pilings from eight feet to
ten feet; three pilings on the seaward end only, across the face of
the seaward end; everything else is two pile bales and; the 12-foot
ramp on the landward end will be angled to the south.
MR. HERMAN: And or the shifting of that angle of the whole catwalk.
And as I said, I can toy with that on the thing so if it turns out
that whole thing has to be shifted ever so slightly that that
provides some concealment, that that is what we'll do. But the
specs of the dock will be more or less the same within a foot or
~:J
o
two but I mean I could give that you information and you could
adjust the permit language.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to show a path on the drawing?
MR. HERMAN: Well, the risk of that is if we show a four-foot wide
cleared path then it becomes a four-foot wide cleared path whereas
what you are really asking for is sort of a meandering foot path
around trees. So
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If you could note that in the language of the
permit that any path would not remove any trees larger than --
TRUSTEE KING: You know, if you get a little three-inch tree.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Larger than four inch
MR. HERMAN: The only other way to deal with it is to limit -- well,
I guess we couldn't do that because if someone doesn't seek to
clear closer than 100 feet you have no path and you would have to
allow some sort of access.
TRUSTEE KING: We can just make a notation any clearing activities
within 100 feet of the wetlands you need a permit, you have to come
to us for it.
MR. HERMAN: We can also take a look at it with the surveyor and see
if there is some sort of shot that can be laid out that would
really avoid or minimize to the maximum extent practical any
cutting that the Board can then review.
TRUSTEE KING: It's not severely densely treed. You can walk down
through the property three different directions.
MR. HERMAN: Right. So there may actually be a nearly linear path
out, I just don't know what that is. But perhaps you can condition
the approval upon our showing that. I mean that's, the more we
cover, the better the end result will be, I think
MR. WEINER: And I would also ask to state it's a non-structural
path. You don't build a structure as a path. That should be
stated. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Right now we are not really addressing the path, just
that there be no trees cut down for an access path.
MR. HERMAN: What I'm saying is we can present some sort of pathway
that can be staked out and located on the plan.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we pretty much have an idea what we want to
do there. Did I close the hearing already?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion --
MR. HERMAN: And it's minor stuff, but I understand what Jim is
saying, if we don't address it, it's going to go wrong. And that's
not my intent nor the owner's intent.
TRUSTEE KING: I made a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
':1,
l'rLlS1C<:S
21~20(J7
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of RICHARD AND
KAREN SEELIG requests a Wetland Permit to place over filter cloth
on grade along toe of eroding embankment approximately 146 linear
square feet of 50 to 150 pound stone riprap. located: 1515 Calves
Neck Road, Southold.
The lWRP finds this to be consistent and so does the CAC.
They have no problem with it.
MR. HERMAN: Bob Herman on behalf of the applicant. I hope that's
all we were waiting for. I think we had discussed this at last
month's hearing but you had no lWRP review back and I think the
sense was if it came back consistent that we were done.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other people here to comment on this
application?
(No response.)
Any comments from the Board?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to accept the application as
stated for Richard and Karen Seelig to place filter cloth on grade
as described.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 13, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of
ERIC SCHlAEFER requests a Wetland Permit to remove and dispose of
existing timber bulkhead. Construct 169 feet of new bulkhead using
C-loc vinyl sheathing including the six-inch return on northwest
end, installed inplace of existing. located: 150 Knoll Circle, East
Marion.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. COSTEllO: Yes. My name is John Costello. I'm with Costello
Marine Contracting and we are the agents for this application.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This was found exempt under the lWRP, and the CAC
supports the application with the condition of a ten-foot, non-turf
buffer.
When we went out and looked at it, one thing we noticed, we
looked at it from across the creek and we noticed a drain pipe
coming out of that bulkhead. I don't know what the source of the
water is. It could be from the home, I don't know, but we ask that
drain pipe be removed as part of this project
MR. COSTEllO: I think when we back fill with clean granular sand it
58
"fi'USICC::
will percolate down to the water level anyway behind the bulkhead,
so it doesn't need to go through.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And we would ask for a ten-foot, non-turf buffer
there.
MR. COSTEllO: Okay. I believe that's what was issued in that area
before. So it would be consistent.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else here who would like to speak
for or against this application?
(No response.)
Any comments from the Board?
(No response.)
If not, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve number 13, Costello
Marine Contracting on behalf of Eric Schlaefer as indicated on the
application with the condition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer and
removal of that drain pipe.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number 14, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on
behalf of GEORGE KOCH requests a Wetland Permit to remove 40 feet
of existing south railing and 33 feet of existing east railing;
remove 40 feet of south bulkhead face pilings and 33 feet of east
bulkhead face pilings; construct 40 feet of new south bulkhead and
33 feet of new east bulkhead immediately in front of existing
bulkheads; fill void between new and existing sheathing with clean
trucked-in sand (approximately eight cubic yards); decking to match
existing as required. located: 270 Rabbit lane, East Marion.
Is there anyone here who would like to speak for this
application?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Before anybody speaks, I would like to note for
the record I have to recuse myself on this one.
MR. COSTEllO: My name is John Costello and we are the agents for
George Koch on this bulkhead reconstruction project down in East
Marion on Rabbit lane. And if there are any questions I could try
to answer them.
As you could see we are trying to keep it as close to the
existing bulkhead without doing upland damage and we are not going
to excavate the yard and remove the fill. We are going to try to
just remove the piling because part of it is right close to the
house and, remove the piling, place the bulkhead right up against
existing and then reinstall the piling in the front. The backing
I 2007
f' 'rrust(~CS
system will only consist of batter piles which will hold the
bulkhead up in place.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We have an LWRP consistent and we have CAC that
supports the application with the condition that the down spout is
removed from the bulkhead and best practices are used for
construction material and drainage.
The entire Board looked at this. I don't think the Board had
any problems with this. Any comments from the Board?
(No response.)
Any other comments from the public?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the wetland permit
for George Koch to remove as per the description to replace the
existing decking, bulkhead and railings at 270 Rabbit Lane, East
Marion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 15, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf
of MARK GROSS, requests a Wetland Permit to remove 270 +/- feet of
top timber member of existing retaining walls. Construct 270 +/-
feet of new precast retaining walls immediately in front of
existing timber retaining walls. Backfill areas between old and new
retaining walls with clean trucked-in stone and topsoil
(approximately 25 cubic yards). Replace brick driveway as required.
Located: 2699 Laurel Way, Laurel.
Jim and I went out and inspected this. Is there anyone here
to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. COSTELLO: My name is John Costello, we are, again, the agents
for Mrs. Mark Gross on this application.
If you visited this site you could see that much of the
driveway is brick and the creosoted railroad tie bulkhead that has
been there for umpteen years has deteriorated to the point that the
driveway is settling.
They had a propane truck drove in there one day and dropped
down about six inches and they were, that depression scared them,
and they want to try to reinforce this bulkhead and they wanted to
use non-treated materials and the only thing I recommended was the
interlocking concrete retaining wall, and we are going to try and
put it as close to the existing as possible.
f_~oard 'fru5l;.,::,;S
[. ['00;
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Don't you think those would settle?
MR. COSTEllO: You have to put a base of material in. You have to
compact it and make sure that it doesn't settle. It will be
approximately a foot in the bottom. And it's good, sandy
material. It's not mud and it's not bog so I think, we did a
little test boring and think that it will stay. We will also put a
filter cloth in underneath the footing and up against the existing
deteriorating tie rods and the creosoted railroad ties in order to
reduce leakage and settling.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can I ask why you didn't do like a bulkhead, you
know, like you would normally build a bulkhead?
MR. COSTEllO: It would be hard to excavate down to get penetration
on a bulkhead per se.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm thinking of plastic sheathing. Wouldn't that
be --
MR. COSTEllO: You could drive it in but they were not keen on using
any treated material. That's one of the reasons they had the brick
driveways and whatnot. They had the creosoted railroad ties in
there and they just didn't want to do anything about replacing
them.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim and I, when we looked at it, we questioned the
cement blocks that you are using, not seeing them in that --
MR. COSTEllO: You see them on the Expressway, the thruway.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right I see them there, but in that way, they are
so close to the wetlands and it's such a slant we were just not
sure if it would settle.
TRUSTEE KING: I just had some concerns on how that wall is going to
stay there. I mean there is no tie backs or --
MR. COSTEllO: There are -- in the railroad ties?
TRUSTEE KING: No, in the cement block wall.
MR. COSTEllO: No, you just have to probably, there is tie backs and
the angle of those walls are engineeringly designed that the
weight, it's a gravity wall, that the weight of one block
TRUSTEE KING: Gravity means it falls down.
MR. COSTEllO: No, that means the weight of the wall. You have to
start off with the right footing. You have to level the footing.
You have to compact it. You have to place it on filter cloth. You
have to put a base in. And then you add the concrete. And they
are on an angle so that the pressure is not totally vertical.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are saying with this it's engineered so the
pressure is displaced out at an angle?
MR. COSTEllO: At an angle, yes. All weight is directed down.
TRUSTEE KI NG: One of the problems I have is trees growing between
two of the retaining walls.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I didn't see the property.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is a picture up here showing that.
MR. COSTEllO: Oh, on the terracing.
TRUSTEE KING: You have trees growing up between the two walls. You
are going to have to take those trees out.
MR. COSTELLO: No, you are not. They are going to stay. The
elevation varies on many of these things. The elevation of these
goes from four feet, two feet; six feet is about the highest. Did
you see the six-foot area where there was settlement in the
driveway?
TRUSTEE KING: That whole driveway is a mess.
MR. COSTEllO: There will still be a maintenance of that driveway
continued because the creosoted material that will be behind there,
they'll continually have to remove.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The section we are talking about with tiering is
just this section here. The wall goes from here, all the way to
here. But the tiering section, you could sort of see here. We don't
want to see these trees being removed. The way he's designed and
constructed it he has to remove those trees.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: He just said he didn't have to.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't know how you can do it, John, without
removing the trees. Come here, I'll show you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The one tree has to definitely be removed. That's
right up against it. The other two to have some space.
TRUSTEE KING: There is a tree growing right here.
MR. COSTEllO: This typical is a cross-section. No specific spot.
That's a general cross section. I mean that, and you, as you see,
the whole property, on the survey, that meanders around a bunch of
the areas. You can go out in front of this. One of the problems
we'll have is the DEC wants us to try to go out as minimal as we
can. We want to go out as minimal as we can. It's less pressure
with less fill, because that railroad tie bulkhead is tied back
with railroad ties going horizontally, so it ties back the weight
on those tie backs. So that wall is not collapsing due for any
reason except for dry rot and settlement. And that will continue.
And they will have to do repairs on watching the bricks, any
settlement. But if you seal it off, the settlement will not be
from leakage, which is starting to occur.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have a question on the roof runoff. It's piped
out here. What do you propose to mitigate that?
MR. COSTEllO: Take it out. What's going to happen, you have been
to the property. Most of it, all the roof runoff now goes down the
bricks and into the, goes through the bricks and what doesn't go
through the bricks probably runs down the road. And if a drywell
is needed, it's logical.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If they are going to rip up most of the bricks,
they might as well consider putting in a small drywell.
MR. COSTEllO: They could do that easily
21
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It would help in the long run putting a drywell in
there.
MR. COSTEllO: I think what you want to do is exclude any drainage
through. You know.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Definitely.
TRUSTEE KING: What are you going to do in this area here, John?
This is all really drooped down where this brick is. Are you going
to remove the bricks?
MR. COSTEllO: The big droop is here. That's the highest.
TRUSTEE KING: It's bad here in front of the garage. How are you
going -- what are you going to do, take the bricks out and fill and
put the bricks back in place?
MR. COSTEllO: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And maybe you can put a drywell well
MR. COSTEllO: Yes. It has to be corrected. Because as the
creosoted bulkhead there now, the retaining wall, the creosoted,
it's decayed. It's going to continue to decay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It definitely needs something.
MR. COSTEllO: And what we don't want to do is leave it. I'll tell
you, what is behind that is contaminated soil. And you can put the
drywell in there. But I would --
TRUSTEE KING: These are just dry stacked interlocking?
MR. COSTEllO: Yes, the weight continually transfers the load back.
And there will be filter cloth back in here in order to, it goes
underneath this footing. This has to be tamped. It's clean sand.
There is bog per se up in that height.
TRUSTEE KING: And can the water go out through?
MR. COSTELLO: It will leach out eventually. It's not water tight.
No bulkhead is water tight. But most of it will, the majority of
it will percolate down. What moves horizontally is minimal.
TRUSTEE KING: My biggest concern was the walls holding it.
Everybody says they are great, so.
MR. COSTEllO: Well, except for Staten Island when they all
collapsed.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, lWRP finds this consistent. CAC
supports the application with the condition of hay bales in place
during construction. CAC questions the drainage holes behind
existing retaining wall. Which we question also.
TRUSTEE KING: I would say lower staked hay bales with silt fence
because it's so close to the water.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments?
(Negative response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Do we have a motion?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of Mark Gross as applied for
with the condition that a drywell be placed to catch the roof
runoff from the house and that pipe that is going through the wall
now be eliminated. A row of hay bales and silt fence to be placed
during construction along the whole length of the property. And
that part of that -- and the bricks to be replaced as needed. I'll
make that motion.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
MR. COSTEllO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: 16, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of
CHARLES BOYAR requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing
functional timber bulkhead with vinyl sheathing within 18 inches of
said existing bulkhead and to revegetate a 2x150 foot area
immediately seaward of the reconstructed bulkhead with Spartina
alterniflora. located: 250 Goose Creek lane, Southold.
Is there anybody here to speak to comment on this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for
the application. It's a lot like the two previous that I heard.
It is, I note, consistent with the lWRP. I'm here to answer any
questions you may have.
TRUSTEE KING: I find it unusual that it's consistent if it's going
out in front of a bulkhead.
MR. ANDERSON: The idea is remove the piles and put it flat up
against it just like the two others we have had. The concern here,
I think on everyone's part, is this is almost in front of the area
where the, I guess the town or Cornell grows clams and scallops for
seeding. Those racks are created almost out in front of the
place. That's one concern.
The concern there is to prevent any kind of sedimentation. If
you pull the wall out, it's a very high bulkhead, the concern is
you'll see a collapse of that soil into the water. It has that
possible impact.
The other concern is the house that's behind it is a very
substantial brick house built many, many years ago and this
bulkhead is very close to the house foundation and there is a fear
that the removal of the wall may undermine the foundation of that
brick, three-story brick house. So it was designed with those two
concerns in mind. And to make it hopefully more palatable there
was an effort to create a patch of Spartina directly in front of
the new wall so the habitat would actually be improved as a result
of the application.
TRUSTEE KING: We looked at this back in December. And the notes we
21.
I,
had were put the bulkhead behind the existing bulkhead and then cut
off the old bulkhead at grade or remove it, with a ten-foot,
non-turf buffer. Then we talked about possibly raising the
bulkhead and reducing the grade so you get a nicer buffer in
there.
We did one very similar to this bulkhead was put in behind.
Wilm. Does that ring a bell? Was it Wilm? We put the bulkhead
behind the old one and took the old one out. We have that on our
field notes. Rather than go out in front.
MR. ANDERSON: I was somewhat familiar -- I asked John Costello to
look into that and, John, why don't you tell them what your feeling
is on that alternative.
MR. COSTEllO: First of all, let me tell you, I'm sure everybody
here has tried to dig under water or dig down to water. The hole
keeps getting larger and larger. If you dig behind this bulkhead,
it will probably collapse or fall into the hole and you'll be
forced to remove it all. As you are working. It just will not
stay. You can't drill the piling, you can't nail the piling. You
can't nail the sheathing. It's almost an impossibility to work
right behind an existing bulkhead.
By taking, by digging back behind an existing bulkhead, you
are going to come up with more fill than you ever want to see
because the hole keeps collapsing to you. Now, there is only a
certain distance between the house in this particular job, between
the house and that bulkhead. That's not area enough to be able to
not expose the foundation and keep digging. That's one of the
reasons.
TRUSTEE KING: John, haven't you put bulkhead behind old bulkheads
before?
MR. COSTEllO: Never. I've tried on several different occasions.
let me tell you, you might as well replace it inplace in kind than
do it. Because it's going to haunt you through the job. And I've
only been doing this for, this is my 44th year.
TRUSTEE KING: What you are saying is physically impossible.
MR. COSTEllO: We tried it, and I tried it maybe three times in my
life. And it just keeps collapsing in on you. The original foot
usually, of a bulkhead, the sheathing, actually, if it's two-inch
material, will curve in and you'll be up against it and hitting
it. So you want to try to dig down and relieve that pressure. By
doing that, you have the bulkhead out. It's a little bit of a
nightmare.
But I would love to have a crew like Jim on my side when we
are doing the next one. It's tough, Jim. It's just plain -- it's
a headache. It would be easier to remove. Except you'll be losing
materials out into the creek.
TRUSTEE KING: Comments from the Board? Are you going to pull the
or
old piles in, John, and put the sheathing right in against them?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, you can do that. You can relieve a majority of
the pressure without taking all the fill out so that you can take
the piling out and place it as close as possible. You will also
see that the bench sheathing is bent in shore so that you are clear
of it.
TRUSTEE KING: You, do you dig back behind there for deadmen, behind
the bulkhead?
MR. COSTELLO: We will have to. Yes. I believe we intend to put
helical screws so we don't get too close to the foundation.
Because you have to get the system down.
TRUSTEE KING: It was found consistent. CAC supports the
application with the condition of an 18-foot, non-turf buffer. I
don't think there is enough room for 18-foot non-turf buffer. You
don't have a lot of yard there.
MR. ANDERSON: Helical screws are fairly common.
MS. PAGONIS: I think there is a big slip there.
MR. ANDERSON: That's why I'm hearing perhaps it should be taller.
TRUSTEE KING: We recommended ten-foot, non-turf buffer. If the
height of the bulkhead is raised a foot you could maybe level that
off a little bit for the non-turf buffer and get some of that steep
grade out of it.
MR. ANDERSON: What I would suggest is that however you want to, let
the contractor kind OF worry about that but there probably should
be some sort of lip so that the top of the bulkhead is higher,
perhaps six inches, than the grade behind it. As some sort of
attachment.
TRUSTEE KING: I would be interested in raising the height of the
bulkhead a foot and you could leave a little lip and it would help
level off that ten-foot, non-turf buffer a little bit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We've done that on a couple of different
applications.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. Any other comments?
(No response.)
MS. PAGONIS: The reason we asked for 18-foot buffer is because that
brought the non-turf up to the edge of the bluff.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We discussed that and we decided to do --
TRUSTEE KING: It's the steepness. If we level that off a little
bit at the bulkhead, I think you are further ahead
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We talked about that and decided leveling it off
will be better.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If you bring the bulkhead up a foot do you think
you can get a 15 foot buffer? I know it's tight.
MR. COSTELLO: It would be tight. The house is close.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The angle is pretty steep.
MR. ANDERSON: I like the idea of having some sort of lip on it.
21 7007
"frUSL('CS
MR. COSTEllO: Part of it you could probably get 15. But there is
other spots, you know, I just don't want to get any violation.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Ten feet, then you have the lip.
TRUSTEE KING: You are only looking at 27 feet there to the house.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's not a lot of room there, for that terracing.
TRUSTEE KING: I think the ten foot is enough. Raise the bulkhead
and level that off and have ten foot non-turf buffer. That's
enough. Any other Board comments?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Based on what we have heard, I'll make a motion to
approve the application.
MR. ANDERSON: And you want ten foot?
TRUSTEE KING: To reconstruct with vinyl sheathing, placed directly
in front of the sheathing, existing sheathing; the old piles have
to be removed and the new sheathing be placed as close to it as we
can get. The existing bulkhead, new bulkhead, could be a foot
higher so that it would help lessen that grade for a ten-foot
non-turf buffer. And revegetate 2x150 foot area immediately
seaward of the reconstructed bulkhead with Spartina alterniflora.
I think that covers it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: That's my motion, I have a second. All in favor?
(All AYES.)
MR. ANDERSON: These plans will say that.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: Does that work?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Are you giving these plans to us tonight?
MR. ANDERSON: No, we'll put a revision date and do it properly and
give it to you.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 17, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of PAUL KEBER requests a Wetland Permit to regrade the
existing dirt pile (1,200 cubic yards) located within the central
section of the subject property to level off the grade for the
proposed construction of a single-family dwelling and
appurtenances. located: ROW off Oregon Road, Cutchogue.
The lWRP finds it consistent. I don't see a comment from the
CAC. Any comment?
21)2007
67
MS. PAGONIS: We supported the application on the condition that the
property is regraded away from the bluff and no trees be disturbed
between the proposed dwelling and the bluff.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Anybody here like to address this permit
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting.
received a copy of the LWRP and attached to it was a declaration of
covenants and restrictions which already restricts the cutting of
trees six inches diameter or more within that buffer area. So
that's already built into this.
We will send a copy, as a courtesy, to the Planning Board as
well.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Would anybody else like to address this
application?
MS. STEUBER: Hi, my name is Cathy Steuber, previously Gallagher,
which is the adjacent property to Mr. Keber's. And the questions
that we have -- we have no problem with the building of the
property or whatever. But we do have a drainage issue that we are
concerned about since the prior owner cleared this property and
made that big mound that they are talking about regrading. And
what is going to happen when they regrade it, our property is now
lower than that property to begin with. So what's going to happen
when they take the excavation out or the foundation, what are they
going to do with all that dirt and is it all going to run over on
our property? Because we had that problem with O'Mara on the other
side of us. We had to get three truckloads or so of dirt to stop
the drainage from our property.
Also, the trees at the top that are remaining after he cleared
most of them out, we are hoping that they don't remove them because
they give us a little buffer from the north winds that come in
there.
And the other issue we had is that we have a right of way, an
existing right of way that we are able to use the full width of our
property and we are hoping that they are not going to plant
anything in that to restrict our entrance or exit from the property
or fire engines or whatever that it would have access. Because I
understand that they are also on the right of way, so.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't think there will be a problem with that.
MR. ANDERSON: If I may, Mrs. Gallagher, you are the house right
across the property line?
MS. STEUBER: We are really -- it is lower. I have the survey.
MR. ANDERSON: I think we were there in December. You are right.
What I think we should do, and this client, he's trying to do the
right thing, is perhaps build up the grade and provide for a small
berm on the common property line, then plant it back. I think that
)1
68
Ylnn:h 21
will solve that.
As for the right of way. It's not an issue before this Board
but I'll let him know. I'm sure we are not going to do anything to
impede access to your property, but I'll certainly pass that
along.
MS. STEUBER: And the same with the trees at the top. There are
very few that are left up there.
MR. ANDERSON: They are restricted by covenant. There was talk of
doing something with it, but he can't. He has to going to the
Planning Board and I doubt he'll get that permission.
MS. STEUBER: They are old but they do give protection.
MR. ANDERSON: You'll probably lose a few of them over time just
because they are out there and exposed. But --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: At the moment the restrictions are you can't cut
any trees within 100 feet, so.
MS. STEUBER: I know this is not in your area, but do you know if
the county water line that is being put up there by Mr. Manzi Z,
his development, which is on the other side of the property, are
they going to connect to that and are we going to be able to
connect to that eventually, or is that -- right now we have our own
well but with all these cesspools that are put in, we are almost
afraid to drink the water.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I can address that, to a certain extent. Because
that's what we do where I work. We do most of the water mains. If
Suffolk County Water Authority is bringing the line down there and
you have the ability to hook up to it and everybody gets involved,
yes, you would be able to hook that up. Are they planning on going
with Suffolk County Water?
MR. ANDERSON: We are not even at that point. The Health Department
will not cause us to do that because the lot will be more than 150
feet from the line but that right of way is so long you would have
to put in -- you may know more about this that I -- you have to put
in at least a six-inch main. And I would pass that along to him as
well because there is another fellow down there who has the double
lot with the big huge house, and he may have water problems too as
a result of irrigation, if nothing else. There is a lot of stuff
being watered down there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What would happen is you have to approach them as a
group, the whole right of way, and everybody agree to pay for it.
But like you said, it's not the scope of this Board, I'm sorry.
MS. STEUBER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Would anybody else like to address this
application?
(No response.)
Does the Board have any comments?
(No response.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion we approve the
application as it is stated.
MR. ANDERSON: Bob, we'll put the berm in.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: Because her property might flood, if it's not
already.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: With a change to it allowing for a berm.
MR. ANDERSON: It's no expense to us and it's easy to do. She sits
real low. We're up here, she's down there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: To prevent any runoff over to the neighbor's
property.
MS. STEUBER: Does that mean it's draining away from us?
MR. ANDERSON: It's going to be graded back from the bluff and there
will be a berm. It doesn't have to be high, it could be maybe a
couple of feet, and run along the property line. Because you will
be closer to the bluff than we are, because you are pre-existing.
We'll be setback behind you. And the water will go behind. It may
come out somewhere south of you, but we'll bring the berm past your
house, okay?
MS. STEUBER: We had the problem in the middle of the property from
O'Mara's property. It came all the way through and flooded.
MR. ANDERSON: O'Mara is high, we sit up high. She's down low
between us.
MS. STEUBER: Originally we were high and nobody else was high
because the two side properties are lower.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The hearing has been closed. I think you are doing
better than what you had before. I'm entertaining that motion.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: 18, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of
GIACOMO CHICCO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
single-family dwelling, front porch, rear easterly porch, rear
westerly porch, swimming pool, patio, pool house and driveway.
Located: E/s Stoney Beach Road, East Marion.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Suffolk Environmental Consulting for Giacomo Chicco.
We have all been out to the sight. I don't think I have anything
to add. Everyone gets what is going on, I think.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. LWRP found it to be inconsistent because the
"
"",L
7(1
01' 21,
house is 94 feet rather than 100 feet setback from the wetlands,
Now, there is also, I need some help here from you, Pat There is
also language in here that says the Planning Board had taken some
action requiring 100 foot limit on clearing, So it says proposed 75
limit is not permitted, That is Planning Board action and I don't
understand why it's in an LWRP evaluation, Do you follow what I'm
saying? In other words, that's a separate issue between the
Planning Board and the applicant In my opinion, between the
Planning Board and the applicant and it should not be incorporated
in an L WRP review for the Trustees,
It's 94 feet from the wetlands, I understand, But the second
part is a Planning Board issue, In other words, if this Board
approves this and the planning board has an issue with it, the
Planning Board can take it up with the applicant Am I correct or
incorrect?
MR ANDERSON: Pat, if I may --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on just a second,
MS, FINNEGAN: It's not part of LWRP review,
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I mean, I don't think it has any
bearing on us for tonight This first part does.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is he using this as a justification for the
inconsistency with the LWRP?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct Which we could address. But this part
should not have been -- well.
MR ANDERSON: The point is, if I may, this house is sited well
within and further away than the filed map allows for this
subdivision and that filed map, that envelope, was based on a
wetland line that the Planning Board never caused. That was
erroneously analyzed by the Planning Board over a 12-year period.
So we are fixing that up. That's why it can't be inconsistent with
the Planning Board. It's more protective than what the Planning
Board approved. You get what I'm saying?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm interested in addressing this and not
addressing this (indicating.)
Okay. CAC supports the application with the condition of a
1 DO-foot non-disturbance buffer from the top of the bluff and
landscaping within the 100 foot non-disturbance buffer requires a
detailed landscaping plan.
Now, is there anybody else who would like to comment on this
application?
MS. BALL: I'm Lillian Ball. I just wanted to point out this is
adjacent to Southold Town preserved lands. It's next to the Dam
Pond and open space properties there and I would urge the Board of
Trustees to be very conservative and consider that as a factor in
your deliberations.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. The Board did go out and looked at this. We
7]
also went deep into the woods with measuring tape and measured
these things to confirm the measurements here. Jim did. And found
it was 97 feet instead of the 94 feet. We measured 97 feet from
the edge, the corner of the porch to the, in other words the
closest part of this structure to the wetlands. We had asked for
during construction conditions to make sure we place new hay bales
along the non-disturbance line that is on the plans. And I'm sure,
but if they are not, that they'll be included, gutters, leaders,
downspouts and drywells to mitigate the water runoff to help
mitigate the inconsistency of between the 100 foot setback that is
required and either the 94 or 97, depending which measurement we
worked with there within the wetland.
The question is, is it within our jurisdiction for coastal
erosion. I'm a little confused here. This looks like -- it's the
building area. That's what that is.
MR. ANDERSON: May I suggest that any, -- are you talking the
100-foot setback from the bluff?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
MR. ANDERSON: The house is setback at 100 feet. Any disturbance
within that 100 feet, there should be some sort of plan submitted
to you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's exactly what CAC asked for.
MR. ANDERSON: That's entirely reasonable.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's exactly what they asked for.
MR. ANDERSON: And there are covenants on that 100 feet that say the
same thing so it would be consistent with the Planning Board's
regulation of this property.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's supposed to be 100 foot non-disturbance
buffer, right?
MR. ANDERSON: No, it says 100 feet. It says it has to be, it could
be managed and landscaped in native materials. Which is something
different. Which means you can work with it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is a parcel that has been worked out with the
Peconic Land Trust?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. The eastern two-third of the property is an
easement which is controlled by Peconic Land Trust.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, so this is kind of an agreed on and everybody
knows what is going on there, environmentally and stuff.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes
TRUSTEE KING: We should table this and get our act together with
the Planning Board and see what is going on with the whole thing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't think it changes anything, does it, Dave?
(A conversation is held off the record.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I apologize for the delay. We are back on the
record. Are there any other comments from the Board on this?
21 100]
(No response.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If not, then I want to first make a motion to table
this application pending a conversation with the Planning Board to
see if that issue that we have now been made aware of will affect
the final decision or approval or disapproval of this permit.
Do I have a second on that motion?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: Aye.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All opposed?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aye.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Aye.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll then make a motion to approve this application
-- I'm sorry. Thank you. 1'111 make a motion to close the public
hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I make a motion to approve the application number
18, Suffolk Environmental on behalf of Giacomo Chicco as depicted
on the request with the condition of the reestablishment of the hay
bale line on the non-disturbance line here as indicated on the
plans and that there be a planting plan submitted if there is going
to be any plantings of that 100 area from the bluff; landward of
the bluff.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aye.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Aye.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: Opposed?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No.
TRUSTEE KING: No.
MR. ANDERSON: What happened?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It was approved.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Catherine Mesiano, Inc., on behalf of VINCENT
BASI LICE, requests a Wetland Permit for the inplace replacement of
existing 75-foot bulkhead new with vinyl-sheathed bulkhead;
construct a 4x65 foot low-profile fixed walk with seasonal 4x20
foot ramp and 6x20 foot float. Located: 3255 Bay Shore Road,
Greenport.
Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this
application?
21,
f" fnlSlc'CS
MS. MESIANO: Yes. Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant.
As I'm sure you recall, we met at the site. I think we
resolved all of the issues concerning the replacement of the
bulkhead. So I would like to address that before we move on to the
next issue. Do you have any questions or concerns regarding the
bulkhead?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No, no questions on the bulkhead?
MS. MESIANO: Then we need to then proceed to the question and the
issues concerning our application for a dock.
I understand from our discussions at the site that the Board
is opposed to a dock structure. Again, we reviewed the code and
the code does not specifically prohibit dock structures. It is
impractical, to say the least, for Dr. Basilice to gain access to
his boat which is moored farther out into the bay. The reason that
he's requesting the dock that we have proposed is for the purpose
of mooring a tender so he can get back and forth to his boat that's
on a mooring.
Now, I have listened to the Board's objections and I would
offer a compromise to the Board. Further, the Board had suggested
that a davit might be a tool that we could use to incorporate into
our plan to make something workable so that the property owner can
enjoy the use of his property.
I would propose to eliminate the ramp and the float that we
have shown on our plan. I would propose that our low-profile dock
structure, which at this time is four feet wide by 65 feet long,
that takes us to a depth of two feet, which is sufficient draft for
any type of a boat or tender that the owner would propose to use at
this dock.
The davit that we talked about could be used and installed at
the seaward end of this dock, if we were enabled to construct a
small "T" at the end of the dock to be able to lift a boat on and
off a small "T," that would eliminate any bottom disturbance with
wave activity and so on. And I would further propose that the
entire structure be made seasonal so that the concerns of what
happens in an ice storm, what happens when the bay freezes over,
those concerns are no longer an issue.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. Is there anyone else here tonight who
would like to speak to this application?
MS. JURZENIA: Yes, I'm Darlene Duffy-Jurzenia. I'm the adjacent
property owner. I don't understand what Ms. Mesiano means about
the entire structure coming out
MS. MESIANO: A seasonal structure. Seasonal structures are built,
and it can be costly, it can be cumbersome, but there are some
instances where the structures are removed at the end of the
boating season and then put back in at the beginning of the boating
season.
21 20CO
21
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The Board has seen some of these in Southold Town.
MS. JURZENIA: In the bay?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't recall in the bay.
MS. JURZENIA: I have just something that I wanted to give the
Board. You were talking earlier tonight about it being extremely
low tide today. That is true. I took pictures about two weeks
ago. I can't tell you exactly what day because I don't remember.
But it was about two weeks ago. However, it looks like this again
today, only worse. You know, when I was coming out to come to
work. I would just like to give them to you for you to see.
This is looking from my back deck directly in front of my
house. You can see that I have some water because there is a fresh
water spring, there is a spring that comes up in front of my
house. So I have water. This is, that is Mr. Basilice's property
to the right of my property. You can see my house on the side.
You can see sea gulls out there. There is not a lot of water out
there in front of him, a lot of the time. And I just think it's a
major structure.
I take offense when Ms. Mesiano says that they want to build
this structure so that Mr. Basilice has use of his property.
Because I don't consider that my property. And I don't consider
the bay his property.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you want these or do you want them in the
file?
MS. JURZENIA: You can have them in the file. So I was surprised to
see it like that again today. And there it is.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else who would like to speak?
MR. YAXA: My name is Dean Yaxa. I just feel if you give this guy
permission for this seasonal dockage you are going to see seasonal
dockage right on down the line and to me it's a discredit to the
area. The people living there and bought homes and moved there,
they bought because of the tranquility and the beautiful -- the
tranquillity of the area, okay, and this deteriorates the look of
the area, and I just feel that, also, if you are the neighbor
closest to it or it deletes as you go away, it just takes away from
the whole picture. To me it's an extension of a person's wealth or
gloat to get out to their property with no consideration for the
people on either side of them. That's all. Thank you.
MS. MESIANO: I would like to address a couple of the comments that
were made. I will correct what Ms. Duffy referred to. The owners
of this property have a right to exercise their riparian rights,
their access to and from a navigable point in the water. So that
is less offensive, I'll put it in that manner.
Further, if you look at the soundings that we have on our
maps, you'll see that it seems to me that those photographs are
consistent with our soundings in that there is a one-foot elevation
:5
of
contour that appears to be consistent with that land that is out of
water.
Further, our suggestion of utilizing a davit at a small "T"
would eliminate any problem caused by a lower-than-normal tide.
would also like to point out the obvious, that the tidal influences
-- and I don't have to educate you, I'm sure, but just for the
record, the tidal influences are different seasonally and it's not
unusual to see these conditions. And, again, I must stress that in
order for the owner of this property to get to his boat, he has
quite a bit of difficulty because of a rocky nature of the bottom.
It's not practical. It probably borders on not safe.
And, again, there is nothing in your code that prohibits
this. And I recall, I believe, Mr. Bergen commenting in an earlier
hearing that while the esthetics -- and I'm going to paraphrase.
I'm not putting words in his mouth, but this was my understanding
of what was said -- was that while esthetics may be a
consideration, the esthetic nature of the project does not trump
the environmental nature of the project. And I would suggest that
our application for a fiberglass grid dock, a low-profile
fiberglass grid dock is as environmentally friendly as one could
propose.
The fact that we are proposing this as a seasonal structure,
again, is as environmentally friendly as we can get. I don't
believe one could make a strong argument that this would pose a
threat to navigation because the dock barely extends beyond the two
stone jetties at either seaward of the north and south lot lines of
the Basilice property. Just to the north, excuse me, to the east
of the proposed dock, the elevation contours change and there is
only one foot of water to the east of this. So it's -- I'm sorry,
southeast. I would like to correct that. Southeast. I could not
buy the argument that this might be a hazard to navigation, a
hazard to the bottom lands. We are not causing turbidity,
saltation, bottom disturbance, et cetera.
And again, there is not a prohibition to a dock structure.
And, further, there are other docks along this stretch of land, on
the several occasions that we have met at the site, that fact has
been noted. I don't know whether that dock is legal or illegal.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I want to mention, Catherine, while you are
bringing that point up, it was looked into by our office and it's
not permitted.
MS. MESIANO: Then that's an issue for the Board to address. We are
coming to you for a permitted structure. We haven't undertaken any
activity without the benefit of permits. So if the Board has any
further questions
MR. YAXA: Given the fact that the tides are, the point has been
brought out they are more extreme at this particular time of the
21
i'vhlfCh 21,
year, meaning that during the summertime, the tides are not as
extreme, correct? I'm saying that --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Under usual circumstances, yes.
MR. YAXA: Thank you. What they are asking for could be achieved
with a dock far less shorter in the summertime or when they want to
use it.
MS. JURZENIA: Okay, I just wanted to address a couple of things Ms.
Mesiano said. I do believe that owning property on the bay does
not automatically give you riparian rights to the bay. And none of
us have riparian rights along that strip. So he doesn't have
riparian rights to under the bay in front of his house.
The other thing is, she stated that it's almost impossible to
get out there because it's so rocky. I want you to look at those
pictures.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, thank you.
MS. JURZENIA: It's not rocky.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I just want to mention that we have a CAC
approval and a disapproval. They are splitting their review or
their recommendations to an approval of the bulkhead with the
conditions of an additional five foot to the existing five foot
buffer. And the recommendation is a disapproval for the
application for a docking facility because there are no other docks
in the area.
And the CAC recommends a mooring but I believe he has a
mooring.
MS. MESIANO: Yes, he does have a mooring, and I believe the CAC
statement is incorrect because there are other docks in the area.
Whether they are legal or not is another matter. But there are
other docks in the area. And I would raise an issue with the
definition of "riparian rights" but I won't go any further.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I want to go into the LWRP because the LWRP
review is quite lengthy. So instead of going back and forth, I
would like to read some of this.
The LWRP also splits it into two reviews. The bulkhead is
exempt because it's a minor action. And the construction of the
walk ramp and float is inconsistent. It is five pages long, which
I'm not going to read but I am going to try to sort of pick out
what I feel are some of the most important points that it makes.
The dock structure will protrude into Peconic Bay for a distance of
91 feet. The length of the dock structure will be discordant with
the existing natural and scenic component character of the area.
And I understand and realize you are proposing a shorter length.
The proposed dock structure is located in the Peconic Bay
approximately 750 feet south of the land area known as Pipes Cove
and 1,460 feet north of Conklin Point. The proposed action is
located between the two areas. Direct physical adverse impacts on
the identified habitats are not expected as a result of the
proposed action, however, indirect adverse impacts may occur as a
result of construction material and use.
The use of the dock structure must be identified, the
installation of the proposed dock may promote power boat traffic
and the possible following neglect impacts may occur as a result of
the shallow depth of water, which has been mentioned and visuals
provided. Impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation. As I said,
there is I think five pages here.
The elevation of the dock structure to grade is five foot as
proposed. This structure will obstruct and impede public access to
and along the shoreline. And the applicant currently enjoys access
to public waters through the location of the waterfront parcel.
So again, I sort of picked and chose some, but that's a
five-page LWRP report that was given to us on March 19,2007.
Again, I think the Board's concerns that we had when we went out
there -- originally, this was -- the most current inspection we
made, the concerns were that the proposed catwalk will block beach
access. Again, the area is a pristine area of the bay with few
docks and there is also one of the concerns that has not been
brought up tonight is just the access to weather on that shoreline
where there is a very high -- these are not my terms because I'm
not familiar with them -- large fetch and high winter winds. So
would you like to address those?
MS. MESIANO: Yes, I would. Not having benefit of receiving a copy
of that report, I would like to address some of the points you have
raised.
With respect to the winter conditions, I think that's a moot
issue. We propose a seasonal structure.
With respect to bottom disturbance, again, we proposed a
modification to the plan and a vessel would not be causing bottom
disturbance if we were enabled to use a davit and small "T" to lift
the boat from the water in the event of the conditions that you
speak of.
Again, I take exception to making light of the riparian rights
of a waterfront property owner. And again, there is no
prohibition.
As far as beach access is concerned, we would not have a
problem installing steps off of each side of this structure between
the low and high water marks. High water lines. I'm just looking
at my cross-section. Just bear with me a minute. I believe we
probably have six to eight feet of height at the bulkhead from
which point the proposed low-profile dock would project, so I
believe that aspect can be mitigated as well.
I don't believe -- you went through that so quickly, I don't
have all the points raised, but I don't believe there are any
'T'ruslc'cS
points that you have raised that I have not offered mitigation to.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And as I said, there were others. But if you
don't mind I just want to just see if any of the Board members want
to give any input.
MS. FINNEGAN: Do you want an opportunity to review the report?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Maybe we should table it. It's five pages.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm asking for the Board's comments.
TRUSTEE KING: It seems to me we reviewed a very similar application
not long ago and the aerial showed very few docks in this area. I
don't see any difference here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could make a technical correction that we'll
be suggesting to Mr. Terry. I'm sure this is just an oversight. He
mentions Peconic Bay in here. This is not Peconic Bay that this
enters into. I just want to make sure we don't get hung up on a
technicality somewhere along the way where it mentions Peconic
Bay. We all realize this is actually the Pipes Cove area. It's
just to correct a technicality in here.
MS. MESIANO: Just as a question because I've not known where the
distinction is. Where is the demarcation between Pipes Cove and
Shelter Island Sound?
TRUSTEE KING: I couldn't tell you exactly.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You would have to look at a chart
MS. MESIANO: It was just a matter of since you brought up
technicalities, I have seen it noted differently on maps and I
didn't know if someone might know.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's obvious this is no place near Peconic Bay, so
I wanted to make sure that was clear
MS. MESIANO: I realize that. Yes. We would request a brief
adjournment to have the opportunity to review that report, the
LWRP, and absent that, I would request that since there is not an
issue with the bulkhead that we move forward with an approval of
the bulkhead and revisit this issue if the Board does not see fit
to give us a brief adjournment because I have not had the
opportunity to see that report.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Mr. President, what's your feeling?
TRUSTEE KING: Table it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you want to address the bulkhead?
TRUSTEE KING: We can.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I believe I would just table the whole thing.
TRUSTEE KING: Just table it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay. With a request from the applicant and the
Board for a further review of the LWRP and other issues, I'll make
a motion to table Vincent Basilice's application for a wetland
permit. Second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
11, 20D7
u
2! ,
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 21, Catherine Mesiano on behalf of JONATHAN
& ANDREA PARKS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 30x50 foot
two-story addition to the existing dwelling, construct an 11x45
foot deck/porch, install a 20x50 foot inground swimming pool and
required fencing, construct a 115 foot retaining wall seaward of
proposed inground swimming pool to contain +/- 765 cubic yards of
clean fill from an approved upland source to backfill pool drywells
and raise elevation to 56 feet and to tie in with proposed
retaining wall on adjacent lot to north. Inplace replacement of +/-
210 linear feet of bulkhead, inplace replacement of +/- 75 linear
feet steps on bluff face, inplace replacement of +/- 11 x11 foot
wood deck at top of steps and 10x20 foot wood deck at bottom of
steps. Replacement of +/- eight foot steps from top of bulkhead to
grade and three tier retaining walls +/- 600 linear feet on bluff
face to create terracing for erosion control. Walls to tie in with
terracing on adjacent lot to north. Located: 3995 Nassau Point
Road, Cutchogue.
Before I ask if anybody is here to talk about this, we did
meet in the field and there will be some changes on the
description. Let me go over the CAC and LWRP.
CAC did not make an inspection, therefore no recommendation.
It's inconsistent with LWRP. The proposed distance from the pool to
bluff is 80 feet. Minimum setback distance of 100 feet is required
pursuant to Chapter 275-3. I thought we had a 50-foot on pools.
Findings: Proposed jurisdictional setbacks, please require that
the applicant amend the application to meet the above policy.
Can we look up 275-3 because I thought we had 50 foot thing
with pools.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Swimming pool related structures, 100 feet from
bluff line.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What does that say about the pool?
TRUSTEE KING: 70.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 70. Okay.
MS. MESIANO: May I ask one question?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MS. MESIANO: The section -- I don't have the code with me -- the
section of your code that you are referring to is definitely the
other than on Long Island Sound section of the code pertaining to
bluffs?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's a good question.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm reading 275-(3(d), setbacks. Minimum setbacks
applying to any and all operations proposed on residential property
within the jurisdiction of the Board of Trustees. Under (b)(b)(4)
I'll be glad to let you see it, it says bluff line, swimming pool
related structures, 100 feet. The Board of the Trustees reserves
or
the right to waive or alter these setbacks where site specific or
environmental conditions justify such action.
MS. FINNEGAN: There is not a separate Long Island Sound?
MS. MESIANO: There used to be. That's why I asked.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The original proposal had the pool 50 feet back.
We asked you to move it back. You moved it back 20 feet. I don't
know how the Board feels if by moving it back and mitigating it,
you find it's consistent. I think we moved it back as far as we
can. I feel personally that I find is consistent with LWRP by
doing that.
Is there anyone here who would like it speak on behalf of the
application?
MS. MESIANO: Yes. Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant. I
have had these plans revised, as you requested. But I would like
to address certain comments concerning the LWRP and the pool
structure. The pool has been pulled back to maintain the 70-foot
setback from the bluff. And the retaining wall is in addition to
the pool which will provide additional structural security so as to
minimize or eliminate to the extent possible any potential impact
to the bluff.
I would like it say, as well, at this site last week we
discussed the problem that has been ongoing with the damage to the
bluff. Best laid plans of mice and men were slightly derailed due
to the ice storm last week. They are staging and working on that
problem and expect to have it done within the next several days. I
have spoken with the owner, the GC and contractors involved. I do
know there were people on site today and they'll will be on site
tomorrow and that will be managed.
As far as any of the activity that we have proposed on the
bluff, at this point in time I would like to withdraw all of that
from our application and just address the activity as it pertains
to the pool and the proposed two-story addition to the house. I
have submitted an application to the DEC requesting jurisdictional
determination and I would rather run those two applications
concurrent so that I don't have discrepancies between the two
permits and also if I get your permit tonight on a bluff, the
activity on the bluff, the permit will be half expired by the time
the DEC gets to it. So I'm finding it to be problematic to have
your permits expire while we are waiting for the DEC. So I would
rather run those two permits concurrently, eliminate those issues
from the application and just address the pool and the retaining
wall, all of the activity that is landward of the edge of the bluff
TRUSTEE KING: So we are not addressing anything seaward of the
bluff?
MS. MESIANO: I'll come back to the Board with another application
after DEC has determined at which point their jurisdiction ends and
2J.2007
(H
,)1
I know what I'm asking them for, and then I can come back to this
Board with a consistent request.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, so just to make it clear, let me read
the section again of what we are discussing tonight. Jonathan and
Andrea Parks requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 30x50 foot
two-story to existing dwelling, construct 11 x45 foot deck/porch,
install 20x50 foot inground swimming pool and required fencing,
construct 115 foot retaining wall seaward of proposed inground pool
to contains 765 cubic yards clean fill from an approved upland
source to backfill pool drywells and raise elevation to 56 feet and
to tie in with proposed retaining wall on adjacent lot to north.
We discussed we were not going to do that part, right?
MS. MESIANO: Yes. If you notice on the new plan I have shown that
the retaining wall extends and runs in an easUwest direction at
the property line. So there is no dependence on the northerly
neighbor's activity or permit process for us to --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So 115 feet, does that include the return?
MS. MESIANO: The 115 feet does not include the return and I have a
scale if you just bear with me one minute.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What she is saying, she is going to do it along
the return, so instead of tying in here, she is doing the return
back here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, I understand.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because they did haven't applied yet. Later on if
they want to do that, that's fine, but I don't want to rely on what
the neighbors said they might do..
MS. MESIANO: Nor do we.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So the return will come back and that will hold
off any runoff going on to the neighbor's property. Hopefully.
MS. MESIANO: The easUwest return is approximately 155. So we have
115 that's parallel to the bay and 155 perpendicular to the bay is
270.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. So the construction of the retaining wall
is 115 feet seaward of the proposed inground pool with 155 foot
return going landward. So the rest of what I read is, strike that
MS. MESIANO: Strike that from that point on.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Does the Board have any questions on what
she is asking for now? The plans reflect what she is asking for.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When you come back in six months from now with the
bluff proposal, will it be the same as what is here?
MS. MESIANO: I am going to say -- let me back up. When I received
these plans I noticed that the lower deck did not reflect your
request to cut back in size as we had done on our earlier plan. So
I have to answer your question no because I note an error here.
And we had discussed terracing on the face of the bluff but because
after looking at the neighbor's property and so on, taking that
21; ?{KO
0('
into consideration, I believe more engineering needs to be done to
design the structure properly. So will it be the same, no.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments?
(No response.)
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Catherine and Andrea Parks for a Wetland Permit to construct a
30x50 two-story addition to the existing dwelling, construct 11x45
foot deck/porch, install 20x50 inground swimming pool and required
fencing, construct 115-foot retaining wall seaward of the proposed
inground swimming pool with a 155 foot return going landward, to
contain the 765 cubic yards of clean fill from the an approved
upland source to backfill pool drywells and raise elevation to 56
feet.
MS. MESIANO: Can I just make a correction. Upland source to
backfill back fill pool and drywells.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, I was having trouble with that.
MS. MESIANO: I was too, and I realized.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Pool and drywells. Do we want hay bales along the
bluff line or is that far enough back?
MS. MESIANO: We have hay bales.
TRUSTEE KING: Is that part of this?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No. We are just looking at all this here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: In other words what she is saying is they are about
to start any day now on the emergency permit work.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The wood we saw was just temporary.
MS. MESIANO: They started staking that today and they will be back
again tomorrow. Mr. Parks is here. He can backup anything I'm
saying.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I make that motion.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MS. FINNEGAN: Did the Board find the amendments are consistent with
the LWRP?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, because we had the pool, they originally had
50 feet, we moved it back to 70 feet.
MS. MESIANO: Moved it back an additional 20 feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, sorry. Do you want different plans?
MS. MESIANO: I'll provide you with plans that reflect just the
activity that you are --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would feel more comfortable with that.
MS. MESIANO: Yes.
21 2007
TRUSTEE KING: Number 22, Catherine Mesiano on behalf of PATRICIA
MELE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x18 foot dock a
minimum of three feet above grade, 3x16 foot seasonal ramp and a
6x20 foot floating dock. Located: 1140 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck.
Anyone here to comment on this application?
MS. MESIANO: On behalf of the applicant.
I think the application speaks for itself. The conditions are
all consistent with the code. The request is consistent with the
use and the structures that exist in that creek, so if there are
any questions, I would be glad to address them.
TRUSTEE KING: It's been found inconsistent with LWRP. CAC supports
the application with the condition that construction is consistent
with the best practices of the LWRP and open grading system is used
on the dock deck.
According to LWRP, the action is located in New York DEC
Critical Environmental Area. It's not going to impair navigation
there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: He's just listed everything in there.
TRUSTEE KING: Everything is listed here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is really no way to traverse, it's not like
a beach that somebody is it going to walk on because the tide comes
right up to the bulkhead. So to have access over it doesn't make
sense. I mean we could do it, but. It's kind of silly to add more
structure when nobody is going to be using it.
TRUSTEE KING: We went out there in December and --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim and I went out again
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is this a marsh?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, and it's not going out as far as the
neighboring docks, so it's back a little further.
TRUSTEE KING: All right, we were in the field and we talked less
piles. We were recommending nine foot on center.
MS. MESIANO: I believe we have nine feet on center. If you look at
my cross-section. Six inch --
TRUSTEE KING: Nine foot on center. You have eight inch piles.
MS. MESIANO: You has asked me to modify that.
TRUSTEE KING: I would rather see six inch. We just did a dock ten
foot on center. What's the length of the dock? It's 18. So nine
foot center brings that up. That's all right. You couldn't do ten
foot. It doesn't make sense.
MS. MESIANO: We changed it to six inch. How many do you want?
MS. STANDISH: Two. One for the file
TRUSTEE KING: There are docks all over here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, and like I said, you can't walk along the
bulkhead there so I don't know if it makes sense, because it's all
marsh and the water comes up to here, so it's not an area where
.?I,
"
people walk.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody walking long here can walk along here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In the water.
MS. MESIANO: It's not really a place people traverse because this
particular spot, there is no way to get to it or to go someplace
else because it's an isolated area.
TRUSTEE KING: It's 133 feet across the creek so it's definitely not
a navigation issue.
MS. MESIANO: I might note, too, that the dock to the north, since
this mapping was done in December, the dock to the north does not
show a float on it and chances are pretty good that there is a
float on that dock during the season.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, that was obvious to us that the float and
ramp were taken up for the winter.
MS. MESIANO: So our structure is much less significant or
substantial than --
TRUSTEE KING: This is going right off the same height as the
bulkhead, right?
MS. MESIANO: Yes, it goes straight off the bulkhead and scaling out
off of the cross-section it appears that we are maintaining four
feet to grade.
TRUSTEE KING: I wonder how an open grate would look there.
MS. MESIANO: I don't think that would be a problem if that's what
the Board chooses.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It would certainly help that marsh area.
MS. MESIANO: It does maintain the foot of height for the foot of
depth but if that will help to overcome some of the objections
through LWRP and give us mitigations, then that's what we'll do.
TRUSTEE KING: Could be lower. You could have one step down off the
bulkhead to the open grade. That would be my recommendation on it
in that area.
MS. MESIANO: So you would rather see the --
TRUSTEE KING: Open grade one step down from the bulkhead, like nine
inches lower than the bulkhead. Just one step. It gets it down a
little lower.
MS. MESIANO: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So basically we don't agree with the LWRP report
but --
TRUSTEE KING: It's really not an area where anyone is going to be
walking along. It's not interfering with the public walking along
the foreshore.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because there is no access to get to the foreshore
for the general public.
TRUSTEE KING: As far as impairing the value or use of the
waterfront property adjacent to it, both properties have docks on
them, so it's a moot point.
21
85
MS. MESIANO: Jim, I'm just thinking about the DEC's reaction to
your suggestion of dropping that down. Do you have any comment?
TRUSTEE KING: We just did two tonight that we approved a regular
catwalk. I think they were three, three-and-a-half feet above
grade and DEC recommended an 18-inch open-grade catwalk and we just
amended our two permits to reflect that. So I would say it would
be beneficial.
MS. MESIANO: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: It does not impair navigation in any way. I think
with what we've done it's consistent with the LWRP.
Any other comment on this?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with
the modifications we just discussed. Six-inch diameter piles, nine
inches on center. It will be a lower open-grade walkway, one step
below the height of the top of the bulkhead. I think that's it.
3x16 foot ramp to a 6x20 float. That's a seasonal float.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MS. MESIANO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Can you just give us a revised drawing, Cathy?
MS. MESIANO: Absolutely.
TRUSTEE KING: Great.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 23, Catherine Mesiano on behalf of ELIZABETH
SIDDONS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x24 foot low
profile dock with open fiberglass decking and with a 4x12 foot
platform. Located: 715 Mansell Lane, Cutchogue.
MS. MESIANO: I was not prepared to address this at this hearing.
have had some communication with the DEC on this and another
situation like this.
The first request that I made, I don't believe the Board was
in favor of. You wanted a less, I think it was less invasive
structure or more minimal structure. The DEC put it in an
interesting way. They wanted me to come up with something
"flimsier," so I was kind of floored at that and I said, well,
okay. So, please forgive me, but I'm trying to come up with
something flimsier. So if you see any scrap lumber floating
around. No. I talked to some of the contractors and I have my
draftsman working on a, if you will forgive me, a flimsier plan for
these types of situations where it's obvious you are not going to
2L 20m
;\6
be tying up a substantial motor vessel but rather use that for
access with a kayak or canoe; something very minimal. The point
that the DEC made to me was that they wanted it to look like
something that you could not tie a quote, real boat up to. So I'm
doing my best to come up with something flimsy.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think one of our concerns when we were there
is that creek area is extremely narrow and we could see someone
meaning to stand and get a kayak or canoe, but that width really
doesn't allow for much of anything in that narrow area
MS. MESIANO: My question, and I have not been able to answer it to
my own satisfaction, is how much boat traffic is there that would
be proceeding northerly of this property. I can't imagine what we
would be obstructing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't think it's a matter of obstructing -- in my
opinion, obstructing boat traffic, because you are right, that's
almost at the head of that tributary of the creek. But it's just a
narrow, narrow finger up in there that we didn't feel there was
enough room to put what you had originally proposed in there. It
was not a matter of a hazard to navigation. It's a matter of way
too much structure in a very narrow end of the creek
MS. MESIANO: So we are trying to come up with something less
substantial that would allow the Siddons access without sinking
into the mud. I think, mean, I imagine from an environmental
perspective would it would be more deleterious to trod through the
marsh area than to walk over it on some kind of a minimal
structure. And that's what I'm trying to come up with.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It could be what might work here, which we did at
another location for different reasons, but it was essentially a
very short catwalk and it was used for launching the kayaks. It
was, for lack of a better term, a shoot, that the kayak fit in and
it just shot right down into the water. So it was a very short
catwalk and shoot. The kayak enters into the water and the person
enters the kayak and then they can pull it up that shoot to get it
out.
MS. MESIANO: Right. The kayak slide. I had proposed that on
another project and that's what I'm trying to incorporate in this
is a kayak slide with a narrow walkway for that purpose.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think that's what we talked about in the field
MS. MESIANO: Right. So that's what I'm trying to come up with and
there is so much vegetation in there it's hard to design something
that you can actually get through. I mean I know the phragmites we
can trim and so on.
So I would like to table this and come back with a plan that I
would hope I could get through the DEC. So I need to ask for an
adjournment on this.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would entertain a motion to table it.
21.
i) /
21,2007
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MS. MESIANO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go back to our regular hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
VII. RESOLUTIONS-OTHER:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Resolutions: SOUTHOLD TOWN DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS AND NORTH FORK AUDOBON SOCIETY requests permission
to remove the phragmites and purple loosestrife, by hand, no pesticides and
no heavy equipment, from Skipper Horton Park, Greenport.
We gave the Department of Public Works the permit to do this
last year. Now the Audobon Society wants to go in and do it. We
figured this was the best way to handle it. That's the resolution.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number two, Resolution to forward draft of
proposed amendments to Chapter 219-Shellfish, to the Town Board,
for their review and approval.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would just like to make a suggestion that I
will retype 275 revisions and I will either mail them all out to
you and within the week get your comments back and see where we
are. If that's all right with everybody.
MS. STANDISH: There is one more resolution. The Teperman
extension. I have it here. Requesting an extension to April 23.
TRUSTEE KING: There has been a request to extend this 30 days. We
can send them a letter, I guess, approving that, but with the
understanding this vote will take place and will not be dragged out
because there will be no further extensions on this at all.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For the record, this is Teperman extension, 1225
Aquaview Avenue, East Marion. That's a request for trustee permit
extension. I'm willing to give them the extension to April 23,
2007. At that time there will be a final inspection and all that
work that is supposed to be done and all the equipment to be moved
'fruste;;::;; 21 2007
out of that building should be done at that time. If not, they get
another violation and another fine.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Motion to close?
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion we adjourn.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
r' ":'\i D ri~
h ...U~."" 0----
3: iM1'1Il
C;;'
fl."
i':ti( ..'.
'IIJ
~i
S. :
'. T '1 Clerll